Court Opinion

ID: 9737197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:18:40.558427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:57.174320
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, Smith, and McCown, JJ.,
dissenting in part.
Concurring with the result in respect to the interest of Securities, we dissent otherwise. Two problems are: (1) Denial of continuance, and (2) the appellate holding “that Jordan is entitled to judgment against * * * Duane * * * for the * * * price of the cattle sold to Jack.” The record is significant.
Jordan’s pleadings do not state that Duane committed fraud. Jordan freely admits that Securities in good faith gave value. His theory is this: The law permits the immediate transferee of the original purchaser, but not a subsequent transferee, to qualify as a good faith purchaser for value. Licht of course did not qualify. The theory, we think, eventually affected trial rulings.
At the trial one continuance was ordered because of Duane’s hospitalization. No reason was given for denial of his motion for a second continuance. The court found the bills of sale void, but it made no other finding relevant to good faith purchase for value. Securities as well as Duane was denied relief. Yet not a shred of evidence hinted that Securities failed to qualify. The trial court *639surely adopted Jordan’s theory. Licht’s status being conceded, the court probably concluded that Duane would not be a material witness.
Duane may be unable to overcome the strong evidence against him, but his complaint about denial of continuance should not be brushed aside. His position is supported not only by circumstances but by precedent also. See, Horr v. Easton, 114 Neb. 829, 211 N. W. 172; Juckniess v. Howard, 120 Neb. 213, 231 N. W. 843; Annotation, 68 A. L. R. 2d 470. No affidavit was necessary to show that he was a material witness. Furthermore an ample substitute for the affidavit is the majority opinion itself.
The district court found that Jordan had a first lien on the proceeds of sale. It rendered judgment accordingly. Jordan has not cross-appealed. There is neither pleading nor argument that Duane should be held personally liable for the, contract price in the Jordan-Jack transaction. No such issue was decided by the district court. It should not be decided now.