State v. Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank, 11,882

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtHOLCOMB, J.
Citation85 N.W. 391,61 Neb. 496
PartiesTHE STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. NEBRASKA SAVINGS & EXCHANGE BANK, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM K. POTTER, RECEIVER, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM O. BARTHOLOMEW, A CREDITOR, APPELLANT
Docket Number11,882
Decision Date06 March 1901

85 N.W. 391

61 Neb. 496

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
v.

NEBRASKA SAVINGS & EXCHANGE BANK, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM K. POTTER, RECEIVER, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM O. BARTHOLOMEW, A CREDITOR, APPELLANT

No. 11,882

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 6, 1901


APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below before FAWCETT, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

William O. Bartholomew, for himself.

Frank N. Prout, Attorney General, for the state.

Silas Cobb, for the receiver.

OPINION [85 N.W. 392]

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 [61 Neb. 497] 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, 60 Neb. 713, 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 the law in the accomplishment of the purposes for which the receiver was appointed. The presumptions are all in favor of the regularity of the proceedings and order of the trial court, and the burden of proving the contrary is on the one asserting error, and until such is made to appear affirmatively from the records, the order or judgment complained of will not be disturbed. Wright v. State, 45 Neb. 44, 63 N.W. 147; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 49 Neb. 811, 69 N.W. 125; American Investment Co. v. McGregor, 48 Neb. 779, 67 N.W. 785. The office of the receiver is to aid and assist the court in the collection and distribution of the assets of the insolvent bank. He is, as it were, a special officer of and under the orders and direction of the court. "He is the arm of the court," says NORVAL, J., in State v. Bank of Rushville, 57 Neb. 608, 78...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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