Gorham v. John F. Kennedy College, Inc.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Gorham v. John F. Kennedy College, Inc.

217 N.W.2d 919, 191 Neb. 790, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1003, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 953

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 1974

Docket39307

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 N.W.2d 919 (Gorham v. John F. Kennedy College, Inc.) 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

Gorham v. John F. Kennedy College, Inc., 217 N.W.2d 919, 191 Neb. 790, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1003, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 953 (Neb. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Newton, J.

• This is an action on several promissory notes executed by defendant and delivered to Grant G. Fiedler for a valuable consideration. They were assigned to plain *791 tiff after 'maturity.' The exécútion and delivery of the notes is conceded. The sole defense is that the notes were discharged by a written' renunciation signed by the payee and delivered to defendant. ' Judgment was entered for the defendant. We reverse. ,.

.The sole question presented is the legal-effect of the alleged renunciation which is as follows:'-“I will surrender my notes in the amount of $8,500.00 to John F. Kennedy College; Grant G. Fiedler, RFD 1, Cerescó,' Nebr.” . ' .

Section 3-605, U. C. C., provides: “(1) The holder of an instrument may even without consideration discharge any-party * * *

“(b)j- by renouncing his rights by a writing. signed; and delivered or by surrender of the instrument to the party to be discharged;”

: By renunciation is.meant the abandonment of. a right. See Black’s Law Dictionary (Deluxe 4th Ed.),- p; 1462. . The words “I will” in the sense here used connote future action.' See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. The language used does not indicate an outright renunciation of the payee’s rights under the notes as of-,the time the instrument was executed. Rather, it appears to have reference to the second clause of sec--; tion 3-605 (1) (b), U. C. C., regarding discharge by surrender of the notes. Viewed in this light the instrument is simply a promise, made without consideration, to surrender the notes at some time in the future. The' promise is not enforceable and without an actual sur-. render of. the notes they have not been discharged.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and, since under the pleadings and - the evidence the sole issue presented is the' issue of law here determined, the District Court is directed to enter'judgment for the plaintiff. - ■

Reversed and remanded.

BoslAugh, J., concurs in the result.

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

Newton, J.

• This is an action on several promissory notes executed by defendant and delivered to Grant G. Fiedler for a valuable consideration. They were assigned to plain *791 tiff after 'maturity.' The exécútion and delivery of the notes is conceded. The sole defense is that the notes were discharged by a written' renunciation signed by the payee and delivered to defendant. ' Judgment was entered for the defendant. We reverse. ,.

.The sole question presented is the legal-effect of the alleged renunciation which is as follows:'-“I will surrender my notes in the amount of $8,500.00 to John F. Kennedy College; Grant G. Fiedler, RFD 1, Cerescó,' Nebr.” . ' .

Section 3-605, U. C. C., provides: “(1) The holder of an instrument may even without consideration discharge any-party * * *

“(b)j- by renouncing his rights by a writing. signed; and delivered or by surrender of the instrument to the party to be discharged;”

: By renunciation is.meant the abandonment of. a right. See Black’s Law Dictionary (Deluxe 4th Ed.),- p; 1462. . The words “I will” in the sense here used connote future action.' See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. The language used does not indicate an outright renunciation of the payee’s rights under the notes as of-,the time the instrument was executed. Rather, it appears to have reference to the second clause of sec--; tion 3-605 (1) (b), U. C. C., regarding discharge by surrender of the notes. Viewed in this light the instrument is simply a promise, made without consideration, to surrender the notes at some time in the future. The' promise is not enforceable and without an actual sur-. render of. the notes they have not been discharged.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and, since under the pleadings and - the evidence the sole issue presented is the' issue of law here determined, the District Court is directed to enter'judgment for the plaintiff. - ■

Reversed and remanded.

BoslAugh, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 N.W.2d 919, 191 Neb. 790, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1003, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorham-v-john-f-kennedy-college-inc-neb-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack