Legal Opinion · Dissent

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Bradley

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1897No. 7148Published

Error from the district court of Otoe county. Tried below before Chapman, J.

1Dissent

Irvine, C.,

dissenting.

The first question naturally presented is the right of the railway company to maintain the proceeding. We have just decided (Bradley v. Missouri P. R. Co., 51 Neb., 653), following prior decisions of this court, that where want of jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear from the record of the county court, the appointment of an administrator may not be collaterally attacked. From this it logically follows, and to the writer’s mind it necessarily follows, that a person sued by one claiming to be an administrator may be heard in a direct proceeding in the probate court…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Dennick v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Roderigas v. . East River Savings InstitutionNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. TisdaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  4. Pinney v. McGregoryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  5. Hutchins v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API