Woolworth v. Sater
Effie M. Woolworth v. Thomas H. Sater, and Mattie Bohrer
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.
Norval, C. J.
This appeal is from a decree foreclosing a real' estate mortgage. The petition contained the averment that no proceedings at law have been had or commenced to collect the mortgage debt, or any part thereof. This allegation was put in issue by the general denial in the answer of the defendant Mattie Bohrer. Yet plaintiff introduced no proof to establish this essential allegation in her petition. The decree is therefore without sufficient evidence to sustain it. Jones v. Burtis, 57 Nebr., 604; Miller v. Nicodemus, 58 Nebr., 353.
It is, however, insisted by counsel for plaintiff that, as the note and mortgage which were introduced in evidence do not show that they have ever been filed in any other court or cause, it must be presumed that no suit or proceeding at law had ever been had for their recovery. This argument is not convincing. No legal inference can be so *419 drawn from the lack of filing marks on the note and mortgage.
The decree is reversed and the case remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
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.