Omaha daily bee., 1902-03-03

question the suficlency Of this answer IN
me district court ne could not or eppShsi
allegations OF the petition.
Evidence examined and held to war
iOS7s. Haferding Against Jones. Error from
Lancaster. Affirmed. Albert, e. Division
x Judgment OF a district court, on an APP
peal from an order OF an excise board
granting a license to sell malt, spurious
this court in the absence OF a duly certf-
fed transcript Of the application, remon-
STRANGE and the hnal order OF such board
iOeO7. Fidelity and Casualty Company
sgainst Field y Brewn. ErTor ron Laa1
Pound, G. Division No. q
The appointment OF a general agent,
for and bind the principal in the me or the
principals business. Hence as to persons
w WITH Srsi notice otSs s Of the n exset limits OU Of his
authority the principal will be bound by his
acts. within the scope OF his apparent au-
lOsis. Axthelm against Chicago. Rock
Island q Pseine kaidfoad Err%or
4 petition stating that a landowner with.
well as injuries and destroys, gates on q
railway company's right-of-wsy, at n farm
own premises, d~iscloses a right to an In
/ q Inc TACT tnHl the kdNeb NeEt- neaNS
and unsuitable would constitute no defense.
2 A mere request for findings as to Ger.
ss,a sReciaH sSIn tact Of Is law NOT ana e r fset under der
section 297 Of the Code OF Civil Procedure.
= Where judgment would 60 against
error to refuse defendant the right to open
and close at hearing OF case.
was no damage caused Il ts imInaterial
whether instructions as to a justification
Of the alleged Injury are supported by the
l DttfNNIKHs
6 Objections TO instructions as a group
cannot be. sustained where any OF them
i0ssi. Reed against Mott. Error from
Lancaster. Affirmed. Barnes, c. Division
i. The return day Of the summons was
September s. It was returned not served
county. on October is defendant entered
waving issuance and service OF summons.
Held, that the date OF such, appearance wes
mons; that a. continuance for less than
ninety days from October l6, but more
t tns1 ae ginsty esy consent fsSm sid nOe work I; a ~a GIs-
"a suit in which there were attach
tried to the court without the Intervention
Of a jury. The. parties being present at
time OF the final submission of the ease
consented and agreed, upon the request OF
under advisement and render his Judgment
within four DAYS as defined In the statute.
SSeainS "' in court! Judgment was rendered,
Held, that the Justice need not, In such
case, render bis Judsment instantly .:, anc
the time agreed upon by the parties, and
defined in section 1902 OF the code, sucn
Judgment was not void Tor want OF 'uris-
3. Where there is a conflict OF evidence on
the matters in dispute between the par
ties the verdict Of a jury based thereon
will not be disturbed -
Foley. Appeal from Douglas. Affirmed.
Day, c. Division No. /.
Objections to the appFaiiseSm IreI OF real
amined and held under the record not well
1osSi. Peoples Building. Loan and Saving
Association against Palmer. Appeal from
CLAW. Afirmed. Pound. c. Division No. 2.
A !; PsiSPFiIers a sStrGang BiacdFUSasn DECIDED srE here.
with, following in a case OF the same ma
2. usury is a defense personal to the
borrower which may not be asserted by q
purchaser of mortgaged promises who has
g. But II the borrower and m~ortgagor has
retained any interest In the mortgsgs
to be enforced against him, he may set up
usury and pray for cancellation in q suit
& roTec Of the see mmoGpttsssssssed d premises Joined
with him as a defendant and joining In the
loss. Peoples Building. Loan and Saw
ings Association against WeltQn. Appear
from Clay. Affirmed. Pound, G. DIVISION
Peoples Building, Loan and SAYINGS AS
sociation, against Palmer, decioeo mere
1854. Peoples Building, Loan and Saw;
ings Association against Carricker. Appear
from Clay. Afirmed. Pound. c. Division
! No. 2. - A.
,d pS;ORlls,S s spil1sinsEi ad aSan S SSo i sssiR decided Ssi
3 herewith, February 6, 1902, followed In a
case ioess OF owe o%e ss% against South Omaha. APP
I missed. Ames, z. Division No. 3. unre-
loss. shanahan against South Omaha.
2 Appeal from Douglas. Reversed, with m
: structions. Ames. c. Division NO. D. oh-
"a Judgment recovered in an action
sailed upon the ground that the last men.
toned Judgment was ~.fraudulently oDtaineul
: A Judgment against q m,snie ,par en- IN
] i6sSi. Dodd against SHELTON. Error from
Custer. Afirmed. Dune. c. Division No
t u 9s nceRS's 81. Code Of Civil. Procedure
does a mot prohibit : SISsct z iePP sTt int e. saf In s tue re- 9,
. suit thereof, from testifying TO transac'
s SUns h or S %isS tSs agent rs 81 Z deceased 90 saf per- r.
: Z. An oral agreement by the grs1t eS e :;
Q the purchase price of land sold 70 a thirt
3 party may be enforced by the party fol
w iCSss. VcoSneli against Rhine. Appeal frcn
n BOX Butte. Afhrmed. Day. G. Division Nc
d where the items constituting a me
chanio's lien show that more than tou
g months have interviewed between th9 date
{ OF performing the service or furnishing. IN
" material Il raises the Una
the work was performed or the MATERNAL
. were furnished under separate contracts
u but this presumption IL overcome py PROC
that there was but one contract covering
T '1iii loo Finney against Gallop. Appeal from
n Cherry. Afnrmed. Dpfhe' z. Division Nc
d q Obtained Judgment against the firm o
q and II FOR $500. on the rendition OF tn
= udRment w and p, attorneys for q, nle'
their claim for en- attorneys Hen on tn
udgment and gave notice thereof. AFTER
o ward n, one OF the partners, commences
. An action against q on q note made 10 mir
nv G. alleging that both Q, the other mem
her Of the hrfn, and q, the Judgment credi
tor were fnsoIVent, and that he alone wa
responsible. He asked that an 1udRfnen
entered against q on the note might be se
on against the judgment Suffered IN lavo
y OF @ against Q and ~. " n y inter
% vened and asked that their attorney
lien be protected. Held. that 10 the exten
y OF their lien the attorneys should be pro
= tected and that TO that extent the set-oi
: ioSss. Peoples building, Loan and Saw
a inTs Aasociation against Backus. Appea
from Clay. Affirmed. Pound, G. Dtvisio
J. ~ This court viii not take judicial motto
49, ~ 80 ~ nfhar atatea. hut in the at