Omaha daily bee., 1909-07-24

1859 Armstrong against City Of Auburn,
Appeal from Nemaha. Affirmed IL plaintiff
otherwise reversed. FawCett, j.; Reese, G.
j., absent and not sitting.
l. II a municipal corporation r%ightruliy
causes an Improvement to he constructed
or other work to be done whether by an
independent contractor or otherwise, IL is
bound to take notice Of the character "
the work and its condition, whether safe
or dangerous, of its streets and grounds as
affected by the prosecution or performance
OF such Improvement or work. City OF
Beatrice against Reid, Al Neb., 2lA
2 "A instruction which, II standing
alone, might be erroneous, may not be 30
when considered with the other instruc-
lions upon the same subject, given In con
nection herewith" Alien against Chit
cage ~Burlington & Quincy Railway Com
pany, lis N. w. 65.
3 Evidence examined and referred to in
the opinion, held sufficient to sustain the
verdict Of the jury and judgment of the
court.
l5762. Benton against sikyta. Appeal
from Johnson. Reversed and cause re-
manded. Root, j.; Reese, C. j., absent and
not sitting,
l. The endorsee Of q promlssory note
which was given in consideration for a
right to make, use or vend a patented in
Vention or one claimed by the payee to be
patented, takes the paper. subject to all
defenses between the original parties, II at
the time of his purchase he has knowledge
VI NlS tbAlSAuGI ANlOu dlOICShlut bHu llOhN VI
the parties through whom he claims were
In ignorance of that fact, even though the
not was not indorsed "Given for a patent
right" and he paid value for and pur-
chased it before maturity.
q In a suit upon such an instrument,
after ii has been shown hat plaintiff and
his predecessors in title, before or at the
time they acquired title thereto, had
knowledge Of the consideration for which
II was given, the defendant may prove by
a third party declarings Of the payee made
made while in possession Of the note and
tending to impeach its validity.
B. A promissory note signed while the
maker is intoxicated so that he is in
capable of knowing or understanding the
nature or quality OF his act. II not there
fore ratified by him, but on the contrary
promptly repudiated after he had recovered
his senses and appreciated what had been
done, is voidable at his election. in the
nocent holder thereof.
T. Section 1855, Cobbey's Annotated stat
utes, 1907, has not changed the law as an
bounced in Dobbins against oberman, II
5. "Parol evidence is inadmIsslble to
establish an oral agreement contemporary
eous with the making Of a negotiable In
strument, whereby said instrument was
not to be negotiated" Waddle against
owen, AZ Nebraska, 4S9.
1921. Hoover against Jones. Appeal from
Nuckolls. Affirmed. Rose, j.
Where a sheriff seized personal prop
ertY under an execution and a stranger to
the process deprives him of his possession
by a writ OF replevin the execution, though
produced by the officer at the trial of the
suit in replevin, is not competent evidence
or the officers possessory rights without
proof of the judgment on which such
execution was Issued.
1928. Champlin Bros. against Sperling.
Appeal from Antelope. Reversed and re-
manded. Root, J.
l. Parties who are severally liable upon a
written contract may be implicated in one
action thereon, although none Of the de-
PENDANTS are liable to plaintiff upon more
than one item in said contract.
2. II parties competent to contract, sigr
a written agreement by the terms of which
one agrees to sell the other, for a specified
price, a definitely described and segregated
ohattel, and the other party agrees to pay
the stated price, the vendor, after delivery
or tender OF the property, may maintain
an action for the purchase price, even
though the vendee before such tender re.
fuses to pay therefor.
3. If the Vendees by the terms Of a con.
tract become joint owners or tenants ir
common OF a chattel and agree thai 1t MAY
be delivered by the vendor to one of them
delivery to one vendee will be delivery t.
all.
1878. Tewksbury against City Of Lincoln
Appeal from Lancaster. Affirmed. Reese
c. ].
!. The making, improving, repairing, keep
ing in repair and In a safe condition OF
streets and sidewalks by a municipal cor
poration relate to its corporate interest.
negligent acts of its agents in performing
such duties. Burke against City Of Soutf
Omaha, 70 Neb. 1893, 113 N. w. 2H.
2. Where a sidewalk is rendered tenn,
porarily dangerous by the positive negli.