Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-10-22
Court Decisions

l64ll. Forsha against the Nebraska Mo-
line Plow Co. Appeal from Nuckolls,
Reversed and rcmanded Barnes, j.;
Reese, c. j., and Fawoett, j., dissent
ing.
/. a person who is In the general en-
ployment of one person may be tempo
rarily In the services of another, with
respect to particular transaction or
piece OF work 40 that the relation OF
master and servant arises between them,
even though the general employer may
nave an interest IN the special work.
Mestover against Hoover. --- Neh,
- 40 N. w. 2N5
2. Where two persons are sued Jointly
for damages caused by the alleged negl
gence Oh third person ana the evidence
SHOWS that such third person was the
and at the time his negligent acts 90
CURED was acting for anu in the special
business OF the other defendant, verdict
against his general employer which,, at
the same time eNoneTates the defendant
In whose services he was specifically or
specially engaged. Is so Inconsistent as to
require reversal OF tho judgment rem
3. II Is reversible error to refuse TO give
requested instruction which is applica-
BILE to the evidence where the propositlo
contained thel elm has not been covered by
any olher instruction given by the court.
1872. W ilson against Wilson Appeal
from Gosper. Reversed and remanded.
with directions. Reese, c. j.: Root, j.,
concurs In part and dissents In part
]. Upon an appncauon TOR divorce,
where both parties are found guilty OF
any of the enumerated Ottcnses for which
a, divorce may be granted. the court
should dismiss the bill Nagei against
Nagel, ~ Mo. SO.
.. W here the wife Is charged with the
crime ol adultery with her attorney, VINO
Is made correspondent In an action for a
divorce, II Is against the ethics of the
legal profession TOR such correspondent to
act as botn attorney and witness for the
wife. His testimony being necessary In
| the denial OF the adultery, he should not
appear IN the case as counsel.
lbl6a Boyd against LlnCon and North
western hallway company. Appeal from
Lancaster. Affirmed. Sedgwlck, j.
/, Upon appeal the same cause must be
presented In this court that was tried
In the court below. II an issue Is there
| tried by both parties and without objec-
| ton from either that the issue Is not
sufficiently pleaded, such objection will
| not be considered In this court as ground
! Tor reversal
! 2, The objection in this court that the
| verdict is not supported by the evidence
| VIII not justify "A reversal unless the fall
| ure or evidence Is so manifest that all
reasonable men, acting upon the evidence
| alone, must agree that II Is insufficient.
| 3. Immature growing crops are not gem
| orally considered as having a market
/ value. In such case the reasonable value
/ under all the circumstances may be
shown IN determining the damages causeu
| by an injury thereto.
| T. An objection 10 evidence on the
| ground OF insutiicicncy of the petition In
| alleging damages Is In the nature OF a
| demurrer and should challenge tho courts
attention directly to the condition of the
| pleading; a general objection that the
| evidence Is incompetent Is insufficient.
| .. IL growing, immature crops are totally
destroyed the measure OF damages Is th6
| reasonable value OF the crops before the
| injury; In such cases an instruction that
tho market value OF crops damaged
! or destroyed Is the measure OF damages
is erroneous, but Is prejudicial to plain.
tiff alone. when the evidence Is conclu'
slve that such crops were totally de-
/ stroyed and had no market value anC
the reasonable value Is clearly shown.
1906 Clark Implement company agains
Jay, Appeal from Nuckolls, Affirmed
/. In a jury trial all questions OF fact
| depending upon conflicting evidence, ar,
for the decision Of the trial jury, and
unless manlfesty wrong, the verdict can
p In the instant case there IL no con
trolling question OF law involved, no OBJ
lection being made to the Instruction.
given the jury by the trial court. Tit
evidence Is examined but not set out IL
the opinion, and no reversible error 4
found.
Harmon. Appeal from Douglas. Al
fTmed. Letton. j.
/. A consideration does not necessarily
consist OF a direct advantage to tn
promisor, but may consist OF a dlrec
disadvantage to the promlsee.
q Evidence examined and held tina
section Al OF the code should be ap
piled
1878 Smith against Coon. Appeal iron
Lancaster. Affirmed. Barnes, j.. Sedg
wick j., not sitting.
!. In an action to recover damage
for death by wrongful act, where tn
evidence as TO the negligence OF the de
PENDANT and the contributoTy negligenc
7 OF the deceased Is conflicting, II is IN
4 duty Of the trial court 10 refuse 20 di
4 rect verdict for the defendant.
% 2. The driver OF an automobile whe
5 approaching "a street crossing In ia
main business part Of a city at a tim
= when the streets are occupied by othe
Q vehicles and pedestrians should have hi
D automobile under control, should keep
r sharp lookout and should manage nj
G car as TO It's rate OF speed and otherwis
4 with due regard TO the satety or Others
q and should stop II necessary. 10 avoi
, iniuring anyone who for any cause
s found 10 be In place OF danger.
q 3. one who becomes frightened and be
= wildered at the near approach Of a
I automobile while crossing publ
street and for that reason falls TO avOi
p a collision, rs not as "A matter OF la
o guilty OF cOntrlbutOry negligence.
= 4 In passing ON a motion for chang