History
  • No items yet
midpage
State ex rel. Poole v. Robinson
20 Neb. 96
Neb.
1886
Check Treatment
Reese, J.

The leading and controlling question in this case is identical with that in The State ex rel. Huff v. McLelland, 18 Neb., 236.

The case has been ably presented by counsel; the whole ground having been closely and thoroughly examined, and cases have been cited which seem to sustain the theory contended for by relator. But after a somewhat careful examination of the question, guided by the light of the constitution and law of this state, we are still of the opinion that the decision in the prior case was correct. . The journals of the legislature are made competent evidence by section 418 of the civil code, and by them it is shown that the bill in question was not passed by the legislature.

It could serve no good purpose to re-examine the question or re-discuss the principles involved, as we are satisfied with the reasoning of Judge Maxwell in The State v. McLelland.

It follows that the writ prayed for must be denied and the cause dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

The other judges concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Poole v. Robinson
Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 15, 1886
Citation: 20 Neb. 96
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.