Hoffman v. State

679 manner, mode, place time control over the has full pro- for and generally divorce of the proceedings S., Divorce, 27 C. J. for See in actions divorce. cedure the Legis- has been enacted by legislation 531. No p. § involved lature this state granting power Nickerson, 152 Nickerson v. assumption. authority said: “There

42 N. W. 2d fix the amount court, action, divorce their respective fees to pay each attorney party attorneys.” is reversed

The decree of district the action. to dismiss cause is remanded with directions in favor of the defend- An fee is allowed attorney’s her at- services of ant and for the against plaintiff in this court the amount of torney $300. and remanded.

Reversed plaintiff Hoffman, error, Elmer v. State in error. Nebraska, 2d 83 N. W. May

Filed 1957. No. 34120. Merril R. Reller and John McArthur, plaintiff error. Beck,

Clarence S. and Homer Attorney General, L. Kyle, for in error. defendant J., Carter,

Heard before C. Simmons, Messmore, and JJ. Chappell, Yeager, Wenke, Boslaugh, J. Carter, prosecuted plaintiff this error, case State Hoffman, Elmer hereinafter defend- referred to charge ant, on embezzlement under section guilty R. R. S. 1943. returned verdict the trial court defendant to serve term sentenced years years of not less than 2 nor more than Reformatory brings State for Men. The court, case for review. against complaint

The substance of the the- de- filed County “that Elmer Hoffman, fendant was agent being Saline and State of there Nebraska, an' Company, corporation, the Farmers Elevator of Wil- County, manager ber, Nebraska, Saline to-wit: Company’s gasoline said Farmers Elevator oil sta- being apprentice person tion, age nor a within the eighteen years, beginning there, then and did day January, continuously or about the 1st day including until, June; thereafter the 15th and of by during employment; a series of acts the same wilfully unlawfully, feloniously, fraudulently and and continuously, employer, without the consent of his em- personal property, 57,000"galloris bezzle certain to-wit: gasoline, being of the same the of the said Company, Farmers Elevator the $11,400.00, value possession which came the of -the into care Elmer virtue said Hoffman of and of his under color employment manager as of the aforesaid Farmers Ele- Company’s gasoline station, vator oil the in- of him, tent Elmer to said Hoffman, defraud Company, corporation, Farmers a Elevator value * * (cid:127) same, of the complains of the action the district overruling plea in his court in abatement. The basis (cid:127) plea that the. evidence was to insufficient offense was committed or that the show defend- probably sufficiency it.- ant committed When the' off'a hearing question preliminary plea- called in a only question is with be considered to abatement, “the magistrate are powers which reference to shall be the determination of what in called into action compelled hearing. to act If he such the result of judicial question the judicially, aas to determine jurisdiction, de- does he has over matters which questions competent upon evidence, then termine such judgment reached can as the result an error in be determined only by plea where abatement. It is preliminary examination, either is in fact no there advantage can be taken substance, form 154, 94 N. W. plea.” Neb. Jahnke v. such 158. sufficiency jurisdiction rule in this

“It is the preliminary examination at a the evidence adduced which answer for crime with to hold an accused charged may in habeas and tried be raised he has been corpus Kelley, Birdsley proceedings.” v. Flippin ex See, also, State rel.

65 N. W. 2d 328. 99; Jahnke v. 611, 168 N. W. Sievers, 102 hearing preliminary supra. that a shows The evidence taken and submitted. evidence was held which judg- clearly to invoke sufficient The evidence was juris- it a matter had on over which ment of the court preliminary hearing suffi- This constitutes diction. by plea abatement. an attack cient to defeat plea. correctly trial overruled court same quash information motion to A plea grounds in abatement advanced in were grounds They motion afford no for made. also properly trial over- quash and the court information it. ruled to a in the district tried

The case was County. trial at the The evidence adduced Saline findings following of fact. The the to sustain sufficient Company corporation is a and the Elevator Farmers manager gasoline and sta- of its oil the defendant was January 1, 1954, from to June Nebraska, Wilber, at tion period 15, 1955, the the which embezzlement al- leged to have occurred. Defendant had been the man- ager of the station since 1943 at the time the and of age. years manager trial was about 38 of As of the sta- duty purchases, tion it was the of the defendant to make pay keep fuels, bills for oils, accessories, and and the company, making including books records the and of the recording and of 16, 1955, inventories. On June 15 and caused audit to be made books gasoline records of oil station. It was deter- January mined that 1, between 1955, 15, and June shortage there awas amount of gallons. During period daily 20,847 sales of gallons per day were overfooted an even 100 on many days so that it could be described as a common practice. subsequent commencing January A audit with 1, 1954, made 55,893 which revealed a gallons gasoline, the value of which was between 20 per gallon, upon grade depending and 23 cents the gasoline. appeared The auditors testified findings, they their all of the books of the station which being subject examined in the courtroom to examination by the defendant, in accordance with the rule an- Hogoboom State, nounced in 234 W.N. 422, 79 A. L. R. 1171. The evidence shows also Company, president, the Farmers Elevator its sec- retary, attorney, made formal demand August at Lincoln, defendant his home in Nebraska, approximately gallons gas- to refund possession oline came into his which and was unac- compliance counted for. There nowas demand. corporation through There was evidence its appropriation officers not consent did gasoline by the defendant.

There is evidence inventories made record that defendant falsi- fied three him and recorded in inventory existing shortages. to conceal record record shows also overfooted his the audit When $2,800. in excess of accounts receivable falsely auditor informed the commenced defendant was fact liabilities, that when there were unrecorded outstanding amount of there liabilities were making up amount were invoices this $5,001.85. The necessarily on the books recent and be entered would company at the the usual course of business of inquiry the false state- made. It time the them on the books not the failure to enter ment and company appears material here. The to be assistant that records made while evidence shows changed by completely defendant was vacation were shows fur- on his return. The evidence the defendant any report any time ther that defendant not at did or officers directors corporation. did that the defendant record shows any produce other not take the stand nor evidence. gasoline of There is two carloads evidence charged gallons distil- each to kerosene and 5,085 were gallons gaso- is that the late. The evidence though charged products, and, line as other was received clearly gasoline way it It was in no accounted for. possession and for came into the of defendant which he should account. which

. the con- of the defendant It is contention the evidence stand for the reason that viction cannot fraudulently feloni- that defendant does not show ously respect - any his own this converted use. Legislature point out that in 1915 amended 28-538, R. R. The amend- section S. 1943. what now part appears provided: failure, “The ment as it now attorney agent, neglect law, officer, at refusal of such or agent, herein- factor servant, or commission clerk, pay, deliver or this section enumerated before in copartner- proper person, or refund property, money, goods ship entrusted to his such pos- into his or shall come her or her care which prima proof shall be in- demand, facie session, statute, other ele tent to embezzle.” Under when have estab ments lished, the crime of embezzlement been necessary other in is not to offer evidence of proper has made. tent to been embezzle where demand prima question facie case on the The statute creates and, of intent to embezzle such circumstances under subject, on the is sufficient absence jury. State, 51 Neb. the In Bolln to take the case to v. ap prosecution a embezzlement 581, 444, N. for 71 W. provided plicable public the to officers which statute to to a successor in office would that a refusal account prima embezzlement, constitute facie evidence embezzlement it did not devolve said: upon “To establish moneys the state to how or where were show proof by the to his converted own use. support by ninth is the state in count adduced convincing, ample fully to the aver- as sustain by state, tes- count. The uncontradicted ments timony, said money therein the school $3,000 traced he defendant, mentioned into the hands of the to account the same in man- failed and refused foregoing ner case whatever.” The was followed in Whitney N. 73 W. 696. statutory a

The crime of embezzlement is crime in this statute, R. R. states at state. The section S. ways may the crime least three in which be committed. purposes it the trial For the of the case before properly embezzlement its defined the crime of in- jury to the “Embezzlement structions follows: appropriation or conversion of another’s the fraudulent money property by person to it has or whom been lawfully or into- whose hands it has intrusted come employment, intent to virtue of his felonious with deprive thereof.” or the owner The contention defraud the defendant’s is an essential that conversion to use cannot sustained. In the element of embezzlement be charged present embezzling the defendant case with charged property. He was not certain described 686 property In Winkel- to his own use. conversion court said: 114 205 N.

mann v. W. may fairly “It term ‘embezzlement’ said misapplying abstracting includes the idea of sylla- paragraph of the In the first funds of another.” bus, holding as summarized its follows: the court may committed crime created statute “Where by any statute, set forth of several methods may charge single in a it was count information by any if methods committed or all of enumerated repugnant they to each are not inconsistent with other.” The trial court’s definition of embezzlement allege required correct. State was was prove to his own that defendant converted p. § Embezzlement, J. 682. We con- S., b, use. C. holding reasoning of the fore- clude under prima going facie of intent authorities that case to take made and that sufficient embezzle was jury. the case is not sufficient

The defendant asserts that finding intent felonious to sustain Company gasoline. deprive the Farmers of its Elevator agent embezzling the an To sustain the conviction of principal, the facts must warrant the of his appropriation the made conclusion that such agent a Hamilton felonious intent. v. 46 Neb. with the It must be borne mind that 64 N. W. 965. purely a mental an act is done is intent process which with proof. is It difficult to establish direct generally that after a a must be drawn con- conclusion the actions of the viewed defendant, sideration of the surrounding light circumstances. all the a in this case shows record The during period gallons the which em- charged. that It shows defendant falsi- bezzlement was large daily a sales inventories, number of three fied falsely He the accounts receivable. in- records, and company’s auditor that there were no un- formed He admitted that he falsified liabilities. recorded reported any time at He never inventories and books. its officers. to the losses of it is that facts are such that within think these We province jury to determine intent of the with what Buckley 752, 269 N. act done. falsifying of the records We think W. 892. together given all auditor,

misinformation surrounding case, constitute suf- the circumstances jury’s finding to that evidence sustain the ficient existed. felonious intent urges present that the conviction

The wholly upon that case circumstantial evidence and hypothesis every do exclude other than of the facts guilt. not jury ample There is which the direct from guilty. court, could the defendant to The how- find given gave weight an instruction to ever, exception circumstantial evidence to which has been by the taken defendant. contention the ver- speculation conjecture upon only is based dict can- falsifying day not be sustained. of records after day company’s and the statements made false auditor are evidences clear of fraud and felonious in- Unexplained, they guilt. point tent. towards Human agent falsify experience is innocent does prin- records and facts to conceal unusual from losses his badge cipal. It is and evidence felonious fraud intent. Such evidence It is direct not circumstantial. way establishing the usual the intent with which did, say, as it an act done. The could well the defendant felonious the acts of intent. were done with assigns the admission in evi- The defendant as error purported de- dence of admissions confessions assignment is fendant’s wife. This directed the evi- president company, Chmelir, dence of Albert at testified that the time he who made demand gallons gasoline 57,000 the defendant for the de- 688 you pay “Albert,

fendant’s Elmer to wife said: do want persons all others were other ac- when involved?” Two companying Chmelir same statement. testified objection The record shows that no was made to evidence of these It one of three witnesses. may predicated fundamental mission of error not be on the ad- objection which made. was assignment. is no in this There merit employed by On cross-examination auditor inquired State, counsel for the an defendant whether shrinkage. allowance had been made for auditor The percent shrinkage. 1 testified he allowed Be- completing fore his cross-examination, he indicated that shrinkage might high percent, although as run 3 as. he disqualified expert question. as himself on that The question shrinkage clearly one for determine under the evidence.

The defendant contends that a reasonable as doubt guilt to his arose a matter because of law of evidence leaky concerning gasoline adduced tank. The evidence gallons shows that 55,893 oc- January 1, 1954, cured between June 1955. company July defendant left the service of the on 1955. prior The evidence is that sometime to December leaky gasoline suspected. 1955, a engi- tank An Testing Laboratory neer employed from the Omaha company’s to check the tanks. He commenced his tests completed April 6, 1955, December them about testing engineer’s report 1956. showed that one underground leaking. of four tanks was For days following 6, 1955, December the tank leaked gallons gasoline. The defendant asserts that the leaky gasoline guilt tank casts such doubt defendant’s for a motion directed ver- dict should have been sustained. point leaky gasoline

We out that the tank was not dis- years covered until almost after the defendant com- falsifying menced records to conceal short- evidence ages gasoline. of is one word There not of during period leakage embezzle- any the the occurred that alleged not even There have occurred. ment was gasoline leaky use tank was in that the evidence during any gasoline time the de- in it the or that had embezzling gasoline. charged The fendant was after months leaky 4 or 5 until tank not discovered was company. The treasurer the the of left service defendant gasoline of company loss that no abnormal the testified of service of left the after the defendant occurred suspected leaky some- tank was until 1955. 6, time December before charge present the embezzle- was for

The case charge gasoline. that ment There was of The fuel, tractor or distillate. kerosene, embezzled shortages products. large As these of audit revealed May example, 1955, to the audit that from shows tractor the sales of 11, 1955, defendant overfooted June days. gallons each of 10 different an even 100 on fuel January 1955, to that from The audit further shows gallons of 7,199 15, 1955, there June was gallons gallons 9,569 kerosene, 2,757 fuel, of tractor any tanks con- no evidence that of distillate. There was gasoline leaky taining A ever these fuels leaked. had shortages in these tank in no manner account for the could right jury these facts consider fuels. had determining the loss of resulted in whether leakage. from the losses is the

It contention of the defendant leakage occurring 6, 1955, should after December commencing January period back to related against ending 15, 1955, June and credited charged as a matter to have embezzled amount been doubt, least, at reasonable thus create of law and guilt a credit the defendant. Such would conjecture. speculation nothing pure No less than leakage, objection raised to the evidence of fact admissibility put Its State. evidence it was jury- that it is circumstance rests on the fact which might determining there consider in whether guilt was a reasonable doubt as to the of the defendant. only jury con- But it is a circumstance which the could arriving presents sider at verdict. It no situation requiring the direction of verdict trial court and the right clearly overruling such motion. finding

Defendant contends guilty embezzling gallons he value of sustained $11,400 not vitiating the effect of has the verdict. maxi- mum amount of the evidence to' have shown gallons. point been embezzled is out in this We having purpose jury connection that the in the determine property the value of the is to embezzled enable the penalty. penalty provided by court to fix the The sec- “* * * every tion R. R. S. is as follows: person offending punished such so shall the man- provided by feloniously stealing property ner law for * * embezzled, value of the article so Grand larceny stealing property is the of the value of $100 upwards. § larceny 28-506, R. R. S. 1943. Petit stealing property the § of less value than 28- for $100. Consequently, prosecution R. R. S. 1943. in a jury embezzlement the must the fix order to value in penalty grand petit larceny determine if the applies. finding jury The fact that the of the as to the property amount and value of the embezzled exceeds that which the evidence will sustain is material not operate change where the variance not pen- does the alty. The amount which the evidence sustains has value in excess of It is not contended that its $100. value prejudice was less than that amount. No resulted fixing to the defendant. The of the value of the is not an embezzled element of the crime embezzle- goes only penalty. ment, it Young App. 44 Ohio 1, 184 N. E. similar situation arose. The charged defendant was embezzling jury em- that he found $46,948. with evidence The court found finding $22,090. bezzled embezzled would sustain any only. event, “In then stated: $9,311.76 The court finding jury justified amount embezzled and, than $35, more than if was more to be felony, amount and the amount, the crime was punishment effect on embezzlement have no could any inflicted. If error was committed prejudice fixing embezzled, it could the amount way rights affect the defendant, nor in the punishment.” court is exces- contends the sentence of the Defendant years 2 to The sentence was from State sive. statutory penalty Reformatory from for Men. Penitentiary. years in We 1 to 7 State Nebraska exer- interfere the discretion find no reason to imposing penalty that it cised the trial court did. assign-

A consideration of the entire record and prejudicial that no ments of error here made disclose trial, occurred, that defendant error had fair judgment affirmed. should be

Affirmed. J., C. Simmons, dissenting. disagree statements

I with certain by disagreement goes to lack of made That court. instances not be and most and will detail definiteness developed here. The first is the com-

I limit to two matters. this dissent any plete defendant converted lack evidence that the of any gasoline appropriated or other of or proof company. is a of failure of an elevator There charged. The is of the crime second element essential puts the 1915 the court construction which R. now section R. S. 1943. to what amendment manager of the in this case was The company’s gas at There at all station Wilber. were

692 employees company times four or five other of the who gasoline other commodities in- sold and delivered cluding They farm had bulk deliveries to customers. made access commodities sold deliveries when present. pos- the defendant was not The defendant’s gasoline company of session the trans- of possession. action of its business was not an exclusive gasoline. every There However, including auditors, witness for the testified that there no had been deprived gasoline any including commodity or other by a “nickel” the defendant. There was no evidence “appropriation” company’s of an gasoline or “conversion” of the property by

or other the defendant. The com- pany’s president that he testified not know did wrongfully that defendant had taken and a co- employee missing testified that he had idea where the went. case as to- this State’s element solely exclusively upon the offense rests the short- gasoline. age points The court out no- evidence to contrary. holds: “Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation erty money prop- or conversion of another’s or person to whom it has been entrusted into lawfully whose hands it has come virtue of his em- ployment prive intent to defraud or de- felonious (Emphasis supplied.) the owner thereof.” recognizes

Here the court two- elements of- appropriation conversion with felonious fense— intent. Chaplin Lee, v. N. 25 W. we held: “To constitute embezzlement essential deprived property alleged owner should be to holding.” embezzled adverse use or In McAleer v. N. W. fol- lowing Chaplin supra, Lee, held: “To constitute deprived prop- embezzlement the must owner his erty by holding.” an actual use or adverse

693 518, fol- N. W. 856, Neb. 126 v. 86 In Nelson “* * * to lowing pay decisions, failure we held: the above money received over or account for prin- agent embezzlement, if his amount to not would deprived property cipal not in was fact holding. the informa- or Under felonious, adverse use intent essen- felonious actual tion, conversion tial to a conviction.” “money” “gasoline”

Changing makes word holding directly applicable here.

Following supra, Chaplin v. Lee, we v. held State is essential to the Hill, 456, Neb. 66 N. W. 541: “It 47 deprived crime of embezzlement that the owner be alleged embezzled, an adverse to have been holding.” or use Colley Chicago Ry. Co., v. & N. 107 Neb. W. 98, a action held: conversion,

187 N. W. civil we' alleged positive must “The act conversion be This decision v. -and tortious.” followed in Talich 212 Marvel, 540. Heretofore we have N. W. prosecutions not deviated from these decisions under section R. R. 1943. S. points appropriation or out evidence of

conversion, There fraudulent otherwise. none. prop- The court holds: of the then “Conversion (cid:127) .alleged erty personal to have been embezzled person charged is. use of the the essential element crime embezzlement.”

Implicit recognition statement that con is an the- version element of offense.- distinction personal-use person charged.” in “the seems to be : play The distinction is on words.- Following several above decisions Luther College Benson, 253 N. W. his

held: “‘Embezzle’ and-‘convert own are use’ synonymous terms.' ‘Conversion to his own use’ would accomplished by act of unauthorized dominion

ownership person property exercised one over ignores another.” The this definition. court decisions are with the Our accord rules as stated In 18 Embezzle- Jur., authoritative texts. Am. § p. ment, 21, it is stated: “To 581, constitute the crime of embezzlement there must be fraudulent conversion misappropriation or with felonious intent.” p. § In 29 C. J. S., 11, it is stated: Embezzlement, 682, “To so as constitute conversion to make out case of must, deprived prop- embezzlement, the owner of his * * money erty using holding; or or adverse (5th Ed.), In Underhill’s Criminal Evidence Embezzle- § p. gravamen ment, 1418, it is 576, “The stated: coupled is crime intent, fraudulent execution.” with Buckley 269 N. W. held: “The word ‘embezzle’ includes its im- within port appropriation the fraudulent of the an- funds of other to one’s use.” own complete then does the court avoid the

How lack of negation evidence and the affirmative of appropriation? or conversion goes to The first the 1915 amendment to what being is section 28-538, R. R. now S. the stat- charge Throughout, ute which the here rests. synonymous uses statute terms or embezzle convert to his own use. appears provides as it amendment now

part: neglect failure, “The or refusal officer, of such attorney agent, law, at clerk, servant, factor or com- agent, mission as hereinbefore this section enumerated pay, proper person, to deliver or refund to copartnership money, goods property, such en- to his or her care or which trusted shall come into possession, upon prima demand, his or her shall facie proof § intent to embezzle.” 28-538, R. R. S. 1943. quoted provision goes only are The italics mine. The “proof offense, to the second element to wit, to intent embezzle.” requires proof. remains of conversion

The element supra, “actual conver- Nelson v. We held to a was essential con- intent” felonious sion recognizes requirement court here viction. The says: statute, other elements when for it “Under this established, have been crime of the of embezzlement necessary intent other evidence of is not to offer (Em- proper has made.” demand been embezzle where “proper phasis supplied.) demand” I shall return presently. proof “other elements of the

Where there is none. crime”? court recites none (without goes cita- avoid that situation the court To tion) 1943, an 28-543, R. section R. S. what now money. public relating That the embezzlement of act any part: officer or provides “The refusal of such in act any pay person, office, draft, or to out whether may upon him the or be drawn order warrant which money any public proper hands, his officer, for may capacity been re- matter in what the same have any any may by him, or refusal or be held ceived any pay person public over to his successor officer to legal promptly, public moneys re- on or securities any quirement state or officer of the authorized county, the trial indictment taken, shall be against person embezzlement, such officer (Empha- prima such embezzlement.” evidence facie supplied.) sis patent. In the two statutes is difference defendant was under which the instance statute comply Legislature charged to with made failure proof proper prima to facie of intent embezzle. demand Legislature 28-543, 1943, made R. S. section R. comply proper prima facie demand a refusal to embezzlement. evidence of 581, 444, 71 N. Bolln v. 51 Neb. W.

Because in Whitney 287, 696, N. 53 Neb. 73 W. 28-543, section R. sufficient under R. held the evidence prima 1943, the S. court concludes that facie case intent to embezzle is sufficient to take this case to the prosecution ain 28-538, under section R. S. 1943: R. ignores The court the fact that the “other elements of the crime” not have been established. appropriation

There remains the void of evidence of or conversion the defendant. Boatman, 159,

State v. 7 W. 2d 144A. N. prosecution L. R. awas under section what now 28-543, R. R. 1943. In case the S. referred applicable to the rule of strict construction to all crim- any change statutes and held that in the act awas inal legislative judicial’ interpre- matter for action not’ tation. comply proper

So if the refusal here, awith de- mand section R. under R. S. tois be made prima facie 'of embezzlement and not “intent legislative to embezzle,” that is a matter for action and judicial Legislature construction. The has said only prima section 28-538, R.R. S. facie proof only of intent to It embezzle. one involves element of the offense of embezzlement under the statute in- - here: volved go

I says now demand which the court awas “proper demand” under the statute and in of'itself prima made-a facie case of embezzlement take the jury. case * * * Approximately It was demand to “refund * * * gallons which is at this time ' nn > missing properly- and not accounted for.” It awas for the demand “refund” at least 15100 gállons (and under one version of evidence, the State’s gallons) more thán the State claimed at - missing timé and not accounted for. “proper Obviously

it aWas demand”? demanding knew it was a of more refund than Obviously every for. unaccounted one knew that gasoline. the defendant could not refund' that agreed refund, under to the If the had have been con- act, he would court’s construction of fessing guilt than the claimed of more of embezzlement shortage. pointed demand, the over If defendant had out theory been ad- he would have then under the court’s mitting guilt By amount. of some of embezzlement denying the court’s he, more, the “refund” without under holding go jury sufficient established evidence to guilty. did not a The defendant to sustain verdict person playing Russian roulette. have the chance of a gun against every him. loaded Here chamber of of intent as to these Were the evidence to embezzle fully matters I think it insufficient to stated, sustain conviction the circumstantial evidence rule stated under in Larson v. 73 N. W. 2d 388. State, pass Conceding prove intent But I that. sufficient prove required element embezzle, it does not appropriation. of conversion or supra, case, In Nelson v. an embezzlement we “* * * purpose

held: not to embezzle is unexecuted * * * embezzlement actual a felonious conversion with intent was essential to a conviction.” Reyes 2d 38 N. W. said: “A conviction should not be based on weak- embarrassing posi- ness accused, of the status of the himself, tion in which he finds or the mere fact that satisfactorily some unfavorable circumstances are not explained.” necessary

All that is this decision to take case under of embezzlement to the under section R. R. S. for the State submit of a money “proper pay, commodities demand” to manager refund, or deliver. Under this decision of a guilty store could be found ages of embezzlement for short- money employees; in cash from till used other shrinkage potatoes, put in stored if the full measure leaking for; in a bin or flour were accounted out he when prove rat hole could through where amount of leakage. leak or the began and without could demand proper The State prove more a made, more a case for the and without I agree. must sustained. do not conviction I the trial court judgment reverse the would to dismiss. remand the cause with directions appellant, Federal Company, Insurance Company, International Harvester appellee. corporation, 83 N. 2d 382 W. May 24, 34184.

Filed 1957. No. Robert Haney W. and Thomas J. Walsh, for appellant. Fitzgerald, Hamer, Brown & Leahy, for appellee. J., Carter, Heard before Simmons, C. Messmore, JJ. Chappell, Yeager, Wenke, Boslaugh,

Case Details

Case Name: Hoffman v. State

Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date Published: May 24, 1957

Citation: 83 N.W.2d 357

Docket Number: 34120

Court Abbreviation: Neb.