Warnemunde v. Smith

Nebraska Supreme Court

Warnemunde v. Smith

15 N.W.2d 56, 144 Neb. 870, 1944 Neb. LEXIS 108

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1944

DocketNo. 31794

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 15 N.W.2d 56 (Warnemunde v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warnemunde v. Smith, 15 N.W.2d 56, 144 Neb. 870, 1944 Neb. LEXIS 108 (Neb. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Carter, J.

Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in dismissing his appeal from the allowance of a claim against the estate of Merton E. House, deceased, for the reason that the transcript from the county court was not properly certified by the judge of that court.

On an appeal being taken in a probate matter the duty to prepare and transmit to the clerk of the district court a certified transcript of the record and proceedings, on payment [871]*871of his fees therefor, is placed by statute with the county judge. Comp. St. 1929, sec. 30-1605. Where, as here, a duty is placed upon a public officer to perform acts necessary to perfect an appeal, his failure to perform cannot be charged to the litigant nor operate to defeat the appeal. In re Estate of Tagart, 119 Neb. 647, 230 N. W. 492.

Appellee contends, however, that counsel for appellant became the agent for the county judge when he called at the office of the county judge, accepted the transcript and proceeded to file it in the office of the clerk of the district court. Assuming that appellant’s counsel was the agent of the county judge for the purpose of delivering the transcript to the clerk of the district court within the time prescribed, the record shows that appellant’s counsel was not remiss in performing that duty. The duty of preparing and certifying the transcript was, however, never delegated. The oversight of the county judge in failing to attach his signature to the certification of the transcript cannot therefore be charged to the appellant and he cannot be deprived of his right to be heard on appeal because of the omission on the part of the county judge.

The trial court erred in refusing to. permit the proper certification of the transcript and in dismissing the appeal.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carter, J.

Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in dismissing his appeal from the allowance of a claim against the estate of Merton E. House, deceased, for the reason that the transcript from the county court was not properly certified by the judge of that court.

On an appeal being taken in a probate matter the duty to prepare and transmit to the clerk of the district court a certified transcript of the record and proceedings, on payment [871]*871of his fees therefor, is placed by statute with the county judge. Comp. St. 1929, sec. 30-1605. Where, as here, a duty is placed upon a public officer to perform acts necessary to perfect an appeal, his failure to perform cannot be charged to the litigant nor operate to defeat the appeal. In re Estate of Tagart, 119 Neb. 647, 230 N. W. 492.

Appellee contends, however, that counsel for appellant became the agent for the county judge when he called at the office of the county judge, accepted the transcript and proceeded to file it in the office of the clerk of the district court. Assuming that appellant’s counsel was the agent of the county judge for the purpose of delivering the transcript to the clerk of the district court within the time prescribed, the record shows that appellant’s counsel was not remiss in performing that duty. The duty of preparing and certifying the transcript was, however, never delegated. The oversight of the county judge in failing to attach his signature to the certification of the transcript cannot therefore be charged to the appellant and he cannot be deprived of his right to be heard on appeal because of the omission on the part of the county judge.

The trial court erred in refusing to. permit the proper certification of the transcript and in dismissing the appeal.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.W.2d 56, 144 Neb. 870, 1944 Neb. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warnemunde-v-smith-neb-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack