Shickle H. & H. Iron Co. v. Kent
Nebraska Supreme Court
Motion to dismiss cross-appeal, quash bill of exceptions, and compel an election. The appeal sought now to be docketed here is in no sense a “cross-appeal,” because it does not affect appellants Kent and Tarr. (Emerick v. Armstrong, 1 O., 513; Ewers v. Rutledge, 4 O. St., 210; Lowrenz v. Penn, 10 W. L. J. [O.], 75; Glass v. Greathouse, 20 O., 512; Hamilton v. Whitney, 19 Neb., 307.) An appellant may dismiss his appeal, notwithstanding his adversary has also appealed.
Read the full summary
Motion to dismiss cross-appeal, quash bill of exceptions, and compel an election. The appeal sought now to be docketed here is in no sense a “cross-appeal,” because it does not affect appellants Kent and Tarr. (Emerick v. Armstrong, 1 O., 513; Ewers v. Rutledge, 4 O. St., 210; Lowrenz v. Penn, 10 W. L. J. [O.], 75; Glass v. Greathouse, 20 O., 512; Hamilton v. Whitney, 19 Neb., 307.) An appellant may dismiss his appeal, notwithstanding his adversary has also appealed. (Berggren v. R. Co., 23 Neb., 620; Latham’s Appeal, 9 Wall. [U. S.], 145; Bacon v. Lawrence, 26 111., 53; Goodenow v. Perry, 12…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
This case is submitted on a motion as follows:
“Now comes Willard Kent and Horace G. H. Tarr, copartners as Willard Kent & Co., John Lanham and Joseph R. Webster, Bothen & Rodemaker, and Z. Waterman and move the court:
“ First — To dismiss the appeal claimed to be taken by Crete Improvement & Investment Company, Johnson & Stevens, John R. Johnson and George D. Stevens, for the following reasons:
“1. Because they did not, on or prior to July 14,1891, nor within six months prior to January 14, 1891, docket their appeal in this court as required by law.
“2. Because they did not,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Taylor v. CourtnayNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Republican Valley R. R. v. LinnNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Union Pacific Railroad v. MarstonNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moffitt v. ReedNebraska Supreme Court · 1932