Case Name: John O'Donohue, plaintiff in error, v. Jacob R. Hendrix, defendant in error
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1885-01
Citations: 17 Neb. 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: John O’Donohue, plaintiff in error, v. Jacob R. Hendrix, defendant in error.
Judges: Ti-ie other judges concur.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
John O’Donohue, plaintiff in error, v. Jacob R. Hendrix, defendant in error.
1. Res Adjudicata. When certain questions presented by the record in a case are decided by the supreme court, and no motion for a re-hearing filed, the court will adhere to such decis" ion in that case at least, if it is a second time brought into the court for review. Hiatt v. Broolcs, ante p. 33.
2. Taxes: foreclosure of tax lien. Where a decree for a lien for taxes upon- two tracts of land was general as to both, and not upon each tract, Held, That the decree would not therefore be reversed, but apportioned on the several tracts in proportion to the amount of taxes due thereon.
Error to the district court of Sarpy county; Tried below before Say age, J.
Rediek & Rediek, for plaintiff in error.
Congdon, Clarkson & Hunt, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Maxwell, J.
This case was before the court in 1882, and is reported in 13 Neb., 257, the judgment of the court below being reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree in conformity to the opinion. The court below thereupon rendered a decree as directed, and the plaintiff in error again brings the cause into this court. The errors assigned are: 1st. That the court had no jurisdiction of the action. 2d. That the real estate in controversy consists of two separate tracts, yet the court below decreed a lien for the entire amount against both tracts. 3d. That the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The first and third objections were considered on the former hearing and decided against the plaintiff. No motion for a rehearing was filed, nor was any objection made to the decision of the court. Those questions therefore will not now be-again considered. Hiatt v. Brooks, ante page 33.
An examination of the decree shows that the second objection is well taken. The decree will not therefore be reversed, however, but will- be modified. The cause is hereby referred to the clerk of this court to ascertain upon notice to the parties the amount justly due upon each tract and report the same to the court, when a proper decree will be. entered.
Judgment accordingly.
Ti-ie other judges concur.