Frenzer v. Richards
| Decision Date | 04 April 1900 |
| Parties | FRENZER v. RICHARDS. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
FRENZER
v.
RICHARDS.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
April 4, 1900.
1. An assignment of error directed against a group of instructions will be considered no further than to ascertain that one of the instructions complained of was properly given.
2. Where the error in the giving of instructions is not so assigned that it can be reviewed, a verdict in accord with such instructions must be permitted to stand.
3. A borrower under an usurious contract, who pledged property as security for the loan, and who has paid or tendered the principal of the loan, is entitled to the possession of the property pledged, devested of the lien.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Slabaugh, Judge.
Action by James Richards against Joseph P. Frenzer. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
W. J. Clair and Charles S. Lobingier, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Burbank, for defendant in error.
SULLIVAN, J.
James Richards sued Joseph P. Frenzer to recover the possession of specific chattels. The order of delivery was not executed, and the action, proceeding as one for damages only, resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The property in controversy was certain jewelry which Richards deposited with Frenzer as security for a loan of $150. Whether the money loaned belonged to the defendant or to one Dr. Roy is a matter involved in considerable doubt. It is certain, however, that the jewelry was held by Frenzer, and that the interest payments, amounting to 5 per cent. per month, were made to him. After a large amount of usurious interest had been paid, the rights of Dr. Roy, if he had any, were transferred to Mrs. Hitchcock, but the custody of the pledge was not changed. The plaintiff paid the defendant $126 as interest. He tendered him $24 more, and then brought suit to recover possession of the jewelry. The principal contention of the defendant is that he was a mere agent of both Roy and Hitchcock, and that his agency had been terminated before the offer to pay the last $24 was made. The plaintiff insists that he had no business relations at any time with either Dr. Roy or Mrs. Hitchcock, and that from the beginning to the end of the transaction he dealt with Frenzer as the lender of the $150 and the pledgee of the property. It is conceded by counsel for defendant
[82 N.W. 318]
that the jury, under the instructions of the court, were warranted in finding in favor of the plaintiff; but he earnestly...
To continue reading
Request your trial