State v. Keim
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from Lancaster county. Two points were especially relied on in the court below. 1. That the petition does not show that the state is the real party in interest. 2. That the petition does not show that the money was deposited pursuant to any law or authority. Hpon the first point we say: The defendants are not in a position on this demurrer to contest this point.
Read the full summary
Error from Lancaster county. Two points were especially relied on in the court below. 1. That the petition does not show that the state is the real party in interest. 2. That the petition does not show that the money was deposited pursuant to any law or authority. Hpon the first point we say: The defendants are not in a position on this demurrer to contest this point. The allegation of the petition is that the state deposited it under an agreement that it should be delivered up on demand. And that demand had been made for it. There is not anything on the face of the petition to show any…
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
The state, by the attorney general and other attorneys, brought this action against the defendants for two thousand dollars, which it is alleged in the petition it deposited with the defendants, who were copartners in the business of banking at the city of Falls City, in the state of Nebraska, under the style and firm name of C. L. Keim & Co., for safe keeping, to be delivered to the -said plaintiff on demand. That the same was afterwards demanded and payment thereof refused, etc.
Keim, one of the defendants, demurred to the petir tion, and assigned, with other grounds of demurrer, that the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Lawson v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- State v. HillNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- State ex rel. First National Bank v. BartleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Allibone v. AmesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- McIntosh v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.