Court Opinion

ID: 9725317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:40:49.579515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:14.014862
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
concurring.
It appears necessary to point out in the instant case that the issues contained in the pleadings do not include any contention that there was a modification of the deposit agreement made in writing at the time the deposit was made. The sole issue as shown by the pleadings and the briefs was whether or not the deposit was one for a special purpose which authorized the bank to charge the amounts of the two Sherlock checks to plaintiff’s account. The holding of the majority that the deposit was a general deposit, with which the minority takes no exception, disposes of the issues correctly.
*688That there can be a modification of a written contract before breach by parol without a new consideration is not questioned. I submit, however, that the situation in the present case is nothing more than an attempt to vary the terms of a written contract by parol. There is no evidence of any ' attempt to' modify the deposit agreement and the bank does not so plead or otherwise contend. If a bank may avoid a wrongful withdrawal of funds on general deposit by asserting an uncorroborated authorization by telephone, which is flatly denied by the depositor, the very purpose of written contracts is subverted and the deposit of money in a bank as a place of safekeeping becomes a myth.
The evidence shows that the two checks were in the bank for payment when plaintiff made his deposit. The account on which they were drawn did not contain sufficient funds for their payment. If they were to be unconditionally paid from plaintiff’s account, it would seem that authorization could have been obtained at that, time. But instead, a written contract for a general deposit was entered into. All negotiations were merged in the deposit contract. The evidence of the bank’s employee that he obtained oral authorization by telephone, which was unequivocally denied by plaintiff, to pay the checks from plaintiff’s deposit account is indicative of no intention to modify the deposit agreement. That no such intention existed is supported by the fact that neither the pleadings nor the briefs allege any such facts. The rule has always been that a judgment must be supported by allegations in the pleadings and proof by evidence. Hallgren v. Williams, 146 Neb. 525, 20 N. W. 2d 499; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Evertson, 153 Neb. 854, 46 N. W. 2d 489; Miller v. City of Scottsbluff, 155 Neb. 185, 50 N. W. 2d 824.
The position taken in the dissenting opinion is not supported by pleadings or proof. The statement in the dissenting opinion that the majority opinion disregards the fact that a written contract may be subsequently *689modified by parol evidence is therefor without substance. No such issue is raised by the pleadings and consequently it is not before the court for its determination.