4 Neb. 262 | Neb. | 1876
Several errors are assigned in this case, but the condition of the record makes it unnecessary for us to notice but two of them at any length.
The petition so filed was adjudged defective, and the plaintiff took leave to amend, which he did. To the amended petition a demurrer was interposed and sustained, and exceptions duly taken. Having elected to stand this second petition, final judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, and this brings us to the first practical cjuestion which the record presents, viz: was this demurrer properly sustained? Several of the alleged defects in this pleading, for instance, “that no copy of the note is attached to and filed with said amended petition,” and “ that the names of the parties plaintiff and defendant, are not properly entitled in said amended petition,” cannot be reached by demurrer. The grounds of demurrer are all set out in the code, and these are not of them. They are defects which can be reached only by motion.
The chief objection to this petition, and the one probably on which the demurrer was sustained is “that it appeal’s on the face of the petition, that an action on a promissory note, and an action of trover are improperly joined.”
"VYe find in this petition all the essential allegations, although not very symmetrically arranged, of an action
The record also shows that an attachment ivas sued out in the district court, which, on motion suj>ported by
Reversed and remanded.