collection claim in Nebraska

1945J. 415, wherein it is said: “A conveyance is declared to be fraudulent when its object or effect is to defraud another, or the intent with which it is made is to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent upon the party making the transfer.” It is also well established in this jurisdiction that: “A conveyance between relatives which has the effect of hindering or delaying a creditor in the collection of his claim is presumptively fraudulent and, in litigation between the creditor and the parties to the conveyance over its alleged invalidity, the burden is on the parties to the conveyance to e

1945J. 415, wherein it is said: “A conveyance is declared to be fraudulent when its object or effect is to defraud another, or the intent with which it is made is to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent upon the party making the transfer.” It is also well established in this jurisdiction that: “A conveyance between relatives which has the effect of hindering or delaying a creditor in the collection of his claim is presumptively fraudulent and, in litigation between the creditor and the parties to the conveyance over its alleged invalidity, the burden is on the parties to the conveyance to e

2020Filley v. Mancuso, 146 Neb. 493 , 20 N.W.2d 318 (1945).

2020Filley v. Mancuso, 146 Neb. 493 , 20 N.W.2d 318 (1945).

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1954Riggs v. Hroch, 133 Neb. 260 , 274 N. W. 598 ; Bank of Brule v. Harper, 141 Neb. 616 , 4 N. W. 2d 609 ; Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 147 Neb. 88 , 22 N. W. 2d 414 ; Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57 , 58 N. W. 2d 600 .

1945McBride v. Helmricks, 140 Neb. 843 , 2 N. W. 2d 118 ; Buckner v. McHugh, 123 Neb. 396 , 243 N. W. 119 ; Hilton v. Clements, supra; Farmers State Bank of Ewing v. Dierks, supra. The son has failed to meet the foregoing rule of law in his proof.

1945McBride v. Helmricks, 140 Neb. 843 , 2 N. W. 2d 118 ; Buckner v. McHugh, 123 Neb. 396 , 243 N. W. 119 ; Hilton v. Clements, supra; Farmers State Bank of Ewing v. Dierks, supra. The son has failed to meet the foregoing rule of law in his proof.

1945And “Where the testimony relied upon to show good faith is given by interested relatives, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their evidence bears considerable weight in arriving at a just conclusion.” Hilton v. Clements, 137 Neb. 791 , 291 N. W. 483 .

1945And “Where the testimony relied upon to show good faith is given by interested relatives, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their evidence bears considerable weight in arriving at a just conclusion.” Hilton v. Clements, 137 Neb. 791 , 291 N. W. 483 .

1942See, also, Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Mann, 129 Neb. 26 , 260 N. W. 559 ; Christensen v. Smith, 128 Neb. 388 , 243 N. W. 118 ; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Sweeney, 124 Neb. 686 , 248 N. W. 67 .

1942See, also, Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Mann, 129 Neb. 26 , 260 N. W. 559 ; Christensen v. Smith, 128 Neb. 388 , 243 N. W. 118 ; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Sweeney, 124 Neb. 686 , 248 N. W. 67 .

1942See, also, Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Mann, 129 Neb. 26 , 260 N. W. 559 ; Christensen v. Smith, 128 Neb. 388 , 243 N. W. 118 ; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Sweeney, 124 Neb. 686 , 248 N. W. 67 .

1905It is sufficient for the holder to declare upon the instrument as the act of the defendants, and if it be ultra vires, he will fail upon the trial of the cause.” So in Red Willow County v. Davis, 49 Neb. 796 , it was held that, “where a petition alleges and a demurrer admits that the plaintiff was employed by the county board to render professional services as a physician for a pauper, the presumption will be indulged that the county board kept within the law in employing the physician, and that a poorhouse had, prior to that time, been established and opened in said county for the reception o

1901The following eases hold that partners, by an agreement among themselves, may make one partner a surety for the payment of the firm creditors and compel the creditors, in the collection of their claim, to deal with him upon the strict rules applicable to the rights of a surety: Stone v. Chamberlin, 20 Ga., 259 ; Hoopes v. McCan, 19 La.

1901Ann., 201 ; Barber v. Gillson, 18 Nev., 89 ; Bell v. Hall, 5 N. J.

1897The rule applicable is thus stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus; of the case of Wilch v. Phelps, 16 Neb., 515 : “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a question directly involved in one suit, is conclusive as to that question in another suit between the same parties; but to this operation of the judgment, it must appear either upon the face of the record, or be shown by extrinsic evidence, that the precise question was raised and determined in the former suit.” No comment is necessary to make clear a fact which is perfectly obvious, and that is, that there was no suc