Beindorff v. Kaufman
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Hopewell, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the record do not in law constitute duress or undue influence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Hopewell, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the record do not in law constitute duress or undue influence. (Sanford v. Sornborger, 26 Neb., 295; Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me., 482; Mundy v. Whittemore, 15 Neb.,. 647; Sornborger v. Sanford, 34 Neb.,'498; Com/pton v. Bunker Hill Bank, 96 111., 301; Greene v. Scranage, 19 la., 461; Banda v. Obert, 45 Tex., 539; Weber v. Barrett,. 25 N. E. Rep. [N. Y.], 1068; Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me., 227; Bodine v. Morgan, 37…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
This action was for the foreclosure of a mortgage securing the payment of three promissory notes given by David Kaufman and Kaufman Bros, to Charles Beindorff. The mortgage was made by Levi Kaufman and his wife, the parents of the makers of said notes. The defenses interposed by the mortgagors were duress, and' that the mortgage was given to compound a felony, alleged to have been committed by David Kaufman. From a decree canceling the aforesaid mortgage an appeal has been taken to this court.
On the trial there was introduced evidence, and in this court argument is directed to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sanford v. SornborgerNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Giddings v. Iowa Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Gorringe v. ReedUtah Supreme Court · 1901
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Grasso v. DeanNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
- Carek v. SchmidtNebraska Supreme Court · 1934