State v. Neb. Sav. & Exch. Bank

Citation61 Neb. 496,85 N.W. 391
PartiesSTATE v. NEBRASKA SAV. & EXCH. BANK ET AL.
Decision Date06 March 1901
CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It will be presumed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, that there was before the trial court, acting on a motion to approve the report of a receiver and the objections thereto, evidence sufficient to support the order made.

2. All presumptions are in favor of the regularity of the proceedings and the order of the trial court, and the burden of proving the contrary is on the one asserting error, and, until such is made to affirmatively appear from the record, the order or judgment complained of will not be disturbed.

3. A receiver of an insolvent bank appointed by the district court, for the purpose of taking charge of its assets and winding up its affairs, is a special officer of the court, and his report, being verified, is prima facie evidence of its correctness, and entitled to the same consideration as the return of any other officer of the court, and, in order to be impeached, must be overcome by other competent evidence.

4. The allowance of compensation of a receiver for his services is largely in the discretion of the trial court having charge of the receivership,and unless it is made to affirmatively appear that the amount allowed is erroneous, and there has been an abuse of discretion, the order of allowance will be sustained.

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Fawcett, Judge.

Action by the state of Nebraska against the Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank and others. From an order confirming a report of the receiver, William O. Bartholomew appeals. Affirmed.

William O. Bartholomew, in pro. per.

Silas Cobb, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HOLCOMB, J.

From an order approving and confirming a report of the receiver in the matter of winding up the affairs of the Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank, an appeal is taken by the appellant, on objections and exceptions entered by him against the acceptance of the report, as a creditor of the institution in the control of the receiver. No bill of exceptions has been preserved, and the case is before us on a transcript of the record. It will be presumed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, that there was before the trial court, acting on the motion to approve the report and upon the exceptions thereto, evidence sufficient to support the order made. Fisk v. Thorp (Neb.) 84 N. W. 79;Van Etten v. Test, 49 Neb. 725, 68 N. W. 1023.

Complaint is made because the form of the report of items of debit and credit is according to rules of double-entry bookkeeping. This objection does not go to the correctness of the report, but only to its form. The one question is whether the receipts and expenditures by the receiver are in accordance with the directions of the court, and in conformity with law, in the accomplishment of the purposes for which the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 6, 1901
    ...85 N.W. 391 61 Neb. 496 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. NEBRASKA SAVINGS & EXCHANGE BANK, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM ......
  • McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Davis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 6, 1901
    ...61 Neb. 40685 N.W. 390MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. ...T. Davis acted as agent at Nebraska City, in this state, for the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in the sale ......
  • McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Davis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 6, 1901
    ...85 N.W. 390 61 Neb. 406 MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACHINE COMPANY v. M. B. DAVIS ...T. Davis acted as agent at Nebraska City, in this. state, for the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in the. sale ......

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