Bernheimer v. Hamer
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Buffalo county. Tried below before Greene, J. It was the duty of the court to examine the return of the sheriff, and to have ascertained if any irregularity appeared therein; and, if any such irregularity appeared, to set aside the sale upon his own motion. See Eelmcr v. Rehm, 14 Nebr., 220. The sheriff can not delegate the exercise of judicial functions to his deputy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Buffalo county. Tried below before Greene, J. It was the duty of the court to examine the return of the sheriff, and to have ascertained if any irregularity appeared therein; and, if any such irregularity appeared, to set aside the sale upon his own motion. See Eelmcr v. Rehm, 14 Nebr., 220. The sheriff can not delegate the exercise of judicial functions to his deputy. See State v. Noble, 118 Ihd., 350; Van Sly he v. Insurance Go., 39 Wis., 390; State v. Jefferson, 66 N. Car., 309.
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Buffalo county confirming a sale of real estate made pursuant to a decree of foreclosure. Appellant contends that there are four sufficient reasons why the sale should be set aside. The first, second and third of these reasons were not brought to the notice of the district court, and, consequently, can .not be considered here. Such is the rule established by Johnson v. Bemis, 7 Nebr., 224; Ecklund v. Willis, 44 Nebr., 129, and Creighton University v. Mulvihill, 49 Nebr., 577. The fourth ground of objection to the sale is that the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Salem v. CornellNebraska Supreme Court · 1915
- Bank of Salem v. CornellNebraska Supreme Court · 1915