Omaha daily bee., 1902-06-29

hrmed. DUNE, C.. division No. 3 Unreo
l. Evidence examined and held 10 support
the Judgment Of the district court.
1853. Union Paclnc railroad against
Standwood. Reversed Inst. Ames. c.. divi-
sion No. 3 Unreported.
l. The fact that a witness ss to values
SHOWN TO be competent In that respect
testlhes OF cross-eXamination that In maxi
ing his estimate he took into consideration.
besides matters that were proper 20 he con-
sidered. other matters that were not proper
for that purpose, does not entitle 4 party
to have the entire testimony Of TIE Wit
ness upon that subject withdrawn from the
jury. and stricken from the record.
II 2 party Is entitled to have tome
Credibility Of testimony brought especially
to the attention " the jury by an %iustruc-
ton. he valves that right by emitting to
ask for such instruction.
3. When a witness as to the value " real
property has testified that he has based
his opinion in part upon his Information
as to prices obtained upon sales Of other
specifically described property in the neigh
norhooG 3t tn2L IN contr9NetsNs II Is .rrSr
tanned at such sales actually were.
1858. Estate of John Fitzgerald against
caster. Affirmed. Pound, c., division No.
z. Cnreported.
No. 1l65S, decided herewith followed in n
case OF the same nature.
1851. Lau against Blanberg Appeal from
Saunders. Judgment Hastings, c, divi-
l. An appeal does not bring mp for review
errors in the conduct Of the action In the
court below.
2. Endorsements OF payment entered by
mistake or inadvertence on a note DO not
become a part of the instrument and their
erasure does not avoid the note.
3 An endorsement or a payment on a
or assent is not an irrevocable application
OF the payment to that note where the
payee also holds other obligations against
1895. Browne against Crofte. App al
from Douglas. Dismissed. Ames. c., divi'
i. A ana order by a district court made
In a statutory proceedings under section
500 ct seq OF the code) to obtain a nHw
trial in an action In equity Is not review
able by this court upon appeal.
MS Courier Printing and PnohsninS
No. 3. Interpreted.
l. Evidence examined and held to support
the verdict of the jury.
2. II counsel against objection perscvere
in arguing to the jury upon pertinent iacts
not before the Jury ana expressly excluded
by the court, this. on exception July taken
may be ground for a new trial or for a
1i74i. Stewart against Hoagland. Appeal
from Logan. Reversed. Albert, C., divl-
sion No. 3. Unreported.
cient to sustain the findings and decree of
il17i5. Lowry against, Robinson. Appeal
from Logan. Affirmed. Kirkpatrick, c.
l. Where a contract of sale and purchase
OF land is rescinded by the vendor the ven.
dee is ordinarily entitled to repayment Of
The part purchase money paid by him with
2. Where. however, the RECESSION occurs by
virtue of a written contract or agreement
between the parties, setting out the terms
sale and purchase shall be rescinded, and
no. claim, with respect to what mas pesn
paid by the vendee is reserved therein, the
8. Petition examined and held not to state
117S5. zug against Forgan. Appeal from
Douglas. Affirmed. Kirkpatrick, c. Dtvl-
sion No. /. Unreported.
/. Petition examined and held SUFFICIENT
to withstand an objection raised after trial
2 Courts will take judicial notice of the
signatures of their own officers.
8. Return of the sheriff Of nulla bona to
in evidence, held SUFFICIENT under the pro.
visions of section S5l OF the ode OF Civil
11796. Irwin against Gay. Error from
sian No, :. t AfiT%ff; Oldham c D'vi-
l. Where a suit to foreclose a real es-
tate mortgage. Is instituted in the, circuit
court OF the United States and such cause
is dismissed from said court for want OF
jurisdiction the record of such dismissal is
not a bar to a subsequent. action between
the same parties on the same mortgage in
a state court having competent jurisdic-
2. When a mortgage is given to secure
part payment OF the purchase price of a
homestead to be established II Is unneces.
sary that such mortgage be signed and ex
ecuted by both husband and wife; only the
one taking the title need execute such
mortgage.
8. The same rule governs with reference
to an agreement for the extension Of a
1884. Union Trust Company Of New Yorh
iTTmed. Day, c. Division No. / unre,
/. A deputy sheriff may act for and ir
the place of the sheriff In making an ap
praisal OF real estate for the purpose of q
judicial sale IN the execution of a decree OF
court.
made by a sheriff.
8. An appraisal of the interests in land
about TO be sold at judicial sale OF the par
ties to an action, against whom the decree
operates. is not invalidated because tho
names of the owners of the equity of re-
Ltion are not stated other than by the
design atior[''et al after the name of tho
principal defendant in the action. Wells
Y. Frazier, 50 N. w. Rep. (Neb.). 1888, fol
1851. Weilage against Abbott. Error
from Douglas. Affirmed. Pound, c. Divi
sion No. 2. Unreported.
/. Discontinuance of a pending cause and
agreement not to prosecute further claim
are sufficient consideration for a promie'
to pay accrued costs and attorneys fees.
2. In such case the agreement to pay at
torreys' fees is an original and Independent
contract, and Is not within the statute o.
frauds as being a promise to answer fo
the debt OF another.