TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gage County v. Hill

Gage County v. J. E. Hill

Gage Cnty. v. Hill, 72 N.W. 581 (Neb. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 20, 1897
Docket
No. 7508
Judges
Ryan
Citations
72 N.W. 58152 Neb. 4441897 Neb. LEXIS 101
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Orders of County Boards in Passing on Claims: Conclusiveness. The facts and questions of law in this case are in all respects similar to those in Sioux City v. Jameson, 43 Neh., 265, and, on the authority of that case and of others cited which approve its doctrine, the judgment of the district court rendered herein is affirmed.
Summary
Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Babcock, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ryan

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

Ryan, C.

This action was brought in the district court of Gage county on the official bond of J. E. Hill as county clerk of said county for his alleged failure to account for and pay over the fees of his office in excess of the sum of $4,200, the amount which he might lawfully retain for the compensation, of himself a.nd his deputy. In the answer there were averments that said Hill, during the entire period of his office, had made full and complete settlements with the county board of said county while *445 such board was in session, and had fully, completely, accurately, and faithfully accounted to the said board for the several sums for which the action was brought; that the amounts ascertained on said settlements to be due from said Hill had been paid by said Hill to the person and officers entitled to receive the same, and that he had, at the termination of his term of office, fully accounted for all sums found by said board to be in his hands, and by said board he had, at the expiration of his said term of office, been discharged for all moneys, fees, and warrants received by him during the term of his office.

There was a general demurrer to this answer, which was overruled, and the county electing to stand thereon there was a judgment for the defendants dismissing the action. The contentions of the county presented by its petition in error are fully met by Sioux County v. Jameson, 43 Neb., 265 , and the cases therein cited, as well as by the subsequently considered cases of Heald v. Polk County, 46 Neb., 28 ; Ragoss v. Cuming County, 46 Neb., 36 ; State v. Vincent, 46 Neb., 408 . 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.

1897: 11903: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mitchell v. County of Clay96 N.W. 673 (Neb. 1903)
  2. Trites v. Hitchcock County73 N.W. 215 (Neb. 1897)

Most recent

  1. Mitchell v. County of Clay96 N.W. 673 (Neb. 1903)
  2. Trites v. Hitchcock County73 N.W. 215 (Neb. 1897)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Heald v. Polk Cnty., 64 N.W. 376 (Neb. 1895) 19
Sioux Cnty. v. Jameson, 61 N.W. 596 (Neb. 1895) 11
Ragoss v. Cuming Cnty., 46 Neb. 36 (1895) 4
State ex rel. Franklin Cnty. v. Vincent, 65 N.W. 50 (Neb. 1895) 4

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