Omaha daily bee., 1909-06-12

State ex rel Sullivan v. Ross. Appeal,
Dakota Appeal dismissed at costs of'ap-
Bothell V. Schweitzer. Appeal, Lancas-
ter, Affirmed. Root, J.
/. A written agreement modifying the
terms of an accepted bill OF exchange and
securely glued thereto, is a part thereof
and cannot be lawfully detached there
from without the makers consent.
2. II such contract be unlawfully de-
tached from the note, an innocent holder
Of the bill In due course may, under sec
tion 1922, Cobbey's Annotated Statutes, re-
cover according to the import of the en-
Lesiur v. Sipherd. Appeal, Sarpy. Re
yersed and remanded with directions.
Dean, j.
/. The county court has Jurisdiction to
c%onstrue a will for the purpose of advis-
ing an executor in the execution Of his
office under the terms of the will.
2 In the construction of q will the in
tention of the t~estator as disclosed by the
language used therein, considered in con-
nection with surrounding circumstance
will govern, provided in so doing no rule
OF law is violated or sound policy dis
turbed.
g. A will contained the following pro
visions: I'D. l give, devise and bequeath
to my beloved wife, Harmony c. Sipherd,
all of my real estate and personal prop
erty of whatever kind and nature, to be
used by her fully during her lifetime. and
at her death the remainder is to be dt-
vided equally, share and share alike,
among my three daughters, Mary Jane
Hagedorn, Frankie H. Sipherd and Ger
trude May Sipherd. Bird. 1t is my request
and ] hereby direct my wife, Harmony c..
Sipherd, that in case either Of my daugh-
ters, frankie II. Sipherd or Gertrude May
Sipherd, should get married, my said wife
is to give each of them the sum of five
hundred C$5OO.O0) dollars; cash as a dowry,
the same to be taken out OF any money I'm
her hands belonging to the estate. This
amount is not to be charged to them. but
Is a donation from their father" Held,
the Will does not create a trust estate and
mat the widow taxes all or the testator's
property without restriction and that such
property as remains at her death vests in
Mary Jane Hagedorn, Frankie II. Sipherd
and Gertrude May Sipherd, share and
Morrison v. Gosnen. Appeal, Harlan. At
frmed. Root, j.
1. The owner OF a farm orally agreed to
convey to a broken tep acres Of land If
cipal's farm. The broker fully compiled
with this contract and was given posses
stop of said ten acres, but the vendor re-
that a court Of equity would quiet the
brokers title to said land.
2. II, while the broker Is thus In pos
session, the principal sells and conveys
the real estate to a third person, who has
actual knowledge that the broker claims
an interest therein, the last vendee will
take title charged with all equities exist
Ing in the brokers' favor,
Barker Y. Hume. Appeal. Douglas. Al
firmed.\ Barnes, ].
j. A county treasurer cannot make q
valid public or private sale OF real estate
for the non-payment Of delinquent taxes
due thereon, unless In such sale are IN
cluded all taxes with interest and costs
then delinquent against sach real estate.
Adams v. Osgood, AZ Neb. 45l.
2 A sale OF real estate for delinquent
taxes for less than the amount of taxes,
interest and costs due thereon, Is not a
sale OF the land. II IL only a sale of the
taxes and its only effect Is TO transfer the
lien Of the county TO the purchaser, who
may enforce his lien by proper foreclosure
proceedings.
3. Where the purchaser at a void admin
istrative sale OF real estate for taxes
brings an action TO foreclose the tax lien
is sold. the sale so made is a judicial sale
and does not become final and co-hpiete
until confirmation thereof by tie court
In such a case the two years given the
owner to redeem dates from such con
iirmation, and an action to redeem may
be brought at any time within said period
American Freehold Land Mortgage COM
pany against Smith. Appeal. Custer county.
Affirmed. Barnes, j.
l. Upon proceedings 10 revive a dormant
judgment which is valid upon the fact OF
the record, no objections will be heard
which seek TO go behind the original tudg-
ment.
q On an appeal to a reviewing court from
an order reviving a dormant judgment
where neithrT the transcript nor the bill OF
exceptions contain the pleadings in the
case in which the Judgment sought 10 be
that they were sufficient 20 sustain the
original judgment. and a defense OF cover
ture interposed for the first time IN the
revivor proceedings cannot be considered
3. Where on the trial OF an application IN
revive a dormant judgment, the proceed