TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Donohue v. Hendrix

John O'Donohue, in error v. Jacob R. Hendrix, in error

O'Donohue v. Hendrix, 13 Neb. 255 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1882
Judges
Tun
Citations
13 Neb. 255
Headnotes
1. A bill of exceptions is necessary only to bring into the re* cord that which without one would not be a part thereof. 2. A motion for a new trial is necessary only in those cases where a trial has been had. If the court has merely construed the pleadings or some of them, as in sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a petition, answer or reply, no motion for a new trial is necessary. 3. Pleading: practice. Where the facts stated in a petition do not constitute a cause of action, merely filing an answer is not a waiver of that defect.
Summary
Motion to strike petition in error from files.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Tun

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By tun Court.

This is a motion to strike a petition in error from the files.

First. Because there is no bill of exceptions.

Second. Because there was no motion for a new trial in the court below.

■ Third. Because the plaintiff in error (defendant below) did not elect to stand upon his demurrer to the petition.

'Arc any or all the causes sufficient to authorize the court in striking the petition in error from the files?

A bill of exceptions is necessary only in those cases where it is desired to bring into the record evidence or other matters which by law are not required to be entered of record. If, therefore, there is error apparent in the record proper, no bill of exceptions is necessary.

A motion for a new trial is necessary only in cases where a trial has been had. If the court has merely construed the pleadings or some of them, as in sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a petition, answer or reply, no motion for a new trial is necessary, because there has been no trial in the sense in which that word is used in the statute. But where evidence has been offered or introduced in order that the rulings of the court thereon may be reviewed on error, there must be a motion for a new trial, in which the *257 specific grounds of error are set forth. Swansen v. Swansen, 12 Neb., 224 .

If a good cause of action is definitely stated in the petition and a demurrer thereto is overruled, the party demurring, in order to avail himself of the ruling thereon, must rest on his demurrer. And if he reply, he thereby waives his exception. This applies only to defects in the form of pleading; but if the facts stated in the petition do not constitute a cause of action, filing an answer by the defendant is not a waiver of such defect. Farrer v. Triplet, 7 Neb., 240 .

The grounds assigned in the motion are not sufficient to justify the court in striking the petition from the files, and the motion is overruled.

Motion overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 11893–1894: 31895–1896: 41897–1898: 21899–1900: 11903–1904: 11913–1914: 11915–1916: 11923–1924: 11931–1932: 11935–1936: 11973–1974: 118852026peak 1895 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Madden v. Lancaster County65 F. 188 (8th Cir. 1894)
  2. Grover Irrigation & Land Co. v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir & Irrigation Co.131 P. 43 (Wyo. 1913)
  3. Slobodisky v. Curtis78 N.W. 522 (Neb. 1899)
  4. Bennett v. Otto94 N.W. 807 (Neb. 1903)
  5. Scarborough v. Myrick66 N.W. 867 (Neb. 1896)
  6. Weideman v. Estate of Peterson261 N.W. 150 (Neb. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Parker v. Christensen219 N.W.2d 235 (Neb. 1974)
  2. Weideman v. Estate of Peterson261 N.W. 150 (Neb. 1935)
  3. Weber v. Allen238 N.W. 740 (Neb. 1931)
  4. Sallander v. Prairie Life Insurance200 N.W. 344 (Neb. 1924)
  5. Miller v. Munce154 N.W. 242 (Neb. 1915)
  6. Grover Irrigation & Land Co. v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir & Irrigation Co.131 P. 43 (Wyo. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb. 221 (1881) 17
Farrar & Wheeler v. Triplett, 7 Neb. 237 (1878) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list