Omaha daily bee., 1905-07-24
SUPREME COURT sYLLABI

1919. Jahnle against state; Error from
Box Butte. On rehearlng. Former iudg-
manded sedgwick ]. Holcomb, G. j., dis
senttng.
dence Is introduced by the state tending to
prove that tho life of deceased was insured
In favor q defendant, as showing "A motive
evidence tending TO show that the policy OF
insurance vas of very little II any value
and that the defendant was aware OF that
2. The evidence Of an accomplish should be
closely scrutlnized II It appears that such
to material matter upon the trial his
evidence cannot be sufficient, II uncorroho-
rated, to support a verdict OF guilty.
1890 Bonacum against Murphy. Appeal
from Seward. On rehearing, Former judg-
rnent and Judgment OF the district court re-
versed and vacated and cause remanded.
with directions that action on petition and
eross.petition be dismissed. Ames, c.
i. The courts will not entertain contTo-
! versy concerning the title or right OF pos
session of real or personal property except
| at the instance OF some person or persons
! having or claiming n right thereto derived
! from or recognized by the laws OF this state
| or OF the United States.
! 2, The courts OF this state will not review
| the process or proceedings Of church trib-
unals for the purpose Of deciding whether
| they are regular or within their ecolesias-
| teal Jurisdiction, nor Will they attempt to
decide upon the membership or spiritual
| status Of persons belonging or claiming to
! belong to religious societies.
1884 Weatherford against Union Pacific
Railroad Company; Error from Douglas;
| reversed, Letton, c. Division No. /.
l, A grantee of real estate occupied by
! third person acquires no greater rights
against the occupier than his grantor had.
! If the right to bring an action OF forcible
entBy and detention is barred as against
the grantor so likewise Is It as against the
& Paragraph OF the syllabus In the for
mer opinion IS N. w, 1889 disagprOved
1870. Nolde against Gray, Error from
Clay. Motion for rehearing overruled-
Vendee OF real estate, while in pos
session and claiming TO be the owner
thereof under a contract OF purchase can
not maintain an action against his vendor
to recover the amount paid on the purchase
price, for a breach OF the contract 70 con-
vey, together with the difference between
the value OF the land at the date or pur-
chase and the time when the breach occurs,
as damages. Before he can prosecute spQp
an action he must rescind the contract,
surrender the possession OF the premises 70
the vendor and thus place him as nearly as
possible In statu quo. - 81. ,,.,..
SON Houston Electric Light Company. Err
ror from Douglas. Affirmed. Dune, c. Dt-
'' i. Ths IT Union Pacific Railroad company
and the New Omaha Thornson-Houston
Electric Lat company both occupied, ,t me
and Twelfth street by permission OF the
proper authorities OF the city OF Omaha.
delivery OF freight. the other with poles fof
| Carving It's wires. The electric light oou1'
| pany erected its poles some time after the
railroad company had laid its track and the
poles were so placed to stand only ninS
! Hand three fourths inches from the ladder q
. a box car being moved over the spur track
The plaintiff, an employe Of cold storagl
company was directed by his employer L
! 20 10 this spur track and lock the door oi
car containing goods consigned to ~
storage company. On arriving at the tratl
he found that the car with others, was ~
ing moved toward the west end OF the 80
| by those in charge OF a switch engine 10
, | the railroad company. He assembled -
: | way up the ladder on the side and steoS
| there until the car reached one OF the 69le
. OF the electric light company, where he wa
| caught between the car and the pole Rnl
| injured. on the trial OF an action brorgh
-. | by him against the electric light COMPANY
| for damages, the district court directbd
| verdict for the defendant. Held, TIE q
reetion Of the court was pToDSR