Omaha daily bee., 1895-04-22

premium due in one year from date. con-
lained a stipulation TO the effect that the
note when due suspended the the policy during
such default. but that n subsequent pay
ment Of the premium in fun revived the
defendant made default In the payment of
such note, and in an action thereon II was
held that the company was entitled to re
,Mliber ct al against Wooley. Error from
AArniteiloPe county. Affirmed. Opinion by
school house cannot be changed at a
special election Of the voters OF a district,
ing by vote of two-thirds Of those present.
except where the original location is three
Tor - ~ III diIt itVii 'ne StoeIuphlCal cen
| may, by a majority vote, be changed to a
point nearer such center.
2 \ party is not punishable for contempt
Of court for dsregarding a void order of in
Junction. But when an injunction is legally
Jurisdiction Of ths subject matter ma sP" and "6f of
the, parties, it must be respected until set
aside by the court allowing 1t or IL is re-
versed in the appellate court by some ap-
proprate mode Of direct review.
8. Where one knowingly disobeys an in
junction which is not void he is liable to
punishment for contempt, though he would
have been entitled to a vacation of the or
der upon a motion to dissolve or upon n
trial upon the merits of the bill.
4. The disobedience of an injunction al
Lowed, lowed by county judge in an action
against such court. Johnson against Bou-
ton, 80 Nebraska, SOS, followed
Washer against Lucas. Error from Pierce
county. Affirmed opinion by Justice Post
A conveyance of real property from a
husband directly to his wife although void
at common law, may be sustained, If rest
ing upon equitable grounds such as a su1l-
cient money consideration.
2. Evidence examined and the advance
ment of money to the husband by the wife
out of her separate estate held a sufficient
consideration for the conveyance to her by
the former of all of his property, real and
personal,
3. The defendant in an action of the
ejectment may interpose any defense, legal
or equitable the effect of which is to mega
tive the plaintiffs right of possession.
George against the State of Nebraska
Error from Lancaster county Reversed
ordinarily a judemen of conviction in a
criminal prosecution Will be reversed when
ever the. attorney general. after an eXaml-
nation of the record, declines to submit "a
brief in behalf of the state, on the ground
that such judgment is not supported by the
2. Evidence examined and held not to
sustain conviction on the charge of rape
Peterson against Ledwick. Error from
Pierce county. Affirmed. opinion by JUS
tice Harrison.
the plaintiff to prove the ownership of the
property in controversy, alleged in the pc
tition, his right to immediate possession
thereof and that it is wrongfully detained
2. The. facts necessary to be established
the time the action was commenced.
3. The plaintiff in this case having failed
to prove facts sufficient to entitle him to
recover, 1t was not error for the court to
direct the jury to return a verdict for de-
PENDANTS
Kissinger against Staley. Error from
Pierce county. opinion by Justice Harri-
son.
In order to render the error, If any in
the admission of testimony by a trial court
available, where the evidence was given
before any objection was made to its in
PRODUCTION, it must appear that motion was
made to strike such evidence from the rec
ord, a ruling of the trial court was OBJ
tanned thereon and exception taken thereto.
2. I'm all actions. motions and proceed
ings in the supreme district of justice
courts the costs of the parties shall be
taxed and entered on the record sepa-
ratey." Section 3O chapter xviii, Compiled
States, 1893.
8. A judgment of a justice of the peace
was as follows: at is therefore considered
by me that the plaintiff recover from the
defendant the sum of $7.iS and his costs
herein expended taxed at $3.50, as follows:
See margin" Held to be correct in form
in its reference to costs, as it only allowed
the recovery by plaintiff 'of his costs eX-
pended in the suit and further that sep
arately stating or entering the costs in
itemized tables on the margin of the record
was a sufficient compliance with the re-
quirements of the law in regard to separate
taxing and entering the costs on the record.
4. Where from statements in the record 1t
appears certain items of the costs as taxed