Omaha daily bee., 1908-08-09
Supreme Court synabi

sgsins, Dodge County. Appeal from Dodge.
On reheariug, f'rrer on mon adhered to.
l. The ret earnings Of q telegraph COM
pnny Tor a single year standing alone -
termlne the actual value Of its telegraph
system.
.. The income derived from messag,s sent
from and received at stations In a given
district. which comprises only a part Of \
great telegraph system. II not the proper
measure q the gross eatninEs Of that part
the lines within the districts are used for
the transmission Of MESSAGES having
trict.
; The fact that the net earnings Of a
telegraph company are IS per cent Of Is
gr-ss e~arnings does not Justly the con-
elus on that the net earnings 81 a particular
district. comprising only a part Of the. tele-
sr5ss e] s{ = Of such SSi II FART per Of G ,Ss system W t en-.
IN the absence OF evidence that The ratio
OF the net earnings, to we gross earnings
that for the entire system.
The presumption obtains that a board
OF equalization has faithfully performed its
official duties and that in making an as
sessment II acted uron sufficient compe-
tent evidence to justify its action,
D.. Where a taxpayer appeals from the
action OF the board OF equalization in fix
Ing the value Of his property -or taxation.
that the action Of the board is erroneous.
g; Former opinion in this case ul3 n. w,
1911. Parkley against City Of Lincoln 81
al Appeal from Lancaster. Affirmed
Epperson, c. Division No. ].
T. Section sSa Gotbey,S Annotated stas;
OF property by the city council In all cases
where special assessments have OF may DO
declared void or invalid, does not authorize
a reassessment Of property for the benefit
OF a purchaser at tax sale. who fails to
recover the amount Of such special taxes
from the property on account Of the Illegal
ity OF the assessment.
2. An injunction will lie to restrain the
Ct right TO resssess special taxes and re-
levy the same upon property when they
have no authority to do so.
1918. Benson against Peters. Appeal from
Douglas. Reversed and remanded. Fpper-
son. c; Reese, J, dissenting. Division No. /.
In an action to recover damages for a
to a directed verdict when the evidence 10
insufficient to show that the alleged negli-
gence was the proximate cause OF the In
1879. Schneider against Lobingier. Ap.
poal from Douglas. Reversed with direc.
tons. Duffie. c. Division No. l.
l. An attorney, c, was employed 10 prose.
cute an action In partition for a stipulated
fee. He employed l.. another attorney, re.
siding at the place OF the trial. to assist
him. l. took the active management Of
the case, and. proceeding on Information
received from c., prepared a report for the
referee appointed to make partition Of the
property Involved. showing that the plain
tiff had conveyed to c and himself n two
fifths interest In her share of the property,
ana on representations maze 10 the fetcFet
and to the court that such report was
agreeable to all parties the referee filed
tho report and the court entered an order
confirming the same. The plaintiff had no
Knowledge that the attorneys were awarded
a part OF the land out of her share, and
did not discover the same until about two
a short time thereafter, but more than two
years after the filing Of the decree, shs
commenced an action In equity to yacats
the decree and TO have a proper decree
entered. Held, that an action on the equity
side OF the docket was a proper proceeding
in which TO obtain the relief demanded.
2 Whether proceedings under sections 6O2
sos. code Of civil procedure, Is applicable n
a case OF this character where the relief
sought Is not against any OF the parties
record Quere.
IA party applying to a court Of equity
o ana eaTity reouires' The deere
entered should protect the interest Of the
defendant as we'll as that Of the plaintiff.
neal from Pierce. Reversed and remandsd.
Root, c.. Division No. 2
/. The certificate to be endorsed on q
will required by section $50 of the decedeni
act is not essential to the validity OF the
probate thereof, but merely provides that
a will so certified, and the record thereof
fled. may be read in evidence in ali courts
within this state, without further proof y
Roberts against Flanagan, q Neb, 04. 500
| approved and followed.
2. Where a probate court has jurisdiction
in admitting a will to probate all presump.
lions are in favor OF the regularity Of tts
proceedings, and in a collateral attack upon
such probate the court will not inquire into
the degree of proof required by the probate
court" Roberts against Flanagan q Neb'.
54, 500, approved and followed.
n 3. In probate proceedings the county court
is a court OF record and OF exclusive origt-
nal Jurisdiction, and in such actions it's
titled to the presumptions that attach 10
the records Of other courts OF that char
T. Chapter XXI, Session Laws 1895, section
1915, Cobbey's Annotated Statutes Of 1907,
cures any defects that may theretotore
ing their judgments Of the probate Of Wills
in records other than the record book re-
ferred to in division l OF section 81, CHAP
ter Xxx. Compiled Statutes OF 1898.
3. Where a county Judge appears as a WIZ
ness and Identifies the entries IN ne rec.
tries do not have attached thereto a GER
tificate comfortable to section +Si7. Cob.
boys Annotated Statutes Of 1907, does not
render them inadmissible in evidence.
6. One Henry Upton died the owner OF Z
tract of land in Nebraska. P1aintitf IN eject
ment claimed title thereto by virtue OF I
conveyance from Susan c, Upton. The
county judge identified two records OF MI
office. In one whereof appeared the COP,
Of a purported will OF Henry Upton ana II
the other a judgment admitting the viii o
Henry Upton to probate. Neither record II
terms referred TO the other. The deeC
whereby Henry Upton received title reettes
that the grantee was a resident OF Decatur
Mich. The attesting clause to the purportec
copy OF said will recited that the wit
nesses resided In Decatur, Mich. Said cop!
described Susan c. Upton as wife and dc
visee OF the ~testator and executriX OF SAT-
will. The order admitting the will to pro
bate appointed Susan c. Upton eXecutrtN
Susan c. Upton conveyed said land sub
sequent 10 said proceedings in 1898, an
her grantee has occupied and enjoyed hi
farm ever since. The original will could no
be found, nor was any@ one produced q
show its contents from personal knowl
edge thereof. Held. there was sufficien
internal and corroborating evidence OF tn
Identity OF said will and it's probate Z
+, permit the case TO go 10 the jury.
I. Where a party claims title 10 rea
estate by adverse possession and the evi
l dence Is conflicting upon said point. tn
Issue should be submitted TO the jury.
A Bachelors Reflections
! A woman can forgive her husband 70