Omaha daily bee., 1909-07-18

state by New York insurance companies
without any provision that the New York
laws shall govern, is not subject TO the
q motto, to be mailed TO the policy holder
In that state on q condition OF forfeiture
for n~onpayment Of premium,
3 The agent Of an insurance company
cannot by oral contract with the assured
waive the express terms of the policy and
extend the time for a premium when the
policy provides that none OF its terms can
be varied nor modified nor any forfeiture
waived nor premiums In arrears received,
except by agreement IN writing signed Sy
no i5soi: -Dsyi: against school District
of City OF South Omaha. Affirmed. Ap-
peal from Douglas. Dean, J.
l. The opinion OF expert witnesses In a
case involving the value Of the services OF
before the jury, need not be substituted by
such jury for its own deliberate Judgment.
q Where a witness skilled In architecture
testifies solely az an expert regarding the
value Of the services OF an architect the
same rule will be applied TO his testimony
that is ordinarily applied TO the testimony
OF expert witnesses in other professional
employments.
8 A jury may decline to accept the opin.
ton OF expert witnesses upon the value ot
an architects services, even though un-
contradicted, and In the light OF their
experience anf general knoyiedse and IN
may base their verdict as TO the value OF
such services upon their own deductions
from all Of the evidence before them OF
No. 1883 Unioh Pacific Railroad Com
pany against County of Colfax. Appeal
from Colfax. Appeal dismissed. Letton, j.
l. Where the district court quashed a
\ portion OF a bill Of exceptions and there
is nothing in the record indicating which
portion was Quashed and which was con-
sidered, this court upon objection being
made. will not consider the evidence.
z. A bill OF exceptions Of proceedings be-
fore a county board not identified either by
he certificate Of the county clerk or Of
the CLERK OF the district court as being part
GATED.
8. When It is sought to review an appor-
tonment and assessment In a drainage pro-
ceedlng, that portion Of the report and ap-
portionment made by the engineer and
county board which purports to charge the
property OF the appellant must appear In
A. When no final order or Judgment az
tecting appellants property appears in the
No. 1874. McLatchey against Anderson.
Appeal from Seward. Affirmed. Letton, j.
J., Where a breach of warranty occurs
and the sale had not been rescinded the
usual measure Of damages is the difference
between the actual market value Of the
warranted chattel and its market value II
1t had been as warranted and represented
10 be. The fact that the purchaser had I'm
turn sold the chattel with a warranty and
had not been compelled TO respond in dam
ages for a breach thereof, does not furnish
any ground for refusing to submit the ques-
tion OF damages for the breach Of the origi-
hal warranty to the jury.
2. In an action for breach of warranty
of a stallion the plaintiff testified in effect
horse to the defendant, but that at the de-
PENDANTS request he kept the horse in his
stable, and that while in his possession
Gallagher. Defendant introduced the Sesti-
mony of Gallagher and himself to the eff
feet that the horse was purchased by Gal
lagher from the plaintiff and not from de-
PENDANT. Plaintiff then offered to prove
that at the time that Gallagher purchased
and took the horse he told Gallagher that
the horse did not belong to him, but be-
longed to the defendant. This evidence
was excluded by the court upon objection.
Held. that the offered evidence was a self
serving declaration Of the plaintiff made
after the fact and was properly excluded.
3. If q, party believes that the ~instruc-
mite or specific to properly present the
issues to the jury It is his duty to request
or tender more definite and specific in
structions, and, failing in this, he cannot
assign the Indebtedness OF the courts in
structions as grounds for reversal.
| 4. When questions of fact are decided by
a jury upon conflicting evidence the verdict
will not be set aside on the ground OF in
sufficient evidence, unless 1t is manifestly
1888. Briggs against the Royal High
isnders; Appeal from Cunning. Affirmed
!. A bylaw providing for a forfeiture,
adopted by a fraternal Beneficiary associa-
ton subsequent to the issuance by II of a
strued against the association, and II passed
In contravention of the provisions OF the
statute governing such association, 1t will
be held void and of no affect. Lange
against Royal Highlanders, 70 Neb. 1SS; LOG
N. w. 224.
2. Where a fraternal benefit association
has not complied with the provisions of
section /, chapter 43 of the act of 1897, and
adopted a representative form of govern
ment, its governing body is without power
to adopt an edict or bylaw changing the
terms and obligations OF a mutual benefit
certificate heretofore issued to one of its
members" Lange, against Royal High
landers, 76 Neb. 10 N. w. lilo.
l. Where, under the provisions of the
constitution and bylaws of a fraternal
beneficiary association, the delegates to the
governing body thereof, regularly elected
by the members of said association, cannot
OF themselves, and without the participa-
ton of members OF committees appointed
from members outside OF such delegates,
legally and Of right adopt, alter, or amend
the edicts and laws of such association
and absolutely control the government Of
the same, such governing body is not a
representative body, and an association 80
constituted and governed cannot be said
to have a representative form of govern
ment.
4 Suicide will not defeat a recovery upon
a benefit certificate IN a fraternal bene-
ficlary association unless such certificate,
together with the lawfully enacted laws and
edicts Of such association so provide in