Omaha daily bee., 1897-12-14
SUPREME COURT rRocEnprses.

"A.
Lambert were admitted to practice,
Naidt against Supreme Lodge, c. S. 2. S;
Burwel lrrigating Company against Lash
NETT, dismissed unless plaintiffs serve and
file briefs in twenty days.
Bachman against Keller Hebron Lodge
Independent Order of Odd Fellows az anSt
Garmire; Cassells against Hamblin, Ehere
against Berg, Parrott against Sparkling,
Uhlig Groneweg against Rudd. Goldstadt
against Stenberg and Sphinx against State
affirmed State ex rel Home for Friendless
against Cornell, leave to docket and order
December !, 1s97-Pardue against Missouri
Pacific Railroad Company, motion to recall
mandate oyerruled., Clemmons against
Heelan, motion for decree overruled Burr
against Reams motion to submit on merits
overruled. Gage County against King
allowed. Hanscom against Lantry, motion
to strike transcript overruled. Andrews
against Turner motion to dismiss over
Loan Association of Dakota against Wills,
motion to dismiss overruled Moore against
Nebber, dismissed unless appellants serve
and f!e briefs in twenty days. Motions to
advance, affirm and vacate supersedeas
oyerrrnled Owe Foley S,sS,. AGAINST eastman
ervelt against Baker leave granted to
nlo petition in error. State against Midland
State Bank, State ex rel Rock County
| Omaha advanced. Schmltt against Ma
| honey and Moores against State ex rel
sells against Hambin. affirmance set aside.
| Dismissed. Seiroe against Carvell and Mu-
tual Benefit Life Insurance Company
against Hainey, dismissed, Chicago. Bur
lir gton 4 Quincy Railroad Company
against McGlnnis, motion for judgment
against State ex rel Yeiser, motions to dis
| miss and vacate supersedeas overruled.
| Cause advanced.
| Company, Smith against Peoples Building,
Loan and Savings Association, Dunn against
against omaha, motions for Te6earings rtta
| overruled. Farwell against Chicago, Rock
Island & Pacific Railroad Company. rehear-
Court adjourned till December 81. when
| the following cases will be called All cases
qne4 bearing TnasF gs5s f STaR9 agsn
against Western Union Telegraph Company,
Wright against Carr. Reed against Omaha,
Ho2pers, Thompson against kyner, -kyner
! against Avery Gibbons against kyner,
Horkey against Kendall, Tutt against Haw-
lins, Palmer against Carpenter, O., o,Brien
against st2aulding, Mason against Sharp,
Warner ,against Brannon, Wyler against
| pany against Altschuler, Anderson against
| Story, Field against Lumbard Aultman
| against Bishop Magee against Gideon New
| Omaha Thompson-Houston Electric Light
Company AGAINST Grifhng, Parmalee against
Ewing, Motley against Motley. ,Melick
| against Dakota County Langhorst against
| Coon, Perkins against Tilton, Brown against
AI65erts 5 d Van E9lkeRh,,srg against t = Tngley
Company against Granite State Fire In
| surancs Company
| Opinions were handed down in the follow
Van skike against Potter. Error from
seEard county. Affirmed: Ragan, G:
tain the, findings of the jury that defend
ants did not contract with plaintiff to
contract to Visit and treat him until mt he he
was cured; that def ndants We're not guilty
| method of treatment followed by them.
2. The law does not REQUIRE Of a surgeon
or his judgment; J II does not hold him to
the standard of infallihlity, nor require
of him the utmost degree of care or skill;
but that in The practice of his avocation
| he shall exercise that degree of knowledge
and skill ordinarily possessed by members
8. A petition alleged that defendants
agreed to visit and treat plaintiff until he
nial. The defendants We're permitted TO
testify that at the date of their last visit
TO plaintiff they Informed him that they
should not return un-ess they should be
requested so to do: that they received no
such request and did not revisit plaintiff
Held, that this evidence was relevant under
the pleadings.
4. In, a suit against surgeon for. damages
| the district court refused to permit persons
called as jurors to answer on their voil
bers of any church organization or secret
society. Held, that it does not appear
the record that the district court abused
its discretion or erred in its ruling in this
matter
a person called as a juror for the purpose
| of ascertaining whether or not there exists
grounds for challenging such person fol
cause But what questions may be asked
such person, and what range or scope
such an examination may take is a matter
| ,or1aitf tod In Da inra Nf ~
trial court; and its ruling will not be dis
turbed unless there has been an abuse o.
discretion TO the prejudice of the party
complaining.
G. A jurors voir dire examination set ou
: in the opinion and held that the distric
tiffs challenge lodged against him on th'
ground of his bias and prejudice:
geon for alleged negligence in operatin!
upon and treating plaintiffs fractured kne
a cap text books on surgery, though STANDARD
authority on the subject, cannot be real
e TO the Jury Independent evidence o
r the opinions and theories therein expresse,
Higgins against Hagler Appeal from Ian
G caster county. Affirmed. Irvine, C.
Evidence examined and held to show tina
4 q bill of exchange drawn to the order Of
+ bank by its customer, the amount of whc
4 vas placed to the customers credit becam
7 trusted to il merely for collection
2, petition seeking to charge a trust o
GSyr Of Of an hsnes 0t bSn aH e IN
6 | that the bank obtained the property a
n | baiee, and at the same time charge that
!, | .Nas obtained by fraudulent concealment G
II 1 Insolvency and relief may be granted o
the latter ground although the former b
| not proved
8 Where a bank remains open and hold
A | itself out as ready to transact business, thl
4 | is an implied representation of solvency, an
for its officers to then receive a denosi
s knd1ing it TO be hopelessly insolvent is
2 fraud.
= 4. The depostor under such circumstance
- | may rescind the contract of deposit an
: recover back the thing deposited. while
Z or its proceeds may be distinguished
Is specie. and before they have become con
Ir mingled with the general assets of the banl
l. g. Certain stipulatons in the record hel
to justify a finding mat the proceeds OF IL
deposit in question had been preserved seq
arate and not commingled with the gener
=, assets dv
IL United States National Bank again
Of Geer., Error from lfNucEOlls county r.
J. The question whether title passes to
re negotiable instrument delivered to a bar
lie under a restrictive but ambiguous endors
re ment without an cypress contract, but
ID pursuance of an established usage, Is OF
"a of fact rather than law and depends on Il
&c intent OF the narties
E. 9 AS between the immediate parties II
lie form of an endorsement Is not concluslv
Of but the nature Of fahe contract may
A proved by parol evidence.
is 3. Evidence examined and held 10 sho