Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

THE MIDLAND PACIFIC RAILROAD Co. v. MOCARTNEY.

the court making that decision, I must say that the con. struction given by the courts of Indiana seems to be more in harmony, both with the letter and the spirit of the Code.

The same principle will require a motion for a new trial to be made for every cause specified in section 314 of the Code, as a ground therefor, before this court can review the judgment of the District Court thereon.

As to the rendition of a judgment upon the finding of the jury, I am satisfied that there is no error.

Such is the practice in Indiana and Ohio, under statutes similar to our own, and the language of the act under which the case was appealed to the District Court will justify it.— Evansville R. R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 20.

For these reasons the judgment of the District Court must be, in all things, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

TAE MIDLAND PACIFIC RAILROAD Co. o. WILLIAMSON.

The Midland Pacific Railroad Co. v. Williamson.

1. The decision in the preceding case of The Midland Pacific Railroad Com

pany, affirmed.

This, like the preceding case, was brought up by petition in error from the District Court of Otoe county. It was argued in connection with that case.

S. H. Calhoun and J. H. Croxton, for plaintiffs in error.

I. N. Shambaugh, for defendant in error.

LAKE, J.

Having fully considered all the questions presented in this record in the case of this Railroad v. McCartney, decided at this term, upon the principles therein declared, the judgment of the District Court in this case is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

THE MIDLAND PACIFIC RAILROAD Co. v. Dar.

The Midland Pacific Railroad Co, v. Day.

1. The decision in the preceding case of The Midland Pacific Railroad Com

pany v. McCartney, affirmed.

This, like the preceding case, was brought up by petition in error from the District Court for Otoe county. It was argued in connection with the preceding case.

S. H. Calhoun and J. H. Croxton, for plaintiffs in error.

G. B. Scofield, for defendant in error.

LAKE, J.

Upon the principles laid down in the case of this Railroad v. McCartney, decided at this term, the judgment of the District Court in this case must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

THE MIDLAND PACIFIC RAILROAD Co. 0. NEWMAN.

The Midland Pacific Railroad Co. v. Newman.

1. The decision in the preceding case of The Midland Pacific Railroad Com.

pany v. McCartney, affirmed.

This, like the preceding case, was brought up by petition in error from the District Court of Otoe county. It was argued in connection with that cause.

8. H. Calhoun and J. H, Croxton, for plaintiffs in error.

I. N. Shambaugh, for defendant in error.

LAKE, J.

The record in this case presents precisely the same questions as have already been passed upon in the case of The Midland Pacific Railroad v. McCartney, decided at this term of the court.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the District Court in this must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

LAUGHLIN V. SCHUYLER.

Laughlin v. Schuyler.

1. JUDICIAL SALE: Confirmation. The return of the sheriff or master of a

judicial sale must show that the appraisers were residents of the county in which the premises are situated.

2. — : In parcels. Each lot or parcel of ground must be appraised and sold

separately, or the sale will be set aside.

LAKE, J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a sale of mortgaged premises under a decree of foreclosure.

а The sale was not legally made, and there are, at least, two fatal objections to it. 1st. The return of the master does not show that the persons selected by him to appraise the premises, were residents of the county where the lands were situated, nor is there anything in the record from which this fact can be legitimately inferred. 2d. The return shows that the premises sold consisted of two city lots. They were appraised and sold together as one piece of property. Each lot or parcel of ground should have been appraised and sold separately. The sale should have been set aside. For these reasons the order of the District Court confirming the sale is set aside and the cause re manded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Redick & Briggs, for appellants.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »