Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-03-26

from Buffalo. Affirmed. Letton c. BiN-
/. Where a district Judge by written order
in vacation adjourned the october term OF
the district court which was set for OC-
catered upon The journal but no other pro-
Ceedings had, the day 90 which the court
was adjourned being the first day upon
which the judge was present aud the court
ready to transact business. was the FIRST
day of the term as applicable 10 the lien
of judgments rendered during the term.
Ass State eX rel Pond against Clark.
Error from Holt. Reversed with directions.
iu25 Olsen against Collins Error from
saunders. Affirmed. Jackson. c. Division
No. ,
1 an alleged breach Of contract evidence Is
admissible under general denial TO show
that I'm fact no contract existed.
1917 Parratt against Hartsun. Error
from Douglas. Reversed and dismissed as
to defendant Hendrix reversed; and re
TO defendant Parratt Oldham, {, Divi-
sion No. /.
m e I" under section S7 OF the code as II
existed prior to the amendment OF 1881! the
mine the liability OF a defendant for such
deficiency until after the report OF the
sale, when for the first time Il can be det-
| tually exists. Brown " Johnson, Sc Neb,
222 followed and approved
liabilities first it rendered in a foreclosure
/ proceeding is to q certain extent iuterlocu-
]
decree ON issues properly pleaded q is not
subject TO review on objections TO q de-
| hciency Judgment.
g. The contract of a married woman can
only be enforced against the separate es-
/ tate which she possesses AT the date OF the
! contract Kocher V. Cornell, 50 Neb., Slb'
I. Where there Is. personal service and
/ terial allegstion Of the petition which Is
). The cause Of action for a deficiency
I judgment does not accrue until the coming
In OF the report of tho sale.
6. Application for deficiency Judgment
| may be heard on a motion after the COM
/ ing in of the report of the sale.
1923 South Omaha National bank
against Stewart. Error from Cherry. Re
vcrsed Dufie. c. Division No. 2.
/. A defective or Incorrect description Of
property covered by chattel mortgage
| is immateraL so far as the parties TO the
| mortgage is concerned. when Il Is ad-
mltted by the mortgagor that tho property
claimed by the mortgage as Included
! therein is the Identical property intended
?. A chattei mortgage giving a lien on
! the mortgaged property against the
mortgugor is. Notwithstanding an imper-
feet description OF the property covered
| chaser or MORTGAGE who fails TO show
! that he purchased I'm good faith and with
| out notice of the mortgage.
! 1902. Poggensee against Feddern. Error
! from Cedar Affirmed. Albert c. Division
| No. ..
! l. An assignment OF causes for trial made
at the opening Of n term which does not
/ fix day certain for the trial of each cause
is generally provisional and subject to such
changes may be required to meet un-
forescen contingencies and attorneys and
ltigants are chargeable with notice OF that
fact.
stances party has no right TO complain
because his case is advanced on the assign
ment as result Of continuance OF case
3 Where neither the plaintiff nor his at
| tornev arc in attendance when the cause is
I apd "a Judgment
| should not he set aside in the absence OF a
showing of due diligence.
T. Evidence examined and held Insult
flcient TO show due diligence.
1901. Hawley against NonLauken. Ap-
peal from Washington. Affirmed. Jackson,
I. Courts OF equity have inherent powers
! to refuse relief after undue and inexcus-
able delay. independent Of the statute OF
b In applying the doctrine of laches the
true inquiry should be whether the adverse
party has been prejudiced by the delay In
| bringing the action and whether reason
able excuse is offered for the delay
| 2 Where the laches of the plaintiff and
the staleness of his claim are apparent
from the petition objection may be taken
by demurrer. 49,.
changed conditions during the mast thirty
eight years as affecting the values or real
estate and of the PROFANITY that dufrlng
years and discerning judgment In the year
1865 have either died or permitted the ordi-
nary events Of that period to pass from
'i 1903 Norton against Brink Appeal from
Buffalo. Reversed and remanded. DUNE
The law is well settled that contract
within the statute OF frauds while execu-
tory is not Objectionable to the statute, but
will be enforced when completely executed:
2 While not determining whether paroi
contract for the formation OF partner
shin to deal i'm land is within the statute OF
frands and enforceable to the extent Of al
lowing one of the parties to assert an inter-
est in the land which was purchased under
the agreement and the title taken In the In
dividual name % unc - the partners 1t Is
held that when the agreement is fully per
formed by a sale of the land an action may
he maintained against the partner who held
title for an accounting Tor the prohts
realized.
case must be clear and satisfactory and OF
such character as to convince the court OF
the existence OF the partnership; 49,, sr,,,,
1904 Orr against Hall Appeal IRON
SCOTS Bluff. Affirmed. Ames' G. DIVISION
No. 1.
chattels things I'm action for price ex-
ceeding $50 is void unless some OF the goods
been delivered TO and accepted by the
| buyer unless he shall have paid the whole
or some part Of the purchase price. secuon
1899 Price against Price. Appeal from
Hamilton. Reversed and Temanded: with
| instructions. Oldham, c. Division No ].
l. 1t is the right and privilege Of . hus-
band to fix in good faith doinicile for
, | himself and wife, and when he does so II Is
| the duty of the wife TO follow her husband
to such domicile and live with him there as
his wife.
?. II is the duty of the husband to pro-
/. ! vide for the reasonable support and main
, tenance of his wife during the continuance
| OF the marriage relation, and when the nus
band. without just cause, falls to provide
b | for the support and maintenance OF the
wife she may maintain action against
him for reasonable maintenance. unless by
her own act Of abandonment OF the nus
bands domicile. or some other act wholly
, / inconsistent with her duty as his wife, she
; has forfeited her right 10 such maintenance.
g. To defeat a wifes claim fOrl support
| and maintenance on the ground of volun-
p tary abandonment OF the husbands domi-
Gle, the fact of such abandonment must be
established by cogent proof. "a.
! 4 Evidence examined and held not sum
| cient to establish voluntary abandon
ment of the husband by the wife.
1870. Pope against McEndree. Error from
Merrick. Reversed and remanded. Ames'
c. Division No. !.
/ l. An order by county court made in a
= probate proceeding removing a special ad-
mnistrator for cause and appointing an
other TO serve I'm his place and stead, Is n
final order and appealabie within the terms
OF section 4, chapter XIX, OF the Compiled
/ Statutes.