
    Mary McCreary, appellee, v. E. D. Pratt and others, appellants.
    Practice: appeal not allowed aeter stay taken. If a stay of the order of sale under a decree of foreclosure he ta^ ken, no proceedings on appeal from such decree can afterwards he had. [Laws 1875, p. 50.]
    Note. — Prior to the passage of the statute cited, a contrary rule prevailed. White v. Blum, 4 Neb., 555. — Hep.
    
      Bedick §• Connell, for appellant.
    
      George W. Doane, for appellee.
   Lake, J.

This is an appeal from the district court for Douglas county. It appears,- by a supplemental transcript from the court below, that execution of the decree complained of was duly stayed by the appellant. Under the statute this step was fatal to any subsequent proceedings by him on appeal.

Section five of the act regulating appeals, approved February 23, 1875, provides: “No proceedings in error or appeal shall be allowed after such stay has been taken,” etc. Laws 1875, p. 50. Giving effect to this provision, it follows that the defendant, by availing himself of the statutory stay, has voluntarily deprived himself of the right to have a review of the decree in this court, and his appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.  