TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Central Nebraska National Bank v. Cline

Central Nebraska National Bank v. W. H. Cline

Cent. Neb. Nat'l Bank v. Cline, 70 N.W. 512 (Neb. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 17, 1897
Docket
No. 7151
Judges
Ryan
Citations
70 N.W. 51251 Neb. 631897 Neb. LEXIS 247
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Revie-w: Conflicting Evidence. A judgment -will not be reversed when, on appeal, there is presented only a question of fact determined by the district court on consideration of fairly conflicting evidence.
Summary
Appeal from the district court of Custer county. Heard below before Neyille, 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 — Ryan

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

Ryan, C.

The Tarrytown National-Bank claims its right under the Central Nebraska National Bank, so that only the contentions of the latter need receive attention. This action in the district court of Custer county was brought by the bank last above named for the enforcement of a lien against lot 16, block 97, Railroad Addition to the town of Broken Bow. Originally this lot was owned by the Lincoln Land Company, whose agent at Broken Bow was the firm of Coliman & Inman. W. H. Cline purchased this lot and a deed accordingly was sent to Coliman & Inman by the Lincoln Land Company to be deliv *64 ered to Oline. Coliman & Inman, as a firm, was engaged in the business of banking at Broken Bow. W. II. Cline was largely indebted to tbis firm for moneys loaned, in .part, to improve tbe aforesaid lot 16. Tbe banking firm was afterward succeeded by tbe Central Nebraska National Bank, and tbe indebtedness of Mr. Cline thereby became an indebtedness owing tbis national bank. Tbe sole question presented by tbis appeal is whether or not tbe deed of lot 16 aforesaid was, by agreement between Coliman & Inman and W. EL Cline, to be held as security for tbe indebtedness owing said firm by Cline. Tbe judgment of tbe district court was adverse to the national bank’s claim through Coliman & Inman, and, impliedly therefrom, there must be assumed a corresponding finding upon tbe question above indicated, as one of fact. There was sharply conflicting evidence upon tbis fact proposition, and we must therefore assume, conclusively, that there was no agreement by Cline that bis deed should be held as security. Whether such an agreement would be enforced in tbis state if established by proof we are not called upon to determine. Tbe judgment of tbe district court is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1899: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Masonic Accident Ass'n v. Burr77 N.W. 1098 (Neb. 1899)

Most recent

  1. National Masonic Accident Ass'n v. Burr77 N.W. 1098 (Neb. 1899)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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