First State Bank of Whitman v. Ingrum, No. 21851.

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtMORNING
Citation107 Neb. 468,186 N.W. 334
PartiesFIRST STATE BANK OF WHITMAN v. INGRUM ET AL.
Docket NumberNo. 21851.
Decision Date13 January 1922

107 Neb. 468
186 N.W. 334

FIRST STATE BANK OF WHITMAN
v.
INGRUM ET AL.

No. 21851.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 13, 1922.



Syllabus by the Court.

A transitory action may be brought against two defendants jointly liable in any county in the state where one of the defendants may be served with summons, even though neither defendant is a resident of that county, and thereupon jurisdiction over the other defendant may be acquired by summons served upon him in the county of his residence.

Where an action is commenced against two defendants to enforce a joint liability in a county in which neither defendant resides, and one of the defendants is served in that county and the other in the county of his residence, the latter cannot oust the court of jurisdiction over him by reason of the fact that the defendant who was served in the county where the suit is pending was at the time exempt from the service of summons because he was then in custody of the sheriff and had been brought into and was held in that county solely as a witness in certain criminal actions there pending, since such exemption was a personal privilege which the defendant so served could urge or not as he saw fit, and his codefendant could not claim the privilege for him.

“Error alleged in an instruction to the jury must be called to the attention of the trial court in the motion for a new trial before it will be considered by this court.” Stevenson v. Omaha Transfer Co., 87 Neb. 794, 128 N. W. 503.


Appeal from District Court, Hooker County; E. P. Clements, Judge.

Action by the First State Bank of Whitman against Jesse Ingrum and another for damages for fraud and conspiracy. Verdict and judgment against both defendants, and the defendant Chauncey A. Snyder alone appeals. Affirmed.

[186 N.W. 334]

Geo. W. Wertz, of Schuyler, for appellant.

Wm. C. Heelan, of Valentine, and Horth & Ryan, of Grand Island, for appellee.


Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ALDRICH, and FLANSBURG, JJ., and HOSTETLER and MORNING, District Judges.

MORNING, District Judge.

The First State Bank of Whitman brought this action in the district court for Hooker county against Jesse Ingrum and Chauncey Snyder to recover damages for fraud and conspiracy. There was a verdict and judgment against both defendants, and Snyder appeals to this court.

Appellant contends that the district court for Hooker county did not acquire jurisdiction over him by service of summons upon him in Colfax county, where he resided. The circumstances relative to the matter of service were not such as to enable Snyder to raise the jurisdictional question by special appearance and the matter was properly presented and preserved in his answer.

It appears that Snyder held a note for $3,000 against Ingrum, which was secured by a chattel mortgage upon 64 head of Ingrum's cattle. When said note matured Snyder called upon Ingrum for payment, and the latter not then being able to pay, Snyder offered to reduce the indebtedness to $2,900 if Ingrum would borrow the money elsewhere and liquidate the obligation. Ingrum and Snyder called upon the plaintiff bank, and Ingrum borrowed from the bank $2,900 with which to pay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Brownell v. Adams, No. 27682.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1931
    ...from the one in which the suit is instituted. Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 115 Neb. 770, 215 N. W. 102;First State Bank v. Ingrum, 107 Neb. 468, 186 N. W. 334;Barry v. Wachosky, 57 Neb. 534, 77 N. W. 1080;Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Tate, 96 Neb. 142, 147 N. W. 213;Wiley v. National Sur......
  • Vian v. Hilberg, No. 22551.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 26, 1923
    ...such privilege in this case, could not operate as a waiver of the like privilege of the objecting defendants. First State Bank v. Ingrum, 107 Neb. 468, 186 N. W. 334, distinguished. The letter set out in the opinion held to be a mere expression of the opinion of the writer, and, in the abse......
2 cases
  • Brownell v. Adams, No. 27682.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1931
    ...from the one in which the suit is instituted. Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 115 Neb. 770, 215 N. W. 102;First State Bank v. Ingrum, 107 Neb. 468, 186 N. W. 334;Barry v. Wachosky, 57 Neb. 534, 77 N. W. 1080;Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Tate, 96 Neb. 142, 147 N. W. 213;Wiley v. National Sur......
  • Vian v. Hilberg, No. 22551.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 26, 1923
    ...such privilege in this case, could not operate as a waiver of the like privilege of the objecting defendants. First State Bank v. Ingrum, 107 Neb. 468, 186 N. W. 334, distinguished. The letter set out in the opinion held to be a mere expression of the opinion of the writer, and, in the abse......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT