Omaha daily bee., 1902-02-22
SUPREME COURT sYLLABI.

1O6e1' Swift and Company against Bleise.
Error from Douglas. Reversed. Hastings,
Z. Division No. 1. Reported.
1. Allegation that defendant corporation
S SlsDt fe aIIsEst taInS ss By, BY Ia Is,t foreman oS1b6 Is spf 7;
trial.
O. Negligent act Of a brennan with gem
eral control and authority to employ and
discharge workme In ordering a subject
operating the elevator with negligence to
the workman's injury. Held, properly re-
garded by the trial court as not the act of
3. instruction that defendants answer
denied lameness Of plaintiff, where answer
PENDANT and by the means alleged. Held,
prejudicial error, where there was evidence
tending to show previously existing lame
1. Refusal OF instruction to effect that de-
PENDANT was not responsible for damage
caused by want of reasonable care on plain
THIS part after the alleged injury. Held,
erroneous where evidence had been ad-
mitted without objection tending to show
fering were in part due to his failure to
exercise reasonable care after the hurt re-
IOSS1. Dsrr against Berauist. Error from
Dawson. Reversed. Holcomb, J.
l. When q general demurrer to a petition
| has been sustained and a review of the rul-
ing thereon sought by error proceedings and
the party i%nterposing the demurrer fails to
fects in the petition relied on to sustain the
demurrer, q searching examination and
critical analysis will not be made in order
to find a defect in the petition rendering 1t
vulnerable to- such demurrer.
2. A sale of real estate for ~delinquent
by a county treasurer, and the issuance Of
a tax sale certificate therefor, raises a legal
PPesSianES and 'h legally fy0I levied and assessed
and the sale made in the manner provided
z. Petition in the case at bar examined
and held to state a cause OF action, =.
10e64. McNaughton against Burke, Appeal
j II is the settled law of this state that
in reviewing the judgments and ina orders
Of the district courts vbs upCI S Ipsn the piiesd.
inRs and evidence the controversy has been
fIs"A conveyance Of the real estate sub
3ect to a mortgage is IN substance a con-
v~eyance of 50 much Of the property only as
is not required for the satisfaction of the
q Land conveyed subject to a mortgage
is in equity. as between the grantor and
4. When ~recitals in a deed are OF the es-
sence of the contract neither party Is per-
ieSSol IHesselsrave against State, Error
from Buffalo. Reversed. DUNE. c. Division
No. 8. Reported.
conditioned that the defendant shall be
and appear in this court on the first day OF
charge of rape now pending herein against
him, and will not depart the court without
/ leave and abide the oruer OF tne court As
limited to the term at which 1t exacts the
= Under our statute the state is not
records to prove a forfeiture OF the recos-
nizance, but may use oral testimony fer
that purpose; but in order to default the
attendant he must be called at some time
during the term set for his appearance.
1OS1S, Williams against Parks. Error from
Vision No. /. Reported.
i. instruction sent with a note forwarded
by one bank to another for 5.I the purpose T,eon
and to have been understood to mean by
the notary to whose attention u was
called, that the necessary steps 10 plnd
endorsers were TO be taken.
2. While a prompt return TO the sender
Of a protect showing no ,n notice 70 S en-
notice In time. having entrusted, that duty
to a notary, II was not sound TO make
He should either have discharged the
duty of called attention to the faet nat II
"a Giving notice OF dishonor Of protested
paper Is, in the absence of contrary In
structions, an official duty of a notary
an action is maintained by the party in
jured upon his Official bond,
li0S4; Bradbury against I hihney, npppesl
Hastings, C. Division No. ]. Reported.
/. Tha a purchaser Of negotiable secu-
ootmnes OF wfni the loan Company negotiating
them, knows that the loan company so
licits payment Of them regularly as they
the payment of taxes and insurance "a
protect the security, does not make such
loan company ms bs s Tenneys Sc nbisin nSl
where he has no knowledge OF any claim
of authority from MIN or Of ownership OF
OF them and places them In the hand OF
another agent with instructions 10 for
msliy demand payment oua.. ..
provisions as TO payment OF taxes, which
would De the mortgagee's right independ'
nesofiabiiity Of the instruments.
I'LL Lincoln against Janeseh, Errol
from Lancaster; Amrmed. sullivan, G. J
in a city the duty of repairing sidewalks
in the public streets adjacent. TO theil
stitution, and Is a legitimate exercise o.
the police power of the state,
2. The duty to keep sidewalks In repair
and free from snow and ice, prescribed b!
subdivision 6, section 81, Of the LineolT
charter (Ch. 1Sa, Art. !, Comp. St, 1885
the general public, but ultimately for tn,
advantage of the city.
q. When. a duty, TO repair an adjaeen
sidewalk Is lawfully imposed upon a PROF
erty owner he Is liable, according to tn
intention OF the Legislature, for all dam
ages resulting from a failure or refusa
4. In determining the intention Of tn,
legislature. all provisions Of the statute
be taken into consideration and given du'
weight.
g. Statutory provisions giving the mayo
and council and street commissioner com
piete Jurisdiction and control over street
ana sidewalks, requiring. AUDITING 10
owners TO build and repair sidewalks II
accordance with notice from the city au
thorities, and making such owner liabl
for all damages resulting from defectiVl
walks, construed and held not 10 imposn
on ebuttsrs and absolute pat 20 repai
on their own motion, but only q duty 4
repsir after being notified so 10 do b!
said authorities.
HIPS. Hobbs against Warman. Appea