TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cassidy v. Collier

Edward Cassidy v. Charles B. Collier

Cassidy v. Collier, 100 N.W. 802 (Neb. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 22, 1904
Docket
No. 13,547
Judges
Ames, Letton, Oldham
Citations
100 N.W. 80272 Neb. 3761904 Neb. LEXIS 194
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Review. In an action at law in which no motion for new trial has been filed in the district court, this court will not consider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment
Summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county: Guy R. C. Read, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Oldham

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

Oldham, C.

This was an action on a claim filed in the county court of Douglas county against the estate of Henry L. Collier, deceased. The claim was disallowed by the county court and an appeal was taken by the claimant to the district court, where on a trial de novo a judgment was rendered in favor of the executor of the estate and against the claimant, and the claimant brings error to this court.

No motion for a new tidal was filed in the court below. This being an action at law, questions concerning errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial will not be considered by this court in the absence of a motion for new trial in the court below. It is not claimed that the pleadings are insufficient to sustain the judgment. The question urged is as to the sufficiency of the testimony to support the judgment, but this question we cannot examine in the absence of a motion for a new trial.

It is therefore recommended that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Letton, CC., concur. By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, 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 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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