Omaha daily bee., 1906-06-05
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI

al law with the court in which he prac-
tees that court may, upon SATISFACTORY
proof, disbar the attorney from practicins
). This court alone can pass upon the
qualifications OF applicants for admission
TO the bar and has sole power to annul
i4s2z. Younkin against ROCKFORD. Error,
Douglas. Affirmed. Oldham, c. Division
The master is not liable for an injury
INFLICTED upon one OF his employees by the
course Of his employment. and this is true
even though the co-employes are not fell
low servants.
1924 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railroad Company against King. Error.
Red Willow. Reversed and remanded. AL
bert, c, Division No. 2.
making railroad companies liable for in
juries to stock upon their failure to main
tain fences along the rlght-of.way and cat
tie guards at highway crossings, was not
intended to provide a penalty for failure
to maintain such safeguards. but merely to
render such companies liable 20 the owner
of stock injured in consequence OF such
failure .. =
O. A petition for damages for the loss Of
stock, based on said section, which con-
tains no allegation tracing such loss to
the failure O. Tho -s.-Gad company to
maintain fences or cattle guards, is fatally
g. Petition examined and held that the
facts therein stated are insufficient to con-
stitute a cause OF action.
Brown Affirmed. Oldham. c. Division
No. l.
Where a prisoner is convicted in the
first instance OF felony and the Judg-
ment OF conviction is suspended by the
supreme court. and he is remanded to the
custody Of the sheriff OF the county in
which the offense is alleged to have been
committed, and the judgment Of conviction
is reversed by this court and at new
in which the offense is alleged to have been
| committed. and not the state OF Nebraska,
must pay the cost Of the keeping and main
tanning OF such prisoner between the time
1880 Hooh against schlattan. Error,
Douglas Affirmed Ames, c. Division
i. The mere printing OF an assignment of
| error In brief without comment and
! without statement attempting to show why
or for what reason or in what respect the
| trial court erred, is not suficient to require
this court to discuss the errors COM
i4l7I Michigan Trust Company against
| Frymark. Appeal. Webster. Affirmed
Jackson, c. Division No. ,.
| l. Where different persons convey their
property in trust for the purpose OF secur,
ing the same debt II is not a misJoinder OF
ties in a single action for the purpose Of
enforcing the conditions OF the trust.
= A debtor in an action instituted in his
own behalf is not entitled to appeal to the
statute OF limita tions In an action to re
lieve his property from a trust relation, IN
the absence OF fraud, unless II appears tina
the conditions OF the trust have been per
formed.
1857 Livinghouse against State. Error
Wayne, Reversed and remanded. Barnes, J
]. The uncorroborated evidence Of tn,
prosecutrlx Is insufficient TO sustain a con
viction OF the crime OF statutory rape
q Where In such a case the TESTIMONY
Of the prosecutrix lacks the element o
probability and the -eorroborating evidenc
Is OF doubtful character judgment o
conviction will be set ASIDE for want o
suff1cient evidence TO sustain II.
1856. Linn against City Of Omaha Ap
peal, Douglas Anirmed Epperson, G
4 Division No. 1.
/. Under its charter the city council 0
Omaha may provide by ordinances a manne
not inconsistent with statutory provision
for calling and conducting a special cleo
ton for the purpose OF voting upon a PROF
osition 10 issue such bonds OF the cit
as are authorized by law.
q The power to issue bonds for the cor
| struction or purchase OF needfui building
for the use OF the city, conferred by sec
ton 1876 OF the Omaha charter gives tha