Omaha daily bee., 1885-05-14
THE SUPREME COURT.

IMPORTANT DECISIONS AFFECTING OMAHA PAR.
TIES.
The following decisions of the supreme court
were filed May IL, 1885:
Dunn va. Haines. Error from Douglas
comfy. Affirmed. Opinion by Maxwell, j.
l. To give the court Jurisdiction in an &C.
ton against a defendant who resides in and
was servedswith summons in another county
than that in which the suit was brought, the
defendant who resides in or is served with
summons in the county where the action is
brought must have o real and substantial in
terest in the SUBJECT of the action adverse to
the plaintitf-hence, if a surety is discharged
by the creditor exten ing the time of pay.
ment without his consent. he is not o neces-
sary or proper defendant.
"A defendant who resides in q different
county form that in which the action is
brought and denies the jurisdiction of the
| court over his person, should have the ruling
of the court on his objections thereto reviewed
on error and not by appeal. Byappealing he
enters q general appearance. Pearson vs..
Kansas Manufacturing company. IA Neb.,
2l1.
Hartman vs.. Omaha. Error from Douglas
county. Reversed. Oninion by maxwell. j.
A city is liable under the constitution of
the state to a lot owner for such damages as
he may sustain by filling in the streets in
front of his lot above the level of the same,
where the buildings were erected on the lot
before the grade was established.
Dewitt vs.. Wheeler ect. company. Error
from Saline county. Affirmed. Opinion
by Maxwell. J.
The homestead law In force when a debt
is contracted governs as to the rights of the
creditor n debtor in that case.
2-Where in a stipulation of facts it was
agreed that the debt accrued in the summer
of 1877" a homestead law having taken effect
on the first day of June of that %year-held,
that as the word "summer " is frequently
used to indicate the warmest season of the
year, 1t will not be presumed that the debt
accrued after the first day of June.
Hartman va. STREETS. Error from Douglas
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Maxwell, j,
In 1865 and 1867 the Homestead society, of
Dubuque, Iowa, purchased a tract of land
adjoining the city of Omaha, ami divided the
same into lots known as Hartman's addition
to Omaha, the title being in j. G.. Hartman
as trustee for the members of the society.
One b. rendered valuable services as secre-
tary for said society, and In 1867 or 1868 was
given lot ~ in said addition as compensation
therefor. He took possession of said lot in
1868, and enclosed the same and retained
pos session until his death, In 1869 b. died,
leaving a will in which he devised said lot
to his widow, The will was duly admitted
to probate, and after wards the widow sold
and conveyed all her right, title and interest
In said lot to one s., who brought an action
against the trustee and his son who had
notice of the transaction before purchasing, to
obtain a deed for said lot. Held. That S.
was entitled to a specific execution of the con.
tract.
State ex rel. va. Townsend. Mandamus
writ denied. Opinion by Maxwell, j.
A person possessed of a homestead upon
which he ~resfdes, although his title may be
a contract of sale, and the property encum,
bered for nearly its full value, is not entitled
to $500, in addition in lieu Of a homestead
Nor can he pledge his homestead as security
for a debt, and while possessed Of the home
stead claim $500 in lieu thereof.
Lord ys. State. Error from Brown county
Reversed. Opinion by Maxwell, j. l. Al
indictment under section 2OS of the crimina
code against a husband for deserving his wifi
and living and cobabiting with anothe
woman in a state of adultery, must allege the
offense substantially as in the statute.
2. Under a statute permitting q husband o
wife to testify in a criminal proceeding for
crime committed by one against the other
Held, that on the trial of a husband on an in
dictment for adultery the wife was a compe
tent witness against him.
3. Marriage may be proved by an ey
witness, and if followed by cohabitation It
validity will be presumed.