Omaha daily bee., 1903-05-31
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI

SUfn6WE GUUnI SILLHbI
1255S. State against Force; error, from
Dawes; exceptions sustained; kirkpatrick,
c., division No. /.
l. In a criminal prosecution only such
confession of the defendant as. are shown
to have been made voluntarily, without
fear of punishment or hope of reward, are
@ The father Of the accused shortly after
the commission of the alleged crime
pointed a shotgun at his head and said:
James, you are my prisoner. I have a
right to arrest 1 you Y9 TO- shall faI 60 to liar,
and coroner's jury all about the killing Of
r.; r. and y9n will get e Ste9 put IL you
made a confession to the officers named.
Held, that evidence of such confession was
8. Further confessions by the accused
subsequent TO such extorted confession
will be equally inadmissible IL so related
in point of surrounding circumstances and
promixity of time as to raise a presump-
ton that the influences resulting IN the
first confession have not ceased to oper-
T. Evidence examined and held that GER
rounded by such circumstances and re-
moved from the influences leading to tho
first confession by such a lapse OF time
as to raise a presumption that they were
voluntary and therefore admissible against
1880. Walker against Fitzgerald. Appeal
from Cass. Judgment. Holcomb, J.
L The tendency of a motion for a new
rendered directing the sale of real estate in
foreclosure proceedings. VIII not 81 Itself
operate as a S~upersedeaS or stay the lSsu-
J nnce of an order Of sale in pursuance of the
terms of the decree, 49,
z In an Srror pr4ceeg6ng Iron a oecese
tate mortgage, al undertaking which does
not provide for the payment of the value
Of the use and occupation of the property"
Brown ct al, = Neb., IS N w. Rep, 754.
3. An objection to an order OF confirma-
ton not presented to the trial, court enter
ing the order cannot be considered by this
l. The statute does not authorize the ap-
polntment OF a receiver at the instance of a
holder of a certificate of tax sale Of real
estate sold for delinquent taxes, who has
obtained a decree directing the sale OF the
property to satisfy his, lien on the ground
satisfy the lien for delinquent taxes on
which such decree is based,
1872. Horton against Robin. Error from
No. 3.
/. II a contract admits of more than one
eficaclous or nullify II. that construction
should be adopted which will carry 1t into
effect.
2. 1t will not. be presumed that the parties
to a contract intended to provide for the
doing Of an illegal act. or one which would
3. When II does not clearly appear on the
face of tho D~etition that the contract de-
error TO sustain an objection TO the intro
duction Of plaintiffs evidence on that
4. In such a case where the defense relied
on is the illegality OF the contract 1t is
necessary to plead and prove such defense.
Beatrice Rapid Transit and Power Com
. pany. Error from Gage. Affirmed Lob
l IN an action on a bond executed after
Judgment and pending the transfer of the
r c aus to this court by prr9eeedinss IN error,
= whatever judgment may be rendered by the
J court. upon dismissal of trial Of said APP
! the original Judgment of the lower court
I was affirmed and is unpaid fails to state a
e l2sO2. RobIee against Stock Yards Ma.
I tional Bank. Error from Lancaster. Re.
versed. Pound, c., division No. 3.
e l. In order to be negotiable, an instru-
e ment must bear on its. face entire certainty
e conditions rendering the amount then pay.
; able uncertain destroy regOtiability.
I'm a promissory nnte. which requires pay
ment to be made or uncertain sums ait un-
certain times before maturity, and thus
= renders II Impossible TO say how much, II
I anything, Will be due at maturity, renders
% the note non-negOtiable
s 3. A note otherwise negotiable Is not rem.
derSd non-negotia6le merely by a provision
n 4. But, when executed together and as a
4 part Of one transaction, a note and mort
gage securing It are to be construed to-
visions as to terms and manners OF pay.
ment contained in the mortgage may be
kufn as 10 NlNhG the NNAt A0l-AtkN AlAOlE
. as to all persons chargeable with notice
b thereof.
y S. Although the note does not refer e
the mortgage, indorsees who take with
notice of its provisions are bound thereby
O 6. The act OF 1891, above mentioned, does
not take away or impair the right Of the
2 holder TO a mortgage executed before It's
u enactment 10 apply Lor ana 9otain' IN ar
d ment, a personal judgment for a residu,
of the mortgage debt remaining after tn,
. application Of the proceeds of the fore
II closure sale.
8. An act OF q state legislature which Il
designed, and II enforced would be eff
v contracts OF an important and eficien'
n remedy for the enforcement OF the same
Is an sfs i ana Is IN 'e e%on ]TP5lgs5iIas OF s see
ton 10 OF article 1 Of the Constitution o
IL i27S5' Riiey AGAINST Missouri Pacific Rail
5 way Company. Error from Lancaster
Affirmed, oldham. c. Division No. l
him on a demurrer to plaintiffs evidenc,
is not error" Dunn against Bozarth, s
Neb., 244, so N. W, Rep, 81, followed ant
T" 2, Rulings OF the trial court on the ad
mission Of evidence held not prejudicial
10 made Of the proof which II was sought L
slicit." ~TIsmbleton v, Fort, IS Neb.. sS. :
n. w. Rep, 4gS. followed and approved.
q 4 Where no request Is made for a NOR
explicit instruction an objection cannot b.
entertained because the "ns given Is vagu
8 The existence OF negligence should b
c; proven TO and passed upon by the jury a
c; s. The doctrine Of comparative negligenc
Sc is not recognized In this state.
T. Instructions given. examined and az
le 8 A sound discretion is reposed in IN
a. trial court In refusing a new trial on n
~ Is cumulative in its character.