case comes within rule in Nebraska

1959It was used in answer to it [ 141 Neb. 866 , 5 N.W. 2d 113 ]: "It then becomes necessary for us to sustain the judgment of the district court unless it may be said, as plaintiffs contend, that this case comes within the rule that, where a party mistakenly chooses a remedy that is not available to him, he is not under the doctrine of res adjudicata barred from availing himself of the proper remedy." The court ignores the question decided before we reached the above matter—and in doing so overlooks the fact that the issue now presented here was decided in the Shepard case contrary to the present

1955From the evidence adduced, we do not believe that this case comes within the rule announced in Roth v. Blomquist, 117 Neb. 444 , 220 N. W. 572 , 58 A. L.

1955From the evidence adduced, we do not believe that this case comes within the rule announced in Roth v. Blomquist, 117 Neb. 444 , 220 N. W. 572 , 58 A. L.

1955R. 1473, as follows: “As a general rule it is negligence as a matter of law for a motorist to drive an automobile so fast on a highway at night that he cannot stop in time to avoid a collision with an object within the area lighted by his lamps.” We believe there is evidence appearing in the record sufficient to bring this case within the rule announced in Haight v. Nelson, 157 Neb. 341 , 59 N. W. 2d 576 : “* * * we have made «exception to this general rule when the nature of the object or its condition, such as color, dirt, et cetera, in relation to the highway or road, affected its immediate

1955R. 1473, as follows: “As a general rule it is negligence as a matter of law for a motorist to drive an automobile so fast on a highway at night that he cannot stop in time to avoid a collision with an object within the area lighted by his lamps.” We believe there is evidence appearing in the record sufficient to bring this case within the rule announced in Haight v. Nelson, 157 Neb. 341 , 59 N. W. 2d 576 : “* * * we have made «exception to this general rule when the nature of the object or its condition, such as color, dirt, et cetera, in relation to the highway or road, affected its immediate

1938But this case comes within the exception to this general rule announced in Netusil v. Novak, 120 Neb. 751 , 235 N. W. 335 , where it is said: “During the trial of a case, the court overruled a motion to direct a verdict for defendant and submitted the case to the jury.

1938But this case comes within the exception to this general rule announced in Netusil v. Novak, 120 Neb. 751 , 235 N. W. 335 , where it is said: “During the trial of a case, the court overruled a motion to direct a verdict for defendant and submitted the case to the jury.

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1936Under the circumstances, this case comes within the doctrine announced in the case of Clark v. Hass, 129 Neb. 112 , 260 N. W. 792 : “Where * * * it appears that the amount of the mortgage lien exceeds the value of the lands secured by the mortgage, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny the application.” See, also, Srajhans v. Mares, 130 Neb. 924 , 267 N. W. 82 ; Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736 , 266 N. W. 641 .

1934We disposed of the question there by quoting from Christensen v. Tate, supra, as follows: “When the jury in one instruction is told that, in order to find for the plaintiff,, they must first find that the damages complained of were caused by defendant’s negligence, a subsequent instruction that, if they find for. the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the damage he has sustained by reason of the negligence of defendant, is not erroneous as assuming that the defendant was negligent.” This case comes within the rule.

1931The plaintiff points out that she was not a member of the defendant’s household for 26 years, and that this case comes within the rule of Bell v. Rice, 50 Neb. 547 , and In re Estate of Wieland, 104 Neb. 412 .

1931The plaintiff points out that she was not a member of the defendant’s household for 26 years, and that this case comes within the rule of Bell v. Rice, 50 Neb. 547 , and In re Estate of Wieland, 104 Neb. 412 .

1927Whether this is correct or not, we think the case comes within the rule of McCormick v. State, 71 Neb. 505 , and Knothe v. State, ante, p. 119.

1921Prom a review of the record, we do not think the case comes within the rule of Kofkca v. Rosichy, 41 Neb. 328 , nor does it come within the meaning of subsequent cases bearing on the same subject.

1905We think also that this case comes within the rule adopted in Palin v. State, 38 Neb. 862 .