creditor claim in Nebraska

1941This court has held: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment, and who has neither a general nor specific lien on his debtor’s property, is not entitled to have such property impounded as security for the claim, nor is such creditor entitled to an injunction restraining his debtor from disposing of some or all of his property.” Brumbaugh v. Jones, 70 Neb. 786 , 98 N. W. 54 .

1929And in Brumbaugh v. Jones, 70 Neb. 786 , the above rule, in language that was specifically plain, was announced: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment, and who has neither a general nor specific lien on his debtor’s property, is not entitled to have such property impounded as security for the claim, nor is such creditor entitled to an injunction restraining his debtor from disposing of some or all of his property.” Reversible error has not been pointed out.

1904Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. Richardson, 57 Neb. 617 .

1903In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. Richardson, 57 Neb. 617 , it is held: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to a judgment, and who has neither a general nor specific lien on his debtor’s property, is not entitled to have such property impounded as security for the claim.” In Merchants Nat.

2020Id.

2017HINRICHSEN, INC. v. MESSERSMITH VENTURES Cite as 296 Neb. 712 Messersmith Ventures does not appear to dispute that RAM’s debt to JMH reflected in the judgment against RAM in case No. C112-88, arose before the transfer at issue, nor does it appear to dispute that RAM was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.

1941To the same effect is the holding of this court in First State Bank v. Kastle, 118 Neb. 630 , 225 N. W. 776 .

1941To the same effect is the holding of this court in First State Bank v. Kastle, 118 Neb. 630 , 225 N. W. 776 .

1941This court has held: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment, and who has neither a general nor specific lien on his debtor’s property, is not entitled to have such property impounded as security for the claim, nor is such creditor entitled to an injunction restraining his debtor from disposing of some or all of his property.” Brumbaugh v. Jones, 70 Neb. 786 , 98 N. W. 54 .

1940“The fact that the president and vice-president are personally interested in a transaction is sufficient to put the creditor on inquiry as to their authority to pay their individual debts with funds of the bank.” On the second appeal of this case, in 124 Neb. 880 , 248 N. W. 645 , the holdings were made even more clear.

1940“The fact that the president and vice-president are personally interested in a transaction is sufficient to put the creditor on inquiry as to their authority to pay their individual debts with funds of the bank.” On the second appeal of this case, in 124 Neb. 880 , 248 N. W. 645 , the holdings were made even more clear.

1932State v. Thedford Bank, 114 Neb. 534 .

1903To sustain this attachment would be to permit the respondent to make itself a preferred creditor, which is the very gist of its complaint against the appellant in its treatment of another creditor.” In Foster v. Mullanphy Planing Mill Co., 92 Mo. 79 , 4 S. W. 260 , 263, an insolvent corporation transferred its assets to a creditor whose claim was also secured by the indorsement of the directors of the debtor corporation.

1903Bank v. McDonald, 63 Neb. 363 , this court hold: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment can not maintain an action against an insolvent corporation for the ratable distribution of its assets among its creditors.” The appellee in his brief uses this language: “We deem it useless to discuss the only questions argued by the appellant, namely: (1) Is a holder of a contract in defendant’s company, a stockholder? (2) A common contract creditor is not , entitled to the appointment of a receiver.

1903Bank v. McDonald, 63 Neb. 363 , this court hold: “A creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment can not maintain an action against an insolvent corporation for the ratable distribution of its assets among its creditors.” The appellee in his brief uses this language: “We deem it useless to discuss the only questions argued by the appellant, namely: (1) Is a holder of a contract in defendant’s company, a stockholder? (2) A common contract creditor is not , entitled to the appointment of a receiver.