
    Beatrice Savings Bank of Beatrice v. Beatrice Chautauqua Assembly, Impleaded with J. S. Grable et al., appellants, and E. R. Fogg, Receiver, appellee.
    Filed April 21, 1898.
    No. 8044.
    1. TTnautlienticated Bill of Exceptions. A bill of exceptions which lacks authentication by the clerk of the trial district court will not be considered in the supreme court.
    
      X Review Without Bill of Exceptions. In an appeal to this court, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, if the petition or pleading on which the decree is predicated contains sufficient statements of a cause and proper prayer for the relief thereby afforded, questions which for decision necessitate a reference to the bill of exceptions will not be considered, and an affirmance of the decree is proper.
    Appeal from the district court of Gage county. Heard below before Buspi J.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      G. M. Johnston, for appellants.
    
      J. N. Richards, E. R. Fogg, and Griggs, Rinaher & Bibb’,, contra.
    
   Harrison, O. J.

Action to foreclose a real estate mortgage in which the appellee by cross-petition sought the foreclosure of a mortgage on the property involved, and from a decree favorable to his prayer certain of the parties have perfected this appeal. What is filed with the record here as the bill of exceptions lacks the requisite authentication By the clerk of the trial district court and will not be examined. (See Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198; Spurk v. Dean, 49 Neb. 66; Childerson v. Childerson, 47 Neb. 162.)

The cross-petition was sufficient in its statements of facts and prayer to warrant the relief, for which as to it there was a decree, and in the absence of a proper bill of exceptions we cannot examine the questions presented by the brief of counsel. (Stuart v. Burcham, 50 Neb. 823.) The decree must be

Affirmed.  