Omaha daily bee., 1909-03-21

division.
the ground pass to the devisee ana not
to the executor. Andersen against Bor-
gaard, IFS n. w. lies, followed,
2 Where land is let and rent reserved In
a share Of the crops the title to the land
and TO the landlords share " the crop are
not severed, but remain In tho landlord
and pass by his devise Of the land.
g. Where an executor who is also residue
airy lesatee, gives the bond provided by
section lS OF the decedent's act conditioned
TO pay debts and l%egacies, " IL the duty
OF such executor upon giving such bond
TO surrender the possession " property spe-
officially devised to another, and such ex-
ecutor is by the giving OF such bond cs-
topped TO claim the right Of possession OF
such property until the final settlement OF
the estate.
e. where a devisep OF specific property
files a claim i'm the county court against
the estate Of his testator, IN which Is in
cluded a claim against the executor for
the land so devised. and upon appeal to
the district court Il Is stipulated that no
question viii be raised as to whether such
claim Is a personal or official liability on
the part OF the executor. this court will not
disturb q Judgment directing the allowance
OF such claim on the ground That an action
should have been Brought against the ex-
ecutor. the question ms to whether the stip-
ulatiop Is an, attempt TO confer jurisdiction
not being raised.
1884. Curtise- Baum company against Lang.
Appeal from Platte. Reversed and re-
manded. Calkins, c, commissioners de-
partment.
l. Where a sheriff or constable seiaes
property by virtue OF a writ Of attachment
regularly ISSUED and being sued in re-
plevin for the possession of the property
by a stranger to the action, ~justifies under
the writ, he is not required to prove the
debt OF the attaching creditor except in
cases where such property was by him
taken from the possession Of such stranger
to the action.
2. An affidavit for attachment which al
legged that the defendant Is about 10 re-
move his property out of the county with
Intent to defraud his creditors, t~ustifies a
justice Of the peace In Issuing an attach
ment, and gives him jurisdiction of the
property OF the defendant seized In the
county under such writ when followed by
the service provided by section 9S2 OF the
1852. State ex rel Krebs against Hector.
Appeal from Douglas. Affirmed. Upper
son, G. Commissioners department.
J. Power given 70 a board Of fire and
police commissioners by statute to license,
restrain or prohibit the sale Of intoxicating
liquors by ordinance, is sufficient to author
ize the board to adopt rules controlling the
traffic, including the light to revoke a
license upon the violation by the licensee of
any statute. or city ordinance or any rea-
sOnable rule adopted by the board for the
control OF the traffic.
z The manner for the adoption of ordi-
nances by the city council OF South Omaha,
as prescribed by section s3OS, annotated
statutes, 1907, does not apply to ordinances
adopted by the board of fire and police
commissioners of that city.
3. In the absence of a statute prescrib-
ing a manner for the adoption Of ordinances
any reasonable mode which the board
adopting them may follow Is sufficient.
4. A rule Of the board Of fire and police
commissioners providing that any officer
violation or the law by a liccnsee, does not
prevent others from making such com
plant, although from making such com
1854. Montgomery against Miller. APP
peal from Lancaster. Affirmed. Reese,
l. In an action by a married wpman for
damages caused by an assault and battery,
1t is held not preJudicially erroneous, under
the issues and evidence submitted for the
court to instruct the jury that they might
consider any loss of earning capacity
which might have been caused to plaintiff
by the assault, IL the jury found In her
favor.
1861. Buffalo county against Kearney
county; Appeal from kearney. Affirmed
Fawcett. J.
a contract with an adjoining county to re-
pair q bridge across a stream dividing the
counties Is liable to the county making the
repairs under contract for such proportion
of the cost of making said repairs as 1t
ought to pay, not exceeding one-half of the
full amount so expended, when the county
making the repairs has followed the pro-
cedure pointed out by the statute as to
county, 10 N. w. 756.
q Where the proper steps have been
taken TO render an adjoining county liable
for the repair Of such q bridge, and where
an issue Is raised as to the necessity of
| the repairs or as to the amount paid being
| more than the actual and reasonable. cost
thereof. then the amount that the default
ing county ought TO pay Is a question for
the fury, but, If no such issue Is rendered,
the county in default Is liable. for one
half of the cost Of repairs, Ibid.