Zimmerer v. Fremont National Bank
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error, from the district court of Dodge county. Tried below before Marshall, J. argued that it was an accident which might come to any busy lawyer, which came to counsel for the defendants Zimmerer, and it was without fault upon his part or upon the part of his clients. The motion for a new trial should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Error, from the district court of Dodge county. Tried below before Marshall, J. argued that it was an accident which might come to any busy lawyer, which came to counsel for the defendants Zimmerer, and it was without fault upon his part or upon the part of his clients. The motion for a new trial should have been sustained. See Horn v. Queen, 4 Nebr., 114; Smyth v. Gastler, 16 Nebr., 266; Horn v. Queen, 5 Nebr., 472; Parker v. Kuhn, 19 Nebr., 394; Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 17 How., 443; Roggcncamp v. Dobbs, 15 Nebr., 621; Lciby v. Heirs of Ludlow, 4 O., 493; Huntington & MacIntyre-v. Finch &…
1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.
The record in this case discloses that a trial was had in the absence of the defendants and their attorney. A motion for a new trial, assigning many grounds therefor, was filed and overruled by the court. If defendants were entitled to a new trial for any cause, it was on account of “accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against,” and which was properly assigned as one of the grounds for a new trial. Considera*663tion of no other question will therefore be undertaken. Affidavits in support of the motion and counter-affidavits were filed and considered on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Green v. BulkleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Mulholland v. HeynemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by2 opinions
- Henderson v. HazlettWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Simeral v. RosewaterNebraska Supreme Court · 1906