Omaha daily bee., 1909-10-24
SUPREME COURT sYLLARl

- aA.ANNa $3.50 3NN
livertd Is valid between the parties, though
not lawfully acknowledged nor witnessed,
and Is sufficient TO convey the land de-
sorlbed therein with the exception Of the
homestead Of the grantor.
2 Evidence examined, It's substance stated
In the opinion, and held sufficient to sus.
tain the finding OF the district court that
the deed In question was in fact delivered
to the grantee.
3 Former opinion, - Neb. 100 N. w.
1f. modified and our former judgment adj
hered to.
1886 wInkler against City Of Hastings.
Appeal from Adams. Reversed and dis
missed. Rose. J. Reese, c., j., not sitting.
l. The power to prescribe the conditions
on which territory may be detached from
a city is legislative.
ritory from a city has been delegated by
statute to the mayor and council, an APP
peal from the action of that body In re-
tusing to disconnect particular tracts cam
not be made the means of transferring such
power to the district court.
1884, Duval against Advance Thresher
Company. Appeal from keya rama, on
rehearing. former judgment modified and
affirmed on condition plaintiffs file REMIT
titure for SSee.sO, with interest from date OF
judgment, within thirty days; otherwise
Judgment of district court reversed and
cause remanded. Letton, ].
l. Under the rule that pleadings will be
construed most strongly against the pleader
the pleadings in this case examined and the
action held to be upon a contract for com
missionsi held, further, that as TO INSTALL
AAaAlNH u NONAAAAArHAOh y Au Nk0NNAa
can be had at this time,
1871. Fauber against Keim. Appeal from
Thayer. On rehearing, reversed. Jose, j.
1. A provision in a will that the amount
Of a bequest to testator's daughter shall
remain in the home place. with interest
payable annually, In the event OF her being
married at the time OF testators death;
held, TO be a charge upon the realty de-
scribed, though further provision was made
for the sale of the property and for pay
ment Of the legacy. II the legatee should
| bRcOnp n widow
2. In giving effect to a bequest, the en-
tire will should be examined to ascertain
the intention Of the ~testator.
8. A legatee, by exercising an option to
take testator's land at its appraised value
under the will; held, not to have obligated
himself to pay other legatees more than
1896. CRvitt against Graham. Appeal, Gus
| ter. Reversed and remanded. Reese, c. j.,
Dean, j, not sitting.
cover for rent due the relation of landlord
and tenant must have existed between the
parties either by expires agreement or by
implication" Janouch against Ponce, J
Neb. 1855, 81 N. w. 53A
1854 Rasmussen against Blust. Appeal,
Dawes. On rehearing. ormer opinion and
Judgment Of this court set aside; judgment
district court reversed and cause re-
manded; all taxable costs incurred to date
OF filing mandate in district court are
taxed to plaintiff. Root, J.
l. One who has constructed upon the va.
l cant public lands of the United States q
/ system OF reservoirs and bitches for the
distribution Of water appropriated by hin
a for irrigating purposes, and has secured
the approval Of his plan and appropriation
by. the state board Of irrigation; and was
using his said reservoirs and bitches fol-
= the storage and distribution of such water
before said lands are entered, has q vesteC
and accrued right within the meaning Of
sections 2SSs and 2S4O Of the revised statutes
O. II such improvements have been mad,
+, with the taoit or express consent of the
entrymen upon lands of the United State.
that have been entered as a homestead, ant
the entryman thereafter relinquishes hk
\ entry or 1t is Cancelled by the United State.
A and the said improvements are in actua
n use by the irrigator under the authorit,
n ana with the approval of the state boarC
. OF irrigation, a subsequent entryman take
. said lands subject to a right-of-way To-
said bitches and the use by the ~irrigatol
i, or the land covered by the reservoir.
&The failure of the irrigator to file
a nap In the land office and to secure tn,
approval OF the secretary Of the interio
In accordance with the act of congress ap
n proved March 3, 1891, entitled AN act t
n repeal timber culture laws, andIfor othe
n purposes" and the ACTS supplemental.
n thereto. does not destroy the privileges pre-
n tected by sections 1893 and 2340, revise,
statutes OF the United States.
a A deed executed by an entryman be
fore he Is entitled to a receivers final re
= celpt and purporting to vest the granite
y with a right-of-way over, and the privil
= ego of constructing and maintaining
reservoir upon the lands OF the entrymar
= will not vest the grantee with any righ
~ against a subsequent entry of the Ian
under the acts of congress, unless sue
grantee, before the last entry, shall bav
constructed said improvements and wa
using them under such circumstances as I
n entitle MIN to protection under the law
n 1870 o'shea against Breuning. Appea
from Platte. Affirmed. Reese, C. j.; Roo
q, ana Letton, j., concurring separated,
y Fawcett, j., dissenting.
Under the provisions Of section 176, char
ter e. Complied Statutes, section 4,9O3 COZ
Deys annotated Statutes, ALI the wearln
n apparel and and househol
n furniture" and other personal property nc
exceeding $500 in value OF a deceased viii
or husband, vests in the survivor as we
y when such survivor received provision mad
IN the Will OF the deceased as when II
deceased died intestate and the survive
cannot be deprived Of the allowance thereC
py the will OF the deceased, nor can III
survivor be required to elect whether he {
- she VIII accept other provisions of the wi
~ in his or her behalf before dem. .nding N
property described In the above section.
lSIet, Hespen against Wendeln. Apes
~ from Otoe. Reversed and remanded vii
n directi2ns to enter a decree in favor
m plaintiff as prayed in his petition. Barne
~ noot' j. not voting Letton, J., an
m 1 Direct evidence that a ~testator made q
m oral contract with his .stepson that /
SHOULD remain In the family, assist in maj
agins the testator's business, carry on ii
WorhSoI the farm and perform the duti,
-Iot a son until he should become 21 yea,
NA1k NJ AAIAL IIUE 4
should receive a team, harness and WACO
and at the death of the ~testator shar
Equally with his own children in his estat
IL clear and satisfactory, Will entitle N
. plaintiff to a decree for specific perform
anee where It is apparent that he has fui
performed the contract on his part.
~ 3 Evidence examined and held sufficiel
plaintiff.
- 1920, Framholz against McGahey. A,
peal from Platte. on motion to dismiss a
X peal Motion sustained; appeal dismisse
l. To ciothe this court with jurisdiction
n review a Judgment for a final order OF II
district court, the appellant must. with
an Six months of the rendition OF such judI
- ment or final order, file Will the clerk
this court a certified trsfIscript of the jud
&c ment or order appealed from.
NJ 2 II the transcript filed for the purpo
OF such an appeal is not authenticated
the clerk of the district court, this cou
IN is without power, after six months from ii
rendition of such judgment or final orde
TO permit the appellant to add the clerk
cer1ticate to said transcript.
1881. State eX rel. Love against Co
grave. Appeal from Lancaster. Affirme
Lection, ]. Barnes, j., dissenting.
In order to determine the meaning
the language Of an act OF the Legislature.
is proper to examine the course of legi
re, lation upon the same general subject al
A. TO consider In what connection and wi
~ what context 1t has heretofore been Ell
q Where power has been granted