Dobry v. Western Manufacturing Co.
John Dobry v. Western Manufacturing Company
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.
The questions presented in this case arise upon a motion to discharge an attachment and upon an order directing a sale of the attached property which was entered contemporaneously with the entry of final judgment.
It was held in Horkey v. Kendall, 53 Neb. 522 , that a notary public who is the attorney of one of the parties to an action is not permitted to take the affidavit of his client for the purpose of procuring an attachment; but it was also.held that an affidavit of the nature and taken as just indicated was not a mere nullity. Under these conditions it was proper to permit the amendment of the affidavit indicated as well as of the sheriff’s return, for the objections to these amendments were entirely dependent upon the assumption that the affidavit in question was absolutely void. .The right of the court to permit these amendments is recognized in Struthers v. McDowell, 5 Neb. 491 ; Rudolf v. McDonald, 6 Neb. 163 ; Clarice Banking Co. v. Wright, 37 Neb. 382 ; Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. Curtis, 38 Neb. 520 . .
As there is found no error in the record the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Harrison, C. J., not sitting.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.