TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Prante v. Lompe

William Prante, Guardian v. Oscar Lompe, Guardian

Prante v. Lompe, 104 N.W. 1150 (Neb. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 22, 1905
Docket
No. 14,298
Judges
Sedgwick
Citations
104 N.W. 115074 Neb. 2101905 Neb. LEXIS 280
Disposition
Application for supersedeas denied.
Summary
Error to the district court for Nemaha county: William H. Kelligar, 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 — Sedgwick

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

Sedgwick, J.

' Upon application for that purpose the county court of Nemaha county made an order appointing a guardian for Harman Ray, as an incompetent person, and upon proceedings in error in the district court for that county this order was reversed and the cause was set down for trial in the district court. The parties interested, desiring to prosecute proceedings in error in this court to reverse the order of the district court, applied to that court for a supersedeas of its order, Avhich Avas refused; and the cause having been docketed in this court upon proceedings in error, application is made to this court for a supersedeas of the judgment of the district court. It is, of course, within the discretion of the district court to determine whether a supersedeas should be alloived. Rut this is a legal discretion, and where such supersedeas is refused, this court will in a proper case supersede the judgment of the district court upon proper terms. With this in view we have examined the record presented, and are satisfied that the district court properly exercised its discretion, *211 When the judgment of the county court was reversed, and the cause set down for trial in the district court, the latter court became possessed of the cause, and application may be made to that court for such orders upon the parties interested as may be necessary to protect the property involved and the rights of all of the parties. The decision of the district court will, of course, be presumed to be correct until, upon the record, it is found to be otherwise, and this cannot be determined in this court before a final hearing. In the meantime the judgment of the district court is in full force, and there is no necessity for a supersedeas. The application is therefore

Overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1908: 11909: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Palmer v. Harris1909 OK 73, 101 P. 852
  2. Lund v. Idaho & Washington Northern Railroad93 P. 1071 (Wash. 1908)

Most recent

  1. Palmer v. Harris1909 OK 73, 101 P. 852
  2. Lund v. Idaho & Washington Northern Railroad93 P. 1071 (Wash. 1908)

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 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