Omaha daily bee., 1902-12-18

IA. The pictures have been selected from
the works OF the best artists In New York.
Boston, Chicago. Philadelphia and other
eastern cities and from the pictures that
have been unpacked Il is believed the ex-
hibit will be the best that has ever been
made in the state.
state Has n Say.
The lower court will have another try
at the divorce proceedings Of HARRIET NJ.
Eaton and Eli Eaton, for the supreme
court today reversed the decision Of the
lower court granting the defendant a di-
vorce and declaring the marriage null and
void. The case came up from Cass county.
Mrs. Eaton sued for divorce March 3, 1900,
alleging cruelty. Eaton filed a cross-bili
sharging cruelty, and that Mrs. Eaton was
under disability because Of having secured
a divorce from a former husband. December
., 1893, and having married Eaton March
81. 1899. This plaintiff denied the cross
bill and that her marriage was made in
good faith. In the syllabus the supreme
court holds that there can be no valid
marriage without the consent OF the state:
1T is not the policy Of the divorce law
to encourage bigamy; therefore a person
who has been released from wedlock by
judicial decision is not permitted to in
dulge the hope that II he marry again in
violation Of the statute the marriage will
be valid unless the decision is reversed"
The statute incapacitates a divorced per-
son from contracting a valid marriage while
the judgment divorcing him is subject to
possible reversal. The court therefore
holds the Eaton marriage invalid. but 1t
ftrthar holds TINT In fhfa gtofn fba opI.
essential of a valid marriage is tho free
consent OF competent parties, and that
where a marriage contracted in good faith
is void by reason Of some removable i'm
pediment the parties may, after the i'm
pediment has been removed, become law
fully united by continuing to live together
with the intention of sustaining the rela-
ticn of husband and wife. In the lower
court the marriage wac declared null and
void and Eaton was released from all mari
tai obligations on account Of It.
Goes Back for RetriaI.
In the case Of the Union Stock Yards Ma,
tional Bank of South Omaha against the
Board Of County Commissioner of Thurston
County, the supreme court sets aside its
former judgment and the judgment of the
district court is reversed and the case re-
Lldhutu " luElltI pIOtdtullBhs
Bridge Case is Affirmed. P
The judgment of the district court in the
case OF the County of Saline against the
County of Gage was affirmed by the supreme
court.
A temporary bridge costing sos, and later
a permanent one costing 81, 945, was con-
structed in 1898 on the line between the
two counties and the entire cost was paid
by Saline county.
The bridge that had been replaced had
been erected and kept in repair by both
counties. After paying the cost Saline
county presented a bill for payment, which
was allowed by Gage county and a warrant
drawn for its payment. A taxpayer of the
defendant county appealed to the district
court from the order allowing its payment.
In the district court the plaintiff pleaded
two causes OF action, one for one-half the
cost of the permanent bridge and for one
half the cost of the temporary bridge. The
answer was a general denial. The court
found for the defendant. The syllabus is as
follows:
l. The liability of a county TO contribute
Tor the cost of the construction or repair OF
a bridge on a highway extending along the
line between that and an adjoining county
Is purely statutory and the statutory
liability is based on sections 81, IS and 80,
Compiled Statutes.
2. When such bridge Is constructed and
the entire cost thereof is paid by one
county, no cause OF action arises against
the adjoining county for contribution in the
absence of a contract In that behalf to
which the latter county is a party.
3. Where repairs on such bridges are paid
for wholly by one county in the absence of
a contract in that behalf. to which the
other party is a party, no cause OF action
arises against the latter unless II has re-
fused to enter into a contract therefore.
4. That the latter county allowed the
work of construction TO proceed without
objection, and when compelled graded the
approaches to the bridge, and that its in
the county, nor it's taxpayers from denying
the validity OF a claim presented by the
former county 10 the latter for half the
cost of such bridge.
8. That such claim was allowed by the
board of the latter county is not available
as an estoppal on an appeal from the order
allowing such claim.