Omaha daily bee., 1908-11-29

15SSs. Allen. against Chicago. Burlington
quincy Railway Company AR oB No frSm
4. A railway company engaged ga the
business OF a common carrier Is obliged to
Tor the transportation OF horses rendered to
u for shipment, and n a car offered q ship
per can only be made thus safe and suit
the carrier To furnish that bedding,
9 Nor 10 the carrier relieved Of that duty
by the agreement OF the shipper to load and
unload his stock and to feed, water and
care for " In transit.
a The burden Of proof to establish the
affirmative OF an issue involved In an &C
ton rests upon the party alleging the facts
constituting mat issue and remains there
u In an action for the negligent failure
Of a carrier to properly bed a car so that
it would be reasonably safe for the trans
portation Of stock. where the proof Is UNI
improper bedding, testimony concerning the
custom Of the carrier In preparing other
cars for like shipments. II Irrelevant. Is
without prejudice to defendant.
s. Where the evidence tends to establish
that a shipment Of horses was materially
delayed while the stock was In the car
rier's possession; that the stock was in
good condition when received by the carrier
and injured and damaged when delivered
TO the consignee, 1t is not srror to submit
the question Of unreasonable delay to the
jury.
alone, might be erroneous, may not be so
when considered with the other instructions
Inon The same subject given in connection
against Brookover, = Neb., =, Ill, N. w
1886. Magic City realty company
against schneokenberger. on motion for
supersedeas. Appeal from Douglas. Mo-
tion dismissed. Letton, j.
vide for the enforcement OF Judgments in
forcible entry and detention and forolble
entry pryoceedinss'" Session Law 1901,
hotated Statutes, 1907, were intended TO
extend a similar remedy to actions for
vided by section sci Of the code for
actions upon contracts for the payment
.. Under this act of the court which rem
ders the final Judgment is the proper
court in which to make the application
for the issuance OF the writ.
g. The films of an appeal bond and the
perfecting Of an appeal in the higher
court do not Gust the court which rem
dered the Judgment of jurisdiction TO al
low the filing of a bond and the issuance
of a writ of restitution under the statute.
1884. KaEebeer against Nunemaker. APP
peal from Saline. Affirmed in part and re-
versed In part. Root, c.. Division No. 2.
1. District courts have jurisdiction under
the constitution and the code to partition
real estate, and when all Of the parties
the court In such suit, its judgment fixing
the shares of the parties, directing par
tition and later confirming a sale Of said
real estate, Is final. and the parties thereto
in the absence of fraud upon the face of
the proceedings are estopped thereby, al
though said judgment is erroneous and
would have been reversed on appeal.
2 A bona fide purchaser under said de-
cree will be projected by section sos OF
the code, even though the judgment lie
thereafter reversed.
the clerk of the district court documentary
proof of title to the land involved in par
tition, will not deprive tho court of juris-
diction.
4. The word reversal" employed In Sec
ton sos Of the code. eontempiates a re-
versal in any proceeding in any court hav-
ing authority to set aside the Judgment.
s. A Judgment rendered in one proceed
Ing Will not support a technical plea in
bar In another, unless the same object
matter was involved In each action.
o. Collateral matters which did not prop
erly enter Into the final account Of . guar
dian are not concluded by the Judgment
thereon.
7. The guardian of X, an infant, pur-
chased lands of his ward at a partition
sale. The guardian included in his final
account I'm the county court the purchase
settled and allowed by said court. The
fact that the guardian purchased at said
sale without an order OF the district court
permitting him to bid on the land did not
appear In his report, nor was It brought
TO the attention of the county Judge by
the ward, who. although present in court
when said account was allowed, refused to
accept said money from his guardian.
Held, that the Judgment allowing said ac-
count did not estop the ward from con
testing the legality of the sale OF his
lands to his guardian.
8. In the foregoing case the conduct of
the guardian was fraudulent and the puF-
chase by him voidablo at the option of
the ward; and the record In the par
ttiOn proceedings was notice Of that fact
to all persons claiming title under the
guardian.
9. The Infant. upon attaining his majority,
could maintain an action to impeach the
Judgment IN partition, to cancel the deed
To his guardian and subsequent convsyances
affecting said title for an accounting and
such other relief as was essential to do
complete justice in the promises,
1889. Bemenderfer against Walker. APP
peal from Fillmore. Affirmed. Root, c.
Division Nc. 2
trict court from an order of the county
court correcting an order admitting a Will
to probate, and the district court in dis
posing OF said proceedings considers evil
dence and passes upon an issue of fact,
Its order and judgment concerning said
issue will not be reviewed in this court I'm
the absence of a motion for 4 new trial
In the district court.
15441. Saunders County against Slama.
Appeal from Saunders. Reversed and re-
manded for further proceedings. Calkins.
c. Division No. 3.
/. A petition in an actian by a county
against one OF the officers mentioned in
the act OF 1877 DAVIS Of 1871, page 215, sec
ton a ct seq, chapter rs, compiled stat
4 NkSsEN ~ ~ IA2 ANANAN VI ~ 2A&NN w
ficer, which falls 10 state facts sufficient
to show that the amount sought to be
recovered Is In excess OF the amount which
such officer is entitled to retain for his
own compensation and the compensation
OF such assistants as may be allowed him
In accordance with the provisions OF the
act in question, does not state facts SUIT
ficient to constitute a cause If action.
$3.50. George Adams & Burke Company
against Cook. Appeal from Rock. Reversed
and remsraed. Epperson, c. Division
No. /.
I. The emancipation OF a child 10y MS par
eHt may be proved by ciTcumstantial evil
dence, or by an express agreement or i'm
piled from the conduct OF the parties. 1t is
conclusion that he had been emancipated
when that question is directly in issue,
2. on the cross-eXamination OF an alleged
fraudulent grantee of land purchased with
The debtors funds, the creditor is entitled
10 inquire with considerable latitude to as.
certain whether or MOI the grantee was
controlled by the debtor In making the
purchase. HI
8. Errors in the admission of defendants
evidence In the trial Of a creditors bill II
without prejudice as against a creditor
who has failed to establish that his debt
was IN existence at the time Of the alleged
fraudulent transfer. or that the transfer
was made IN contemplation of the indebted
ness.
1882. Weaver against Dawson County
Mutual Telephone Company. Appeal from
Dawson. Affirmed. Good. C.. Division
No. /.
I The words A n road crossings" a.