Omaha daily bee., 1902-12-26

but In connection with the succeeding Sec
fS4ec L siTss Or or a S Ssa sSi sycd on or t aStS sale sV G%ef re
ncate.
the foreclosure OF a tax lien can be main
tanned unless based upon a tax deed or tax
sale certificate.
ture for the collection OF taxes upon real
estate, being adequate and efficient, are
i22i6. Cunningham against Holmes. Error
from Dawson. Affirmed. Hastings, c.
Division No. l.
Where a negotiable promissory note has
been, before Its maturity, duly Endorsed
and delivered I'm escrow with the contract
of its purchaser to conve in considera-
tion OF II certain land, and proceedings
were necessary to enable the purchaser OF
the note to convey the land and carry out
the contract for which the note was taken,
the fact that such proceedings were not
C mpleted ana the contract not fulfilled, and
the purchaser until after Il matured, will
not deprive the buyer OF the rights Of a
bona hde purchaser before maturity where
he has completed the transaction IN ignor-
ance of any defense.
1925. Anderson against saryer Error
division No p. iInreported,
Evidence examined and held sufficient to
sustain the judgement.
l22S. ketchum against BLY,. Appeal from
Sherman. Affirmed. Dufie, c., division
No. 3. Unreported.
l20G Lindegood against Easton. Appeal
from Dakota. Reversed. Ames. c.. divi-
sion No. 3. Unreported.
1921. CaRBeD against Ashley. Error from
Clay. Affirmed. Albert. c., division No. 3
Where an appeal is taken from an order
Of confirmation and a supersedeas granted
Is appointed pending such appeal, a tenant
OF the mortgagor is entitled to the crops
time of such appointment, as against such
receiver, whether such crops are mature
1898. & Hammond against
King. Error from Nuckolls. Affirmed.
Kirkpatrick, c., division No. l. Unreported.
in the case. which has not Been raised by
the pleadings or litisated on the trial. is
2. Evidence Examine and found suficient
to sustain the verdict of the Jury and the
judgment thereon.
pany against Reed. Error from Douglas.
Affirmed. Hastings, C., division No. I. I'm
1. A mortgage who is a party to con-
demnaton proceedings for right of way
over premises has q right Of appeal from
award of damages for the taking of such
premises independently of the owne of the
2. Such right of appeal on behalf Of a
MORTGAGE Is not lost nor suspended by
the filing of a claim for payment Of the
mortgage against the estate of the mort
8, Evidence in this case held sunieIent to
sustain an award of damages for S5.059.
1888. Supreme lodge, S. and d. Of Pro-
lection, against Underwood. Error from
Cherry. Affirmed. Albert, c., division No. 3.
UnIepOrted.
/. A certificate of membership in favor OF
a person therein named as beneficiary I'm
a fraternal insurance company organized
for the benefit Of its members and bene-
ficiaries, II not voided by the suicide of the
assured, in the absence of a provision In
the contract of insurance to that effect.
2. Where It is claimed that the application
is a part Of the contract of insurance, In
such company. such fact must appear from
s%titution or bylaws OF the Company. or by
apt In the pleadings of the party
thus 1ssoo claiming that II is,
Error from Custer. Affirmed. Pound, c.,
division No. 2. UnreporteG.
/. All orders made and proceedings had
by a county board in the establishment of
a road are required TO be recorded, hence
mn error IRON an oIoer estsonshing a road
duly certified transcript of the road record
and a properly settled bill Of exceptions
board as were not TO be recorded.
2 The original nlss and papers are not a
s Msn Of n. T coa. 81 she CIV, %eAq PT6ee Of sec5 aSS
cannot take the place thereof nor supply
defects therein.
3. II II not necessary to enter upon the
record an. express finding that the public
good REQUIRES the road TO be opened.
of parties to a petition In error are not a
sufficient designation of any persons not
expressly named in the petition, even
the inferior tribunal
iSsl5, Miles against Walker. Error, from
Frontier; Commissioners opinion. Division
1884. Bolllnger against Knox. Error from
Otoe: Affirmed. Oldham, c.. division No
l. Defenses to a petition for distribution
under a will which allege that the cross.
the will and also that she is provided for
In the third clause of the will are incon-
and a rule of the county court re-
uuiring an election on which Of these de-
lenses the cross-petttioner Will proceed is
fully warranted.
. nth ronsatnad N gnacIa, Aan,,aat 80
one living child and a clause requesting
'all the residue Of my estate. real and
them. "sharc and share alike" and also a
that III any one Of my children
shall die in my life time, leaving issue or
shall not lapse. but shall be paid to such
in equal proportions; - held,
that the heir at law OF a child who was
before the execution of the will
Is not entitled to participate in the distribu-
of the residue of the estate under this
1851. Fremont Foundry and NJ. company
against NOTt0n; Appeal from Butler
l. The acceptance by the creditor Of a
check for less than the whole
am1T mot o on a past 81 S S1e sc 1Sqids anS . aeSSSnt
ton. unless such check is accompanied by
he condition that such acceptance shall be
1 full satisfaction and payment of the
whole debt.
"A check for a less amount HI the
~ the debtor TO the creditor without any
as TO its acceptance and with q
in the nature of a set-off or
claim which, II allowed, would bal
nee the account. The check was accepted
ind the amount thereof credited on the
Iccount; the debtor was Immediately noti-
led OF that fact, immediate m OF the
balance was demanded and the debtor was
that his claim would not be con-
tdered. Held, that the acceptance OF the n
heck was not a bar to an action to recover
he balance of the debt.
3. Evidence and held suhicient
o sustain the Judgment.
1926. Oakley against Carr. Error from
lancaster. Reversed. Lobiugier, c., divi-
ion No. !.
/. Notice of dishonor Of a promissory note
he fret mail OF the day following dis
Ionor, even though such indorser Is an
gent for collection merely, and ne Is en-
tiled to one additional day to notify the
ndorser Immediately preceding him.
2. Where such last indarser receives the
office of dishonor on Saturday his notice
n the next prior indorser Is timely n
eFved on the following Monday.
3. The notice served by the last indorser
eed not be actually prepared by him, but
e may adopt and utilize for that purpose
notice sent to him by the protesting Of
addressed to the next prior indorser.
4. In an action on a promissory note, an
vermont by the holder hat he caused due
office OF dishonor TO be served on the last
1dorse. but one Is sufficient, in the absence
I a motion to make more specific, to admit
violence that the notice was given to the
asst indorser and by him transmitted to the
ne next prior.
- C..aNL - NJ