Wielinga v. Beatrice Creamery Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Wielinga v. Beatrice Creamery Co.

145 N.W. 987, 95 Neb. 406, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 231

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1914

DocketNo. 17,563

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 N.W. 987 (Wielinga v. Beatrice Creamery Co.) 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

Wielinga v. Beatrice Creamery Co., 145 N.W. 987, 95 Neb. 406, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 231 (Neb. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

This is a controversy over a lot 100 feet long and 33 feet wide in the village of Holland. Plaintiff pleads ownership and right of possession. Under a lease from an adverse claimant, defendant asserts the right to use a Wilding on the lot for a milk station. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant has appealed.

In the brief of appellant no effort has been made to comply with the statutory provision that “the brief of appellant shall set out particularly each error asserted.” Code, sec. 675c. The court’s rules relating to assignments of error are also ignored. The record does not disclose a plain error within the meaning of the enactment that the supreme court may consider such an error, though not specified in appellant’s brief. Code, sec. 675c. The name of the judge before whom the cause was tried in the court below is also omitted from appellant’s brief. It follows that the judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Rose, J.

This is a controversy over a lot 100 feet long and 33 feet wide in the village of Holland. Plaintiff pleads ownership and right of possession. Under a lease from an adverse claimant, defendant asserts the right to use a Wilding on the lot for a milk station. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant has appealed.

In the brief of appellant no effort has been made to comply with the statutory provision that “the brief of appellant shall set out particularly each error asserted.” Code, sec. 675c. The court’s rules relating to assignments of error are also ignored. The record does not disclose a plain error within the meaning of the enactment that the supreme court may consider such an error, though not specified in appellant’s brief. Code, sec. 675c. The name of the judge before whom the cause was tried in the court below is also omitted from appellant’s brief. It follows that the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.W. 987, 95 Neb. 406, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wielinga-v-beatrice-creamery-co-neb-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack