Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-11-06
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI

Marble Company. Error GouBiNS' ~
nrmed Lection, C. Division No. l.
Certain goods shipped by the plaintiff e
n bankrupt were stopped In transit Ar
tbS pI HP0n fn SSent 10 the defendant
whereby defendant obtained the goods anc
used them In his business. Held, thai
under the circumstances there was an I'M
| piled contract upon his part to pay e
| plaintiff the fair market value OF the goods
which could be enforced by an action OF the
1892. walters against Chicago. Burlington
| q Quincy Railroad Company. Error from
Red Willow. Affirmed Ames' G. Division
When the certificate Of membership in .
railway relief department expressly pc;
! shall be waived or forfeited by an action
( for damages against the railway company
\ Itself, the terms OF the contract and not
the general rules OF law relative TO the
election OF remedies, will determine the con
sequences OF such an election.
1899. Miller against Loverne q Browne
Company. Error from Frontier. Affirmed.
| Ames, c. Division No 1.
l. when the answer fails TO state de.
Tense, but admits the plaintiffs cause OF
action. and the verdict and Judgment are
supported by the petition, errors occurring
| instructions are without prejudice.
@ II a defendant admits by answer or de-
murrer that he entered into contract NTH
| the suit is brought, such admission, with
out further explanation, Is equivalent TO an
capacity to bind and TO be bound by the In
strument. and to enforce the same in the
contract name.
1924 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail-
road Company against Dowhower. Error
from Valley. Reversed and remanded.
J. A railroad company is not required 20
| fence its right-of-way afgoss pubhe high.
way, whether such highway Is established
by legal authority or by adverse use Tor the
. evidence examined and held not to
sh9% negligence in the SPe HsIpInG 81 ppsa
from Lancaster, Affirmed. Jackson e
Il a court OF equity will interfere by in
junction to restrain repeated acts OF tres
pass, such as the forcible entry OF dwell
from the doors, the forcible removal OF
tastenings from gates and Assaults upon
those in possession, and In such case ~ 1,n 10
parties are insolvent
1s92s. Tootle-weakley Millinery Com;
pany against Billingsby, Trustee; AR ,peol
tons. Letton, c. Division No. 1.
l. court of equity will not relieve
against party by reason Of the negh-
q II a party desires 10 complain OF the
absence Of the official reporter he should
call the attention Of the trial court thereto
obtain a ruling and II forced to trial with
out the reporter preserve his exceptions.
has no jurisdiction over HIS person files
a motion for a new trial he Thereby con-
cedes that the court has power to act and
4 party against whom a Judgment
has been rendered in favor of the trustee
OF bankrupt may by proper proceedings
In equity be allowed to offset against the
same claim allowed In It's favor against
the bankrupt in the bankruptcy proceed
1893. Wall against Kerr. Error from
Howard Appeal dismissed. DUNE d. Di-
1882 Morrison against Hunter Appeal
from Harlan. Reversed with instructions.
i. One occupying confidential relations to-
wards another is held TO the exercise OF
scrupulous good faith and will not be
opportunities TO his own advantage and the
injury of the party with whom ne Is deal
ing. from which the latter is in, good con-
science entitled to profit.
. Evidence examined and held TO enttle
the plaintiff TO the relief prayed In his
1898 Templin against Kimsey. Errer
from Lancaster. Reversed and remanded.
/. Where the want of Jurisdiction docs
not appear on the face of the record, it
may be pleaded with other defenses in the
O. That the defendant In case OF that
kind, first raised the question of turisdic-
on on d9es not c Ss gs 10
clude a plea to the Jurisdiction with other
defenses in his answer. = -4s
1895. Lee against Britain. Error from
Merrick. Reversed and remanded. Old
ham. c. Division No I.
i. A motion Tor a new trial Is not neceS-
sary in order to obtain review OF the
Judgment of the district court entered on
a hearing of an appeal taken from the
order of a license board granting or re-
fusing license to sell intoxicating liquors.
Bennett ct al. against Otoe ct. al. Me-
| braska % N. w, so7 followed and APP
2 The act Of 1895 DAVIS 1895. page 1922.
chapter XIII is Intellectual an amend
Annotated Statutes. which requires an ap-
plicant for LIQUOR license TO sell intoxi-
csti II 81 liquors to give bond IN the sum
hcient sureties. freeholders of the county
In which the license is granted. Fidelity
Libby, Nebraska lo1 N W. a9i, followed
and approved.
1887. Fitch against Martin Error from
Douglas. Reversed Lection, c. Division
/. II contract of employment nv the
year has been entered into for for definite
ture rendered from year to year after this
period has expired without any other con-
been performed under the original contract.
2. An admission by deceased person
correct is not suficient TO warrant the adj
mission in evidence of q COPY of this ac-
count In another book.
ground of want OF suficient evidence to
support II unless the want is so great as to
= A person who has filed a claim against
the estate of deceased person for legal
services performed under n yearly contract
Is not incompetent to testify as 10 certain
independent acts which he performed when
the deceased had no personal connection
with the act and as to which the deceased
did not participate
i4lO5. Hase against State. Error from
Lancaster Affirmed. Barnes, J.
J. criminal information must charge ex-
plicitIvN all that is essential TO constitute
| the offense sought TO be described Nothing
can be interpolated therein and it's aver
ments will not be aided nv intendments.
: II Is not necessary TO charge the ohense
| in the exact language OF the statute, pro-
vided the words employed are equivalent In
meaning TO those contained therein.
g. Where words appear In an Information
which might be stricken out, leaving an of
| tense sufficiently charged, and such words
do not tend TO negative any Of the essen.
| tfal averments therein. they may be treated
| as surplusage and be entirely rejected.
4 Ry the application of the foregoing
| principles the information herein is found
| 10 be sufficient to charge the crime OF as
| sault with intent 10 commit murder.
lA26s State ex rel Bankers Union against
Searle. Original. Writ denied. Sedgwick. j:
| l. The auditor is clothed with a broad
| discretion I'm determining whether fra
| ternal beneficiary society has compiled with
| the law and Is entitled to license to do
business 1t is legal and not an arbitrary
discretion.
| hciary society should be kept separate
| and apart from the other funds OF such So
| ciety." The auditor NAV require this % be
| dnne hefore ntinR license to continue