Farrell v. Bouck

Nebraska Supreme Court

Farrell v. Bouck

86 N.W. 907, 61 Neb. 874, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 139

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1901

DocketNo. 9,306

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 N.W. 907 (Farrell v. Bouck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farrell v. Bouck, 86 N.W. 907, 61 Neb. 874, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 139 (Neb. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Norval, C. J.

This is a rehearing of the case reported in 60 Nebr., 771. An examination of the record, and arguments of counsel, convinces us that the former opinion is right, and must stand. One who, through culpable inertness, fails to make inquiry when it is his duty to do so, is not in a position to have a release of a mortgage canceled on the ground of mistake. Washburn v. Osgood, 38 Nebr., 804; Rice v. Winters, 45 Nebr., 517. There is no averment in the petition, nor finding of fact, that plaintiff examined the record to ascertain whether there were any liens on the land subsequent to that of the mortgage in question sought to be foreclosed. The petition is drafted on the theory that plaintiff was induced to release the mortgage through certain false representations of Ryan. While there is evidence tending to sustain such an averment, the court made no finding whatever on that issue, which is equivalent to a finding that there were no fraudulent representations made by Ryan.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Norval, C. J.

This is a rehearing of the case reported in 60 Nebr., 771. An examination of the record, and arguments of counsel, convinces us that the former opinion is right, and must stand. One who, through culpable inertness, fails to make inquiry when it is his duty to do so, is not in a position to have a release of a mortgage canceled on the ground of mistake. Washburn v. Osgood, 38 Nebr., 804; Rice v. Winters, 45 Nebr., 517. There is no averment in the petition, nor finding of fact, that plaintiff examined the record to ascertain whether there were any liens on the land subsequent to that of the mortgage in question sought to be foreclosed. The petition is drafted on the theory that plaintiff was induced to release the mortgage through certain false representations of Ryan. While there is evidence tending to sustain such an averment, the court made no finding whatever on that issue, which is equivalent to a finding that there were no fraudulent representations made by Ryan.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W. 907, 61 Neb. 874, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-bouck-neb-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack