Court Opinion

ID: 9728108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:58:50.377898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:18.821558
License: Public Domain

Pollock, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. It is a well-established rule that proof of the terms of an oral contract to devise or bequeath must be clear, satisfactory, and unequivocal. Dunbier v. Stanton, 170 Neb. 541, 103 N. W. 2d 797; Gerdes v. Omaha Home for Boys, 166 Neb. 574, 89 N. W. 2d 849; McLaughlin v. Heath, 164 Neb. 511, 82 N. W. 2d 533; Drew v. Hawley, 164 Neb. 141, 82 N. W. 2d 4; Wyrick v. Wyrick, 162 Neb. 105, 75 N. W. 2d 376; O’Neal v. First Trust Co., 160 Neb. 469, 70 N. W. 2d 466; Eagan v. Hall, 159 Neb. 537, 68 N. W. 2d 147.
There was no proof of mutual assent, of a meeting of the minds, of the parties as to the exact terms and conditions of the contract. In my opinion, mere proof of an agreement to remember one in a will in an unspecified manner is too indefinite, and the trial court properly directed a verdict.