TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kansas City Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Murphy

Kansas City Terra-Cotta Lumber Company v. M. T. Murphy

Kan. City Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Murphy, 68 N.W. 1030 (Neb. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1896
Docket
No. 6822
Judges
Norval
Citations
68 N.W. 103049 Neb. 6741896 Neb. LEXIS 816
Headnotes
Principal and Surety: Forgery. Where the name of one of two sureties in a bond has been forged, the other co-surety is not released, though he signed in the belief that the forged signature was genuine, if the forgery was unknown to the obligee when the instrument was delivered and accepted.
Summary
Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Bush, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Norval

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Norval, J.

This was an action on the same bond declared on in King v. Murphy, 49 Neb., 670 . Plaintiff had judgment in the lower court for the amount of its claim against all the defendants except Ellis and Drexel, as to whom the action was dismissed. The issues and facts in the two *675 cases are alike, with the exception that in this case Ellis, in his answer, sets up that he signed the bond upon the condition that his co-defendant Drexel should also sign the same before delivery; that at the time he executed said bond he was informed by Murphy, the principal thereon, that Drexel’s name appended thereto was genuine; that, relying thereon, he was induced to sign the same; and that since the commencement of this action he has discovered, and alleges the fact to be, that the defendant Drexel never signed said bond, nor authorized any one else to do so for him. The fact that Ellis was induced to sign the bond under the belief that the signature of Drexel attached to the instrument as a co-surety was genuine, when in fact it was forged, is insufficient to constitute a defense, especially as it is not alleged that the obligee was aware of the forgery at the time the bond was accepted. (Lombard v. Mayberry, 24 Neb., 674 , and authorities there cited.) The court erred in releasing Ellis, and the judgment in favor of Drexel is affirmed and that in favor of Ellis is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1900: 11931: 11938: 219002026peak 1938 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Utilities Insurance v. Stuart278 N.W. 827 (Neb. 1938)
  2. Smith v. Packard98 F. 793 (7th Cir. 1900)
  3. Farmers State Bank v. Brock234 N.W. 92 (Neb. 1931)
  4. Department of Banking v. Flotree281 N.W. 857 (Neb. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Department of Banking v. Flotree281 N.W. 857 (Neb. 1938)
  2. Utilities Insurance v. Stuart278 N.W. 827 (Neb. 1938)
  3. Farmers State Bank v. Brock234 N.W. 92 (Neb. 1931)
  4. Smith v. Packard98 F. 793 (7th Cir. 1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Barritt S. King & Co. v. Murphy, 68 N.W. 1029 (Neb. 1896) 15
Lombard v. Mayberry, 24 Neb. 674 (1888) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list