has long rule in Nebraska

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N. W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N. W. 2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, ante p. 572, 254 N. W. 2d 86 .

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N. W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N. W. 2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, ante p. 572, 254 N. W. 2d 86 .

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N.W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N.W.2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, 198 Neb. 572 , 254 N.W.2d 86 .

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N. W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N. W. 2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, ante p. 572, 254 N. W. 2d 86 .

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N. W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N. W. 2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, ante p. 572, 254 N. W. 2d 86 .

1977Most v. Cedar County, 126 Neb. 54 , 252 N. W. 465 ; Duling v. Berryman, 193 Neb. 409 , 227 N. W. 2d 584 ; Rief v. Foy, ante p. 572, 254 N. W. 2d 86 .

1965As we said in Dell v. City of Lincoln, 168 Neb. 174 , 95 N. W. 2d 336 : “ ‘The general rule is that ordinances * * * are not judicially known to courts having no special function to enforce them, although the power of municipalities to pass ordinances * * * is judicially noticed by the courts within the state.’ ” This has long been the rule in this jurisdiction.

1965As we said in Dell v. City of Lincoln, 168 Neb. 174 , 95 N. W. 2d 336 : “ ‘The general rule is that ordinances * * * are not judicially known to courts having no special function to enforce them, although the power of municipalities to pass ordinances * * * is judicially noticed by the courts within the state.’ ” This has long been the rule in this jurisdiction.

1965We said in 1894 in Foley v. State, 42 Neb. 233 , 60 N. W. 574 : “Courts will not, as a rule, take notice of municipal ordinances, unless required to do so by special charter or general law.” A party, to have the benefit of a municipal ordinance, must generally plead and prove the existence of the ordinance.

1965We said in 1894 in Foley v. State, 42 Neb. 233 , 60 N. W. 574 : “Courts will not, as a rule, take notice of municipal ordinances, unless required to do so by special charter or general law.” A party, to have the benefit of a municipal ordinance, must generally plead and prove the existence of the ordinance.

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1951This has long been the doctrine of this court frequently announced and last applied in Hueftle v. The Farmers Elevator, 145 Neb. 424 , 16 N. W. 2d 855 : “ ‘Facts alleged in a petition to which the defendant in his answer pleads a waiver, an estoppel, or a matter to avoid, will be treated as admitted, though the answer also contains a general denial.’ Nason v. Nason, 79 Neb. 582 , 113 N. W. 139 ; Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 133 Neb. 818 , 277 N. W. 331 ,” The final decision of this court in the suit to quiet title estopped appellants from claiming any different or greater interest in the lan

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1939In Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273 , 94 N. W. 109 , this court said: “Where a verdict is returned against a plaintiff and in favor of several defendants, on different, distinct and separate defenses pleaded separately by them, a single joint motion for a new trial against them all is insufficient, and it should be overruled if the verdict is good as to any one of the defendants.” See, also, Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb. 417 , 19 N. W. 467 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb. 250 , 59 N. W. 783 ; Davey v. Aevermann, 110 Neb. 62 , 192 N. W. 956 ; Koehler v. Farmers State Bank, 112 Neb. 590 , 200 N. W. 52 .

1927It is held in Genho v. Jackson, 99 Neb. 1 : “Where a party demurs to a petition because several causes of action are improperly joined, but answers over after an adverse ruling thereon, and goes to trial on the merits of an issue he has elected to join, he waives the error, if any, in such ruling.” This has long been the rule in this state.