Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-12-24
SUPREME COURT SYLLABl

1881. Notnuur1t against city or Lincoln
Error from Lancaster. Affirmed. jackson,
c.. Division No. 2
The provisions OF the statute In force
February. 1900, construed and held, first,
ages against city OF the first class to file
with the city clerk within three months
from the time the cause of action accrued
a statement in writing containing among
other things, the full name of the claimant.
Second. that In an action against such a
city for unliquidated damages, where the
petition did not show the filing OF the
statement complying with the provisions
OF the statute. the petition failed to state
1892. Elridge against Collins. Appeal
from Hall. Affirmed. Albert. C. Division
l. Evidence of user and OF surveying.
plating and otherwise improving by public
authorities examined and held sufficient to
snow the establishment OF a public road
2, Evidence examined and found sufficient
10 Justify the finding and decree OF the
1904. Westerfield against South Omaha
Loan and Building Association. Error from
douglas. Reversed and remanded with d.
recti9ns to discuss. Oldham, c. Division
L Under our law governing sales of real
property on execution the title OF a pur-
hrmation of the sale made. and until this
is had and conveyance of the real estate
is executed and delivered in pursuance OF
such confirmation the legal title of the
execution debtor to the real estate is not
Invested. Yeazel against White, 40 Neb,,
4S2, followed and approved.
The owner of real estate that has been
sold on execution retains the legal title
thereto and is entitled to the possession.
estate until final confirmation of the sale
Is made.
3. Clark & Leonard Investment Company
against way 81 Neb.. 2o5. examined and
14Oo5: Chicago. Burlington & Quincy Rail-
road Company against Schwanenfeldt. Err
ror from LANCASTER Reversed. Jackson.
In an action wherein the plaintiff seeks
70 recover damages on account of an in
jury alleged to have been sustained because
OF the negligent acts OF the defendant,
where II appears from the undisputed evil
6enGe that the plaintiff was guilty OF the
own negligence was the proximate cause
OF the injury, the question presented is one
1909. Estate OF c. II. Korff against
Bueker Error, from Otoe. Affirmed DUFF
fS' c; Division No. 2.
J. The rulings of the court on the first
appeal OF case settle definitely for the
purpose or the litigation all questions ad-
2. Chapter 2s, laws Of 1891 (section s2s.
chapter xiii, compiled statutes), has no
application to claims pending before its
l145: Nickolizack against State. Error.
from Holt. Reversed. Barnes j. Holcomb,
c il expresses no opinion
/ where defendant in criminal case
behalf, he is subject to the same rules of
eross-examination as other witnesses and
II is the duty Of the court to keep the
cross-eXamination within the law.
2. A witness cannot be cross-examined as
to any fact which is collateral and lrrele-
want to the issues, for the purpose Of con-
tradcting him by other evidence II he
should deny II, thereby discrediting his tss-
9. Where the prosecuting attorney on the
cross-eNamination Of the accused in a crimi-
Ra asks s h o1 ne has not
person at another time, he Is concluded
by the answer and cannot call another
witness to imDeach the accused
4. On a trial of one charged with the
crime OF rape, evidence OF an attempt OF
the accused TO commit similar crime on
another person IS inadmissihle.
5. Where the accused in such a case was
q witness in his own behalf and the prose-
cutting oficer on cross-examination asked
vious time been guilty OF a like offense
upon another young girl naming her and an,
the person named TO the witness stand
and examined her for the purpose OF not
ing him guilty OF such Independent offense;
4 held that such conduct was improper and
prejudicial for which the accused should
l4iaS state against Several Parcels OF
Land Missouri Pacific Railway Coz. APP
peal. from Cass. Affirmed. sedgwick, J
In making up the tax list ITO prepare
complete Statement ~ all the lands and lots
IN ms county On "Ilth tAS - -
or more years are delinquent" but n this
duty Is neglected by the clerk the lien OF
the taxes IS not thereby lost
2 A railway company in condemning land
for It's right -of-way and depot grounds Is
not the agent OF the state. The state has
no ownership in the lands by virtue or
condemna tiOn proceedings.
g n a railway company in condemnation
proceedings for its right of-way ana oePot
grounds fails 10 make all parties interested
In the Innd parties TO the proceedings or
10 give them notice OF the proceedings 50