History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dugger v. Smith
94 Neb. 552
Neb.
1913
Check Treatment
Rose, J.

For the purpose of burning grass and weeds in an irrigating ditch running through a meadow of defendant, she set out a fire, which spread to the lands of plaintiffs. This is an action to recover resulting damages in the sum of $393. She denied the negligence imputed to her, but the jury rendered a verdict against her for $247. From a judgment thereon, she has appealed.

The rulings assailed cannot be reviewed without an examination of the evidence. The bill of exceptions is challenged by motion, because it is not authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk of the district court. In this respect there was a failure to comply with a mandatory provision of statute. Code, sec. 587b. For this reason, the evidence cannot be considered on appeal. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Lamb, 92 Neb. 608. The judgment must, therefore be affirmed. A consideration of the testimony as disclosed by the document purporting to be a bill of exceptions would not, however, result in a reversal.

, , „ Affirmed.

Barnes, Fawcett and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.

Case Details

Case Name: Dugger v. Smith
Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 31, 1913
Citation: 94 Neb. 552
Docket Number: No. 17,143
Court Abbreviation: Neb.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.