Omaha daily bee., 1902-03-22

AAaaMa GHEAIM nAANuEA . EINNA AANNM
Holt Reversed. Sullivan. c. J..
The defendant In a Proeeeding for the
s6sSsP oniy az II S Sfr%s h @A Z S be 'G to SaIi BY
the district. court, and ~, wnere, for want
Of bsil, he is sent to prison.
code authorizes the taxation Of costs only
IN cases where a crime has been charged
snce With Established ppoeedaPe.
These opinions will not be ofneially re-
ported;
No. lo41; lschrandt against Young. Error
from Sheridan. Affirmed. Day, c., depart
ment No. ]. Unreported.
recover damsses for rO a Breach Of Contract
whereby he was 10 receive as compenseti ton
for caring for a mock. Of sheep one-hah OF
held, that plsintin was entitled TO recover
such profits or advantages the direct and
by such breach of contract on the part OF
the defendant
: That prospective. gains arising from
probable wool clip are not so uncertain and
contingent as to prevent proof by experts
OF the amount and value OF such increase
g. II Is within the discretion Of the trial
court tn limit the time for argument to
presents no question for review. unless II
thereby unduiy restricted and that the time
allotted to the complaining party was con-
stunned. Dixon against State, 20 Neb., 2sS.
No. 1870. Wells against Frazer. Error
department T% Htq No, / GnrqPsfted nes' -
l. This court cannot consider OF pass upon
assignments OF error when the record fails
to show any rulings on or exceptions to
the matters complained OF in the court
below.
z Evidence ami and held to be suf-
No ioSi7' School District 50. Nemaha
County. against Burress Error from Ne.
No. Z. Unreported.
1 An individual has no right OF, action
s sSs1n o1, a p 10 me S O1SIie o ISE breach sysS tbo OF E
such Individual Is specially injured thereby.
2 The duty imposed upon county cons
chapter xxx, Compiled Statutes. of levy
ing the tax voted by a school district meet
mistake levy less than that voted are not
s. The like duty Imposed upon the county
clerk by section II, article /. chapter lxxvii,
Compiled Statutes, is one owing TO the
mistake omits to levy the tax reported in
accordance with SAID section is not person
any r lhsOi Sut tS IMPOSED hns ssd0o1 up S1n'r' the county
clerk by section s.. article l. chapter lxXvii,
Compiled Statutes. Of apportionins rail,
districts for purposes of taxation is one
owing 10 the public only; hence a county
district for an honest mistake IN the sp.
s. Where the duty of levying a tax is
owing to some individual as well as to the
public, as in cases where the levy Is di-
rected by a court of competent turisdic-
tion for payment Of = Judgment the N %e as:
tax which should nave been raised, but
only such actual damages as the individual
the expense incident to procuring the taz
TO be raised and any impairment Of ht
claim p reason Oh OF f nD, :. to Levy, IN or
unless recovery of such damages viii es.
tabiish or preserve such right or entitl'
No. iC6Sl. Darner against Gatewood. Er
TOT from DSnson. HeveTsed; Ames' I.
In an action by a receiver the plaintiff
must plead and prove authority from the
court appointing him to begin and prose
iOSlo. Storey against Kerr. Error from
Adams. Affirmed. Pound. C. Division No
l. In an action upon a lost instrument i
is not necessary TO allege. the manner II
2 A denial OF specified ayerments, "a
alleged In plaintins petition will d
tresSsq as an aom1ssS1m .ner era nsAs INN,
a promissory note even after maturity IL
a proper precautiop for the party makini
: dorsed upon the instrument. But there I
; no absolute legal requirement that pay
, legal presumption that such Endorsement
were made arise from the mere fact Of pay
ment.
4 Only one of two defendants beini
verdict against THE defendant" is a yer
r dict against the defendant in court.
s. In such case IL the action admits of
several judgment the defendant who wa
served with process and appeared and trie
wss entered ir-esularly against the othe
ioSSs. Drury against Roberts. Apes
from Lancaster. Reversed. Day, c. Div
n sion No. l. Unreported.
In a s suit nt 10 t0peG mast q sh rses Ssssts mS or
procsedinss at Law have been had for n
o there can be no recover in the absence {
proof sustaining such aflegation OF III
petition. Jones v. Burtis. 81 Neo.. eA. 10
o Ii6s4. Jones against Miller. Appeal fror
Gage. Dismissed. Albert. c. Division NJ
a where. or appeal. the order or judgmer
complained of Is not included in the tram
a cr IBIS the s sRRssi a xiai 81 Repusifean Vale
Hfnrmed. DUNE. {. Division No. 5 u
l. In 1857 a railroad company institute
proceedings to condemn -Wo lots for raj
h by the county Judge found the value of II
lots to be t2.70o. and assessed the damage
Of ne eE 1orS at ,n taa to sum hui Tn teo SOm mp ~
peal to the district court, where before 4
y trial IL offered to allow judgment to l
\ taken for s1.16S, which. the owner refuss
, TO accept on the trial the owner WI
= against him. Thereafter at the request
the railroad company the owner conveys
the lots by warranty deed to g.. w. Hol
rege, trustee. the deed reciting that IL Wi
made to satisfy condemnation proceeding
in the district court. The deed bears da
OF December 1G 1887.
- q The lots remained vacant and uno
eupied until May, 1889, when the form
Dr. owner erected a building on the lots 4
l. use as a real estate once, and thereupC
the railroad company inclosed the lots wi
,r a high fence. first moving thereon a bull
" ing In which Il kept lamps and oil, al
" which certain OF its employees occupie
10 The gate in the fence was kept locked Al
the former owner denied access to q
Ie building erected by him. and he brought
action TO restrain the company from int
q lots, claiming that the company had q
Quired only an easement I'm the lots Al
ID that he was entitled to the possession al
use OF the seine In any manner that W
NJ not Inconsistent with the easement Of d
company. Held, that his deed gave I
E. company a fee simple title to the lots, al
er that It was entitled TO the exclusive pc
ut session thereof the same as any 9th
owner OF q fee title.
m 3. The plaintiff also claimed that by
failure to occupy or use the lots for me
than ten years IL had abandoned all rig
or title thereof. Held. that concedlng I'll
n the plaintiffs deed should be construed
"a convey only an easement In the lots, 81
as the easement was conveyed by deed
IL could only be eXtinguished by adverse ~
"a session for the same length OF time that
- -m-,Tf~.I - awfln~rrlah the title ~ Z