Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-05-12
SUPREME COUST sYLIG8l

/ 4. Upon denomination OF the question
/ me siNtn paragraph OF the syllabus 70 tbs
loimel opinion Is disapproved anu former
| lsy.. Ehlasen against winterer Appeal
/ Keith. Reversed anu remanded with in
/ siructtons- Ames, c., Division No. /.
/ 1. Concerning simple acts OF trespass
equity has In most cases no jurisdiction,
| but II the nature and frequency OF tres
} passes are such as to prevent or threaten
/ the substantial enjoyment OF the rights
| Of possession ana property in land, an In
! junction will be granted.
! Barnes, J.
| I. An agreement for purely professional
| services, such as collecting facts, pre-
pairing and submitting to the Indians and
! proper authorities Of the government OF
! the United states, arguments upon the
/ merits OF the claims of those holding In
/ dian lands purchased from the govern
ment for a REDUCTION, and upon the JUS
1 tice ana advisability Of a reduction OF the
/ purchase price of such lands, as may be
| necessary and proper to secure such re-
/ ductOn,' is valid.
.. The fact that the agent or attorney,
1 In carrying out his agreement, and as in
| cidental thereto, appears before COM
plains the nature of the bill prepared by
the secretary Of the Interior, authorizing
him to grant the reduction of the price
OF such lands, agreed upon, does not rem
| der such contract void, or preclude the
attorney from recovering the compensa-
/ ton expressed therein. FOR his services.
Trist against Child, u wall, Az.
3. Former opinion herein. - Nebr., -. 100
/ N W. 1858, modified and adhered to-
1884 Gutschow against Washington
| County. Error, Washington, On motion
1 for rehearing, motion for rehearing over
ruled Lettou, J.
1. When an action is brought to recover
/ damages occasioned by the construction OF
a drainage ditch and it appears that the
! special benefits received by any particular
| tract OF land exceed that portion of the
cost of the ditch apportoned to IT the
/ special benefits In excess OF the cost may
be set of against consequential damages.
1889, Habig against Parker. Error,
| Nemaha. Affirmed. Dufie, c.. Division
i. A petition setting up numerous and
continued trespasses to personal property
states but one cause Of action and is not
subject 70 motion to divide and number.
lit < II Is unnecessary m , most "a, actions
sounds wholly in damages and where there
is but a single cause of action, 70 state
specifically and in amounts the different
the sum total of the damages. 1t is enough
generally to claim so much in gross as
damages for the wrongs done. In case,
however, the pleader elects to claim a
named sum for any one or more Of the
items of claimed damages he is restricted
in his recovery on these items to the
amount named in his petition and the court
should so charge.
81 1t is not reversible error to charge
that the measure of damages for injury
to or destruction Of bearing fruit trees is
the market value of such trees, where the
party complaining rendered and procured
| the court to give an instruction stating
the same rule of damages.
1902 Hawley against Pound. Appeal,
Washington. Affirmed Jackson, c., Divi-
1903. Hawley against Barry, Appeal,
Washington. Affirmed Jackson, c., Divi-
i4O7l. Hawley against Nelson. Appeal,
Washington. Affirmed. jackson, c.. Divi-
1908. Hawley against Nelson. Appeal,
Washington. Affirmed jackson. c.. Divi-
i4o76 Hawley against Jahnel Appeal
WASHINGTON. Affirmed Jackson, C., Dtvi-
ili2S. Vessel against Bishop. Error,
Lancaster; Affirmed. Epperson, C., Divi-
l. Rulings Of the court upon objections
to instructions given and refused examined
and held without error.
duct of juror is not sufficient to avoid a
verdict, but the proof must show that his
conduct is Of such character that preju-
14l26. Deemer & Guilfofl against Grant
County, Affirmed. Epperson, ca Division
/. The action of the County Board OF
Equalization IN fixing the place for listing
and assessment of personal property under
chapter lxxvii. of the Compiled Statutes,
will not be disturbed unless an abuse
Of discretion is shown.
14l3I. Parker against Leech. Error,
son. c., Division No. Q
/. Ordinarily an agent authorized to re-
ceive payment has no authority to COM
mute his principals debt for a debt due
from himself TO his principals debtor, nor
to receive payment other than In money.
2. Evidence examined and held insufficient
to sustain a finding of payment.
1I47 Reeves & Co. against Curlee. Error,
awarded Ames, c., Division No. l.
/. Evidence examined ard held insufficient
to support the verdict.
1919. Morris against Persing Error,
Merrick. Reversed and remsnded. Epper-
son. c., Division No. 1.
1. The making of written contract by
mortgagor Of chattels in possession, pro-
viding for the sale and future disposition
Of the property, and providing for the pay
ment or satisfaction of the mortgage in
NAHUM prohibitum.
2. The giving of instructions set out I'm
the opinion held error
1875. Gray against Nolde, Error from
Clay county. Reversed and dismissed with
Out prejudice. Dufie, Z.
Gray had purchased from Nolde leo
acres Of land at the agreed price OF $500,
$1,000 of which was paid In cash, the ball
ance TO be paid at Gray's option with c
three years after the date OF purchase
Gray rendered to Nolde the remainder OF
the purchase price with the accrued inter-
est and demanded deed, which was re-
fused. and he thereupOn commenced an
action to recover the purchase money paid
and the increased value of the land and
superseded this Judgment and appealed
therefrom to the supreme court. While the
action was pending in the court Nolde
commenced an action against Gray TO re-
cover possession OF the land (Gray still
remaining in poSsession) and for the rents
and profits. He recovered judgment for
the possession and $3.50 damages from which
this appeal was taken by Gray. Held, that
II Nolde had submitted TO the Judgment
obtained against him by Gray and salts
fled the same he would be entitled to pos
session OF the land. but that having ap-
pealed from the judgment and refusing to
recognize II as settling their rights re-
lating TO the land, he could not use It to
GUST Gray from possession.
1A73. Jenkins against Campbell. Appeal
from Dundy county. Reversed and re-
manded with instructions. Jackson, c. Di-
vision No. 2
Pending an appeal from Judgment rem
dered IN Justices court the judgment cred
itor procured and filed in the district
court transcript OF the proceedings had
before tie justice OF the peace, and after
dismissal OF the appeal and an order re-
handing the cause to the justice for fur
Their proceedings, caused an execution 10
issue out Of the district court on the trans
cript 80 filed; held, that the execution was
void.
ln7s. Taintor against Abrams. Appeal
from Knox county. Affirmed Dufie. c.
Division No.
!. A mortgage made to a trustee may be
foreclOsed by him without Joining the bene-