Omaha daily bee., 1896-12-19

deemed to be receiver, proposition not
determined, the lovy OF an nttachmcnt
upon n portion of such property without
leave Of the court is not void in the alb
scncc Of any objection by the shcrin "a
custodian or by the receiver ON that
., Whore the evidence showed afrrma-
lively that n chattol mortgage was With
held from record more than q month in
continue TO withhold 1t unless some
changes or difficulty should occur
in the business affairs of the
mortgagor which would make It necessary
to protect the interest of the mortgagcc,
ana the mortgagor was to notify the mort
gaScc of any financial difficulty the mort
iication was to be filed Held; To sufil-
GENTLY establish n fraudulent purpose of
both parties TO the mortgage such as to
render II invalid and void as to creditors
of the mortgagor
:. \ decree required a receiver to sell
all the assets of an insolvcnt firm on u
authority, advertised and sold such assets
after the date fixed by the decree. Held;
That such sale was absolutely void and
not merely irregular In such Il sense that
u confirmation over objections could rem
der II valid
King against state ex rel School District
No |. Error from Han county. Affirmed.
Opinion by Commissioner Ryan.
The facts rocitcd In an Alternative writ
OF mandamus, unaided by cNtrnse matter.
must be sufficient to entilc to the issues
of u perGmptory writ.
:. ON demurrer to the rcCitutious in
the alternative writ all such rrcitatlons
must be considered, and the refusal of com
pltance upon certain grounds by the re-
spondent will be held to excuse technical
the relator is entitled to the relief sought,
). Where lines penalties or license
moneys are in the hands OF the treasurer
of city. of the first class having over
5000 and less than $1,000 inhabitants, such
moneys are properly ds,rhutable among
the common schools which tcrrilorally con-
stitutc n part of the city.
pany. Error from Douglas county. Re
versed and remanded. opinion by Commits.
sioner Ragan.
Wether the judgment Of Justice of tho
peace is appealahlc Is made by section 9S5
of the Code of Civil Procedure to depend
upon the amount claimed by either the
plaintiff or defendant in the BIZ Of par
ticulars filed by him before such justice
ana not upon the amount for which either
2. For the purpose OF determining
whether it has jurlsdiction to entertain
such an appeal the districs court must look
TO 1t from the Justice Of the peacc
Brasch against Brasch. Appeal from
Madison county. Affirmed. Opinion by
Within the meaning of section 12 chap
ter XIV Compiled Statutes, an action Is
pending from its commencement until it's
until the time fixed by statute for prose.
cutting an appeal or an error proceeding
mas expired,
.. What sum husband may he required
to pay TO his wife for her support during
the pcndenCy OF n divorce suit for her
"eNpensCs' in prosecution or defending the
action, for counsel fees, ana whether such
sums snail be paid before the final hearing
of the action and as condition precedent
TO the right of the husband TO further
prosecute or defend, are matters within the
discretion of the district court
3. 1t is equally within the discretion of
the court to postpone until the final hear
allowances O.
for
A. Allowances made in a divorce suit by
a district court for the temporary support
of the Wife for Expenses" and attorneys
fees. will not be disturbed unless it APP
pears that the court abused it's discretion
Esgleston against Slmshcr, Appeal from
Lancaster county. Affirmed. opinion by
Commissioner Irvine
Under the common law in force in this
state prior to the taking effect of the Mar
Rcd WomdnS' Act, June |, 1871, the wife's
chattcls became those of the husband and
her chooses in action became his when re-
duCed to possession.
2 Prior to 1871 wife received moneys
from the estates of her relatives which
she Immediately delivered to her husband
who invested them in property in his own
name. Certain of this property was insured
against fire. 1t was destroyed by fire, and
he executed an assignment of the policy
to his wife, ostensbly for the purpose of
repaying her moneys so by him received.
1t was not shown that when the husband
received the money there was any agree
ment between him and his wife for its
repayment or that 1t should he treated as
a loan. In contest between the wife and
the husbands creditors, held, that the
money became his under the law as 1t
existed when il was received: that the sub
scquent assignment of the policy of in
surance to his wife was without consdera-
tion, and that the equities of creditors, who
icy or liens by garnishment proceedings
upon Its proceeds, were superior TO those