First National Bank v. State ex rel. O'Brien

Nebraska Supreme Court

First National Bank v. State ex rel. O'Brien

94 N.W. 633, 68 Neb. 482, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 192

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1903

DocketNo. 12,740

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 N.W. 633 (First National Bank v. State ex rel. O'Brien) 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

First National Bank v. State ex rel. O'Brien, 94 N.W. 633, 68 Neb. 482, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 192 (Neb. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Pound, C.

This case must turn upon the validity of four several assignments given by the relator to the plaintiff in error, intervener in the court below. Relator was county attorney of Platte county. The assignments were executed and delivered on April 23, May 1, May 2 and June 6, 1961, and purport to assign salary to be earned by relator during the year 1902. More exactly, thej direct the county clerk to deliver warrants to be issued in 1902, for salary to be earned during that year, to the plaintiff in error. It would be difficult to find a proposition more thoroughly established in the reports than the invalidity of such transactions. An assignment of the salary or fees of a public officer to be earned in the future is contrary to public policy and void. Bliss v. Lawrence, 58 N. Y. 442; Bowery Nat. Bank of New York v. Wilson, 122 N. Y. 478, 25 N. E. 855; Bangs v. Dunn, 66 Cal. 72, 4 Pac. 963; National Bank of El Paso v. Fink, 86 Tex. 303, 24 S. W. 256; State v. Williamson, 118 Mo. 146, 23 S. W. 1054; Township of Wayne v. Cahill, 49 N. J. Law 144, 6 Atl. 621; Schwenk v. Wyckoff, 46 N. J. Eq. 560, 20 Atl. 259; Schloss v. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 266, 1 So. 263; Field v. Chipley, 79 Ky. 260; Steven[483]*483son v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 24 S. E. 886; Dickinson v. Johnson, 110 Ky. 236, 61 S. W. 267; State v. Barnes, 10 S. Dak. 306, 73 N. W. 80. An assignment of a current quarter’s salary before expiration of the quarter, as in Brackett v. Blake, 7 Met. (Mass.) 335; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596, 16 S. W. 464, might be another thing, although the court considered such an assignment void in Stevenson v. Kyle, supra. In the case at bar the assignments were made before any of the salary assigned had been earned, and were clearly invalid.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

Barnes and Oldham, 00., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Pound, C.

This case must turn upon the validity of four several assignments given by the relator to the plaintiff in error, intervener in the court below. Relator was county attorney of Platte county. The assignments were executed and delivered on April 23, May 1, May 2 and June 6, 1961, and purport to assign salary to be earned by relator during the year 1902. More exactly, thej direct the county clerk to deliver warrants to be issued in 1902, for salary to be earned during that year, to the plaintiff in error. It would be difficult to find a proposition more thoroughly established in the reports than the invalidity of such transactions. An assignment of the salary or fees of a public officer to be earned in the future is contrary to public policy and void. Bliss v. Lawrence, 58 N. Y. 442; Bowery Nat. Bank of New York v. Wilson, 122 N. Y. 478, 25 N. E. 855; Bangs v. Dunn, 66 Cal. 72, 4 Pac. 963; National Bank of El Paso v. Fink, 86 Tex. 303, 24 S. W. 256; State v. Williamson, 118 Mo. 146, 23 S. W. 1054; Township of Wayne v. Cahill, 49 N. J. Law 144, 6 Atl. 621; Schwenk v. Wyckoff, 46 N. J. Eq. 560, 20 Atl. 259; Schloss v. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 266, 1 So. 263; Field v. Chipley, 79 Ky. 260; Steven[483]*483son v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 24 S. E. 886; Dickinson v. Johnson, 110 Ky. 236, 61 S. W. 267; State v. Barnes, 10 S. Dak. 306, 73 N. W. 80. An assignment of a current quarter’s salary before expiration of the quarter, as in Brackett v. Blake, 7 Met. (Mass.) 335; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596, 16 S. W. 464, might be another thing, although the court considered such an assignment void in Stevenson v. Kyle, supra. In the case at bar the assignments were made before any of the salary assigned had been earned, and were clearly invalid.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

Barnes and Oldham, 00., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.W. 633, 68 Neb. 482, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-state-ex-rel-obrien-neb-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack