Thompson v. Chicago Etc. R.R. Co. Et Al‪.‬

Quieting Title ? Judgment in Eminent Domain ? Collateral Attack ? Limitations of Actions ? Appeal in Equity Cases ? Presumptions ? Record on Appeal ? Striking Documents Improperly Incorporated. Appeal from Judgment ? Documents not Part of Judgment-roll or not Included in Bill of Exceptions Stricken from Record. 1. Papers and documents incorporated in the transcript on appeal from a final judgment which are not properly a part of the judgment-roll and not included in a bill of exceptions duly settled are no part of the record and will be stricken therefrom. Appeal ? Burden of Showing Error on Appellant. 2. The burden of showing reversible error is upon appellant, the supreme court entering upon its investigation of a cause on appeal with the presumption that the lower court was correct in its determination. Same ? Equity Cases ? When Evidence Presumed Sufficient to Support Findings. 3. Where the record on appeal in an equity case does not present the evidence taken in the district court, it will be presumed that there was sufficient to sustain its findings. Same ? Cause Tried by Court ? What Appellant must Show to Secure Reversal. 4. On appeal from the judgment in an action tried by the court without a jury, in order to obtain a reversal, the appellant has the burden of showing that the record will not sustain the trial courts conclusion upon any admissible theory. Quieting Title ? Eminent Domain ? Collateral Attack. 5. Where the purpose of an action to quiet title was to set aside a final order or decree made some thirty years prior to the institution of the action in proceedings to condemn the land in question in which plaintiff as defendant had been duly served with process, the action constituted a collateral attack upon that order or judgment. Judgment ? When Proof Against Collateral Attack. 6. A judgment of the district court, proceeding within its powers and possessing jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action or - Page 171 proceeding and of the parties thereto, cannot be called in question, even if erroneous, by the parties or privies in a collateral action or proceeding. Eminent Domain ? Judgment Awarding More Than Mere Easement not Void but Voidable and not Open to Collateral Attack. 7. Under the rule that a judgment which awards a greater measure of relief than is warranted by the demand of plaintiff or the facts is erroneous and voidable, but may not be impeached in a collateral proceeding, held that where the court, as contended by plaintiff in an action to quiet title, in an order of condemnation gave judgment vesting title in fee simple in the condemnor instead of simply granting an easement in the property, its judgment was not void so as to make it subject to collateral attack. Quieting Title ? Limitation of Actions. 8. Under sections 9015 and 9016, Revised Codes of 1921, where it appeared in an action to quiet title that plaintiff had not been seised or in possession of the land in question for a period of ten years prior to the commencement of the action, his right to maintain it was barred.