Woodworth v. Hascall
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from tlie district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Ferguson, J. Tlie facts and issues are stated in the opinion. Some competent evidence was necessary to show tlie value of the insurance policy at the time of conversion. No such evidence having been adduced, there is nothing to support the judgment.
Read the full summary
Error from tlie district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Ferguson, J. Tlie facts and issues are stated in the opinion. Some competent evidence was necessary to show tlie value of the insurance policy at the time of conversion. No such evidence having been adduced, there is nothing to support the judgment. See Barlass v. Brash, 27 Nebr., 212; Peckinbaugh v. Quillin, 12 Nebr., 586; Bmm Iron Co. v. Union Savings Bank, 50 Nebr., 392. Pledgee’s interest is the right to retain the property for security. There can be no forfeiture until pledgor’s rights are foreclosed. See Brotonell v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, C. J.
The defendant in error, it appears, was on October 10, 1890, the owner of an endowment limited payment policy of insurance on his life issued by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, of date March 8, 1886. The annual premium of $539 had been paid for each of the years the policy had been in existence, and on the date we have first mentioned was assigned to the plaintiff in error as security for the payment of $570.50, the amount of a loan then made by him to the defendant in error. It was alleged in a petition filed in this action that the plaintiff in error on June 28,1892, sold and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barney v. DudleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hamilton v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
- Leonard v. SehmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Richtmyer v. Mutual Live Stock Commission Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Nelson v. Hamilton CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Linn v. Dodge County BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1925