Omaha daily bee., 1908-10-31
Supreme Court Syllabi.

VI AAA9 AtAAN haAAA'a aAh e a9AANE hNk
ment OF district court affirmed. Fawcett,
G; Reese, j., not sitting. Division No. .
l. The demanding OF interest in advance,
even though the highest rate Of interest
allowed by law is being charged, is not
usury in this state as such a course is
permitted by our statute. Sec. l, Oh. a,
Com. Stat.
e. An oral agreement for forbearance and
giving time for the payment of money then
port an agreement on the part Of the
debtor TO pay interest thereon.
3. Where q principal note bears the max
imum rate of interest allowed by statute
interest upon interest cannot be stipulated
for at the time of the loan or contract,
but If after the interest is due an agree
ment is made that it shall carry interest,
such an agreement is valid and will be en-
forced.
I. And in such a case the fact that the
principal note bears the maximum rate of
interest allowed by law, and that such sub
sequent agreement to pay interest upon in
terest past due also stipulates for the pay
nlent OF such maximum rate of interest, is
immaterial.
5. Evidence examined and held to sustain
the finding of the district court.
1917. Blsenius against City of Randolph.
Appeal, Cedar. Affirmed. Root, c. Divi-
/. Section Sg7s. Cobbey's Annotated Stat
utes, 1907, does not delegate legislative au-
thority to the courts; said statute is valid
and may be enforced without violating ar
Ieie u or section l of article iii of the
z In proceedings under section S97S afore-
said IL is not a defense that the defendant
is indebted upon its bonds or otherwise.
3. Upon an appeal In an action under said
statute the judgment of the district court
Will be affirmed unless 1t is made to ap-
pear that the trial judge committed an i'm
portant mistake of fact or made an errone-
Gus inference of fact or of law. Michael
son against Village of Tilden, p Neb. 744,
lOl N. w. 1925; Gregory against Village Of
Franklin, Neb. lOS, N. w. las.
T. Hastings against Hansen, a Neb. 74.
distinguished.
I6OOT A~tb,-. 81. -t.- -- -
Custer. Affirmed. Root, Barnes, c. j.,
concurring, separately; Letton, j., dissent
!. Every proprietor may lawfully i'm
prove his property by doing what is rea-
sonably necessary for this purpose. and,
unless guilty Of some act of negligence
answerable to an adjoining proprietor, al
though he may thereby cause surface
water va 7 to flow on the premises of the latter
auer, "a Neb., 66; approved and followed.
~. An owner of land has the right, in
the interest Of good husbandry to drain
ponds or basins thereon of a Temporary
character, and which rave no natural out
let or course of flow. by discharging the
waters thereof, by means of an artificial
channel into a natural surface water drain
on his own property, and through such
arain over the land Of another proprietor
IN me general course of drainage in that
localty, even though the flow in such nat
ural drain is thereby increased over the
lower estate, and provided that this is
uone IN a reasonable and careful Mariner
and without negligence" Aldritt against
t~Ielshauer' "a Neb., IS; approved and fol-
3. Two or more adjoining land owners
may lawfully join in the construction of a
dltch solely upon the premises of one
thereof, where the object and purpose is
10 drain a pond situated partly on the
landS or all of said proprietors.
l9tSz Hamsnn against Nebraska Under
writers insurance Company. Appeal from
saunders. Affirmed. Reese, ],
forheltures are looked upon by the
courts with Ill favor and will be enforced
only when the strict letter of the contract
requires 1t, and this rule applies with full
force TO policies of Insurance. Connecticut
H ME- lnR SO Company against Jeary, so
= Where a contract is susceptible OF
TWO constructions one Of which viii work
a forfeiture and the other will not, that
construction should he adopted which will
prevent the forfeiture and preserve the
rights of the parties.
o Where II Is conditioned in a policy Of
insurance that the assured shall take an
inventory or the stock hereby covered at
redst once a year during the life of this
PoLcy, ana shall keep books of account,
correctly detailing all purchases and sale
OF said stock, ard shall keep said Inventory
anu DOORS securely locked in a fireproot
Hale' OF IN some place secure against fire
IN another building during the hours said
store Is not open for business; and in case
OF loss the assured agrees and covenants 10
produce the same, or any of them IN, de1
mand' or failure to comply with any ono
Ss n nng above conditions, this policy shall
% nun ana VOID, and no suit or action al
iaW Shail De maintained thereon for such
loss. Held, that the provisions for taking
81 rentoIy ana Keeping 1t with the books
~ acCount or purchases and sales should
oe construed conformity; that the purpose
vi me requirement TO keep the inventory
ara books of account In a firenroof safe
was TO enable the parties to estimate tho
ua1nase in case of loss and the hooks ~
account would furnish no aid unaccom-
Hanieu py the inventory, and therefore
there is no default on the mart of tbe &C.
sured IN not keeping his books of account
~ d tleprooI safe until the expiration of
tory. '"Ne the lhVeh-
1921 Whitnack against Chicago. Burline.
caster VIt9Gy RAILROAD co. Appeal Lam
l. When a bill Of lading has been issued
py a common carrier, signed and Accented
f y me ne shipper, 1t constitutes the contract
described, and its terms cannot be altered
or varied by parol testimony.
q me language used in a bill of adins
70 IupJect 10 the same rules of construction
WHSH govern other contracts, and while
the instrument is to be construed as :
whole invalid conditions will not neces.
SaIny render the contract invalid and il
may De enforced so far as 1t is valid.
D Where a common carrier accent,
goods Tor shipment to be delivered hi {
connecting carrier, the first carrier will b,
HHoie Tor any damages to the goods re.
suIlhg directly from the negligence of sucI
carrier, although the loss may not actnaII,
occur until after the goods are delivered x
q
T. A common carrier undertook. durin,
extreme cold weather, to carry two car
Ioads or potatoes and deliver them to
connecting carrier. The contract provIdel
that the shipper should furnish a cartakel
70 accompany the shipment and keep fire
IN the car to prevent the potatoes from
freezing. The carriers separated the wv,
cars while they We're In transit and OF
lts lines of railway so that cartaker WA
prevented from attending to one car of M,
potatoes and they were thereby permitte,
70 freeze. Held, that the first carrier wa
liable even though the potatoes may no
nave frozen until after they were de
Hyered TO the second carrier.
D. Where a comNon carriers contrac
contemplates keeping two carloads OF mer
chandise together in charge of a caretake
ana IL separates the two cars so that Nh,
caretaker is prevented from attending 4
one or them, and loss thereby ensues Tn,
burden OF proof is upon the carrier TO prov.
that there was sufficient cause from sen
araung the two cars. The fact of the sep
aratlon OF the two cars under the circum
stances Imports negligence.
100 Mutter against Daniels. Appea
valley. Reversed. Epperson. c. DivisioI
No. l.. ~
l. Under the act Of 1905, providing for an
peals TO the supreme court, (Sections ia
10 lfOSc, Cobbey's Annotated Statutes, Sun
plement Of 19O5), the final order OF a ais
trhct court rendered upon appeal from a
order OF the CITY council ppanthg q if,a..