Keiser v. Decker
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Saunders county. Tried below before Marshall, J. The affidavits for a new trial were insufficient, as the evidence offered was merely cumulative, and a proper effort to obtain it in time for trial does not appear to have been made.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Saunders county. Tried below before Marshall, J. The affidavits for a new trial were insufficient, as the evidence offered was merely cumulative, and a proper effort to obtain it in time for trial does not appear to have been made. (Schofield v. JBroion, 7 Neb., 224; Tomer v. Dens-more, 8 Id., 384; Bolar v. Williams, 14 Id., 387; TIalliday v. Briggs, 15 Id., 219; Schreckengast v. Ealy, 16 Id., 510.) It is not enough for a party to state in his affidavit for a new trial that he could not with reasonable diligence procure the evidence; he must point out what…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This action was brought on a promissory note as follows :
“$273.63. Ashland, Neb., April 1, 1877.
“ Six months after date I promise to pay to S. P. Decker, or order, $273.63, in Ashland, Neb., with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum until paid, together with reasonable attorney’s fees if collected by suit, value received.
“Peter Keiser.”
*94The defendant below (plaintiff in error) in his answer to the petition states that he “ admits that on or about April 1, 1877, lie made and delivered to plaintiff a promissory-note, but states that the purported copy thereof in plaintiff’s petition…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Levitsky v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by5 opinions
- Simonsen v. ThorinNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Lee v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Smith v. HitchcockNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Sanford v. LundquistNebraska Supreme Court · 1907
- Ysac v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1958