State v. Byrd

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Byrd

183 N.W.2d 234, 186 Neb. 330, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 702

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 22, 1971

Docket37636

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 N.W.2d 234 (State v. Byrd) 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

State v. Byrd, 183 N.W.2d 234, 186 Neb. 330, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 702 (Neb. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to'set aside a judgment entered against Maryland National Insuraiice Company on the forfeiture of the two $5,000 *331 bail bonds made for Clarence W. Byrd and Daniel J. Ward. We affirm.

The bonds were written on behalf of Maryland by its agent, Hollis Jennings. Notice of an order of forfeiture, dated October 20, 1969, was served on Jennings, and he admits that on or about November 11, 1969, he received a'copy of a motion for default judgment with a notice that it would be called up November 17, 1969. No appearance was made for Maryland, and on November 17, 1969, judgment was entered against it in the amount -of $10,000. No appeal or other proceedings were taken within the time limited, and said judgment became final. On January 26, 1970, after the term at which the judgment was entered had expired, Maryland filed a motion to set aside the judgment. This appeal is prosecuted from the denial of that motion.

Section 25-2001, R. R. S. 1943, provides the grounds on which a district court shall have the power to vacate or modify its judgments or orders after the term at which they were entered has expired. The power to modify or set aside a judgment ends with the adjournment of the term at which it was rendered except as provided in section 25-2001, R. R. S. 1943. Meier v. Nelsen, 156 Neb. 666, 57 N. W. 2d 273. The only ground alleged by Maryland to set aside the judgment was that “* * * justice does not require the forfeiture herein.” This does not come within any of the enumerated grounds for setting aside a judgment after term. In any event, we have reviewed all of the proceedings and find nothing therein to justify the setting aside of the judgment after term time. In an action to vacate judgment after the adjournment of the term, the applicant must allege and prove that he exercised due diligence and that his failure to secure a proper decision Was not due to his fault - or- negligence; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Herpolsheimer Implement Co., 78 Neb. 707, 111 N. W. 606.

The judgment is affirmed.'

- Affirmed.-

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

Spencer, J.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to'set aside a judgment entered against Maryland National Insuraiice Company on the forfeiture of the two $5,000 *331 bail bonds made for Clarence W. Byrd and Daniel J. Ward. We affirm.

The bonds were written on behalf of Maryland by its agent, Hollis Jennings. Notice of an order of forfeiture, dated October 20, 1969, was served on Jennings, and he admits that on or about November 11, 1969, he received a'copy of a motion for default judgment with a notice that it would be called up November 17, 1969. No appearance was made for Maryland, and on November 17, 1969, judgment was entered against it in the amount -of $10,000. No appeal or other proceedings were taken within the time limited, and said judgment became final. On January 26, 1970, after the term at which the judgment was entered had expired, Maryland filed a motion to set aside the judgment. This appeal is prosecuted from the denial of that motion.

Section 25-2001, R. R. S. 1943, provides the grounds on which a district court shall have the power to vacate or modify its judgments or orders after the term at which they were entered has expired. The power to modify or set aside a judgment ends with the adjournment of the term at which it was rendered except as provided in section 25-2001, R. R. S. 1943. Meier v. Nelsen, 156 Neb. 666, 57 N. W. 2d 273. The only ground alleged by Maryland to set aside the judgment was that “* * * justice does not require the forfeiture herein.” This does not come within any of the enumerated grounds for setting aside a judgment after term. In any event, we have reviewed all of the proceedings and find nothing therein to justify the setting aside of the judgment after term time. In an action to vacate judgment after the adjournment of the term, the applicant must allege and prove that he exercised due diligence and that his failure to secure a proper decision Was not due to his fault - or- negligence; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Herpolsheimer Implement Co., 78 Neb. 707, 111 N. W. 606.

The judgment is affirmed.'

- Affirmed.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W.2d 234, 186 Neb. 330, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-byrd-neb-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack