Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03670/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03670-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3670

___________

Sandhills Cattle Feeding, Inc., *

a Nebraska Corporation, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Jeffrey Younkin, * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Defendant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Jeffrey Younkin, *

*

Third-Party Plaintiff/ *

Appellee, *

*

BCD Farms, Inc., Ben Danelson, *

Connie Danelson, *

*

Third-Party Defendants/ *

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2005

Filed: March 15, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2006 Entry ID: 2020856
1

The Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

In the underlying action Sandhills v. Younkin, Sandhills Cattle Feeding, Inc.,

sued Jeffrey Younkin for issuing a check to Sandhills on which Younkin stopped

payment. In that action, Younkin brought a third-party claim against BCD Farms, Inc.

and Ben and Connie Danelson seeking indemnity for any judgment entered against

Younkin. A bench trial was conducted on August 30 and 31, 2004. The district

court1

 concluded that Younkin owed Sandhills $92,120.99 and that BCD Farms was

required to indemnify Younkin, its agent, for any amounts paid by Younkin on the

judgment. The court denied Younkin recovery from the Danelsons personally. 

Neither party disputes the findings of fact set forth in the trial court's order.

Rather, BCD Farms claims that the court erred in its legal conclusions based upon the

evidence presented. BCD Farms claims that Younkin was neither its agent nor was

he authorized by BCD Farms to tender a check and stop payment to Sandhills for the

removal of BCD Farms' cattle from Sandhills on December 31, 2001. Accordingly,

BCD Farms argues that it should not be required to indemnify Younkin for any

amount he pays Sandhills. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, briefs and applicable law, we agree with

the district court's assessment of the issues. Because we have nothing to add to the

thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the court, we affirm without additional

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2006 Entry ID: 2020856