Case Name: Union Pacific Railway Company v. Peter J. McNally
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1898-03-03
Citations: 54 Neb. 112
Docket Number: No. 7880
Parties: Union Pacific Railway Company v. Peter J. McNally.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Union Pacific Railway Company v. Peter J. McNally.
Filed March 3, 1898.
No. 7880.
Publication of City Ordinance. In this case the sufficiency of the publication of an ordinance of South Omaha is presented under the same conditions as were described in Union P. R. Oo. v. Montgomery, 49 Neb. 429, and the ruling in that case is accordingly followed.
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J.
Reversed.
W. R. Kelly, E. P. Smith, and John Schomp, for plaintiff in error.
Mahoney & Smyth, contra.

Opinion:
Ryan, C.
In this case there was a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error for damages under circumstances very similar to those described in Union P. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 49 Neb. 429. There was introduced in evidence an ordinance of the city of South Omaha containing the same provisions as those copied in the opinion in the above entitled case. There was the same objection as to the publication of said ordinance, which was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error.
In Union P. R. Co. v. Montgomery, supra, the certificate as to the publication of the ordinance recited that it "was published in the South Omaha Daily Stockman, on the 5th day of September, A. D. 1888." In the case now under consideration the certificate recited that the ordinance "was, on the 5th day of September, 1888, for the period of one day, published in the Daily Stockman, a newspaper, on said last, named day, within said city of South Omaha." This case is therefore controlled by the reasoning in the case above cited, and accordingly the judgment of the district court herein is reversed.
Beversed and remanded.