Omaha daily bee., 1908-10-31

cross-arms." Held. that notwithstanding
this notice, the company, IN the Construt-
ton Of new lines In which IL employed two
gangs OF workmen, one known as ground
men, who set the poles, and one known
as 'linemen who strung the wires. could
pole, from the breaking Of which a line.
man was precipitated to the ground and
injured.
s A Judgment will not be reversed be-
cause Of an instruction which. taken by IT.
self. is ambitious and which In one view
seems to impose on the master "A greater
burden than the law imposes in respect to
the character Of the tools and appliances
furnished his servant, IL such instruction
Ia qualified by others, so as TO make II ap.
parent that the jury were not misled, and
the charge as a whole correctly defines the
i52so. First National Bank against sam
uelson. Appealed from Richardson. AZ
firmed. Root, c. Division No. 2
l. A bond given to a national bank by its
president to insure the faithful perform
ance Of his duties as such officer, which
purports TO continue during his appoint
ment," must be read in connection with
the term Of that appointment, and II II Is
for a definite period, the sureties Will not
be liable for their principals misconduct
subsequent to the expiration Of the time
for which he was appointed.
1915 North western Thresher Company
against Kubicsk. Appeal from Saline. Al
firmed. Fawcett, c. Division No. 2
/. A mere uncommunicated purpose to
accept an offer for the sale or purchase of
property does not constitute an acceptance,
| dUu where UdIAltH are Instant anu AIt Nbl
tract Is to be made by correspondent. the
writing OF a letter or telegram containing
notice of acceptance, is not, of itself suf-
ficient to complete a contract. In such a
case. the act must involve an irreVocable
element and the letter must be placed In the
mail, or the telegram deposited I'm the tele-
| graph office, for transmission, and thus
placed beyond the power OF control OF the
sender, before the assent becomes effectual
to consummate a contract; and not then,
unless the offer Is still standing.
2 Where an order given for machinery
contains a clause giving the vendor the
right to accept such order. or not as he
please, and no time is fixed within which
such acceptance shall be made, the vendee
has the right, up to the time of acceptance,
to countermand such order.
3. The facts stated i'm the opinion held
ample to sustain the conclusion that plain
tiffs representative, J; F. Hennessy IN
his negotiations with defendants on July
II and IL. 1904. had power to bind the plain
tiff In that transaction.
1917. Bone against james. Appeal from
Otoe. Affirmed. Duffie, c.. Division No. l.
1. The defendant and a former owner of
a farm used a private road over and across
land owned by the plaintiff In order TO
reach said farm. Such use commenced in
to about the time this action was com
menced, in December, 1906. Defendant
land acquired by prescription, and refused
to shut the gates maintained at the north
and south boundaries of the plaintiffs land
where the roadway entered the plaintiffs
~ "a " ARS NAa N@iaNh@ -
the gates with a permanent fence which
the defendant tore down and destroyed,
The action is injunction TO prevent the
trespass.
The evidence d~iscloses that the use Of this
roadway was commenced by permission OF
license of the plaintiff. and so continued
up to a short time prior to the commence.
ment of this action. when the defendant
first asserted a right to the roadway by
prescription. Held. that use of the road.
way under a naked license from the plain
tiff could not ripen into a prescriptive right
however long continued
1888. Christen against Schriener. Appeal
from Otoe. Affirmed. Duffie, {. DIVISION
Nc I. 49,
is the only one justified by the evidence
alleged error in the Instructions of the
court will not be considered.
3. decision of a county board retectlnR
a petition for the establishment of a public
> road will not bar interested, nsrties from
later filing another petition therefor.
4. The public cannot be deprived Of IL
right to have q proposed public highwa'
established because the officers have bee
negligent In not preserving one previously
established along the same route.
3. The fact that there are no funds aVal
able to pay damages and not tax leVieo
therefore will not Justify a court of equit'
in restraining a county board from cor
sidering and approving a petition for TN
establishing of a public road. =,
1922 Hespen agairst Union Pacific Rail
road Germany. Appeal from Dawson. AT
firmed. Fawcett. C. Division No. 2
/. In an action for damages on account ~
an injury to chattels, the owrer of sue
chattels is qualified by reason OF that rela
tionship to give his estimate OF their YAM"
2. "Where chattels are injured, by th'
negligence of another, but not wholly De
gtrnved. the measure Of damages Is III
difference between the value OF the chattsi'
irmediately before the injury and immedi'
AGAINST Metcale. a Neb s4S. reaffirmed.