Court Opinion

ID: 9847772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:07:15.871381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:32.689486
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in this case. However, I do not agree that in all cases the Director of Banking is required to prove the bank is insolvent before proceedings under section 8-195, R. R. S. 1943, may be dismissed.
The banking laws of this state provide for administrative as distinguished from judicial liquidation of insolvent state banks. See Farmers State Bank v. Luikart, 131 Neb. 692, 269 N. W. 627.
Here the director had taken possession of the bank and had filed a declaration of insolvency. There was a presumption the action of the director was valid. In an action under section 8-195, R. R. S. 1943, to enjoin further proceedings, the bank had the burden of going forward with the evidence. This means the bank was *592the party who would be defeated if .no evidence was introduced. ■ The bank’s refusal to proceed after it was ordered to proceed to trial justified the dismissal of the proceedings.