Omaha Daily Bee Newspaper, November 12, 1894, Page 6

THE OMAHA DAILY BEE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1894. ' obtained from the wife by fraud or | from Lancaster county. Affirmed. Opinion | Immediate possesisomatithe property replev-| to Insert or read into it a condition or reser- y SUPRFME COURT DFC‘“{“S w9, Dt It Q10" establish that the wife | by Commissioner Irvine ined. vation not contatned in it, or implied by its “It s rue = St b exccuted the contract becuse i" 8 pecie When a case Is in Jis nature n]-rvul::\»l.- The '.'lyar.-n_-n wasiay -Inpm‘ l"':"‘x‘fi To | terms. BOTHD 1 BOIOOL, LA of matrimonfal coercion and undue influence | and a transcript is filed within the time | make his case plaimtiff introduced evi- POINT IN SCHOOL LAW % Aoa : exercised over her by mer wuthand. | Held: | aflowea for'sppras, hut thereatler and with: | dence u ehattel mortiage exeouted 1o him | stato ex rel Schuol District No. 1'o¢ Sloux for them not to give you Pearline for your That the wife should be released from the | in the time permitted for instituted proceed- [ on the property. fld: Irreleval der | county ngainst School Distriot No. 19 ot al paa s Faire Tallin i) y N . Points of Public Interest Passed Upon by | performance of the contract ings in error the appellant files and at- | the Issues. d ¥ L AL e D L g TR washing. Your folks can't know much about it. oints of Public Interest Passe PR DY | 74 To enable a husband to specifically en- | taches to the transcript a petition in error, | Jeffres against Cé¥ntan, Error from | jon by Chief Justice Norval ey could save their money. and all vo the Highest Nebraska Tribunal, force against his wife a contract by which | he will be held to have abandoned his ap: | Greeley county. Affirmed. Opinion by Com- | “Artar a school district: has exerclsed the could s¢ oney, and all your g - she has agreed to convey to him certain | peal and elected to proceed In error. missioner Ragan franchises and privileges thereof for the hard work besides. I'm thankful real estate it must appear that such cor 2. In an action for partition the court| Where the errors‘assigned and argued | poriod of one year its legal organization 5 % v - 1 tract had for its basis some consideration. found on the trial of the jssues that parti- | here are that the trial court erred in gIVINg | will be conclusively presumed, whatever the lady I live with is just the CANNOT L'MT INSURANCE POLICIES | 5 In Ruch case It the claim of the Mus- | tion could hot be made, and in the judg: | and refusing to give eertain instructions may have bten the defects and irregularitics ady 3 Jus U 2t & that the consideration r he con- ent confl g the interests ¢ the par- 1 apps t] C e evidence e [} fol tion or organization of such dis- a1 v she 01y tract was her fove and affection for him o oraered & Balo of The JARd. The jidg: | verdict returned by the ury and the udi: BT e R LS AT UE RS other way. She knows what or that because of the fact that he was|ment was held to be irregular, but not|ment pronouncec rereon by the distric Hedtlck agalnst Strauss_et al. _ Eftor : . ¥ Ba Case of Total Loss Face Valae Must Do | Her husband she Jntended by the contract | withouy jurisdittion, “and, a1t was not| Curt Gre' the onlyohes’ that could Bave | rrom Hiehosh sountr e Mimed.” Onrmion Pearline will do, and she g 7 to make a gift to him of the land described | complained of because of this irregularity, | been rightfully retlifned and pronounced, | by Chief Justice Norval wants it She'd never let me Pald<What Constitates an Original | therein, then the burden is ‘:u n I:n- h" elther by & otion for a new trial or by l;yfl[‘i‘ livr\ll' \\rl\:‘nrl ‘»xblui\lln‘v‘ the e Vl-_w;:u'x‘ Instructions will not be viewed where Y d 8 . - C ver r s ke Y . show that the wife made such |assignment of error, held: That it could not | $Igned. Everett agalns¢ Hobleman, 15 Neb., | tney are not pointed out in both the mo- 6 My time trvi » 'M":" :" l:h:::v” Th Yodzs ot Talf the Tats with Teference | Ceeneisd 1 ¥ W Hiht ot al against Grimes. Appeal from | UON8 for @ new trial and the petition in lose my time trying to get pand and Wife. ywiedge of all the facts with reference | *Manning. against City of Orleans. Error ght et al agains es. Appeal from | Ho0 Gl e T & to, "and without any traud practiced | ram Hivan emunty Reversed and re. |Johnso1 county. AfMimed. Opinton by Com- | “T°T4 1ironase of property of an insolvent L7 things clean witii soap—an upon her, and that she was not induced to [ mandec o Y Commisaioner Ttvine. . | missioner Ragan Asbtor, "with Intent 1o ait fhoy: o o4 Vi O iy & . : make such contract by the coercion oF une | "Bocton S mt the cod e rovedure | , The evidence in this case examined and [ flebtor. with intent to ald In hindering, de; she wouldn't stand it to have At Its sittitng last week the Nebraska su- | duc Influence of her husband, provides a remedy substantially like the | found to support the finding of the district | ag'to such creditors, though a full consider her clothes all worn out with preme court handed down a large number of | WHAT A DIVORCE LAW FOR. motien for judgmert non obstante veredicto '“”lrlv nd the decree affirmed. tion 1s pald for the property. * [ o O the comimon lnw. Such a judgment can | Mefcalf against Bockoven. 'Brror from | 3" [ order to constitute one an innoc rubbing, either. decisions, all of interest (o attorneys and| Cochran against Cochran. - Appeal from | Giishe Fendered whien the plendings of the | DOUIAS coutty. “Atfirm:d. Gpinion by Com- | purchaser 0f property soid for. the purpose bbing, e i e y e ot | Douglas county. Opinion by Commissioner | o hose favor the verdict was re missioner Ragan E MeTraUdINg tha Gredicory o the venaor LT g . e most impo o questiol lirt_of equity will entertain an action PR e cld o supp e finding of the district [ thia Mpefare the. purenaser had. natloa: ot e SOMEs. | of liability of Insurance companies to the | brought for afimony algue and will grant L R e L gourt, “That the partnership aileged u.|\.:.(‘(.-,{," Hraudarent. thtents Tt fter DArt bF the | ack o Peayllne comes just as tnsured. 1t was written by Mr. Justice Har- | (1% SAme, mtHough no diverce or other v | to . fury il fnd where the pleadings do | Uiip S i, 719 heiyeen, Horwc, C; ML | consideration has beén pald the’ purchaser hard on the mistress’ clothes as it rison, and again holds that In case of total | the hushand without her fault court cannot disregard the verdict and en- [ the amended petition ‘and denled by her | entitled to protection to the extent of the does on the laundre: Il t property the company insuring the | he district courts of this state belng | ter such judgment as the evidence warrants, | &nSwer, never existed consideration paid, or parted with, before S joss of property pa | cotirts of general equity jurisdiction ar ord sus ed b e evl- | CHILD'S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE [ notice. As to the purchase price not pald, sct o c i “this is » I t o1 If the verdict {8 not sustained by the evi i ¥ ¥ Peddlers and some unscrupulous grocers will tell you *“ this is as good as premises is lable for the ful fll"”""] name \llx‘m“len\nu-“'«'n“u. exercise of such jurisdic- | dence the remedy is by motion for a new | The Oma |m|& Republican \'nlh' m”l‘l“” y | such \lrn-lvvhwm not ‘\;;- rluul'\c(ll as an in- e1n or ‘‘the same as Pearline.” IT'S FALSE—Pearline is never peddied, on the face of the policy, any clause or oy statute trial on that ground ompany against Cook. Error from How- | nocent purchaser of the property 3 L A in the state of Wisconsin, where | ynnssalled by a motion for a new trial, [ missioner Ryan. was applicable to the evidence in the case pany to a less amount being contrary to the | they resided, took up his abade in this state | judgment must, except in the cases sta In an action against a rallway company | and (hat the 'rml|rm;rl did not err in giv- stice son | 0] became'a citizen thercof, and pre \ the first paragraph s 8y for personal injuries by it inflicted, the trial | ing the same to the jui — Statutory rule and Invalid. Justice Harrison | "giyrce from his wife on the groun entered in conformity court very properly refused to give an in- [ 5 Certain paragraphs of the charge of 8lso rules that any clause In an Insurance | desertion, gbtalning service on her by pub. | Connor a . o Srr struction requested in which the right of | the court not considered, since the alleged policy which requires that the amount the |llcations, he wife had no knowledge of | goone county. A Opinion by Com- | plaintiff to recover was made dependent | errors in their giving are not sufficiently 18 to pay in case of total loss shall | tH% diverce proceedings until after the date | misjoner Irvine upon the absence on her part of a very | assigned in either the motion for new R hey o Ty I CHse O totd joss BUE | of the decree. Two years after the date of the owner of land, demised the same |slight want of ordinary care, when there | trial or the petition in error be fixed by arbitration before suit can be | the d yotee "h‘ I\\Mv‘ mu.,lm suit w“-“x‘w‘: rescrving as rent one-fourth of the | .y\ ‘|,.,..131|,‘.»‘; glven {nstructions in which | l‘. In .,I.I.y.-r to a review of h.‘;m,m.‘.‘]., by vold, bec: pusts courts | A8aINst the husband for alimony. He sublet a portion of the premises | had been clearly explained the nature and | the appellate court an exception must have OC Lt s 1 aiti o ooid, Decause It ousts Courts | (1) That the action was not brought under for money Tent: © pald @ portion of | effect of negligence on the part of each | been taken im each specific instruction R s dagitimate jurisdiotion. Anothet opin- | noe g 1 by section 46, chapter %, Com: | {Na rent to 13 and therafter paid the re- | DAty to the suit claimed to be erroneous. A general excep. lon, by Mr. Commissioner Ragan, settles a | plled Btatutes of 1 nor by section %2 of | mainder to B’ admiistratrix; the admiu- || 2 Where the plaintift was injured by u|tion to instructions given or refused is ability he code of civil procedure, but was a sepa- | jdtra baid the latter sum 6 A, who ac-| locomotive of the defendant at a. place on | unavailing. disputed point relative to the lability of | rafe and Independent action, based on the | era e e e A (s payment | defendant's track where such pIatAti had | 4. 10 18 within the sound discretion of members of mutual insurance companies. | legal obligation of the husbind to SUpport [ (o'and acceptance by A of the money oper- |10 Fight to be, and where in fact she was | the trial judge to submit to, or withhold honest—zend it back, JAMES PYLE 3. A husband deserted his wife s o 3 r s a 18| ard co Arme sinion by Com- fd the detendant's thirc ctiof A and if your grocer sends you something in place of Pearline, by stipulation limiting the liability of the com- | o ik husPand rted his wife and minor Where the verdict is general and ard county. Afirmed. Opinion by Com-| 4. Held, the defendant's third instruction th Back your g y g ‘earli 0 One old familiar question came up from [his wife and children. ated as a relinquishiment of any interest he | & trespasser, the jury was |-n»rm|\- instruct- | from, the jury questions for special findings, Harlan county. It involved the matter of | (2) That the petition stated a cause of | yight have had in the crop raised on the | €d that the engineer was under obligations | and his rulings in that regard will not be what Is an “original package.” Justice Har- |action for alimony, although it contained | jun gublet to C, and evidenced a new con- | 28 Soon as he discovered that plaintiff was | disturbed unless a clear case of abuse of g | no allegation thai the wife and childrer atie ana. 1 Aministratrix, | on the track to use all possible means and | discretion appears. Rule applied rison wrote this decision also, holding that tract between A and B's administr 5 ¥ et v : d | were in destitute circumstances or in actual ety 5816 1and oney payment | efforts consistent with the safety of his| 8. This court will not consider objection the original package was the packing case Whsrchy as to this lahdia Snoneyepay tral i y 3 the admission of testimony when the in which the botties of lig ped | §%,0L support. Was o ba received in lieu of rent in kind, | traih and any passenger or persons wno [ to the admission of testimon ] quor were shipped | "4, Our divorce laws are liberal and 2 st . e Sy might be thereon to avoid Injuring the | particular ruling is not pointed out in the from St. Louis to Republiean City, instead | be liberally constru, But_they VALUE OF MECHANIC'S LIE plaintiff, and failing to do so would render | petition in error. of the wrappers in which the bottles were | designed for, and should not t Moore et al against Vaughn et al. Ap- | the company liabl 9. An assignment of error mot included ettty packed. able designing husbands, without B e B AR oAy e R ey araaTs anh § In'a cake Wherein the evidence admit- | In the polnis relied on for a reversal will HEST STUTE on EARTH Mr. Commissioner Ryan writes an opinion s VAT A ““"'"' remanded. Opinion by Commissioner Ragan. | (¢ {:rnm“x‘.‘.'.:';’1“13'.”',"‘#{5 the princl n-‘vh::t.-;\.l-‘.x‘ be deemed walived. S e n this or cther statés, or to escape | "o roechanice lien law of this state re- | the t court properly instructed the jur PRI SR B A N AR VBID: : more clearly outlning the responsibllity of | {he' pertormance of their marringe con | quires ‘That a contract for matemian labor, | that the rule of law as to the contributory | YOMING ASSIGNMENT WAS VOIT ) READ THE (FFICIAL TEST raillway companies in regard to injuries in- | {raoth duires that @ coniract for materlal eatate | negligence of a child Is that it can only | Connor against Omaha National bank ol "By 3 flicted on persons, and setting forth the fact 'here §s no fixed rule for determining | shail be made with the owner thereof or his [ b expected and requl 10 exercise that | Error from Douglas county. Affirmed. Opin- - Official R« port on tate Oaks, that contributory negligence of a child is a|what portion of a husband's estate should | agent; and a tenant of real estate because | deBree of care and discretion which a child | fon by Commissioner Ragan. % : delicate matter to determine. be decreed to his wife for alimony. The | of his tenancy is not the agent of his land- | of 8uch ake would ordinarily and naturally One France, a citizen of Wyoming, made E & L. KAns & Bros.: Commissioner Ragan gives attorneys b | Amount should be just and equitable, due | {ord in such & sense as to render the latter | Use and exercise under the circumstances [ an assignment there for the benefit of his Gentlemen — This {s to cortify int g oased -9 regard being had for the rights of each | or his real estate liable for materials fur- |SHOWN in cvicerce and in the same 8 tuition, [ creditors. At the date of the assignment . that Thive made a serlos of tests Polnt on preparing cases for appeal. In|party, the ability of the husband, the estite | mepu] he tenont and used by him in ercet- | Pearing in mind also the amount of intel: | he had on deposit to his credit and subject with “I' Sorle stato Onk Heat- order that a clerk of the district court may | of th wite and the character and situation | g fmprovements on. such real estate, | g€nce or want of the same of the child, [ to his check $— in a bank of this state 1ng stoves, to determing, First, how be authorized to sign a bill of exceptions it | cf the parties. oY st Stout, 38 Nebraska 395, | f a8ny such had been shown by the evi-| The day after the assignment the bank ap- s long the stove would hold' fires v o 6 In es lue |y Rissin i AR SRIOU L SORNEHES 35 | dence. plied the money it held on deposit to the Sceond, how the several ts of must be shown that the judge of the court| 6 In estimating the value of the husband’s | roairmed o , g i to the Sccond, how the cral’ o 18 dead or prevented by sickness or absenge | Property for determining the amount 1t A™lindlord leased nis premises to o | pStedman against Rochester Loan and | discharge of the unmatured notes of France {lie stove uct undar n high red hes from his district from signing the bill. R R b e e s | tenarit re gne year, with the privileg county. Affirmed. Opinion by Commissioner | The assignment law of Wyoming provided they were red het il ovor. A nice question regarding the relations of | ustute at the date of the rendition of the | inac e he tonant during his Ragan. that an assignment for the benefit of cred- heaiod thom o the highest possi- husband and wite, when the specific per- at the date e ed % awalling. howde belonaing to In a suit by an endorsee of a promissory | itors should be in writing, subscribed and Bl¢ tomperiture ana_ dooled thom ¢lded by Commissioner Ragan against the | husband after "'{‘["1}'*""‘&‘\Q‘Vr"v‘:,;k!;“n 9f 01 | his upon the leased emises, And berma: | given for certain stock in & milling corpora- | of & probate judge; that within twenty days slon and contraction d1d not uifect husband. He also passes on a disputed point 3 ] nently affixed it to the land. He then made | {ion " falgely represented by the original | after making an assignment the as p the p s in the loast varticular. of the mechanic’s lien law, and decides that | ofel BTOPECY, which he owned at the thme | contracts with certain material men in and | pvee of the nte to he solvent and earnini | Should MaKe an inventory. verified by his I churged one of them with one while the Nebraska divorce law BHRL | ot e i aushr varcet MLviaken ive furnished erial | BRVuat aividends of 30 per cent. afdavit, of his assets, Habilities, dcbtors and onc-half small bucketraly of S50 $hould be. berally conatriund, T soerd | L0 sonelderation by he Sourt in determin: | which he used in repairing and bullding The undisputed evidence showed that the | and creditors, and file’ the same’ with the coal sl Faosdiy evening, not be applied so as to permit designing| Wite is entitled ¥ n ditions to"the dwelling house moved UPON | jndorsee purchased the note before its ma- | probate judge; that “An assignment for the June 30, 1891, ut 5 o'clock, D N T turity in the usual course Sine: | Deneit of creditors fs void ngainst creditors husbans to legally discard their wives in this mith nst Smith, 19 Nebraska 708 | “In a suit brought by the material men [z 0L Bl course of husitiess for or other states, or to escape the performance | |yn) ° L e Nepraska 27, folt | againat him, In which they claimed lier & ideration, and without any n(lnm d:s:llxgnnr‘\mlt o) u‘ l:-"§ \)‘uli-d. -]n-} & Until the following Thursday af- nowledge or notice of the defense pleaded | unless the inventory required is filed Within 4 tornoon at 4 o’clock the body R Nt lage contracts. lowed and_reaffirmed; ¢ upon the premises for the material fur- | by"the ‘Maker, heid: ¥ twenty days after the date of the assign- Thié w1606 R RHWIAD 0 S 08 u’!-:nr. In the court pn Friday the routt Forpliek U T TR e g i s Hamlot nished to and used by him in the erection o That the court properly Instructed the | ment,” 5 . i he court ¢ y ne proceed- | Iidmonds agalnst State. Frror from Otoe | such improvements, the court decreed that | jury'to return a verdiet for the indorsee, The assignees of France sued the bank in that a hand could not comfortably ngs were: CRiLL ‘R Reversed. Opinfon by Commis- | {he improvements on said real estate should | *'p A suit the maker of the note of- | & court of this state for the money he had Le laid wpon it. After that time is Eggleston against Slusher, motion to dis- e N el < be sold to pay and discharge the clalms of | fered to prove that ‘the note was not in- | on deposit therein at the date he made an Vegan to cool off, The live voals miss overruled; Lock against Sloa ot n a prosecution for larceny proof of the | the material men against the tenant. Held: | tanded to 'be delivered to the orlginal payee | assignment, and on the trial failed to pr s St : & loan, motion | yatue of by some t iginal pay m the oviginal chavges of slacl b et D oA value of the property stolen must be made | “(1,)" That when the dwelling hotise was | thereof to become his property. exeept unes | that France, within twenty d mak- 0 e of O aash bl of exceptlons sustained; Donze | by at least one witness affirmatively shown | moved upon the leased premises and fixed | the condition that (he biack ot the milling | INg such assignment, mada and fled the In- above riferred to were visivlo untit v J;"Z"', appeal dismissed; Myres, | (o poséess knowledge of the value concern- | {o"{jio land it became a part thereof; and | corporation for which the note was given | YEntory required by the Wyoming statutc. 10 o'clock and 15 ites of the Sgainst Mahoney, motion to reinstate order | In& Which he i called upon to glve evi| that tn art was without authority should yield a dividend of 30 per cent per | Held evening of that day, to show cause and prohibition overruled denc owing Brocks agalnst State, 25| orjer said dwelling house and additions | annum, "and that the otiginal payee of said | That the assignees were not entitled to Ttwwill ther be scen that thi< v . Nebraska 389, Eraq andte ay the claims of the rg L e AR o g A rnoE Motions to advance were overruled in the gevered and sold to pay the claim note agreed at the time its execution and | recover, as the failure of the assignor to A 3 ¥ : Yollowing cases: Chicago, Rock raland & WHAT AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE I8, | material men very to hold it in ‘trust for him, the | make and file within tw f stove actually held five continuows o & g ‘ 3 (2.) That the material men by furnishing 4 tory required by law rendered the ign- / . ) 1y for fifty-three hours and fifteen cific Rafircad company against Archer, Over-| Haley against State. Error from Harlan | @0 SN SE TSNS 25 the erection of nswer of (he maker of the note did | ment absolutely void. ' all ’flxalrln(a;] McShane, Creighton university | county. Affjrmed. Opinion by Justice Har- | improvements on the leased premises ac. | not allege an agreement on the part of the gainst Poyer. ror._from Web- . ¥ Ty veaosd; ARG onE AP TRIRIIE against ey, Creighton university against son. 2 quired liens against the tenant’s interest | original payee of the pote that he weould | Ster county Opinion by Commissioner ‘ d TS N 0 Mulvihil, & Where bottlas ot Intoxieating liquor wer M 1 premises. inst_ Leaven- | "0 Such iote in trust for the maker. Held: Ragan. © ' -0 I : ; can well be proud. ; i Sy each enclosed In o paper per or box, Jahd company against Leaven- | That the evidence offered wns. frelevant here a litigant files an application for a 3 # Respectfully submitted, Motions for rehearing were overruled in | which was sealed with sealing wax i | worth, Error from Douglas county. Af-|under the Issues, and properly excluded, continuance on the ground of the absence of | & 2 b v the following cases: Sandwich Manufacturing | number of the paper boxes, each con Aithad! WHY HILL SHOULD HANG. a material witness, and the adverse party x CONRAD BRUNE, Sup’t ;?lml,n,,y against Feary, Stephenson agiinst sk of such liguor, were packed e adainet Tawe (58 N« W. ReD TRy e e e *\“ S stipulates in-open court that, It the appli- 4 agg, Brb a Egglestor sbell | Worden box by a party at_St. Louis, ollowed and reaffirmed. s -againg . 5 K rom Cass | cation for a continuance be overruled, that o Bonter et msgleston, Campbell | i Ghiuneq to his agent at Republican City: | 3 e e santan‘ef land took by agree- | county. ‘Affirmed.” 'Opiiion by Justice Post. | the aaavit made for & contioienet sy ;,5“ nst Baxter, Lichtenberger against Worm, | Nab,, and the ngent opened the wooden | “nt a second mortgage to secure the un- | 1IN one count of the information for mur- | be read on the trial as the evidence of the henix Insurance company against Omaha | box and took the pape xes in which the | 7250 porilon of the purchase money and the | der the accused was charged with having | absent witness, such stipulation is valid and Presents Given AWIY This Wesk, Loan and Trust company, Garlichs against | flasks of liquor were contained therefrom |‘Cash payment was made from the loan se- | PUTOSEly and of his deliberate and pre. | binding, and every fact which it is alleged L . Donnelly, Lincoln Street Rallway company |and sold them separat held: That the | cured by the mortgage which was made | Medita i) malice killed the deceased, And | in the affidavit the absent witness would With $10.00 worth of goods, against Adams, Carruth against Harris, | Wo0den box was the ‘“original package,” [ superfor to the purchase money mortgage, ":!u{:Ub:_*(l.;‘lfhl_;)’g'lll: tlhe ki{lllifl Is alleged to | testify to, which is competent, material and ;. Betsilver p ated teaspoons Clark agalnst State ex rel Carey, Aiken|2Nd POt (he sealed paper box or wrapper | with the knowledge of all parties, but with- | jOtE OO JO0€ ' B0 attempt to rob the | relevant testimony under the ssues, the ap- OR With £25.00 worth of goods, REAITAL Btate, ‘Schrosds & t4 ox | and the bettle therein enclesed, and such a | out previous agreement, it being the under- | SReeeseie JINIG 10, charge but one offense, | plicant for a confinuance is entitled to read A Beautiful bisque figure i ate, Schroeder against State ex|sale was a violation of the provisions of the | standing that the loan was being made for [ Bnd 4 oM oo reaulre the state to elect | from the affidavit in evidence to the jury, I'edlt With £50.00 worth of goods, . winutes. This isan extraordina- rel Filbert. Law Or thik Rtaté ramINTIEn A L e e e O tents it | e tweers (bt Heverall counth 0f theUnLOTINE: | < i 1Loe ba Smitle terroe i tio e JUEY) A handsome picture The following causes were argued and sub- | ale of malt, spirituous and vinous liguor the |‘n« Ihiscs and the owner contracting to :;:L“ é‘l:fl_l'r‘filw\rl& o::“rmlml_ Furst against | exclude such evidence. With 85 0 worth of zoods, mitted: Botsch against State, Shafer against | Dietz against City National Bank of Has ct such improvements, but there being no | (he State, 81 Neb, o - 0 3 And in such case the facts which the affi- 4 A genuino oak center table Hoatetler, on motion; Egkloston. aoainet |Inf8. Error from Adams count Re- | contract that the money obtained by the | G [the law does not distinguish between | davit alleged the absent witness would tes- Xly: or Monthly Vith #100.00 worth or goods, H % tion; Bgg! agata b O o DI Commiasie e Ry foan should be so used, and the loan com- | Principles of the first and second degree, | tify to are not incompetent, irrelevant, im- Cash or Weekly; or Monthly Au elegant ouk rocker lihas, on. molon. Where It was kntwn €5 the prosident of a | pany not underiaking to see to the appli- | hence all persons who, belng present, aid, | material or improper eviderice because such Payments. Court adjourned to November 20, 1894. | bank that the indorsement of the name of | cation of the money, held: That by virtue 'r‘r;*lfih?‘r flnl:;f»c"‘("i? commission of a felony | facts are stated in the form of a conclu- Following are the syllabl of decisions ren-|the payee on a note by one assuming to|of these facts the priority of the mortgages .‘)“Mulmh- 3 i _““-“ Acotsea Heron sion, dered: make h endorsement as the payee's [ as aga hanic’s liens for the work [ & Qhblection by ai relimnae Bround | SHARP PRACTICE IN A LAND TRADE SOME INSU 2C ¢ agent was outside the scope of his pow begun and material furnished after the re- | (Nat there has been no preliminary ‘exam- 2 LA . INSURANCE DECISIONS. sugh indorsement is not binding on the al- | cording of the mortgages was not disturbed jon for the crime charged should be by | Chamberlain against Grimes. Appeal from Home Fire Insurance company against|leged principal. The loan company was not by estoppei | § hiea pf apatement. Cowan against the |Johvon ccunty, “Affirmcd. Cp riion by Com- Bean. Brror from Thayer county.” Afirmed. | 2. To the ratification of an unauthorized | or otherwise prevented from asserting the L Com biainh e missioner Ragan. Opinion by Justice Harrison. indorsement of his nume, knowledze of the | superiority of its mortgage as to the whole | o TOREIANE UBon which the accused was| "One Wright brought suit against one A demand by an Insurance company for|act to be ratified must be shown to have | amount thereof because of the foregoing | COREHtLEd, <_’<l"r'nlm-(l and held to state the | Grimes to cancel and be allowed to redeem arbitration in the manner provided in its | been had by the party sought to be charged |facts, or of the fuith.r fa t that a mechanic, [ {f f“*“__‘l _'“{"‘{‘ i the information filed in| from the lien of a vold tax deed held by licy, under which there has been a loss [ by the alleged ratification induced by represcntations of the ow B o ot Grimes against the land of Wright, and to y fire, walves formal proofs of the loss. . T 18 error o, permit_ atter a verdict, an | lled on payment out of the loan, & part A0 revlewing the rulings of the trial, | have the title to said lands quieted in him. 2. The petiticn in this case held to con- | amendment of the petition €0 as fo &ub- | which was in fuct appropriated to another ,_‘_“;l "‘:.“I‘I‘_f’hnnw I"J‘U,Im: evidence, this | Wright employed one Chamberlain, an at- tain a sufficient allegation of a demand for | stantially change the claim made up to that | Purpose, it not appearing that the loan com- ons . e S B oxamination to the | torney at law, to institute and prosecute arbitration, time, especially when such change is not to | bany had itself by the contract or by con- o im-m{:';,\ n; x\v"'; trial. Schlencker | said action. And as compensation for his 3. Where real property Is wholly destroved | conform such petition to the facts proved. | duct led the mechanic to rely upon Its see- nst the State b, 241, services in’ the premises duly executed to by fire any provision of a policy of insur- | Darst against Perfect, Error from Doug- | g to the application of the money. SsyiLhe provision of the criminal code | him a conveyance for an undivided one-half ance covering such property, which in any | las county. Affirmed. Opinion by Comn 4 An action cannot be maintained b [aking couscientious uples of a_juror | of the real estate in controversy. manner Al(lemvls to “ml the amount of the | sjoner Ryan 2 & ¢e ugainst the drawee of an order upon | i&2 ro‘r.(r nKp n\_.p‘\m shment ground for chal- While the action was pending Grimes- logs to less than the sum written in the [ A petition, which in ordinary and conc find payable to the drawer where the | €n&e for cause in prosecutions for murder, [ with actual knowledge that Wright had al- was 01 epea by p endme o read conveyed one-ha ) 3 pstate i 1 3 Hey:’t In conflict with. tho statutory rule, | lenghase Aeeerhon the Conimedt S o o Has refused to'aceept the order. | NP 05 SR by (he amendment of | ready conveved onechal of the'real estate | Formerly People’s Mammoth Installment House. nvalld, and will not be enforced. JARETage deatEibsd it conLest Upon W hicl ne of several defendants demurred to a | 1593, con to Chamberlain, and that such conveyance o s brought and e language al- et b D » fix the punishment upon’ conviction for | was ecorded—fo consideration” p i aciion beyae | Seboncy, that fio sult of | lewed compliance with (cs terms, ia‘suicient | petitions the demurrer was sutalied, U | murder i fhe first degrea at Tmprisonment | by WHeNC ohiaied. frors. o ot Pald Open Monday and Saturday Evenings. e insure be ¢ | to sustain a judgment recovered upo e | codefendants after answer d e 055~ | for life ins of the de : 9 | ¢ dis; In any court of luw or chancery until afier | trial of Istues frimed wiihout o auebiion ag | petitions secking afrmative relief against | o 1fe Instead of the Jeath PNy, ing | 2F521d suit and a auit claim deed to him, 0 Award shall have been obiained by arbl. | to the sufficiency of the description of such | him. - No summons or notice 'was served answera of a juror on his voire dire | theroi: Hoa: | he real estate involved MU the eiict 'or much Dr tan: betne: in | Coperact of of Ity performance. B e heretor T hat the court | Sramination on account of prefudice | "0 That the decree of the district court , the effect of such provision being' to| Gilcrest ngainst Nuntk r. Error from Ruf. | Hot appear thereto. Held: o adurt | SRATNARLIAN o acoount € prejudl L) That the decree of the district co o (Boe & rmin Ammirios fmate jurisdic: | falo county. Affirmed. Opinion by Commis- | Broperly refiter Judgment against him oh | witn “caution, and”when ' contradicted Sanceling the deed Abtamed. from Weiaht b pany against Istherton, % Neb., 005, e iva™in which was alleged false rep. | . Amold dgainst Badger Lumber company, | SRdeT denying a new trial Will not bé re- | Grimes us against an undivided alf of Five s 5 ol aedinatue versed on’ appeal. TSR AR DA N Y et dhe-hulfe 6. When a policy of insurance, as an ex- | resentations of the Kind isposition of n |36 Neb. 841, followed. 8. Proof of voluntary Intoxication Is ad-|to redeen one halt o sald rog1 armberlain hibit, is made a part of a pleading or pe- [ horse which thereby IDGES MUST ¢ BXCEPTION: AL 4 A e- [ hors c ereby plaintiff was induced | JUDGES MUST SIGN EXCEPTIONS. | missible in prosecutions fer murder in the | the lien of eaid tax de h tition and is admitted by the answer the chase o e 2 & 5 ce, X0 b8 | thest cn of slditaxadand, andquietingitie he anewer the|to purchase at a certain price from the de-| g.ou against Spencer et al. Appeal from | ISt degree, not to excuse the crime | title to one-halt of said premiscs In Chame == S == facts stated therein become a part of the | fanis vas so defective bec charged, b o ’ Tecord In the case, and Whers SOmo of the | Foy barles (0, defective b of an | piiale county. =Affirmed. Opinion by Com- | harged, but as a circumstance tending to | berlain, was correct 3 re to aver damages of any how tha k 2 Wi 0 deliberate o3 > % e - [ proviians ‘oF the pollcy "are” astin’ picaded | Khud or hamoari had been mutatat® it A1Y | migatoner Hagan O O RO Y O | that, G, ilins was not the deliburate | "Gy hat i€ the contract between wrignt DON'T BORROW TROUBLE.” BUY n the answer as substantive TS ¢ - | er oceedings s cour PR 7, '0_confe: 0 01 e clel ‘here, € o) o o 3 i perta B Ty ARl rre prars of e error proceedingy to (his ‘court, the AR | ajeirict e Eign and allow & bill of | Where, however, continued drunkenness has | not a defense of which Grimes could avail . : produced such a condition of insanity o s demurred e p e action o > exceptions it must eppear that the judge is | Produeed 4 dition “of insanity himself in this action Shoiumed. to by the plaintir_the action of | is_affirmed. dead, or that he i prevented by sickness or | {Tihecility as would relieve from responsi- | 2. If the defendant in a trial court omits to prejudicial ‘""‘:" ning the demurrer is not Bickel against Dutcher. Appeal from | gjsehce from his district from signing and h:l]u v for criminal acts, if produced by any | make a meritorious defense, which he might Tiberty Insurance company agalrst Ehr- | Louglas county. “Affirmed. Opinion by Com- | dliowing the bill, or the parties to the Hti- | Q1er cAuse, such condition may be shown | have made, he Wil be bound by the record lich. Error from Seward county. Affirmed, | In this chse gation or thelr counsel must agree upon the 3 he fact that it was | made there and cannot interp:se such de- s o Beward cou apmeain® Gase | there was presented on | il of exceptions and attach theretg their | (Aused bY voluntary drunienness is imma- | fense for the first time in this court, Court- YrORSals N8 A Juestlon ~ save that of | written stipulation to that effect. Section nay ainst Price, 12 Nebraska 188, re- ’ iven Sut At SxamInAtlon and Consiieration | Ramoency, of (ng, evidence to. syxtadn e | 'ton" eIVl Procauee: b it LSRRI mhlch eress examina: | anfeel T ; TR GHEARED 1N THE END, f the whole d o e ceeding eones rs e ek urt, e _proofs The mere stipulation of counsel in a| yitnaes o ARG e pas e Reed against ood et al Srror from T Trial of ‘the chne In ‘the Miateiet Soure | UPOR examination having been found {ully | case that the olerk of the court may sign | Of & Witncss other then the defendant in | pawnee " county. Affirmed. Opinion by and more especially the testimony, con: | Jadmmment of the deiioCns Jduestioned the allow @ bill of exceptions 18 not sutll- | Saecting his credibiiLY, rests in DurPane, of | Chief Justice Norval, : vinces that the jury were not misled by ’"é,‘;":,‘,fl“,,‘.‘fl”'\'l”" ST R "“"l“‘“'(‘}ll it to confer authority upon him to do 8o. | fion” of the trial court. o ':.',f,',".',f""‘,""' L An assignment in a petition n error such Instruction to the prejudice of the com- | county. - Reversed + T o e 1t Is sought to present to this| not arror to permit a withess fo S erisid | will be dlsregarded by this court where the I and remanded. Opinion eged errors oceurring o o tris &s for the defend- | same is not relied upy Al 2 “ - laining party, the glving of the defective | by Commissioner R i P el ot Dot cantiie el [ ant to be asked on cross-examination if | "3 An RlpnInantCOF. etras: Wiieh I di: 4 SN CUPIDRWE nstruction will not be sufficient reason for [ “An action myy be maintained against H ! A 4 ! 0 2 he had been arrested for vagrancy, drunken- | re¢ , A B v z This great Vegotahle. reversing the judgment and granting a new | 1,8 Soq’6. WY s piialned againat tled and signed as required by law s in- [ n€BAT Q€Ch axrested for vagr rected generally by numbers merely, against X Vitulizer,the prescrips o R TabraToe Gom 8. & §. or agalnst cither ¢ em, but | Kearney, Neb,, §3; Reynolds agains A I e L) e sed be- | request of the successful party, Is sufficien: us or diseases of the gene orgaus, such ws Los! Burmood against Farmers Insurance com- | to render G. W. S. liable for the acts of | Distz 5 N. W, Rep. b. 89, reathrmed use (hie trial court in a prosecution for | where none of Said Intructions are num. : Tinonsmta, fuins 10 thie Bt cle, Beininal Kmissions, Nervous Debiley; any. Error from Hall county, Afirmed. | . 1.. 8., there should be averment as swell hr altagary rInog murder has in charging the jury Hined | Daxed - sinoe e ix tas na & imples, Unfitness U; M. Exhausting Drains, Varicocels and infon by Commissioner Ragan. SEUas g gl b s (Guthrie et al against Brown. Error from | material facts as proved, where it ed | bered, since it 00 indefinite and uncer- " B 6 kulh by a mtual Insatance company | 35 eVidence to establish between them the | Nuckolls county, Affirmed. Shown by the penord thagi¢re [t is clearly | taln as to the particular instructions in- 3 Qonattoation, L . organized under the laws of this relation of partners. order o "authorize the clerk | mitved |3 et o feonne ot it, they. wer tended. CUPIDENE clean;es the liver, tae kidneys and the urinary " A e W this @ An action for failure to pay over money tha district aurt (7 set- | 11 the p at the tria’ or {2 e ke A L e BEFORE ano AFTER organsof all impurities. against one of its members for asses received by defendant as the agent of plain. | {le a bill of exceptions It must appear that | YY, M as proved COLLECTING UNMATURED DEBTS, B BEFORE an levied against him to pay losses of fIff cannot be maintatned upon M re Prost of | tee contitong e e ananer boction §1; | , 11 ‘The trial court should avold the giv-| Cox & Cornell against Peoria Manufactur UV EIDEEH sireqpth s At Byt BT biad iR fhsurance company, the fact that the aud- « e |1 of, indie promineice. e purtiotins | e Sompany. Krscr Hatnders county Prostativie GUETDENS 1a 1 X 5'cutro Without s Gporation B.000 s . At that ih negligence on the part of the defendant in | of the' code of civil procedure permits the | 11 v Mtor of the state hid refused the msurance | maling' collection 'of the 1oy With ‘the | Clerk to cxorelse sueh authority. Fherefore, | Proposition by frequent repetitions thereof | Af Opinion by Justice Norval timonfals. A written ¢ oy returned 11 81X DOXes 400K NOL AMTack & DORe pany rtificate of authority to con- | Huteint sation in charging the jury. But a violati | A .00 Send tinue doing business In the state is not a | detention of which he sought to be|although the parties may have agreed in|that ryle in a crimfnal K ation of | The filing of an answer after a special de- wanent onre. $1.00 a box eix for 85.6¢. by mail Send for olreular e defense, as the refusal of the auditor was | Charged in the petition. advance of the preparation of the bill that [ fiele Tovermibte Srran Wi cution is not | murrer to the petition s overruled is Address DAVOL MENTOL €0, P. O Tiox 2076 San Frandiseo, Ol For sale by only a prohibition upon the insurance com- POINTS IN CONTRACT LAW. the clerk might settle the same, he 15 not | fhat" (here wi o onere It is apparent | waiver of an exception to the decision of GOODMAN DRUG €O, 1110 Farnam Streot,Omaka. pany from taking new risks Shackleford against Hargreaves et al, Er. | uthorized to do so when the proposed bill | the " propox BIRL 400 wehory Siriof | the couzt o the demyrrer 2. Nelther Is it a defense to such an action from Adams county. Affirmed. Opinion | instead of being agreed upon, is returned | oida, PIohe it dia mot have the Shere It is| 2. Answering over after the overruling of that the directors of the mutual company Commissioner Ryan, g with proposed amendments, and those are | dude from the consiioatie Crect to ex- | a general demurrer to the petition is no had made a_contract with another insuranc Where parties litigant had entered into a | P9t complied with ohsideration of the jury | walver of the defect that the petition fails ot col g other propositions stated by the co company whereby it was agreed that the | contract under which the possessicn of a When a defendant answers denying the | '3 {rOPCAItO i ar tho sy, ) t leny o -eriminal ‘case the trial | % A ati t b intained mutual ‘company should use its Influence | stock of merchandise was transferred from | 8llegations upon which plaintifi’s claim 1 | court has correctly eharged ups | rtan e e A v D e e A A : S L e SR e B BCRGERR R B R B st Wea erv , their property In another Insurance com-|independent consideration, plaintift could [ Sounter, claim, o general finding for the | 4 gingle proposition mikht have been stared | it tha ehqonal cases spaclfied in section 9 o ny, und agreed to surrender to its mem- [ not find a superior right of possession, such | PAlNtIT is sufficient to dispose of the 1ssues | with greater precision In a single par: e o . Buch | hoth o petitio d o e counte . 1 s ragrapl Sucl wction canno Who o ingged by the ¢ Flectric Delta” * Follow Sufferer.” « Bolas® ers, who should do so, thelr insurance and | as would entitle him to maintain replevin | poth on the petition and on the counter | i3 no ground for Teversal, ‘bartleqian s Srabh R R = B B R s e Sare Guncke, and gis 'n.v.“?«’a?i'a memibership contracts. for said stock, upon an allegad breach of B action was brought to foreclose a | th€ instructions given-uwe a substantial o i allowed and property sel . 3 Gurdelt growing oider aud worke; YOU who have given up in despair, say 3. Whether the directors of a mutual in- | said contract by defendants as to retaining S 0% oush e nd | Pllance with the reauests presented by the | 5. W od Brins 3 A oomed, there is no hope for mei" to you I any, who arc s|aking Jnto an ear) surance company had any authority o | plaintiff In thelr emuloy at b cortain Wi | mechanic’s lien. There was a general find- | PIA0Ce by the | b Where a creditor brings an action on & Gortimiiia voth ¥ BRe s et ety il U wid s A make such & contract not decided PR R SnRley B & g for the plaintiff for a sum less than §200; o claim before it Is due and sues out an at- FOU S TIERE 50 ME TR0 FUS e A GO hersol € entere: is not essential to the crime o i 2 N0t necessary ihat he should cel al insurance company and county. Affirmed. Opinio “ol - e S Tane s ¢ len. | the bady of the person robbe: + s de! " one of ita members provided: ThAt the ihe | siones Ryan, ~ med: Opinion by Commis A hat the enerel inding eatablished | olant 1f mktn];rrlxfl'lhh"]r:rLluiA,I Peamautl- | of the Safandati which are risd upon S8 Burance contract might lu‘A‘runv;'l‘llpd at the| n an action for recovery of damages al- 3 0 & lle] AnC iimned thal the | g onal protectior, por’ae | Ahe. baslattoriilie ‘apmatiny: of the Sitach- : 104 0 QUESTION LISTS v 100 aee Book. Ny rsenrey of ember by his paying all as- | leged to have resulted from breaches of de- -4 ] A € iadictiol Abuse of privilege by counsel in ad- | the attachment affidavit B oo,y ks great. [ s Twel jerivce: Bessments against him to date of Such re. | fendant's covenants of warrnes af Ciiia, | of a justice of the peace, and entitied plain- asing the Jury, B B araisoynsel in a e witachment affida KD wrla bafare' s persoaaily of by mai, fres and saered. Ay 0.8 o « e 3 recover his tos act that the b ble 6 eal, iere @ district judge ellows an order ; 3 S ety (v viny &reck e to HEAL uest, Logethier with @ cancellation fee of &2, | and for quiet ecjoyment, the plaintir, ¢ | tif {9 Fecover Bia eoste The fact that the | must be exceptad 4974t the thme. " Mobain | of ‘atlachment on o debe ot due The. pre ; STITUTE, 30'Van Curen St Chicago, the membershin insurance contret P LNY | establish prima facle the’ breaches alleked, | ince with the finding ald not render a judg. | *E2Inst the Slate, s Web. 154 sumption is, in the absence of a contrary B e e Taaaes oontraet, o° \:Imr::umvl\ll merely o prove that he has | ment for costs erroneous the’ (ot AL m'lfi,‘yug‘ na,pplication to | showing, that the same was made while the Laatuer § aen s insur on- | either been evicted or kept out of possession E T A e e e #-the duty of the pre- | court was In session, and especlally so {::::dm;“l paid the cancellati 0, fee, but neg- | by one In actual possession claiming title PLEADINGS IN REPLEVIN. slding judge, Whethét $o requested or hot, | where the judge at the time of (he granting ) A San e et i d 1! at the dute of surrenionng e from him | paramount to his own. The presumption of | Randall against Persons. Error from |10 Protect th cougty b an_enforcement of | of the writ was presiding at regular term | 40 section or sections thereof there should rlmms Em B_L }8 contract. Held endering his Insurance | title 'which then arises in “favor of “the | Hall county. Reversed and remanded the rules essential loan orderly and im- | of the district court In which such action | B¢, ® compliance with the requirements o H uioll]. s Lyt party in possession must be overcome by | | 1 in all other actl . | PArtial administraticp. of the law. And | was brought. the constitution in reference to amendment The iisurance and membership contract . ] W replevin, as in all other otions, the at . And | wa . A R Bl eui Rt remained in force. proving title out of him; both the aforesaid | evidence should correspond with the al- | #hould an attorney persist in attempting to| 7. A district judze has the power to hold - g Hoadnclie, Brain Yahucetion, e N o airn rree breaches may be deemed established by |jegaticns in the pleadings. And where g | IPfluence the jury by reference to facts not | court in a district other than that one for The act entitled “An act to amend sec |5 . BAND AND WIFS. sufficlent proof, : plaintiff in replevin bases his right to the | In evidence of eppeals to prejudice unwar- | which he was elected, and it will be pre- | tons 1 and 2 of an act entitled ‘An act to Thatisma, Green against Green. AY’ val from York | Smith against First National bank of | possession of the property claimed by rea- | Fanted by the proofs. the ccurt should not [ sumed in case he does so that it was at the | Incorporate cities of the first class, having vovaln, Anmuiia A o ounty. Affirmed. Opinion by Commissioner | Crete. Error from Saline county. Reversed. [ s5n of a special ownership therein or llen | hesitate on motion to set aside a verdict In | instance of the judge of the proper district, | less than 25,000 and more than 8000 inhab. {4 other excomea. ¥rice, 10, enon agal Opinion by Commissioner Ryan. thereupon he should sgt out in his petition | M8 favor, although no objection may have | 8. Where tie nienters cf an ins>l et pa t- | itants, nd regulating their duties, powers C to state a cause of actl In a suit by a husband against bis wite | The limitation of two years within which | tne facts with referefice to such ‘special | been interposed when the offense was com- | nership divide between' themseives all’ tne | and government Tknown s chapter xv of THE ARNOLD CHEMICAL CO. to compel her ‘to specifically perform a | an action under the provistons of section | ownership or len. Haggard against Wal. | mitted firm assets, without regard to the interest or | the Keneral laws of 159, aad pascd and 181 8. Westorn Avenuo, cHicAd0, written contract she had made with him | 519, Revised Statutes United States, may | jen. § Neb.. 271, reamrmed 16. Evidence examined and held to sustain | Share of the respective partners therein, | 8pproved March 14, 18 laws of 181 p. in and by which she agreed to convey to|be commenced for the recoveny from a na- A Jitigant cannot plead one thing and | the verdict of murder in the first degree | With the intention and for the sole purpose [ 162-3, not having complied with the require For sale by all druggists, Omaha. him certain real estate, neither the husband | tional bank of twice the amount of usury | prove another and to warrant the extreme penalty Im. | of enabling each to claim the portion so | fent of the constitution contalned in seé.| nor the wife can tesilfy one against the |paid to it dates from the actusl payment | He cannof plead that he is the absolute | Posed by the jury transterred to him as exempt agatnst the | ton 1L of article Hi, whereln it 18 providec giher in the case. Niland against Kallsh, 87 | of such interest, and rot from the bank's [ owner of property and satisfy such piea by | Chicago, Burlington & Quiicy Railway | creditors of the partnership, it is sufficient | that “no law shall be amended unless the Neby, 47, reaftirmed reservation of It from the orlginal loan by | proving that he simply has a lieu upon it. | compary against Ccchran. ‘Error from Lan- | ground for an attachment, since such trans- | Dew act contains the section or sections so 2 Hection 311 of thie code of clvil procedure | way of discount. Fllowing First National | Nor can he plead that he is entitied to the | caster county. Reversed and remanded, | fer tends to hinder and delay the firm cred. | amended, and “the section 'or sections so was not repealed by the enactment of chap- | bank, Dorchester, against Smith Ne- | porsession of property by virtue of a lin | Opinion by Justice Pont itors in the collection of thelr claims. amended” shall be repealed,’” 18 vold and WM. LOUDON, lr;-lrlhll“m:'l‘ulln’ll '5;’?:‘."”‘ 1898, r?us‘{‘.‘.x '\x«; mlnskil .. = s upon it and satisfy such plea by proving | One who refuses to perform the conditions l.Nur\«'e’ul«n ll'luw company against Mow r. Mlh;;t;l vfl"’]l- P (et od Wome iner against Skinne .exington Mill and Elevator compas hat he Is the absolute owner of the prop- | Imposed upon him by the terms of a con- | Error from Lancaster county. Affirmed. | 3 Where the acts of a municipal corpora- gt Wemen' ) Biin cBER R ML aaa Blavaier,, colapany | (B £ e prop- | e Canhot. recover for a breach thereof | Opinion by Chief Justice Norval [ uon “wre prestmaty“widiout o o i | Commission Merchant 4. A husband brought suit against his wite | AMirmed. Opinion by Commissioner Irvine. 3. The legal title to property pledged by | by the other party. Where a judgment conforms to the plead- | an action of Injunction may be maintained | to enforce the specific performance of a If a person has advanced money in part [ & chattel mortgage remains in the mort- | Mattison against Chicago, Rock Island & | Ings and evidence in the case, and no briefs | by a party swing a sufficlent Interest and Grain and Provisions. gontract in writing made by her in and by | performance of a contract and then refuses | gagor until divested by foreclosure proceed- ific Rallway company. Appeal from |are filed by the party in this court, the |that irreparable injury will result to him o ol hich she agreed to convey to her husband | to proceed, the other party being ready | ings and sale In pursuance of law; and | Cass county. Opinion by Justice Harrison, [ Judgment will not be disturbed. — Damon | through such acts, and this notwithstanding [ certain real estate. and willing to perform on his part all the | until the title of the mortgagor 18 thus di- [ Parol evidence is incompetent to prove a | against City of Omaba, 38 Neb., 551 | & declsion of the ssues in the case may in- | Private wires to Chicago and New ¥or! -rhe wite defended on the grounds that the | stipulations of the agreement, the former | vested the mortgagee has merely a llen | contemporaneous oral agreement by which | South Omaha et al’against' Taxpayers'|volve a decision of the particular class to | All business orders placed on Ciicag gontract sued on was procured from her by | will not be permitted to recover back what [ upon the property. Musser against King, | it is sought to change or alter the terms of | lcague et al. Error from Douglas county. | which the municipal corporation belongs. | Board ot Trade. id and duress, and undue Influence ex- | he has advanced. Walter against Reed, 34 |68 N. W. Rep., 744, reafirmed. ‘| a written contra the result of which | Opinion by Chief Justice Harrison. 4. Under th cts as developed in this | Correspondence solicited. ercised over her by her husband. The evi- | Nebraska &34, followed. 4. A pluinllfi in replevin pleaded that he | would be to change the effect of the wril- | Where it is sought by legislative enact- | case, held: That Injunction was the proper | Office, room 4 New York Life liulh. dence falled to establish that the contract | Cunningham against Burke et al, Appeal | was the absolute owner and entitled g9 the | ten contract in a material portion of it and | ment to amend and repeal a former act or | remedy. Omaha. Telephone 160k