Court Opinion

ID: 9715606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:10:01.765052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:36.281252
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein. We have permitted the appellees to carry out the settlement we found in 183 Neb. 698 to be unfair. We there said: “No room existed for controversy over fairness *689of the amount claimed by plaintiff. Smith had purchased 729 head of cattle for $103,144.31 with company funds. He fraudulently executed and delivered to Stewart a bill of sale for the animals under date of December 2, 1960.” The settlement agreement provided for items of setoff of $47,308.57. In 183 Neb. 698 we specifically found that an item of $5,700 in the setoff was improper. We also questioned an item of setoff of $19,500; two items totaling $7,801.08 which clearly appear to be improper; and other charges in the amounts of $.11,000 and $2,500.
Obviously, the prior trial included testimony on the items claimed in the setoff. To me it isi apparent that the appellees should be bound by that testimony and they should not be permitted to frame new issues in an attempt to avoid it. The appellants should have been permitted to introduce the record of the previous case. The effect of the present holding is to suggest fraudulent transactions kept in litigation long enough can eventually secure approval.