Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-12-25

ton cannot. by its bylaws or resolutions
change the MODE of the exercise OF this
s. A fraternal benefit association must
have a representative form of government
This requires that the directors or other
officers who have charge and control Of
the property and business Of the society
and the management of its affairs shall be
chosen by the membership thereof. state
against Bankers Union Of the World, Ne
braska, 90 n. ". bSl, followed and APP
proved
6 An attack on an Illegal bylaw Of a
fraternal bonetit association is not col
lateral attack on the right Of the society
1i0i5 Merriman against Mcrriman Appeal
from Douglas. Affirmed. Duffie {. Divi-
l. Equity protects a parol gift OF land
equally with parol gift to sell IL, II &C
companicd by possession, and the donee,
induced by the promise to give it has made
valuable improvements on the property,
as we'll as the fee.
2 Evidence examined and held to show
the gift of a life estate in land.
14Ol9. Clark against PAIL. Error, Gage
| County. Affirmed. Letton, c. Division
l. The word defendant" as used in Sec
ton 477b of the Code OF Civil Procedure.
! being Section 1859 Cobbey's Annotated
! TO persons in privity with him, and not
! to cross petitioners seeking to enforce a
lien upon the premises or to parties Dc
lateral interest in the property.
1921 Security Mutual Life Insurance
Company against Miller. Error, Gage. At
hrned. jackson, C. Division No.
!. A life insurance policy issued on the
life Of a person but Il years of age which
policy had attached thereto a memorandum
to the effect that the company issuing the
policy would not assume any risk on &C,
count of the death of the insured until
the insured had arrived at the age OF 10
years and is examined by an examiner
of said company and the examination an-
:. In the case stated, whtte the COM
! pany- issuing the policy received and re-
after he had arrived at the age Of is
years, without requiring the medical eN-
animation as stated in the memorandum
! and provided for by In its articles of incor-
poration Held, in the absence of fraud,
that the medical examination was waived.
1922 Lee against storz Brewing, Com
pany. Appeal Douglas. Reversed with
directions. Oldham, c. Division No. /.
l. While as between the debtor owing
several debts and his creditor whore the
former, at the time of payment Of sum
of money. fails to designate the debt on
which it is to be applied. the latter may
rule, as where the money was received by
the debtor from a third party whose prop
erty would be liable for the debt in case
the money not applied upon the third
party's liability. Crane Bros. Manutactur'
ing co. against Keck. 50 Nebr.. $50, fol-
2. In a. proceeding to foreclose ller
for materials furnished and used in the
construction OF a building under the pro
Statutes, general denial of such lien by
the owner of the building is sufficient e
amount actually due for such material fur
: nished.
1879. Fall against Fail. Appeal from
Hamilton. Affirmed. Sedgwick, J. Barnes
j., dissenting separately.
! !. The court of one state cannot by it,
decree directly affect the legal title to landi
! situated in another state, but IF all thu
parties interested in the land are brough
personally before court of another state
land, would be conclusive upon them anS
thus in effect determine the title" Dull
against Blackman, 1853 L. s. 2i3, is Sup. CT.
Rep, 333.
: 3 When the courts of sister state hav
ing jurisdiction OF the parties, and of thei
t equitable rights In all of the propert!
owned by one or both of them, by it's find
= ings and decree determines those rights
such decree must, under the provisions o
r the federal constitution, be given full faiu
and credit by the courts of this state.
g. The statutes Of the state of Washing
ton, quoted in the opinion, as construed b.
= the courts of that state, give the court
r jurisdiction in the trial of divorce cas-
e to make distribution between the partie
of all OF the property possessed Jointly o
e general equity, having regard to the re
{ spective merits OF tho parties, and to tn
+ condition in which they will be left by sue
e | divorce, and to the party through whor
D the property was acquired" When bot
parties TO the divorce proceedings in tina
Y | state have appeared before the court, bein
Q | a court of general jurisdiction, and hav
$ asked the court to distribute their propert
i including land in this state, and the coul
by it's decree has done so, its decree is cor
: elusive of the equities of the parties in til
s real estate situated in this state
( :. Possession of land is notice of equitie
;, and a purchaser of land from one not
= possession takes 1t subject to the equitab
e right of one in possession thereof.
1402S. Reynolds against Rickgauer Al
!, peal from Boyd. Affirmed I.etton,
= Division No. l.
l. Where purchaser of real estate ha
L procured the execution and delivery of
: deed by improper means and by falls
II and fraudulent representations, witch al
d relied upon by the grantors, the grantol
d are entitled upon an immediate reclsiC
on account of the fraud to have the dec
d declared void and the title to the real e.
Il tate quieted in them.
e 1889. Yoesel against Rieger Appea
n from Richardson. Affirmed. Ames, c. ID
d vision No 1.
1. When a testator devised lands to h
a daughter in fee, but with limitation ov'
It by way of eXecutory devise In favor of HI
l. brothers and sisters, contingent upon h,
q dying within a definite term of years witt
q out surviving issue. and the daughter di,
within the specified term, leaving such 4
n sue the latter succeeded to the estate
l. it's mother in fee simple