Case ID: neb_45/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ryan, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew P. Leach et al. v. Benjamin Renwald.
    Filed May 22, 1895.
    No. 6021.
    Necessity of Ruling on Motion for New Trials Review. No reversal of a judgment can be had where the errors assigned are solely such as are claimed to have occurred during the trial and in the rendition of the judgment against plaintiff in error, if in the district court a ruling upon a motion for a new trial is not shown to have been made.
    Error from the district court of Hitchcock county. Tried below before Welty, J.
    
      Woolman & Strout, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      George E. Banks, contra.
    
   Ryan, C.

This case was tried without the intervention of a jury and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff by the district court of Hitchcock county for the sum of $21.65 and costs. The defendant now seeks a reversal of this judgment against him, and in his petition in error assigns errors occurring at the trial and in rendering judgment for plaintiff in view of the law and evidence. There was filed a motion for a new trial in the district court, upon which the record discloses no ruling. In Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb., 526, this court held that a review in error of the proceedings of the district court could not be had unless therein had been presented and passed upon a motion for a new trial. This rule has in its support the following cases: Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb., 108; Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Neb., 186; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Neb., 472; Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Neb., 128; Shrimpton v. King, 39 Neb., 779; Brown v. Ritner, 41 Neb., 52; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.