Omaha daily bee., 1902-05-20
SUPREME COURT SYLLABl

1883. .Yarnsl against Hupp, Error from
Red Willow, Affirmed; Hastings c. Divi'
/. Signature and seal as a notary public
sufficient to establish, at least prima facie
the official character OF notary OF another
2. Amount due on a mortgage is not at.
fected by the fact that an action on the
note, which 1t secures, is barred by the
statute of limitations.
3. Where both note and mortgage provide
IIRPI ~ per GEM per annum interest arset
to be allowed on foreclosure:
1850. Omaha Loan and Trust Company
against Borders. Appeal from Bunalo At
/. The fact that the officer had the certi-
fcates of prior liens In his possession at
the time of the appraisement of real es-
tate under an order of sale and called the
thereto, but does not deduct the amount
thereof from the value of the land until
after they separate, does not render the ap-
2. The appraisement of lands made for
the purpose of a judicial sale cannot be
attached after such sale, except on the
Of Insurance Company Of North America
against Alderman ct al, 50 n. w. Rep,
2Si, approved and followed.
1885; sutton Exchange bank against
Grosshans. Error from Clay. Affirmed.
Barnes. c. Division No. 2. Unreported.
of fact submitted to them is final, unless
such verdict is clearly and manifestly
2. Where the evidence is conflicting and
the court upon a careful examination of II
Is unable to say that a verdict based
t thhereGn iS GlieariiE L fha W the 3STyi in " tbeiE
deliberations, were uninluenced by passion
or prejudice, and that, they, acted from
proper motives, and unless there is some
proof in the record to- the contrary the YER
dict will not be disturbed.
1850. Levy against HIM; Appeal from
Douglas. Affirmed. Pound, c. Division
/. The fact that appraisers did not ex-
erty to be sold under decree Of Foreclosure
does not prove of itself that they acted
fraudulently in. making, the appraisement.
cree in stating the claims for satisfaction
whereof the land Is to be sold is not open
to objection. Irregularities or error in the
decree must be corrected as such.
8. Where irregularities in the conduct of a
judicial sale are charged the finding of the
district court on conflicting evidence will
not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.
11716. Druse against Davey. Appeal from
Lancaster. Affirmed. Day, c.. Division
/. The supreme court. though YIN a
case de nova on appeal, will not disturb
the finding of the district court unless the
finding and decree cannot be reconciled
with any reasonable construction. of the
testimony. Gadson v. Phelps, 81 Neb.. 800,
followed -
2. Evidence examined and held to support
the finding and decree.
11749. Ashley against First National
irmed. Dufie. C. Division No. 8. Unre-
i. A tract Of land was encumbered by
for $2,4OO. In a proceeding to foreclose the
second mortgage a decree was entered
tablisRing it as a second lien on the prem
ises subject only TO the lien OF the first
mortgage for $500, with the accrued in
2. Prior to the sale the court directed the
sheriff to include In the appraisement as a
prior inc9mbrance the sum OF S1,ISS.67 as
the appraisement as then amended showed
the defendants interest in the land to be
S628.1l. The land sold for $500. The de-
PENDANT filed objections to the appraise-
ment and to the confirmation of the sale
and made q showing that the interest due
3, Held, that conceding that the court
had no authority to make the order which
II It, di are relating sdI9 , to the apRTaisement yet as
its appraised value, counting the interest
on the first mortgage at $1,1O0, only the de-
117O4. Fort against Cook. Appeal from
Otoe; Afirmed Hastings. c. Division
section II Of chapter xxxyi of the Compiled
Statutes of Nebraska, refer to the heirs of
the decedent and not to those OF the sur
ytvor. Schuyler V. Hanna, 81 Neb., 3O7,
1904. buchanan against Edmisten. Ap-
RR sFt from 70, A RSTi0P Z, E DiTision GSRinisS 8. 6 5a-
loss. Willis against Harlan County.
rick, c.. Division No. /. Unsupported.
Where a judgment is entered in the dis
triSt court IL f 6ay0I Of a party to the pro.
prosecuted to this court without making
such party a party to the error proceed
termine the correctness Of the Judgment
ll22t Mcconnell against Bettman. Error
from Lancaster. Reversed and remanded.
Hastings, c. Division No. /. Unreported.
l. Evidence by a number OF real estate
dealers and managers, IN general terms,
in the city OF Lincoln understood to in
clude an agreement Of the lessor to furnish
heat when he maintained a heating plant
acknowledged that in cases Of written
leases II was usual TO incorporate an agree
ment as 70 the matter, and no instance of
such heating by the lessor without a stip-
ulation to that effect in the case OF o writ
ten lease could be cited. Held, insufi-
cient to uphold a verdict for defendant in
an action to recover for furnishing such
heat to a tenant whose written lease con-
tained no such stipulation and who did not
cam that any express agreement to fur
114s6. Buettgenbach against Gerbig. Ap-
manded: Oldham, c., division No. 2. I'm
l. The statutory provisions for the con-
veyance or incumbrance OF the homestead
2. Evidence examined and held to not
show an abandonment OF the homestead.
). A court of equity Will not enforce a
contract made in contravention of a stat
ute.
"A mandatory Injunction will not be
granted except TO prevent a failure OF Jus
tice. and then only when the right is clearly
established.
1888. Kear against Eastern Building and
Loan association. Appeal from Lancaster.
Ames. c., division No. 3. Unreported.
!. When a member Of a so-called mutual
loan association, not Incorporated under
the laws OF the state, borrows money OF
the society at an agreed rate OF interest
and ~surrenders to the society his shares
Of stock therein and stipulates TO continue
shares, such stipulation Is without con-
sideration and is void. and the borrowers
obligations TO the association are dis
charged by the repayment OF the loan with
interest at the agreed rate.
1893 Van Auken against Miner, Appeal
from Saline Reversed and remanded. AL
bert, c., division No. 3. Unreported.
I The statute of limitations does not be-
gin TO run against an action 70 cancel a
deed, constituting a cloud on the title to
real estate. until some right or title Is as
serted under such deed, and such fact is
the title.
2. The mere record Of an instrument,
signed and acknowledged by the owner OF
real estate, but not delivered. which Is
taken. from his possession and Med for
record, without his knowledge or consent,
by the grantee named therein, Is not no.
tice TO such owner that such grantee
asserts some right or title under the deed.
3. Laches Will not be imputed TO one from
a mere failure 10 watch the records 10
undelivered deed purporting 10 be a con-
Veyance OF his real estate.