Omaha daily bee., 1902-11-03
SUPREME COURT .SYLLABI.

1858. Everson against State, Error from
Harlan. Affirmed. DUNE. C.. division No. 3.
evidence that the grantee holds all the title
and interest IN the land that was held by
the Judgment debtor at the time OF the
rendition of the judgment, or at any time
thereafter up to the sale of the premises.
and Is prima facie evidence of the validity
.. me provisions of section 124 of the
Criminal Code directing the assessment of
a fine In double the amount embezzled In
case of conviction, Is not open to the OBJ
lection that 1t inficts a double penalty or
punishment uDon the defendant or awards
the injured party double damages.
3. The legislature has authority. In a
criminal action to authorize q judgment
which Which shall shall o pc aIect IN b 1svP bee on e Ins paFt9y
as compensation for the value of the thing
embezzled and liquldated damages for the
injury sustained. Commissioners against
Bank of Finley 80 o. St, 1874; County OF
Wayne against Bressler. 81 Neb., S1S. While
section 1874, Criminal Code, denominates
lowed as Compensation to the injured party
and is not a fine or penalty within the
meaning of section 5, article wifi. of the
I29O4. De France against Harner. Error
from Lancaster. Affirmed. Sullivan. c. j..
/. Charges OF notifications of existing
statutes as an Incidental result of adopting
a new law covering the whole subject to
which It relates are not forbidden by sec
ton II. article Ill. of the Constitution.
.. The primary election law (ch. q, laws
of 's0 being an original enactment. COM
plete in itself, does not contravene section
II. article III, of the Constitution. although
section 6 operates indirectly as an amend
ment of section l OF the general registration
1882. State ex rel Reynolds against
Graves. Original. Writ allowed. Sullivan,
c.. j.
l. A court or Judge has no authority by
a provisional injunction to transfer the
possession of real or personal property
from one litigant to another.
chambers. without a hearing or any oppor-
tunity to be heard. held to be not merely
erroneous. but absolutely void.
8. The superintendent authority of the
Kings bench over Inferior tribunals is, to
the extent that II may be exercised by the
use of the writ OF mandamus. included I'm
and part OF the original Jurisdiction given
by the constitution to this court.
\ 4. A Judge of the district court may, IL
the ordinary remedy Is inadequate, be com
PEELED by mandamus to vacate an %injunc-
tlon granted by him without jurisdiction or
authority.
The following opinions will not be Of
hcially reported:
1923, Omaha Brewing association against
~Tillenburg. Error from Madison. Reversed.
Albert. c.. division No. 3. Unrsported.
The facts stated in the petition set out
In the opinion held insufficient 10 constitute
1Os93. Conkling against Levi. Appeal
from Furnas. Reversed with instructions.
Ames. c., division No. 9. Unreported.
A mortgage executed by a married woman
upon her separate estate. without present
consideration and merely to secure an ante
cedent debt OF her husband or of a third
iioi4. Mersdith against Lyon & Hea,y.
Appeal from Holt. Reversed and plaintiffs
petition dismissed. Day, c., division No. l.
A claim not reduced to Judgment for the
statutory penalties for a failure to release
paid chattel mortgages does not furnish
such a cross-demand as can be used for
the basis of an equitable action 10 cancel
another mortgage between the same parties
which has not been paid,
1901. Shrake against l. hin Error from
Dawson. Affirmed. Day. c.. division No. l
Unreported.
Menson against Lanin. Error from Daw.
son. Affirmed. Day, c.. division No. l
Unreported.
/. Evidence examined and held to warrant
heid notes OF an original surveg as consti,
tuting the boundry line between parties
could not longer be located by eithel
natural or artificial land marks.
2. A survey will not be rejected merely
because the county surveyor commenced
the measurement OF a line at its northerr
ascertained, instead OF going over Il fron
the south, as was done In the original sur
8. The identification OF E section corner
as a starting point made by the county
surveyor upon examination OF the GROUND
and upon sworn evidence win not b. re
jected in the absence OF any showing o
mistakes or error,
4. An instruction that the jury were I,
DECIDE IRON ths evide n Ensther or no
government surveyor. could be identifies
whers such lines indicated the margin OF
certain chsnnel. does not substitute sucl
meandered lines for the center of the chan
mel as a boundary where the Jury Is eN
pressly told that II they can locate sucl
channel It's center Is TO serve as the bound
airy betN the parties in the action.
ni2l. Brown against Chicago. Rock Isl
aud & Pacific Railroad company. Erro
''-"- '@""aHtsr. Former opinion adhsrs'