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

In the supreme court OF the state Of Ne
braska the following opinions were filed
December e. 1896:
1879. state against Paxton. Error,
Douglas. Affirmed. Duffie. c. Division
/ A bill Of exceptions viii be- be quashed
where il is not certified and Identified in
such a manner that this court may know
that 1t Is the Identical bill allowed by
the trial court and the whole thereof.
2. This statute provides that bill of
shall be attached to the transcript of the
record. Where this court is presented with
Con f pupGrts yo ee S OF EXCEPTIONS
volumes, neither OF which are attached to
the transcript, and but one volume OF
trict court and the contents of this vol
ume shows that there was other important
cision of the case must depend and there
is nothing in the clerks certificate or in
the. record itself by which this court can
volume not certified or otherwise identi-
ned contains the omitted evidence, the bill
1882 Beber against Brotherhood of Rail-
road Tralnmen. Error, from Lancaster,
Reversed and remanded. Oldham, c. Di-
vision No. !. Holcomb, c. j., not sitting.
l. 1t Is for the jury TO determine whether
total loss of three fingers and an injury
materially interferes with their use, and a
cutting away Of part of the palm of the
hand constitute total loss of the hand
within the meaning of bylaw of a mu-
| tual benefit association, which provides i'm
demnlty for any member in good standing
| suffering by means of physical separation,
! joint"
1859. City of Central City against Mar
quis. Error from Merrick Affirmed AL
bert, c. Division No. 2
| l. Repeats by implication are not favored,
and where two acts are simply repugnant
they should be so construed, II possible,
| that the latter may not operate as re-
?. Sections 6i3o-l, Cobbeys Annotated
| 1887, do not operate as repeal of that
portion OF section s56, pertaining to the
| liability of counties and cities and villages
for the construction and repair of bridges.
| 3. The term bridges" in said section
S756, does not include the approaches there
4 Evidence examined and held sufficient
to sustain finding OF constructive notice
OF the defective condition OF a bridge.
>. In an action to recover for personal in
iuries resulting from the defective con-
dition of a bridge, 1t is not error TO in
| struct the jury that actual notice to the
municipality is not necessary. where 1.-THE
! defects are OF such nature or have eX-
listed for such length of time that they
might, by the exercise of ordinary dill
gence, have been discovered and repaired
etc.
g. 4 party attempting to cross a bridge
which is a part of highway, in the alb
| sence of notice to the contrary, or facts
sufficient to put him on inquiry, has a
for the accommodation of the public at
large in the various occupations pursued
in the locality where the he, bridge is situated
to usurp the functions of the jury.
1880 Linton against Cooper. Error
Douglas. Affirmed. Ames, c. Division
/. A court has no power or jurisdiction
upon Diminishing cause without prejudice
! TO a new action, to adjudge that such new
action shall not be subject to the defense
that it Is barred by the statute OF limita
lions.
1885,. Central Granaries Company against
Ault. Error, Gage. Reversed and re-
manded. jackson, c. Division No. 2. AL
bert. G., concurS separately.
!. Whether it is Incumbent upon a master
to warn his servant of the hazards at
tending the business in which he is en-
gagged, must be determined from the fact:
and circumstances shown to exist. ser
} want who from the length or character
presumed to know the ordinary hazard.
attending the proper conduct Of certain
/. business is not entitled as an absolute
right, TO. the same or similar notice o
dangers incident to the employment as 4
he was ignorant or inexperienced In tn,
particular work, and this rule applies t.
infants as well as adults.
9 The master Is required TO provide onl!
: such facilities and convenienCes for TIL
use and operation of machinery by hi
, employees as are in common and genera
use.
: 8. Whether the master is guilty Of negTi
: gence in not providing a safe place for hi
, servant to perform the labor required o
; him, is question OF fact for the jury
. but what is competent evidence to estab
) fish that fact is a question Of law for tn
court.
1913. LANCE against Royal Highlanders
Errom. From Seward Reversed and re
manded. Oldham, G. Division No. l.
/. Where a member of fraternal bencd
association agrees to be bound by subse
| quently enacted bylaws such contract Wi
! be upheld when the subsequently enacte
bylaws are reasonable in their nature an
= legally enacted.
2 subsequent bylaw legally enacte
| providing for the forfeiture of a fraterna
! benefit certificate when the death of tn
| member is occasoned by suicide, whethe
sane or insane. is a reasonable bylaw an
, will be upheld.
3. subsequent bylaw providing for
n forfeiture will be strictly construed agains
the association, and II passed In contra
vention of the provisions of the statut
l. governing such associations 1t will be hel
void and OF effect.
, 4. When the exercise of corporate powe
u has been regulated by statute the corpora