Omaha daily bee., 1900-11-15
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI


SUPREME COURT SYlLABI
:, No 92s6 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Eailr9ad Company against Hitchcock
Nnlrmed Opinion by Holcomb, j. Filed
l. Ordinarily defendant NAV waive the
issuance aud service OF summons I'm am ac-
ton and erter voluntary appearance ia
th' case such appearance being equivalent
ner provided by statute.
ton an wiino%i iSi,nt0rney Of muniGiral corpora.
waive the issuance and service of summons
und enter the voluntary appearance OF the
defendant In an action
.. inc service OF process upon municipal
corporation. as provided by section 81. chap
ter xiv, article t. Complied statutes while
required TO be served upon the mayor or
chairman of the board OF trustees or I'm his
absence upon the clerk. or in his absence by
leaving certified copy in the office of the
clerk, Is upon the corporation In It's cor
dividual
l. \ chairman Of the board of trustees OF
a village defendant is not empowered to
waive tho issuance and service of sum
mons and to enter the voluntary appear
ancc of the defendant i'm AN action without
authority of the village board acting In It's
corporate capacity as body polite.
., IN courts of general jurisdiction the
| rule Is that the proceedings taken. including
/ questions Of jurisdiction. are presumed to
be Pc regular and In conformity with law.
/ w llflf' ubNtNtl, tnt record OiSClOSgS the
! 1urisdictional steps taken, and II is made to
appear that no jurisdiction was acquired
/ over the defendant the rule invoked is rem
q. Where "a court is without jurisdiction
, over defendant the judgment rendered IL
! void "a nd may be attacked as such nv any
| one whose rights are affected by it's rendi-
| tion and its inVaidity shown I'm any action
IN which 1t may be called In question.
| I, The unauthorized appearance In a case
| where no process has been served upon IL
defendant, is wholly void to- such de-
fendant for whom such unauthorized ap-
| No. 9210. Clinton against Chicago. Burling
ton $ Quincy Railway Company. Error
from Lancaster. Affirmed. opinion by Nor
val G. J. Filed November S, 1900.
l. An cmploye OF railroad company who
has accepted from II damages for injuries
| injury from the relief department OF such
corporation under an agreement of member
snip releasing the com"any from liability
2 Chicago, BURLINGTON & quincy Railway
Company against Bell, ~ Neb.. a: Chicago.
against Curtis. 81 Neb.. 442 followed
No. 92s3. Cones against Brooks. Error
m9mded erSe 0EnSE Hpn bH suTon rnd qnd
vember s. 1900.
/. An attorney has a general or retaining
lien upon all papers. books, documents or
money of his client coming into his hands
I'm the course of his professional employ
ment
2. Such lien depends upon possession and
attaches only TO papers. books. documents
or money In the hands OF the attorney. and
| II Is effective without notice 10 any one.
3. An attorney cannot enforce. by action
his general or retaining lien upon n note
bond or other ohliGation TO pay money.
| 4. An attorney has n charging or specific
lien upon money I'm the hands OF the ad,
verse party TO an action or proceeding
Such lien IL not perfected until notice h1F
been given to the party In possession of the
fund,
3. The notice OF a charging or specific Iler
or an attorney need not be In writing Oi
placed among the files in the case. Any
notice OF the claim and that II Will be as
serted is sufficient.
9 Lavender against Atkins. 90 Neb.. 2O6
Elliott against Atkins, 26 Neb. 403: Sheed,
AGAINST McMurtry, a Neb, 49s. explained
l. Petition in suit to enforce an attorney
lien, examined and found to state fact
n" oa " cityems iaReDF' State Sta e'S Bank of
Bluffs, la, ayainst Idd'ngs. Appea fron
Iincoln Afrmed Opinion by sullivan, J
I. The doctrine of marshallng securltie
applies only to cases IN which two or NOR
m ag of bc so nSg nS dshtn
g 2, Where a creditor has two common
: debtors not sustal ming to each other tn
relation OF principal and surety, one Of then
cannot claim exemption from liability o
| the ground that the other ought to be frs
sued and compelled. If possible, to satisf
! No iOg53 Kerner AGAINST Mcdonald ct a.
i | Appeal from Douglas county. Affirmed
I Op'nion by Norval, c. j. Filed Novembe
a l. The common law rule Of estate by en-
!; !; trety does not obtain in this Jurisdiction
| No. 1922. Mary Baker, alias Maquet
: against state. Error from Lancaster county
!, Reversed and and Tcmanded, Opinion by MOI
e l. That part Of section 8, article |, chapte
q lxXv, Complied Statutes, which provides 70
: the commitment to the state lndustria
il school of any boy or girl under the age
!, Is years "who for the want of prope
r. parental care IL growing w IN mendicanc
, | gaptIOn 70 article viii of the COnatitutipt
!, No, lils4. McGrew, executor. against Stat
a Bank OF Humboldt, Error from Gnge Al
}. frmea, .Oninion by Holcomb J. Filed NJ
. vemher S, 1900,
. estate on November 70, 1897 held 70 he
20 valid Judgment as OF that To. and the ia,
If that 1t was not iournalized or spread 4
!. lRr2e upon tho probate record until Apr
! e. following, does not affect it's validity q
y such Judgment from the time OF It's actu'
"A 2. Held also that the order OF the probat
n Judge allowing the claim In controversy
n a proper demand against the estate We
Ir valid and binding and had the force and 9
feet Of a Judgment against the estate uni
appealed from, or by other proceedings r.
\, versed or vacated In some OF the mode
3, Held also that the judgment OF Il
!, probate court was not the act Of recordir
!; the JUDGMENT entered on the probate recoi
I'd on April u. but that which II consderc
>, adiudged and decided on November II pr
r. vious, wneu, in acting upon, a matter ov
= which II had authority and 1urlsdiction
p allowed the claim In controversy.
y 4 Held. that the Judgment having be,
y rendered on November 10, 1897, and the ter
tr OF court at which II WAS rendered havii
Iy expired the probate court was without q
~ thority or jurisdiction to vacate or mod
\ the Judgment at it's discretion thereaft
"a and could only act I'm respect 10 the matt
,, according 20 fixed principles Of law.
~ :. Held also that the motion 10 vacate q
IA Judgment having been presented Mt ter
.. subsequent to its rendition the court cou
or not properly grant the same, except up,
~ some OF the grounds enumerated I'm q
a. statute and none being presented Its acti
~ In vacating its former judgment was {
o. ! rOncOus,