Shafer v. Beatrice State Bank

• Decision Date: 05 February 1916
• Docket Number: 18326
• Citation: 156 N.W. 632,99 Neb. 317
• Parties: CLARENCE L. SHAFER, ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLANT, v. BEATRICE STATE BANK, APPELLEE
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

156 N.W. 632

99 Neb. 317

CLARENCE L. SHAFER, ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLANT, v. BEATRICE STATE BANK, APPELLEE

No. 18326

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 5, 1916

APPEAL from the district court for Gage county: LEANDER M PEMBERTON, Judge. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Burkett Wilson & Brown, for appellant.

Sackett & Brewster, contra.

SEDGWICK J. FAWCETT, J., not sitting.

OPINION

SEDGWICK, J.

In April, 1912, Mary V. Shafer, with her daughter Lois Ripley, and O. A. Ripley, the husband of Lois, executed and delivered to the Beatrice State Bank a promissory note for $ 1,100, payable one year after date. Afterwards Mary V. Shafer began this action in the district court for Gage county, and in April, 1913, Clarence L. Shafer filed an amended petition therein, as administrator of the estate of Mary V. Shafer, in which he alleged that Mary V. Shafer "departed this life * * * on the 24th day of November, 1912," and that thereafter he was duly appointed administrator of her estate. In his amended petition he asks "that the defendant, the Beatrice State Bank, be perpetually enjoined from selling, negotiating, indorsing or transferring the said note, and that the said note as to the said Mary V. Shafer and her estate be canceled, annulled and held for naught, and for such other, further and different relief as equity may require." It appears that O. A. Ripley had sold a note in the same amount to the bank, which bore the name of John Wignall as maker, and in which Mr. Ripley was payee. Mr. Wignall denied his signature to the note and refused to pay the same, and afterwards, as a witness in the case, testified that he never signed the note and did not know that the note had been executed to Mr. Ripley. The note executed by Mrs. Shafer was given in lieu of the Wignall note, and it was alleged that Mrs. Shafer's signature to this note was procured by duress by Mr. Harden, the vice-president of the bank, and that this note was given on an agreement to compound a felony and prevent a prosecution against Mr. Ripley for forging the Wignall note. The defendant admitted purchasing the Wignall note, and alleged that it was a forgery, admitted that the note now in question was taken by the bank in lieu of the Wignall note, and denied that this note was procured by duress or that there was any agreement to compound the felony. The court found generally in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.

It appears that a meeting was held by the various parties interested, at which the plaintiff Clarence L. Shafer, Mr Ripley, and Mrs. Shafer, and two daughters of Mrs. Shafer, Mrs. Ripley and Mrs. Ella Doty, and Thomas Harden, the vice-president of the bank, were present. This plaintiff and Mrs. Doty testified directly and positively to language used by Mr. Harden and statements made by him which would strongly tend to prove the allegations of the petition. Mrs. Ripley testified that she was present during the whole transaction, and she as emphatically denied that any such language was used by Mr. Harden or any such statements made by him. Mr. Harden was called as a witness in behalf of the bank and was asked to testify in regard to the transaction of the execution of the note. This was objected to under the statute on the ground that he had direct legal interest in the result of the suit and could not be allowed to testify to conversations and transactions between himself and the deceased maker of the note. This objection was...