Harrington v. Latta. Plaintiff filed reply denying all the averments of the answer of the Lattas. By what is called a supplemental answer of the Lattas, the bar of the statute of limitations is presented and the payment of the judgment in favor of Hobbs, which is alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, with the exception of $180. In the reply subsequently filed by plaintiff he denies the allegations concerning the limitation, and alleges that defendants are estopped by the adjudication and judgment of the county court from setting up their alleged defence thereto. The trial was had by the court, and upon request of plaintiff the court found especially its conclusions of fact and of law, which were as follows: "1. The court finds that the plaintiff was, at the commencement of this action, and still is, the owner and holder of the judgment rendered in favor of William L. Hobbs against William S. Latta, in the county court of Lancaster county, February 17, 1876, and that the same is still in full force, unpaid and unsatisfied. "2. The court finds that in the year 1874 the defendant, William S. Latta, was indebted to his wife, the defendant Sarah A. Latta, in the sum of between $5,000 and $6,000. "3. The court finds that Eikenbury bought the land in Butler county of said William S. Latta, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and that he afterwards sold and conveyed the same, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, to said Sarah A. Latta; that said William S. Latta applied the consideration received by him from the sale of said lands to Eikenbury on the indebtedness owing by him to his said wife, Sarah A. Latta. "4. The court finds that the sum of $1,608.75 insurance money referred to in the petition was applied by said William S. Latta to the payment of an indebtedness owing Harrington v. Laita. by him to one Martin H. Brush, and that said Brush loaned said sum to said Sarah A., who invested the same, together with other moneys, in the purchase of said lots "B" and "C," in Cropsey's subdivision, referred to in the petition; that said Sarah A. paid the purchase price of said lots and repaid said loan to Brush. "5. The court finds that there was no completed sale of said lots 9 and 10 to said Mozer; that said William S. made the conveyance to said Mozer of said lots in expectation that Mozer would purchase and pay for the same, but that said Mozer did not make the purchase and paid no consideration for such conveyance, and that such conveyance has always been considered and treated by the parties thereto as of no validity and as of no force or effect. "6. The court finds that the liens on said lots 9 and 10 were bona fide and valid liens, and that the suit brought to foreclose them was brought and prosecuted in good faith by the owners and holders thereof, and for the sole purpose of enforcing such liens, and that said lots were sold under the decree rendered in said suit, and such sale confirmed in good faith for like purpose. "7. The court finds that said lots 9 and 10 were purchased at said sale by the plaintiffs in said suit, or some of them, and the sheriff executed to them a deed to said lots on the day of the confirmation of said sale, and said purchasers on the same day conveyed said lots to said Sarah A. in consideration of the amount of their purchase price, together with interest, costs, and expenses incurred in said. suit, and subject to a certain mortgage thereon of $475; that the said Sarah A. obtained a portion of the money, to-wit, $1,000, with which to pay for said lots from said Brush, to secure which she gave him a note signed by herself and William S., which note was afterwards secured by a mortgage on said lots; that said Sarah A. paid the purchase price of said lots and has also paid said mortgages. "8. The court finds that William L. Hobbs, the then Harrington v. Latta. owner of said judgment of Hobbs against Latta, was not made a party to such foreclosure suit. "9. The court finds that said William S. and Sarah A. Latta have, ever since 1874 and prior thereto, continuously occupied and still occupy said lots as a homestead, and, with the exception of the title acquired by the purchasers at such foreclosure sale, either said William S. Latta or Sarah A. Latta has during all the time aforesaid owned and held the title to, and still owns and holds the title to said lots. "10. The court finds that said William S. and Sarah A. Latta made and entered into a contract or contracts by which he agreed to turn over to her his professional earnings, in consideration that she would maintain him and his family; that said contract or contracts was fraudulent and made for the purpose of placing such earnings beyond the reach of his creditors; that said contract or contracts. was acted upon by the parties thereto, and that between the years 1875 and 1883 said William S. earned in his profession and turned over to his said wife, under said contract or contracts, the several sums of money alleged in the petition, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $7,805.89; that it does not appear that any of said money was used in the purchase of said real estate or any part thereof by said Sarah A., nor does it appear how much money was usual or necessary to maintain said William S. and his family. "11. The court finds that at the time said Sarah A. purchased said lots 9 and 10, to-wit, October 5, 1877, there were three houses situated thereon, from two of which she has received an income from rents in the sum of about. $55 per month, and has also received some income by keeping boarders in the third house, in which said William S. and his family resided, and that she has also received some income from a farm known as the Worl farm, owned by her and which was bought by said William S. from Harrington v. Latta. one Worl, and the deed thereto, dated February 12, 1876, made to Sarah A., and the consideration, $1,500, was credited on said indebtedness owing by said William S. to said Sarah A.; that on July 2, 1882, she received $1,680 from the sale of a quarter section of the Butler county land. "12. The court finds that the indebtedness on which said judgment of Hobbs against Latta was recovered was contracted in the year 1873. "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. "1. As a conclusion of law, the court finds: First, That said judgment of William S. Hobbs against William S. Latta is a lien on said lots 9 and 10, but that the same cannot be enforced by a sale of said lots while they are owned and occupied by said William S. and Sarah A. Latta as a homestead, and that said lots are now owned and occupied by them as a homestead. "2. That the plaintiff is entitled to a decree adjudging said judgment to be a valid and subsisting lien on said lots. 9 and 10, but is not entitled to any of the other remedies prayed for in petition." The judgment and decree of the court was, that plaintiff "Is entitled to and has a valid and subsisting lien by his judgment, from the 20th day of October, 1876, in and to said lots 9 and 10 in block 88 of the city of Lincoln, for security and satisfaction of said judgment, amounting to the sum of $337.93, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the 17th day of February, 1876, and costs to accrue, which is, however, subject to the right of homestead of the defendants, William S. and Sarah A. Latta, which had prior thereto attached to said real estate, and that plaintiff recover of and from said defendants, Sarah A. Latta and William S. Latta, the costs of this action," etc. From this judgment defendants Latta appeal. Pending Harrington v. Latta. the appeal in this court, and on the 19th day of October, 1887, plaintiff filed his petition in error, by which he alleges sundry errors committed by the district court in its findings and judgment. We take it to be the well-established law of this state that a motion for a new trial is necessary to obtain a review of the case on error in this court, and that the errors relied upon should have been specifically pointed out to the district court. M. P. Railroad v. McCartney, 1 Nebraska, 398. Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Id., 117. Stanton County v. Canfield, 10 Id., 390. Russell, Moderator, v. State, ex rel. Armor, 13 Id., 68. Cruts v. Wray, 19 Id., 581. There were no exceptions taken by plaintiff to the findings of fact or conclusions of law as found by the court. Therefore the petition in error need not be noticed. The finding of fact by the district court upon the issues of fact involved in the cause must be taken as final, and they will not be discussed. By them it is found that in 1874 defendant, W. S. Latta, was indebted to his wife in the sum of $5,000 or $6,000; that the Butler county lands were purchased by Eikenbury of W. S. Latta, for value and in good faith, and that he afterwards conveyed the same, bona fide and for value, to defendant, Sarah A. Latta; that the $1,608.75 insurance money referred to in the petition was applied by W. S. Latta to the payment of the indebtedness owing by him to Brush, and that Brush loaned it to Sarah A. Latta, who invested it with other moneys in the purchase of the real estate above referred to, in Cropsey's subdivision, and that Sarah A. Latta paid the purchase price of said land, and repaid the loan to Brush; that the conveyance of lots 9 and 10 to Mozer was made in contemplation of a sale to him, but that the sale failed and that the conveyance to him has always been considered and treated by the parties thereto as of no validity; that the liens on lots 9 and 10 were bona fide and valid, and that the suit brought to foreclose them was |