Opinion

Tober v. Hampton

  • 178 Neb. 858
  • 136 N.W.2d 194
  • 1965 Neb. LEXIS 589
Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 2, 1965
Status
Published
Author
Boslaugh
On the bench
White, Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Brower, Smith, McCown
Cited by
20 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.5%

Overruled in part, on other grounds by Royal Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 193 Neb. 752 (1975)

Loan receipt constituted assignment of claim involving property damage

How later courts described this case

  • Loan receipt constituted assignment of claim involving property damage

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled in part, on other grounds by Royal Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 193 Neb. 752 (1975)

    178 Neb. 858, 136 N.W.2d 194 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Royal Ind. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 193 Neb. 752, 229
    Nebraska Supreme CourtMay 15, 19752 citing opinionsother groundsin partRead it

The opinion

*880 Boslaugh, J.,

concurring.

I concur in the result which the court has reached in this case, but I respectfully submit that the decision should be based upon a different ground.

The trial court found that the alleged loan agreements were in truth and in fact a settlement by the plaintiffs of their claim and the assigned claim of the Robinettes with the Natural Gas Distributing Company. The evidence sustains this finding and is sufficient to sustain a further finding that the settlement was received by the plaintiffs as full compensation for all damages sustained. Such a settlement effects a release of the defendants from any liability to the plaintiffs in this action. Fitzgerald v. Union Stock Yards Co., 89 Neb. 393 , 131 N. W. 612 , 33 L. R. A. N. S. 983. It would seem to me that this is the proper ground upon which to base the dismissal of the action.

If the Natural Gas Distributing Company has no right to contribution or indemnity from the defendants in this action, then the assignment of the plaintiffs’ rights to the Natural Gas Distributing Company was ineffective and the plaintiffs remain as the real parties in interest. If their cause of action against the defendants has not been satisfied by the settlement which the plaintiffs made with the Natural Gas Distributing Company, the action should be allowed to proceed. In the event of a recovery by the plaintiffs in this action, the defendants would be entitled to the benefit of the partial satisfaction which the plaintiffs have received from the Natural Gas Distributing Company.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.