17 Neb. 570 | Neb. | 1885
In September, 1883, tbe defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff in error to recover damages sustained by the death of one Clayborn Crockett. The peti
The practice of objecting on the trial of a cause, after a jury has been impaneled and witnesses called to testify in the case, and a large amount of costs incurred, to the insufficiency of the petition is not to be encouraged, and if delayed until that time the court should, if necessary, and the defect can be cured by amendment, permit an amendment to be made instanter, and, unless for cause the case is continued, require the trial to proceed. A defect which would be fatal to recovery, however, may be taken advantage of at any time. Thus, in the “act authorizing the recovery of dam
2d. On the trial of the case the plaintiff introduced in, evidence the following stipulation:
“ Oroohett v. B. & M.
“ I agree that plff. may have certified copies of appointment of admix, that we have to use in proof or we will stipulate as to her appointment.
“ J. W. Deweese, for def’t.
“We admit that Martha Crockett was duly appointed admix of estate of Clayborn C. Crockett, deceased.
“ J. W. Deweese, for def’t.
“A. J. Sawyer, for plff.”
This is marked, filed March 10th, 1884. The attorney-for the defendant offered in evidence an order of the probate court of Atchison county, Kansas, dated November-27th, 1884, revoking the. appointment of the plaintiff as executrix. On whose application this order was made does not appear, nor does the record show that any notice was. given to the plaintiff. The alleged ground on which the
Judgment accordingly.