Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-05-12

dence judgment thereon W favor OF one
/ OF two joint defendants will be sustained.
and finding upon the same issue against
the other defendant, being wholly unsup-
II is not The prsctics OF this court
| 20 dismiss "A law action upon reversing a
I Judgment Of the district court for want
OF evidence to sustain u. The cause Is re-
manded to the district court for further
lS95S. Eager against Eager. Appeal from
Douglas county. Motion for rehearinE over
| ruled; former opinion modified. Letton, j.
1921. Rogers against Omaha Error.
Douglas. Reversed and renamed Oldham.
!. Hurford against Omaha, Neb.. 1876:
Goodrich against Omaha 10 Neb., 49,: Nc
swDe5 spbroveS and distinsuished
| Where a municipal corporation re-
ceives and retains substantial beneht 5
| under contract which It was authorized
regularly executed. it Is liable In an action
! brought to recover the reasonable valuk
! OF the benefits received. Lincoln Lana
company against Village OF Grant 81 Neb.
| 70. followed and approved.
iiOSo. Union Pacific Railway Company
! against David Bradley & Co. Appeal from
| DouglaE county. Reversed; plaintiffs pc
| ttion dismissed. Oldham, c. Division
specifc performance OF contract for the
! sale Of real estate will not be awarded at
] the suit Of the Nendee or his assignee
| where the evidence discloses gross lasches
IN making the payments stipulated for in
| the contract where time is made of the
| essence of the contract by the agreement
! OF the parties.
1nos. McCreary against Creighton. APP
peal from Douglas county. Affirmed old
! ham, c. Division No I.
! j. Shelby against Creighton, 60 Neb.. tS6,
approved and followed so far as applicable
| TO the present issues
p Judgment of a court Of competent
! jurisdiction against minor defendant
properly served and represented will not
/ be set aside on account of the minority
of the defendant, unless the action for
| IL commenced within one
year after the minor arrives ut the age OF
| q years, as provided in section 442 Of the
| Code of Civil Procedure; after that time q
! Judgment against a minor defendant will
| he set aside only for such causes as are
SUFFICIENT TO set aside judgment against
g. A minor, suing as plaintiff on a
cause of action, will be bound by the
Judgment rendered therein the same as an
| adult would be. II the suit was brought
and prosecuted in good faith for the minors
benefit.
/ ter of the estates Of Edward Creighton
and of Mary l.ucreua Creighton and
amined and held, TO constitute a bar to
! the cause Of action instituted by the plain
tins herein.
1871 Bush against Griffin. Appeal from
| Hayes county. Affirmed Albert c. Di-
j. While the fact that one claiming title
by Sa 5e b fd to would
OF itself necessarily. defeat his claim. II
! is entitled to weight tending to show
| that he did not intend to claim title as
against the rightful owner
| 2. Where such occupant entered orig
inally without color of title or claim of
| right, and the acts relied on to show entry
| and occupation were consistent with a
/ mere intention to trespRss from time to
time until interfered with by the true
take possession and hold and occupy as
| owner, uncOrroborated by acts necessarily
| indicat ting such intention is not sufficient
to require finding in his favor, Knight
| against Denman "a Neb Sl4.
! 3. Evidence examined and held, to bring
| the case within the foregoing rule.
| 14142. Bush against Brown. Appeal from
vision No. 2
This is a companion case to Bush against
| Griftin ct al, No 1hH, decided at this sit
ting. and is governed by the same rule:
1870. Gering against School District No:
| "a. Error from Cass county. Reversed and
remanded. Albert. c. Division No. g
]. compromise whereby one party
agrees to pay and the other to receive q
certain sum in satisfaction of a doubtful
claim rests upon a sufficient considerati ton.
2 But IL the claimant, knowing that his
claim is groundless, forces the other party
| 10 compromise by threat OF suit there
1 is no consideration and the compromise
| will not be enforced.
! g. Forbearance to prosecute proceedings
| for the reversal of judgment Is sum
| Client consideration for a compromise, and
\ unless the good faith of the claimant In
| pressing his claim is put in issue, whether
he Intended to prosecute such proceedings
/ Is lmmaterial.
| l. One OF the essentials OF a judgment
| offered in support of a technical plea I'm
| bar is. that IL was rendered in suit in
vOlYtnR the same subject matter as that
in which the plea is interposed and, lack
| ing that element, IL is not available In
| support OF such plea.
g. Where the second action is on a diff
| ferent claim or demand, the judgment In
| the former operates as an estOppel only
as to those matters in issue upon the de-
termination Of which the judgment was
/ rendered.
| be any uncertainty in the record as to the
/ issues actually tried or adjudioated in the
former suit the whole subject matter of the
FACTION will be at large, unless the uncer-
tainty be removed by eXtrinsic evidence,
and the burden of proof is upon the party
| relying upon the estopple to show that a
| question raised in the present suit was
J litigated and determined IN that in which
/ the judgment was rendered
Z In an action upon the promise of a
school district to pay q certain amount in
the defenses was that the claimant secured
the adoption OF resolution for the com
promise by threats and intimidation, and
there is evidence tending to support sucli
defense: held that evidence as to his repu-
tation In the vicinity as TO being peaceable
8. Declarations OF parties made at a meet
ing where such resolution was adopted,
tending 20 show that they were intimidated
and for that reason left the meeting ana
refrained from voting on the resolution,
are properly receivable In evidence as n
part OF the res gestae
1880. Willis against Willis. Appeal from
Harlan county. Affirmed. Albert, c. Di-
vision No. 2
/. While our law defines marriage as n
civil contract, il differs from all other con-
tracts in its consequences TO the body pol
lite and for that reason IN dealing with Ii,
or with the status resulting therefrom,
the state never stands Indifferent but ls
always q party whose interest must be
taken into account.
2. A marriage. where one OF the parties
is under the age of consent, but who is
competent by the common law, is not void,
but merely VOidable and until annulled by
a court of competent Jurisdiction, is valid
for all civil purposes.
3. court annulling a marriage at the
suit of a husband who is under the age Of
consent when the marriage was solemnized
may require him to pay a reasonable
amount for the support and nuture OF the
issue Of such marriage.
T. In such case, the court may also re-
quire the husband. n the circumstances of
the party warrant It, to pay reasonable
suit money TO enable the wife to make
defense, and TO reimburse her for eN-
penditures on behalf OF the family during
the existence OF the marriage relation.
8. Suit money may be allowed, in the
sound discretion of the court, az any stage
IN the litigation, and may be included IN
the final decree.