Omaha daily bee., 1908-06-16

urge that a Judgment dismissing his ac-
ton Is not supported By the pleadings
Custer. Affirmed Duffie. {. Division
No. l.
with Fannie Shores. and there vas born
to them jeremiah shores, the appellant
herein. He next cohabited with Hannah
and TO them was born Josiah Webb, WHOSE
estate is in controversy herein, and Moses
Hannah Webb. Moses shores c9habited
with Patsy Davis. and there was born &c
them John Wesley shores Mary Hauser
parted this life in 1875 or 1854. The above
parties were all slaves, living IN the state
OF North Carolina, where Hannah Webb
and Patsy Davis died.
In North Carolina slaves could neither
legally marry nor own or inherit property,
shores and Fannie Shores lived and CO.
habited together as husband and wife, and
where they both died. Josiah webb moved
to Custer county, in this state, where ne
died. leaviDg as his estate the land in con-
troversy herein. jeremiah Shores claims
the estate or an interest therein as a halt
brother OF the deceased. The children OF
Moses Speese. the fun brother Of the de.
ceased. claim an interest in the estate, and
John Wesley Shores. Mary Hauser and
Elizabeth Simpson also claim an Interest
therein as brother and sisters OF the de-
ceased OF the halt blood.
The case was submitted TO the court on
the pleadings, which on behalf OF the par
ties Claiming as children OF Hannah Webb
ana patsy Davis. alleges that these women
were each legally married to Moses shores;
The appellants p~leadings denies such legal
marriage OF these parties and asserts that
because Moses shores and Fannie Shores,
his father and mother. lived and cohabited
together as husband and wife. he became
their legitimate child. Held, that looking
to the pleadings alone. In the absence or
evidence. the children OF Hannah Nebo
and Patsy Davis. bern Of their union with
Moses Shores, must be regarded as nieglt-
~ an Hisettimate child descended to his
mother. and in case OF her death 70 her
heirs. that the whole estate. under our
nill brother Of Josiah Webb, q he were
living. but. because OF his death, his chill
dren were entitled to the estate as ms
That jeremiah shores, not being a rela-
tive OF Hannah Webb, the mother OF INC
deceased, was not entitled 10 any part u
the estate. and the question OF ais pelHE
a legitimate or inegitimate child Of Moses
and Fannie Shores was tmmaterial. as he
could not inherit in either event.
l5l6. Pribbeno against Chicago Burning
ton 4 Quincy Railroad Co. et al Appeal
Richardson. Reversed and remanded- Root
/ Evtdence Of subsequent repairs made.
or precautions taken, after an accident. or
the infliction Of an injury. Is not admissi-
Bile 70 prove a~ntecedent negligenee
? Where growing crops are tetaIly es-
stroyed as a result OF nesn-
gence plaintiff can recover their fair mar
ket value at the time Of their destruction
and testimony tending to show their value
All that time is competent. even though on
cross-examination II appears that the Wiz
ness did not include in his msntaI estlmaIe
every factor Of uncertainty that might en-
ter into the value of the said crops al the
time OF their annihilaton;
ISIS. School District No. 30. Cunning
COUNTY. Nebraska, against Cunning County.
Appeal Cunning. Reversed and remanded
Epperson. c. Division No
stitutionaI acts OF the legislature, the
county board Of Cunning county levied
taxes ostensibly for the benefit Of the high
u.A,nT Ffef riots 81 that county ana ne tax
payers Voluntarily paid the same He.d
that such taxes constitute a puphe tInH
school districts and other school districts
OF the county under the provisions OF sub
> a county has no vested right I'm a pub
Tic fund created by the levy OF taxes under
the provisions Of an Unconstitutional aSt
OF the legislature for the benefit or hlgh
school districts and voluntarily paid oy
8 When funds in the county treasury
may be distributed only upon warrants
authorized by the county board a claim
or demand therefor MAY be filed with the
county board by the party entitled thereto'
and an appeal may be prosecuted from an
order rejecting the claim.
1878. Schneringer against Schnerfnger
Appeal. Custer. Reversed and remanded
with directions. Root. c. Division No. :
No. ?
/ Where a mother during her last Illness.
believing that she will not recover, conveys
ali Of her real estate 70 her husband. at
his request, and upon his oral promise 10
devise SAD LEaA estate u ANEAA NNAA
child. and care for him during the fathers
natural life, though no express trust Is
created. a court Of equity may interpose
TO present a wrong and declare the granSee
a trustee ex malefcio for the protection
OF the grantOrs Intended beneficiary.
.. In the foregoing case the father, the
made a viii complying with that part Of
his agreement. Held. that the deed and
will were parts 81 the same transaction;
and that the grartee VIII not De perEnltted
to revoke the will or cucumber. or dispose
Z OF. said real estate TO the detrtnent OF his
incompetent chiid
peal, Hamilton. Reversed and remanded.
I Calkins. c. Division No. 2
L Consistent statutes relating 70 the
same subject. though enacted at different
times. are 70 b. construed as II enacted
together and on the same date So con-
strued. section "a chapter = comp. stat;
excessive fees. applies TO police judges.
2 Where persons who should have joined
as plaintiffs IN an action split their joint
demand and bring separate suits. a motion
TO consolidate such suits under the pro-
visions OF section 80, code. should be sus-
g statutes giving fees are 70 be construed
strictly and are not TO be extended by i'm
plcation. Where a complaint II filed
should be charged as n there were but a
single defendant until demand u made for
separate trials, and then fees should only
/ Necessarily caused by such separation.
"a police Judge sued under the pro-
visions OF section "a. chapter =, Comp.
I stat, for taking excessive fees. may not
justify the taking Of such fees By showing
tina ne acted under the direction or the
I prosecuting attorney
1854. GOozee against Grant Appeal.
Lincoln. Affirmed. Duffie. c. Division
l. Where the owner OF two contiguous
lots OF land conveys one OF such lots 70
a. and subsequently, conveys the other lot
10 B, and a controversy arises between A
and B concerning the boundary line De-
tween the two lots. \ connoL, Tor the pur-
pose Of establishing title by adverse pos
I session against B. tack his own possession
70 that OF the common grantor.
2 The owner OF four lots built a fence
around what he supposed was lot ] and
2 and erected a dwelling house IN about
the center of the said lots. IN which he
lived for about twenty years. He then
sold and conveyed lots I and 2 % the
defendant. and afterwards sold and con
Veyed lots 3 and 4 70 the plaintiff
The evidence disclosed that the fence built
By the former owner Included 4 part OF lot
8 Held. that plaintiff vas not estopped
to claim 80 much Of lot 8 as was en-
/ closed by the fence. no representation hav-
ing been made % the defendant when she
made her purchase that ue fence did not
include land other thaa lots 7 and
BY using the various Adjustments or The
Bee Want Ad Pages you set quick returns