Luikart v. Schmidt

I respectfully dissent from the new opinion now adopted. It is said that the previous opinion (136 Neb. 497, 287 N. W. 687) follows two authorities. The opinion now adopted accepts the view of a West Virginia case, Dunn v. Bank of Union, 74 W. Va. 594, 82 S. E. 758, saying: “The rule declared in the- West Virginia case seems to us the better rule in accomplishing the purpose which the constitutional superadded liability was intended to serve;” and says this West Virginia case has been adopted as a “text statement” in 7 Am. Jur. 97, sec. 119. However, in the same section the “text statement”…