Omaha daily bee., 1902-02-10
SUPREME couRT sYLLABI..

-
iOsea kitchen Bros. Hotel company
against Philblp. Error from Douglas. At
hrmed. Pound, &. division No. ? Unre-
l. A covenant Cor quiet enjoyment OF the
leased premises Is implied from the domise.\
"A lease OF a part Of a builaing passes
necessarily used with or reasonably neces-
sary to the enjoyment OF the part demised.
a hotel S%ufidiSs was leased to a ticket
broker, and II eppeared that a large Pors
ION OF hts business came from patrons on
hotel rotundA held, that the lease included
the use for the lessee's customers OF a
door and hallway leading from the rotunda
q The use OF said door and hallway for
incident 10 The lease NJ The room, an OBJ
struction thereof by the lessor so as TO
prevent use by the lessee and his customers
as total or partial at his election.
5 IN case the lessee elects to treat the
counter claim for damages upon the i'm
piled covenant for quiet enjoyment, when
sued by the lessor on the covenant to pay
G. A party may recover for gains pre-
vented where such damages are certain
and are the natural result OF the wrong
1oSso LeIdish against KeeSsE Error
d nTSIs,oLL a Nc ne GC Oldham Go
1. Where n settlement Is entered into be-
tween two parties In reliance ON the accu-
kept by one OF the parties, and IL Is subse-
quently discovered that the books have
keeping them has not accounted for all
the money which he has received, such n
settlement VIII be set aside and a new
been no Intentional fraud practiced by the
bookkeeper, and the failure to account
may have been due TO mistakes alone,
1861. Phoenix. Insurance Company
against B9ehli Error from Hssrlsn' Az
| WHARF n hill dieclOSeS nothing of equity
and still less of conscience a Judgment OF
the lower court dismissing such bill VIII DO
Evidence examined and held sufficient
to sustain the judgment of the district
lO6S5. McCarty against Morgan. Error
from Sheridan. Affirmed. h C..
I Division No. 2.
motion for q new trial the motion Is In
Invisible and unless IL should be sustained
as J. 70 Where le %p maS, Sf Begins biIs's an s action OF re-
plevin and fails to procure possession of
the property sued for, but continues the
action as one for damages an alternative
judgment for the return of the property or
Its value is not required.
1868. solack against Cans. Error from
Albert, C.. Division No. s.
A mere Judgment for costs is not a final
Judgment and proceedings I'm error will not
lie to reverse such judgment.
107S9. Omaha Brewing Association against
aTrmSd, Found ET E, Division fFS% Ma Madison ! Al
Where a cause is tried to the court and
there is a general finding for the plaintiff,
II. any cause of action Is stated and there
is evidence thereon sufficient to sustain
the hiding, II will be presumed that the
court proceeded thereon and the Judgment
tempts also to state a cause of action of q
different nature which would not sustain a
1O76S. Lashmett against PraIl. Appeal
from Loup. Reversed and remanded. Ames
/. The indorsee OF negotiable paper befor,
due and without notice of defences. as col
LATERAL security for an antecedent debt, Ia
a bona fde holder thereof for value within
the meaning of the law merchant.
set aside eonveyanees alleged 10 have beer
tense that the plaintiff + Indebted, apor
simple contract, to the Judgment debtor II
an ios amount GIaT equal sga e the w JSdTgme AnDoo, tro,,
Howard. Affirmed, Day, C. Division No, /
/. Where the record is silent as to tn,
liens 1t will be presumed that they wer,
duly and regularly filed.
2. A sale will not be set aside for irreg
~ularities or errors not prejudicial TO tn
io7SO.. connecticut Trust and safe De
posit Company against Southwick. Appea
from Cedar, Affirmed. Ames, c. Division
i0IS2. Crockett against Miller. Erro
from Knox. Affirmed, Hastings, c. DivisioI
j. Where plaintiffs evidence fails to she,
u pTlbld flhtic .Cdst, UNI uettIudnl BO1S o.
without objection and supplies facts whic
in connection with that evidence, II tax
as true, would make out a case for plain
ttff, II Is not error to permit plaintiff I
rebuff a showing as to fraud which appear
for the first time in Defendants evidence
2. Doctrine as TO inadmissibiiity of ora
evidence to vary a contract has no ar
, plication as between a party to It and
stranger where there appears no estopp'
against showing the truth.
3. Instruction that good faith Is presume
in business transactions and fraud, IL al
. legged must be shown, held correct, az ar
piled to matters In which the parties d
not appear to have any family relation
ship.
n A. Underscoring in an instruction II
n words bona fde, not prejudicial to a part
n alleging fraud.
n 1079s. Murphy against Sampson. Errc
n from Lancaster. Affirmed. Day, c., div
n sion No. l. Unreported.
/. Where a Sparty hires himself 90 anoth,
n for a fixed period and leaves the servfC
n before the expiration of his term, thong
n without fault on the part of the employe
n he may recover the value OF the ssrvics
as upon quantum meruit, less such dan
ages as the employer may have sustatne
| hu the hraaohr ~ nANNEanf