Columbus Bank and Trust Co. v. High Country Stable, 41891
| Citation | 202 Neb. 724,277 N.W.2d 81 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 41891,41891 |
| Parties | COLUMBUS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Nebraska Banking Corporation, Appellee, v. HIGH COUNTRY STABLE, a partnership, Darvin R. Ritchie, Diane F. Ritchie, Gary L. Ritchie, Eugene B. Ley, and M. B. Ley, Appellants. Appeal of William C. KARLIN. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, signatures on a promissory note are admitted, and when the signatures are admitted, production of the instrument entitles the holder to recover unless the defendant establishes a defense.
2. When signatures are admitted, the burden is upon the defendant to plead and prove a defense.
3. When signatures are admitted and the defendant has failed to plead a defense, no fact issue is presented.
4. Existence of a factual dispute relative to issues not framed by the pleadings cannot preclude the rendition of a summary judgment otherwise appropriate.
Kelly, Kelly & Kelly, Grand Island, for appellants.
Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before KRIVOSHA, C. J., BOSLAUGH, CLINTON and WHITE, JJ., and KNAPP, District Judge.
Plaintiff bank brought this action against High Country Stable, a Nebraska partnership; Darvin R. Ritchie, Gary L. Ritchie Eugene B. Ley, and William C. Karlin, the general partners thereof; and Diane F. Ritchie and M. B. Ley, upon a promissory note executed and delivered to plaintiff by High Country Stable and upon written guaranties covering the partnership's indebtedness executed and delivered to plaintiff by Darvin R. Ritchie and Diane F. Ritchie and by Eugene B. Ley and M. B. Ley. The action was stayed as to defendant Karlin following the filing of a Suggestion in Bankruptcy on his behalf. The remaining defendants answered by general denial.
Following extensive discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, alleging that the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with plaintiff's supporting affidavit, showed there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court sustained plaintiff's motion, entered judgment against all remaining defendants and overruled defendants' motion for new trial. Defendants appeal, contending that genuine issues as to material facts remain unresolved. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The deposition of William Karlin established the execution and delivery of the promissory note and nonpayment thereof. Defendants' admissions established the execution and delivery of the guaranties and nonpayment thereunder. Defendants' answer did not specifically deny the signature on the note and, therefore, section 3-307, U.C.C., applies. That section provides: "(1) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings each signature on an instrument is admitted. * * *
"(2) When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diefenbaugh v. Rachow
...be specifically pled to be considered. Lease Northwest v. Davis, 224 Neb. 617, 400 N.W.2d 220 (1987); Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. High Country Stable, 202 Neb. 724, 277 N.W.2d 81 (1979). We have also stated that it is not necessary to state a defense in any particular form as long as the f......
-
Sanitary and Improvement Dist. No. 32 of Sarpy County v. Continental Western Corp.
...to avoid liability on the instrument. Bank of Valley v. Mattson, 215 Neb. 596, 339 N.W.2d 923 (1983); Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. High Country Stable, 202 Neb. 724, 277 N.W.2d 81 (1979). Since the district has not carried its burden in proving this defense, it is likewise unavailing agains......
-
John Deere Co. v. Hand
...of fact was presented to the trial court on Deere's petition, and summary judgment was proper. See, Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. High Country Stable, 202 Neb. 724, 277 N.W.2d 81 (1979); Blaha GMC-Jeep, Inc. v. Frerichs, 211 Neb. 103, 317 N.W.2d 894 (1982). The primary purpose of the summary......
-
AMISUB (Saint Joseph Hosp.) v. Allied Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
...judgment." Pabst v. First American Distrib., Inc., 222 Neb. 591, 594, 386 N.W.2d 422, 424 (1986). In Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. High Country Stable, 202 Neb. 724, 277 N.W.2d 81 (1979), the plaintiff sued on a promissory note and under the above rule was entitled to summary judgment unless......