form claim in Nebraska

1996State v. Bolton, 210 Neb. 694 , 316 N.W.2d 619 (1982).

1996State v. Bolton, 210 Neb. 694 , 316 N.W.2d 619 (1982).

1989The only points raised are the technical points as to the appropriate form of claim and of payment, discussed and determined adversely to the county in In re Claim of Rehm and Faesser, 226 Neb. 107, 410 N.W.2d 92 (1987).

1989The only points raised are the technical points as to the appropriate form of claim and of payment, discussed and determined adversely to the county in In re Claim of Rehm and Faesser, 226 Neb. 107, 410 N.W.2d 92 (1987).

1942But our court has said: “Though the claim was not, perhaps, in strict compliance with the law, nevertheless, under our decisions, the board was vested with jurisdiction,, regardless of the irregularity of the form in which the claim was presented.” Bartlett v. Dahlsten, 104 Neb. 738 , 178 N. W. 636 .

1942But our court has said: “Though the claim was not, perhaps, in strict compliance with the law, nevertheless, under our decisions, the board was vested with jurisdiction,, regardless of the irregularity of the form in which the claim was presented.” Bartlett v. Dahlsten, 104 Neb. 738 , 178 N. W. 636 .

1938The following is a form of this rule which this court has approved, viz.: “Language used in a co'ntract prepared by one of the parties thereto, which is susceptible to more than one construction, should receive such a construction as the party preparing the same at the time supposed the other party would give to it, or such a construction as the other party would be fairly justified in giving to it.” Flory v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, 98 Neb. 160 , 152 N. W. 295 .

1938The following is a form of this rule which this court has approved, viz.: “Language used in a co'ntract prepared by one of the parties thereto, which is susceptible to more than one construction, should receive such a construction as the party preparing the same at the time supposed the other party would give to it, or such a construction as the other party would be fairly justified in giving to it.” Flory v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, 98 Neb. 160 , 152 N. W. 295 .

1931In a different form this principle was stated as follows: “A bank that appropriates a deposit made by a customer to reduce his indebtedness due the bank, knowing the deposit, or a part thereof, to be a trust fund, is liable to the true owner for a conversion of his money, and an action at law to recover the amount can be maintained.” Globe Savings Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 64 Neb. 413 .

1926Rapp v. Sarpy County, 11 Neb. 382 ; O’Brien Co. v. Omaha Water Co., 83 Neb. 71 .

1920State v. Board of County Commissioners, 60 Neb. 566 ; State v. Farrington, 80 Neb. 628 ; Gibson v. Sherman County, 97 Neb. 79 .

1920State v. Board of County Commissioners, 60 Neb. 566 ; State v. Farrington, 80 Neb. 628 ; Gibson v. Sherman County, 97 Neb. 79 .

1920State v. Board of County Commissioners, 60 Neb. 566 ; State v. Farrington, 80 Neb. 628 ; Gibson v. Sherman County, 97 Neb. 79 .

1911The tenth request of the defendant was as follows: “The court instructs the jury that, if -they believe from the evidence that the only evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant is the testimony of the prosecuting Avitness, Emma Sutorious, and that her testimony on any material point is untrue, then the jury is at liberty to disregard her Avhole testimony.” This form of instruction appears to have been approved by the supreme court of West Virginia in a-prosecution for rape (State v. Perry, 41 W.

1909That paragraph reads as follows: “You are instructed, gentlemen of the jury, that the defendant in this case has taken the stand and testified in his own behalf, and that this under the law he is entitled to do, and you are bound to consider his testimony; but, in determining what weight you will give the testimony, you may weigh it as you would the testimony of any other witness, and you may take into consideration his interest in the result of the trial, and give to his testimony such weight as under all the circumstances you think it is entitled to.” This form of instruction was approved in