70 N.W. 42 (Neb. 1897), 7028, Tecumseh National Bank v. Saunders

Docket Nº:7028
Citation:70 N.W. 42, 50 Neb. 521
Opinion Judge:RYAN, C.
Party Name:TECUMSEH NATIONAL BANK v. ANNA B. SAUNDERS
Attorney:John H. Ames, C. Gillespie, and S. P. Davidson, for plaintiff in error. T. Appelget, J. Hall Hitchcock, and L. C. Chapman, contra.
Judge Panel:RYAN, C. NORVAL, J. dissenting. NORVAL NORVAL, J.
Case Date:February 03, 1897
Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 42

70 N.W. 42 (Neb. 1897)

50 Neb. 521

TECUMSEH NATIONAL BANK

v.

ANNA B. SAUNDERS

No. 7028

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 3, 1897

ERROR from the district court of Johnson county. Tried below before BABCOCK, J. Reversed.

REVERSED.

John H. Ames, C. Gillespie, and S. P. Davidson, for plaintiff in error.

T. Appelget, J. Hall Hitchcock, and L. C. Chapman, contra.

RYAN, C. NORVAL, J. dissenting.

OPINION

RYAN, C.

There was a judgment in favor of Anna B. Saunders in the district court of Johnson county, of which the judgment defendant seeks a reversal in this court. With this there were submitted eight other cases, in each of which the Tecumseh National Bank was the plaintiff in error, the defendants in error being, respectively, Andrew Head, Ann Smith, Sarah A. Brown, Allora Hull, Elias Young, Alice Kershaw, Jane Turner, and Luke Corson. On behalf of all parties, it was earnestly requested on the argument that the evidence should be considered with reference to its sufficiency to sustain a verdict, and, if there was not sufficient for that purpose, that this court should so indicate, thereby enabling the parties litigant in all the cases to avoid further costs, for it was conceded by each party that in any further trial of either case the evidence must necessarily be the same as is contained in the bill of exceptions herein submitted for our examination We have, therefore, given the careful examination to the evidence which the interests involved demand, and shall, without separate discussions, direct in each case such [50 Neb. 522] future action to be taken as we shall find to be proper from our consideration of this evidence.

The original petition in this case was filed August 19, 1893, against the Tecumseh National Bank, as successor of the Banking Association of Russell & Holmes, for the collection of a certain indebtedness of Russell & Holmes, as to which, it was alleged, the Tecumseh National Bank was liable. As requested, we have undertaken to determine as to this liability upon consideration of the evidence and shall, therefore, forbear a review of the pleadings.

There is no question made that the corporation known by the name of Russell & Holmes was indebted to Anna B. Saunders as claimed, upon two certificates of deposit, one of which was for $ 150, dated June 11, 1889, the other for $ 250, dated July...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP