Omaha daily bee., 1903-03-23
SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT PRUCEEDlN6S
1890. Haskel against Read. Appeal from
Mcpherson. Modihed and affirmed. Pound
L Where a written contract requires OK
trinsic evidence to explain Its terms me IN
depreciation TO be given I'm view Of such
evidence Is a question OF fact.
2 As a general rule the right TO vote
pledged shares OF stock remains In the
pledgor until foreclosure.
3 The officers OF the corporation in con-
Quoting an election Will not look behind
the books OF the corporation which show
who are registered as stockholders; but a
court OF equity may do so and may enloin
a Pledge from voting the shares pledged In
prejudice of the rights of the pledgor
4. A stockholder may maintain a SUIT TO
enjoin the holder of shares issued in excess
of the amount authorized by the articles or
Incorporation. and. without consideration,
from voting such shares in prejudice of his
rights and 10 procure cancellation thereon.
.. Whatever might be the rule as TO a
bonafide purchaser of or subscriber for such
an over-issue of shares, one who procures
the over-issue without consideration by
false representations will not be heard TO
assert that a stakeholder who voted there
for relying on such representatons Is Ss-
topped to question the validity of the
shares.
6. II seems that in this state 2 stock
holder may maintain a suit in equity TO try
the validity of an election of officers and
directors of a priv ate corporation and de-
termine whether persons claiming 10 be
T. In any event the court may inquire into
the validity of the election and pass upon
the title to corporate offices when necessary
TO do complete justice In a suit of which 1t
has jurisdiction on other grounds.
:. Where a corporation has a hNed cap
ital stock divided into a definite number OF
shares a majority of all the shares IS
necessary to a valid election in the alb
sence of some rule to the contrary.
3. 1t is not necessary that a stakeholder
shall have paid for his stock in full to en-
able him to vote all his shares at an cleo
I2475. Harker against Burbank. Error
from Burt. Affirmed. Ames, c. Division
/. Under the provisions of section % Of
the Code Of Civil Procedure, a joint obligee
in an appeal bond may maintain an action
thereon in his own name without joining
the other joint obligee, where he alleges
and proves, that he has purchased the in
the bond and the real party in interest
therein.
in the petition and is denied by the answer
the plaintiff must prove the facts so alleged
by some competent, evidence and railing to
8. In such a case plaintiff having intro
duced all Of his evidence without proving
court to direct a verdict for defendants.
T. The propriety of allowing the plaintiff
juror and continue the case in order to OBJ
tain further testimony is a matter resting
in the sound discretion of the court. Violet
8. The record Of the trial court examined
and held that the court was not guilty of
an abuse of discretion in refusing such a
1854. 'Ritchey AGAR st seeley. Error from
Cass. Reversed. Duffie, c. Division No. 3.
l. The testimony of an attorney who pre-
pared an answer is competent to show that
by inadvertence and mistake he used the
name Of one party to the action while in
2. On the foreclosure of a mortgage a de-
fciency judgment was entered against X
creditor thereafter brought an action TO
subject a farm conveyed by r to his son to
the payment of this judgment. The con-
veyance was made some two years prior to
the entry of the deficiency judgment. Prior
to the foreclosure proceedings r had con-
Xeyed to c his interest In the mortgaged
premises and G had assumed and agreed
to pay the mortgage. r testified that he
ceedings and offered to show that at the
time he made the conveyance to his son he
understood, that G was alone liable for the
ipg was immaterial and incompetent, but
that 1t would be competent and material
to show that a solvent and responsible
party had assumed the mortgage debt on
which the deficiency judgment was en-
tered. as bearing on the question of the
son and whether fraudulent or not, but that
the offer did not go far enough in not pro
to meet any deficiency that might arise
after sShausting the mortgage security.
12512. Parker against state Error from
/. The. credibility of witnesses and the
probative value of their testimony are
maILGTS WHICH i II lht pSCulAdA lullCAlOh "
the jury to determine.
2. A Verdict based upon substantially con-
hicting evidence will not be set aside by
5. An appeal for conviction based alto
gether upon the evidence, howeve ferYent
1t may be, is not an abuse OF the privilege
4. Ordinarily a party who did not promptly
object to an argument alleged as miscoh,
8. But where the misconduct of counsel is
- $500 nE1 Rf anun a oh a rn nF h !
neither a complete retraction nor any adj
monition or rebuke from the court can en-
tirely destroy its sinister influence, a new
trial should be awarded, regardless of the
want of an objection and exception. c., b.
s. Q, R. Co. v. Kellogg, 90 Nee2 gas:
shooting with intent to kill cannot found a
valid claim to judicial leniency upon his
inferior craftsmanship.
12997. Heating against State. Error from
Webster. Affirmed. Holcomb, j.
/. The trial court gave an instruction of
biIity of the witnesses who had testified in
the case, including the defendant who was
accused OF a felony and OF the weight to
eral witnesses which announced a correct
rule of law. At the request of the state the
jury was also instructed that the defendant
had a right to be sworn and testify on his
own behalf, but that in Weighing his testi-
mony and in determining the weight which
should be given thereto the jury might
take into consideration his interest in the
result Of the trial and the further fact IL
the SdIlt was plONGh ANLlSh was dAllNlG |
by the defendanD that he had been con-
Victed of a felony as affecting his credi-
bility as a witness. Held, that the latter
instruction was not prejudicially erroneous
because of the repetition of the matter con-
tanned in the general instruction on the
subject nor under the circumstances was 1t
erroneous because the defendant was in
dividually named and his testimony alone
alluded to in the latter instruction.
2. BY virtue of the statute a prior con-
viction of a felony may be proven for the
purpose of affecting the credibility of . /
witness and the court may properly instruct
the jury as TO the purpose of such evidence. |
8. The accused was charged and tried for
robbery. Held, his prior statements as TO
how the robbery might be committed was
properly admissible in evidence 10 be con-
sidered by the jury with other facts and
circumstances proven in determining the
question of guilt or innocence.
4. Evidence examined and found sufficient
to support a verdict of guilty as found by
the jury. /
i2O64. First National Bank of Greenwood
against Van Doren. Error from Cass.
Affirmed. Albert. c. Sedgwick, j., concur
ring separately,
Where a writ of attachment Issues for
the whole amount claimed I'm several causes
of sction included in the same petition
and aftaruvard and before trial gOma Of /