Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-12-04

Lewis against city OF Lincoln, IS Neb.. /.
1879. The Adaif County Bank against
/ Forrey Error from Douglas. Reversed
and remanded Letton, c. Division No. l.
- The provisions OF section s. OF the
SSo9e tSse 1865 Cobbey's Annotated Statutes,
1900 Where the action is rightly brought
~ any county, according TO the provisions
OF title four. summons shalt be issued to
OF the defendants at the plaintiffs request
apply to nonresidents Of the state who
MAY be found In any other county TO which
the summons may be issued.
?. Where an action is rightly brought in
any county "a summons may be issued TO
any other county against one or more de-
PENDANTS. nonresident OF the state who
may be found therein Is as liable to service
as resident. and the court of the county
in which the aetion was brought thereby
ACQUIRES jurisdiction.
1926. oxnard Beet Sugar Company
1896 Norfolk Beet Sugar Company
against State. Error from Lancaster.
/ Motion. for rehearing overruled. sedg-
: The legislature cannot appropriate or
pledge the public money for private pur-
9 Chapter / OF the laws of 1895 entitled
IAN act to provide for the announcement
] OF the manufacture OF sugar and chicory
| is unconstitutional and void.
| 3. The statute offering a bounty for the
manufacture Of sugar and chicory being
I unconstitutional because of lack Of power
! on the part of the legislature to appropri-
I ate money for such purpose, the fact that
the manufacturers paid larger prices Tor
their products to the producers of beets
| from which to manufacture these articles
! relying upon this statute for remuneration,
will not create in favor OF such manu-
1891. State 'ex rel. Stevens against
Hendee Error from Saline Affirmed.
Albert, c. Division No. D.
Mandamus is a discretionary writ, and
| q IS no abuse of discretion TO deny the
! writ, where its object Is TO compel the
transfer OF a trust fund. from the CUSTODY
Of an offcial whose. bond is sufficient to
| protect it, to one whose bond is not suf-
fcient for that purpose. -,
Ori-i0al. Writ denied. Holcomb, G. j:
A repeating clause in an act OF the
legislature to the effect that certain specl-
fed sections of an existing statute are re.
! pealed $50 far as the same CONNECTS Win
the act last passed and repeating all aets
4 and parts of acts in conflict herewith.
only repeals such parts of existing statutes
| as are co repugnant to the act last passeu
as that both cannot stanu; FrloI st aSto1t
only that they conflict with the act Iast
passed . -. -
s25 session Laws. 1906, providing for the
| selection of certain candidates Tor pupnc
office and certain delegates at primary
election, and regulating such primary; o tSe
not embrace nor comprehend legislation
| concerning the registration or voters lor
general elections ana Wnlch Is ~ suos tto
and effect amendato tory of existing reglstra-
'' n The title to the said act is not broad
enough to permit leslS H t6e opcal ballots
provided for by law obe used at a general
| election. +. Ia ,,,,,ar,,
act limiting the right of parties TO par
tIcipate in primary election and % nave
the names OF candidates for nomination 9 20
appear on the primary ballots, % those
casting at least / per cent OF the total
vote cast at the last election is reasona.
bic Classification OF patreis; ana
freedom in the exercise OF the e'ecuNe
franchise. -.
sideration making the right of an elector
to participate in the pri'narY election, TO
demand upon his party aftiliation IS i e.
no way conflicting with the fundamental
law guaranteeing freedom In the exercise
of the elective franchise. e..
n e not competent for the legislature
to provide in a primary election law that
before a person eligible to office can be
s spa 90 on the primary ballot he snali pay
! fee for filing nomination papers COM
puted at per cent OF the emoluments
| authorized nv law for. the offce 10 which
such candidate aspires during the term
for which he would serve II elected.
h bindrsnce, ana impeachment to the exercise
of the elective franchise. and conflict with
section q. article |. Of the Constitution
h. "Where n statute contains provisions
which are unconstitutional. IL the valid
ard Invalid are not so connected as to he
incauable of senaratton, and the laid nor.
tIon is a cornpete act and not 1ependent
unon the nart that Is void. the latter alone
will he dlsregarded and the rest sustained.
not an inducement TO the leo'sIatura TO
| mass the mart which is valid" State
ev rel. ms. Co. against Moore. IS Nebraska,
$50. H''
G. The provision Of the act undAr con-
sideration found To he invalid are held: not
to- , ".Hct ne remainder Of the act ~,
lone, Original. Writ allowed. Holcomb,
c. ].
and n of the amendatory act of the
laoislattIre chaptar lSxvi Sessinn laws.
1915. 100. relatine IN the election of mo-
, lice iudRe 90 he invalid Which is not deta--
| mIned tho renlai0der Of such act would
not he affected thereby Such provisions,
! It is held were not an inducement TO the
Q THE nrovisIor found IN said act SOC
ton y thereof, for an election for CITY
ton5. Is not anacia1 LEGISLATION Inhibited nv
the constitution because srrlicahle to the
one city ONLY which ~ such time comes
: under the operat'nn OF the law.
3. Invalid provisions NJ an act not one
. rating to avoid the whole can- not he relied
. on 70 excuse the nA-for'nance 81 duty
, entoInnd nv the valid nnrtions ~ the cot
J In the supreme court OF the state of Ne.
brasbs the following opinions were filed
November % 1915:
1902a Flrner against CHICAGO. pnrltnotnf
r. Quincy PT'~oad Cor,nanv. Erroe FROM
! Saunders. Affirmed Letton. G. Division
No. I.
j, In action for tho recovery ~ UNonaN
orlv. v casa ~ dNfauit nv the defenaN NJ
! tudgrrart can ne rendArAd for M greater
sum than IL endorsed ,'~ou tha summons
! C'rov"ou y. Galloway. Neh 2la
2 Where In an actiNn for rnonev only
the nraacine OMITTED 10 dirant the clerk NJ
the district court 30 endorse upon the
summons the amount for which ird0-~en'
would he takan ~ the defanAant - lhd ~
: anpasF. ana IRE summons issrAd and sA-vae
I 10 the summons ~--ade nv leave ~ chii,t al
: lowing snch endorsensnt. and the issnapc,
! end service Of an alias summons. the de-
ferdant having rrada annoyance IN th'
c action. viii not relate hack 90 the time NJ
$ the ORIGINAL SuVnraans as To- stop The
y riirring of the statute NJ up1ita tions.
e 1879 BARKER COMPANY against CeRtra
, | West Investment Comnanv. Error from
e nanglas. Affirmed. Lotion. C. Division
I No. !.
; I. Where a rartv relies upon an order NJ
the district court which he a1isees we.
I made hut which the record ~ that conr
| does not disclose he must apniv TO tha
! court for a correction Of the reco~d Thii
4 court can OnIv eansider the record ~ IN,
proceedirgs ~ the district court II APP
n | naars IN the tra rse~int
4 2 where fnistake IS wade fn the date n
the return ana answer Jaws Of slirn-noni
n the same NAV he auNaNdad nv the diSf-io
, | court oven fter ohiactfoNs IN the irrisdic
: fiOn Of the court are pending based upoi
: that' rar.ioular defect
n 19Qns Tevrnie AGAINST Carroll. Error fvron
4 Dawson Peversed and remanded. ALDER
y | C. 'NivisiOn No .
I. nue. diligence in the preseutAtiNn OF ,
h check for psvr~apt Dies not reduire IN,
= holder in the absence Of snecial ctrcu-,
stances or some snecial custon 70 ppessn
A u az other than banking hours for pay