Omaha daily bee., 1902-05-14
SUPREME COURT SYLLABl

The following opinions will be o~ficially
ioOs5. Gray against Peterson. Error from
Knox. Reversed. Ames, c: Division No. 3.
Any distinct and unambiguous act evil
1 %iaS tbs an Intention intention syd the sn seller fItart 80 part nI
the part of the buyer to acquire the pos
session, accompanied by a tradition of the
or from neutral ground to the premises of
the latter, satisfies the statute of fraud
and suf1ces to transfer the title so that
If 1t remains unpaid and the latter as
sumes the risk Of safekeeping; and may
1926. Hare against Winterrer. Appeal
from Deuel.. Former Judgment of supreme
court vacated, Judgment OF district court
i. The hnding Of a trial court upon an
issue OF fact is conclusive in this court un-
2. If the lenders agent exacts from the
borrower for the use of a money a bonus
or commission in addition to the highest
lawful rate of interest the transaction is a
violation of the aw against usury.
a loan was negotiated rendered valuable
reason to suppose that such services were
be justified In presuming that the lender
knew the borrower had been required to
I. It would seem to be a warrantable pre-
sumption of fact, based on common expert
ence, that men who rely habitually, in
judgment of persons representing adverse
Interests, seldom or never have money to
loan.
5. Evidence examined and found to jus
tify the conclusion OF the trial court that
an agent who had negotiated a loan acted
from KearneS. reversed and dismissed.
/. Under the laws OF this state the right
of an administrator to the real estate of
i has asSeq Is not Is sSficisnt 70 O aGytho aaa S 6im
to maintain a suit to quiet title to such
2, Where a cross bill asking affirmative
relief against a co-defendant is filed out of
time. and no summon is issued thereon
appearances Is made thereto, the court has
no jurisdiction to try the issues rendered
1O7Os. Huffman against Ellis. Error from
York. Affirmed. Kirkpatrick, c. Division
No. / Sedgwick,, J., not sitting.
ate oral agreement between the parties to
a written contract as to matters upon
n %ai' ten spG to S SSryra or o IS sraehe' the II te aGes
of the written document, is admissible.
2. Instructions examined and held prop
lori. Carey against Kelly. Error from
Dodge. Affirmed. Day, G.. Division No; l.
against liquor sellers are entitled to conn
husband and fathers int9xica ton from all
who sold or gave him the liquor causing
such intoxication. held not to assume inn
properly any continuity of such intoxica-
2, instruction that support" in the
statute as TO intoxicating liquors does not
means as would enable plaintiffs to live in
a style and condition and with a degree
of comfort suitable and becoming their
Stss 1. Instructor that the furnisher of any
part of liquor causing the loss OF support
Is liable to the full extent OF the loss, APP
1. Evidence examined and held SUFFICIENT
to uphold verdict for plaintiffs for $500;
from Douglas. Reversed and remanded.
Hastings, c. Division No. /.
equity docket over plaintiffs objection Is
waived II at the trial plaintiff expressly
declines hearing before a Jury.
2. Error in holding witness incompetent
and refusing all her testimony. is imma-
terisl II the testimony offered together
4 Section 81, chapter xiii, Compiled
an heir OF the person Who Shall in writ
ing signed In the. presence OF competent
E YstSs1 Of aG sasS sSiS" ht oniy pr to se t6s
evidence of paternity OF the prescribed
l. No intention to make the child an heir
and no distinct statement that IL Is an IL
legitimate child need appear In the writ
s. A woman whose marriage with de-
cedent was annulled during his lifetime be-
cause OF the existence Of a former hus-
petent witness against his estate as TO
facts learned otherwise than oy
cations from deceased during the existence
of marital relations.
1872. Moseley against Ftllebrown.. APP
peal from Millmore. Affirmed. sedgwick. ].
1920. Hall against Hopper. Error from
Douglas. Affirmed. Oldham. C. Division
No. 2.
l. A principal cannot accept the part OF
an unauthorized contract entered into by
his agent which is beneficial to him and
meenti He must either ratify the whole
contract or repudiate IL entirely.
q Where a plaintiff sues on a contract
entity acted with general authority, he will
not be permitted TO show a Limitation OF
the authority OF his agent IN making such
contract unless he proves that such limi-
tation was known 10 exist by the defend
ant at the time the contract was entered
into.
Isn. Smith against Smith. Error from