Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-11-05
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

settling the estate committed to man and
in deuveuug the residue of sucn estate
TO the heirs and distributors thereof, anu
4or such services he is entitled 20 credit
lor ms reasonable attorneys fees, expense,
ana compensation, but II he negngenuy
or in bad faith unreasonably decays tine
settlement OF ms estate, he IS liable there
Tor to the heirs and distributes Of such
estate for the statutory interest upon al
moneys in his hands or under his control
As such administrator from the time when
sucn moneys should have been paid by him
70 the date Of payment of the same.
q Whefe II appears that an admins
traitor has defended a suit to Which there
was in tact no mertorious defense, the
mere taCt that counsel advised MIN that
ne had defense is not sufficient; he must
so turtner and show facts and Circum-
stances sufficient to show that he acteO
d Ana IN such a case, where such facts
ana ClrCumstan are not shown, the ad-
mnistrator Is not entitled to credit for his
attorneys fees or other expenses In
making such defense.
Where the heirs and distributes OF
an estate IN process Of settlement In the
state courts, without any Just cause there.
loTi Drlng suit against the administrator
Ot said estate in the federal court the ad-
mlnistrator is justified in defending such
suit and Is entitled to credit on his account
as such administrator for his reasonable
attorneys fees and expenses In making
1903. dundee Realty Company against
Leavitt Appeal from Douglas. Affirmed
Sedgwick, J.
1. a purchaser OF real estate from one
who has already sold and conveyed the
same to another whose deed is not rec
Orded cannot hold the land as an innocent
purchaser without notice, actual or con-
structve, Of ths rights OF the prior pur-
chaser.
2. The burden Of proof Is upon the party
who alleges that he purchased without
The plaintiff purchased a lot in Omaha
and failed to record his deed but took pos
session and caused the grade to be lowered
oy removing large quantities OF soil there
wards the defendant purchased the lot at
about one-half OF its value from the
grantor and caused his deed to be rec
orded. Held, that defendant is chBrgeable
with constructive notice Of plaintiffs
right in the lot and is not an innocent
purchaser without notice.
1915 WEIGH against Adams. Appeal from
Douglas. Affirmed. Root j.
l. A statement in an answer that the de-
tendanl Is not indebted to the plaintiff Is
no. deniaI Of any fact upon which the
right to recover depends. and raises no
issue.
3 Where an objection that a petition
does not state a cause Of action Is not
interposed until after the commencement
Of the trial OF case, the pleading will
sustained.
3, If. at the time a statement is made, a
witness makes a memorandum thereof and
knows and testifies that the memorandum
dunn and testify therefrom, although he
admits that he has no independent recol-
ioSlOu Oh Sucn 1aCtS
1914 Dugan against County Of Cedar.
Appeal from Cedar. Reversed and re-
manded. Rose, J.
Where a tenant occupying school land
under lease executed by the state files
with the county clerk pursuant to notice
a claim for damages to his leasehold on
account Of the opening OF a highway on a
section line and appeals 20 the district
court from an adverse decision Of the
county board, he Is entitled to damages
to the extent Of his injury without Joining
he az MA
1sl4S Blenklron Bros, against Rogers.
Appeal From Cedar. Reversed and re-
manded. Sedgwick, ].
that does not vary its meaning in any
essential particular, nor affect the iabi-
ity Of the party to be charged thereon, is
an immaterial alteration.
2. In a contract for the sale and de-
livery of gram, the promise was named
'Blenkiron Grain company" the name OF
the corporation had recently been changed
to "Blenkiron Bros. incorporates" no
other substantial change had been made
in the corporation or its business, but by
mistake he agent Of the corporation had
used an old blank in which the former
name was printed. The promisee upon dis
covering the mistake. corrected it by eras-
ing Grain company and inserting Bros
incorporated" Held, an immaterial alter
1850. The County of Hamilton against
Cunningham. Appeal from Hamilton. At
firmed. Barnes, j. Rose and Sedgwick
]. j.: not sitting. Root, j., concurs in con-
clusion.
/. A county treasurer is not liable on
his bond for interest which he has not
collected and has been unable to collect
upon the public funds in his care unless
Il appears that some act or neglect of his
has prevented or hindered the collection
OF such interest.
1913 The Iowa Hog and Cattle Powder
company against Ford. Appeal from Web
ster. Affirmed Fawcett j.
THE trial court Is not required to sub
NIT q case to the jury unless the evidence
aim &c NJ hn % Rbat
It would warrant the jury in basing a
verdict upon IT," Chicago, r. I. & p r.
CO against Sporer. 80 Neb. g.
1914 White against Musser. Appeal from
Sheridan. Affirmed. Reese, c. j.
1. In an action In eJectment defendant
claimed under adverse possession for more
than ten years. The evidence is examined
and found to sustain the verdict OF the
jury and judgment thereon in favor of de-
;. "A tax deed purporting on its face N
convey title TO land, although void for
failure to comply with the statute, affords
color of title under the general statute
81 Neb. $50. s. N W. s62. 81 Aei'
1G1B. Richie against Illinois Central Rail
road company. Appeal from Douglas Az
firmed. Reese, c. J. Letton. j., not sit
The Illinois Central railroad company
was extended into this state from Fort
OF Omaha, where II maintained its station
and agency The Minneapolis & St. Paul
railroad company udQ a une OF railroad
running northward from Fort Dodge, Ia, to
Minneapolis and St. Paul, Mimi, but no
part Of its line Of railroad entered this
state. nor is It shown by the evidence that
It had any place OF business or agency
within the city OF Omaha, or elsewhere IN
this state. The Illinois Central company
by its agent sold plaintiff a coupon ticket
in the usual form, which authorized plain
dff to travel over its line OF road from
Omaha TO Fort Dodge and thence over
the line of the NJ. & S. road from the latter
city 20 Minneapolis and return, as a pas
senger and while passing over that line
OF road plaintiff received the injury com
planned of. This suit was brought in the
district court against both companies, and
service OF summons was made upon the
Illinois Central company in the usual man
ner Of service OF summons on railroad
companies and upon the Illinois Central
company and It's agent as the managing
agents Of the NJ. & 8. company. Held, that
the mere sale Of the coupon ticket, such
as are sold over connecting lines generally
did not constitute the Illinois Central com
pany or its agents the managing agents
Of the M. & S. company upon whom service
OF summons might be made
1859. Reams against Clopine. Appeal