Nelson v. Atkinson
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe district court of Lancaster county. Heard below before Hall, J. Where the evidence shows that an absolute deed is given and intended as security, it should be considered a mortgage, and the right of redemption cannot be limited in time or to a particular person. (Wright v. Mahaffe, 40 N. W. Rep. [Ia.], 112; Scudder -v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., 23 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe district court of Lancaster county. Heard below before Hall, J. Where the evidence shows that an absolute deed is given and intended as security, it should be considered a mortgage, and the right of redemption cannot be limited in time or to a particular person. (Wright v. Mahaffe, 40 N. W. Rep. [Ia.], 112; Scudder -v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., 23 Am. Dec. [N. J.], 772; Wilson v. Giddings, 28 O. St., 554; Scott v. Mewhirter, 49 la., 487; Trucks v. Lindsey, 18 Id., 504; McHugh v. Smiley, 17 Neb., 622; Lapp v. South Omaha Land Syndicate, 24 Id., 692.)
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
Most of the necessary facts for a determination of this controversy will sufficiently appear by the article of agreement made November 12,1888, which is as follows:
“Article of agreement, made this 12th day of November, 1888, by and between C. A. Atkinson and J. L. Doty, parties of the first part, and H. A. Nelson, party of the second part, witnesseth: Whereas said party of the second part has employed said first parties as her attorneys to *578bring, conduct, and prosecute on her behalf an action against Jasper L. Nelson and W. B. Howard; and whereas it is necessary in said action for…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Riley v. StarrNebraska Supreme Court · 1896