Leach v. Renwald
Andrew P. Leach v. Benjamin Renwald
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Ryan, C.
This case was tried without the intervention of a jury and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff by the district court of Hitchcock county for the sum of $21.65 and costs. The defendant now seeks a reversal of this judgment against him, and in his petition in error assigns errors occurring at the trial and in rendering judgment for plaintiff in view of the law and evidence. There was filed a motion for a new trial in the district court, upon which the record discloses no ruling. In Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb., *208 526 , this court held that a review in error of the proceedings of the district court could not be had unless therein had been presented and passed upon a motion for a new trial. This rule has in its support the following cases: Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb., 108 ; Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Neb., 186 ; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Neb., 472 ; Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Neb., 128 ; Shrimpton v. King, 39 Neb., 779 ; Brown v. Ritner, 41 Neb., 52 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 . The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.