Omaha daily bee., 1885-10-27

decide and its decision will not he mo
Tested by the appellate court unless clear
ly wrong
Code vs.. Carlton. Error from Lancaster
county affirmed Opinion by Cobb, CHI
l. A. j. A. was y sub.contiactor under
j, +, TO bGild certain sections of a rail
road, which work he again sub-lct to III.
IL. and L., who were performing said
work. Upon the completion of said con.
tract said J. +. would I've indebted to A.
j. \. 81, ilS2i. ii. J.. and l.. filed statu.
tory lien ON said railroad for their work
and labor in building said sections there.
of. w. Il. C., in the presence of a. j.
a., presented for acceptance and pay.
mcnt to j. f. draft or order drawn by
a. j, A. on y. +. in favor of and payable
to W, Il. e. for the sum of Si,0il.5O in
full of all claims. Whercupon j. +.
stated TO \. j. A. in the presence Of w
Il. G.. that he would not pay IL until all
of the liens for labor on said sections
were settled and paid OFF n. G.. &. &.
sued out IN attachment against A. j. A.
and garnished }. +. Held that there was
an equitable assignment and appropria-
ton of the money payable from j. +, to
A. j. A. to w. r. G. to the amount called
for in said draft order subject to the said
statutory liens.
Mette Il kannc VS. McGuckin, error from
Douglas county; affirmed. Opinion by
The act of the legislature approved
February 2S, 1891, commonly known as
the Slocumb Liquor Law, is not uncon.
stitutional as being in violation of the
provisions of the constitution of the
United States, which provides that "thc
citizens of each state shall be entitled to
the privileges and immuniteS of citizens
in the several states, " it being the eXer.
else of the police power of the state for
the protection of its citizens and not for
the purpose of revenue or the regulation
of commerce.. In the exercise of such
power it is competent for the legislature
to require that the liccncec shall be Il res.
idcnt of the state and subject to its laws
and to the processes of its courts.
II. ~ Nj Railroad Co. vs. Chicago Lum.
Der Go. Error from Otoe county. Al.
iirned, Opinion by Reese, j.
L In proceedings in garnishmcnt
after Judgment under section 24N of the
civil code, ii it is found that the gar.
nishec is indebted TO the execution defen.
dant, the order of the court should he
mat the gaFnii1hheGd Pay the
complied with it may be enforced bye
cutiOn as IN cases where an ordinary
Judgment is rendered
2.-Whcn garnishce, prior to the time
when it is required to answer to its in.
dcbtcdncss, files an answer AZ in an ord-
nary action, and, issue being joined
thereon, IL trial is had and other witnesses
are examined, without objection to the
course pursued, such garniShec will not
be permitted to question the regularity of
the proceedings in the appellate court.
Patmelo vs.. Conn. Error from ,Cass county
Affirmed Opinion by Reese, j.
The verdict of II Jury upon questions
of fact where the testimony is conflicting
will not be set aside unless clearly
wrong
$50 where one of the questions in
volvcd in cause submitted to the jury
was whether not partnership existed
between the parties to the suit and upon
the facts stated by some of the witnesses
the jury could find that n partnership
did not exist and they, SO found, such
finding will not be mOlested. And the
same rule will be applied to all cases
where there is conflicting testimony upon
material or vital points in the case.