Citizens State Bank v. Young
Citizens State Bank v. Young
Opinion of the Court
The only question presented by this appeal is: Did the district court err in refusing to set aside the judgment previously entered by it in this cause against the defendant Alice R. Y. Harris, upon the application of Howard Kennedy, her guardian?
The facts are that plaintiff filed its petition in the district court for Boone county on January 23, 1931, seeking to recover judgment against the defendants upon a promissory note for $2,000, dated May 6, 1929. Messrs. Frost, Hammes and Nimtz, attorneys of Omaha, filed an answer in the action in the form of a general denial, on behalf of the defendant Alice R. Y. Harris, also a resident of Omaha. On May 13, 1931, that being one of the days of the May, 1931, term of said court, the cause came on for trial, in pursuance to a previous order of the court, of which Messrs. Frost, Hammes and Nimtz had been notified. The defendant Alice R. Y. Harris did not appear at the trial, nor did any one appear in her behalf. Judgment was entered against both defendants for the amount of the note- with accrued interest and costs. Thereafter, on August 28, 1931, that still being one of the
“A judge of the district court has the right and power to set aside and vacate any judgments or orders made by him during the term at which the vacating order is made. Such vacating order may be made upon the court’s own motion, if satisfied that an error has been committed.” Douglas County v. Broadwell, 96 Neb. 682.
From the showing made by the guardian,' we reach the conclusion that, on May 13, 1931, the date the judgment was rendered against her, the defendant Alice R. Y. Harris was mentally incompetent to transact business, that the rights of said defendant, upon the trial of said cause, were not protected, and that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside and vacate the judgment as against her, upon application of her guardian.
In Simmons v. Kelsey, 72 Neb. 534, it is said: “Section 45 of the Code expressly enacts that an action shall not abate by reason of the disability of a party happening during its pendency. If before the termination of the litigation she shall become incapacitated, a duty will devolve upon the court, as the general conservator of the estates of all persons under disabilities, to see to it that her rights and estate are protected and preserved, either by a general guardian * * * or guardian ad litem appointed by the court for the purposes of the action.”
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.