Omaha daily bee., 1903-02-24

election at a given date as TO the issuance
OF bonds for the extension OF water works.
and providing for publication OF notce IN
certain paper for FIVE weeks before such
election, "A publication In each issue OF the
paper thereafter tll the election. being
notice. although the first one was only
thirty-two days before the election.
The following opinions will not be on
No i05aS. Leavitt against Bartholomew
Appeal from Douglas county: Judgment.
1. Former conclusion that the answer Rd-
mits issuance Of a certificate of tax sale
and that evidence shows prima facie owner
ship OF Il in plaintiff adhered to.
2 Former conclusion that there Is moth
Ing In the record from which TO determine
the terms. or amount of the tax sale GER
tihcate adhered TO.
3. Former conclusion that the payment Of
5000 general taxes on November %, 1892, Is
denied receded from and such claim Is
found TO be not denied by the answer and
held that plaintiffs claim for reimburse
ment for that amount and interest is estab-
lished.
No. 1855. Bird against Mccreary. Appeal
division No. 3. Unreported.
i. In the sale OF real estate, under a de-
cree OF foreclosure an objection that the
appralsement us Irregular and not I'm ac-
cordance with law is too general TO merit
consideration.
2. Evidence on the question of the value
Of the premises examined and held suf-
ficient to uphold the appraisement.
No. 12417. First National Bank, Sutton.
against Ashley. Appeal from Clay county.
Affirmed. Dufie. c., division No. 3. Unre-
ported.
/. To give this court Jurisdiction to review
an order of the district court appointing a
receiver the appeal must be perfected
order.
2. An application for the appointment Of
a receiver was resisted on the ground,
among others, that the premises sought to
be placed In charge of the receiver was the
homestead of the defendants. One OF the
issues tried was the abandonment OF the
homestead by the defendants, and the court
found in favor OF the plainttn and APP
possession OF the premises. Subsequently
the defendants moved the court for an
order discharging the received on the sole
ground that the premises placed In his
charge was their homestead. Held, that
the question of the homestead right of the
defendants having been determined on the
hearing for the appointment It could not he
again raised on a motion to discharge the
receiver and that the court properly denied
No; 12O2i. George Burke Company against
Fowler. Error from Valley county. Re
yersed and remanded. Day, c., division No.
/. UnrepOTted.
1. When a witness is cross-examined on
a matter collateral to the issue he cannot
as to his answer, be subsequently contra
dicted by the party putting the question.
Johnson against Spencer, 81 Neb., 1875, fol-
2. The test of whether a fact inquired Of
in ,cross-examinatlon is collateral is,
entitled to prove e as a part OF his case
tending to establish his plea? Johnson
asaLhoL Spencer, d 4Nep., lSo, IolloWed.
NO. 1909. Egan against Light. Error
from Grant county. Reversed with in
struction. Albert, c., division No. g. Unre-
ported.
1. Evidence examined and held sufficient
to sustain the findings.
2; Where abe true boundary line between
adjoining owners is uncertain and unknown
10 them and may be ascertained, only at
more or less trouble and expense. an exc
cuted agreement to accept and abide by a
certain line as such boundary Is binding
upon the parties and subsequent purchasers
having notice thereof, although the boun-
dairy agreed upon may not be the true line,
g. The description, in the decree, OF the
lands in controversy held not sufficiently
definite and certain.