Matteson v. Smith

Nebraska Supreme Court

Matteson v. Smith

86 N.W. 472, 61 Neb. 761, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 115

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1901

DocketNo. 9,625

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 86 N.W. 472 (Matteson v. Smith) 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

Matteson v. Smith, 86 N.W. 472, 61 Neb. 761, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 115 (Neb. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Sullivan, J.

This action was instituted in the district court of Olay county by Fred 0. Matteson, trustee, and the Sutton National Bank to prevent the registration of a formal certificate acknowledging satisfaction of a real estate mortgage and for other relief. The plaintiffs obtained judgment below in accordance with the prayer of their petition and the case was then brought here for review by appeal. The one controlling question in the case is whether the delivery by Matteson to Schaeffle of a mortgage release was absolute or only conditional. This is a question of fact and not of law. The trial court found that the instrument was delivered as an escroAv and the finding is, in our opinion, fully sustained by the evidence. Authorities need not be cited to show that a deed placed in the hands of a third person for delivery to the grantee when he shall perform some condition, is not • legally effective, but is a mere nullity, if delivered by the depositary, or obtained from him in any way, without full compliance with the condition specified. The release in question was still-born and its registration was properly enjoined. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Sullivan, J.

This action was instituted in the district court of Olay county by Fred 0. Matteson, trustee, and the Sutton National Bank to prevent the registration of a formal certificate acknowledging satisfaction of a real estate mortgage and for other relief. The plaintiffs obtained judgment below in accordance with the prayer of their petition and the case was then brought here for review by appeal. The one controlling question in the case is whether the delivery by Matteson to Schaeffle of a mortgage release was absolute or only conditional. This is a question of fact and not of law. The trial court found that the instrument was delivered as an escroAv and the finding is, in our opinion, fully sustained by the evidence. Authorities need not be cited to show that a deed placed in the hands of a third person for delivery to the grantee when he shall perform some condition, is not • legally effective, but is a mere nullity, if delivered by the depositary, or obtained from him in any way, without full compliance with the condition specified. The release in question was still-born and its registration was properly enjoined. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W. 472, 61 Neb. 761, 1901 Neb. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matteson-v-smith-neb-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack