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

Of venue the district court IL vested
with a sound legal discretion, and his
ruling thereon Will not be disturbed un-
less Il appears that he has been guilty
OF an abuse OF such discretion.
o. Evidence examined and found suf-
flcient TO sustain the verdict. and that
the amount thereof is not excessive.
rom Coltax. Affirmed. Root, j.; Sedg-
wick. j., not sitting.
l. \ lower proprietor may not unnec-
essaily obstruct natural ora-n upon his
own premises without the upper pro-
priotor's consent, 50 as to collect surface
water and cast II back upon his neigh
bors farm where 10 would not appear
but for that obstruction and to toe in
jury OF his nelghbors crops and land.
2. Section l Of Art. of oh, 50, com
piled Statutes. which authorizes pro
bitches so constructed as TO discharge
water into any depression or draw upon
his own premises, does not authorize him
to dam up and permanently obstruct "
natural drain so as TO prevent assembled
surface water flowing therein In the nat
ural course OF drainage and so as to IN
lure his neighbours crops and land.
1884 Rlado against Draper. Appeal,
Lancaster Affirmed. BRrnes,J; sedg-
wick, j.; not sitting
/. The driver Of an automobile upon
tempting TO pass a carriage from the
rear, 30 carelessly and neglgenty han
dies his car as to strike the carriage and
injure the occupant thereof who is with
out fault. IL liable for the injuries
caused NV such negligent act.
2. Where the district court has proper
~ submitted controverted fact to the
Jury for their determination their find
ing thereon should not be set aside BY
reviewing court unless II can he sa q
TO be clearly wrong.
motion, fairly and fully instructed the
| Jury on defendants theory of the case.
| Il r. not error for the court TO refuse
defendants request for additional in
structlons thereon.
T. II is not reversible error 60 permit
q witness who Is we'll skilled in the use
handling and driving them, TO testify as
as TO the distance In which such q ma
Oh ne may be stopped when going at diff.
| ferent rates OF speed where on the trial
| Of cause that question Is or may be-
come material.
8 A new trial should not be granted
evidence whore such evidence appears
| to be merely cumulative or Is OF
doubtful or equivocal character.
| g. Evidence examined and found SUI
| ficlent to sustain the amount OF the
| judgement rendered by the district court.
| 1887, Rossbach against Micks. Appeal
! from Greeley. Affirmed. Rose, j, Sedg
| wick, j., not sitting.
| 1, Where parties to "A recorded mortgage
| execute "A second one on the same realty
! for the same amount TO secure the same
| debt for the sole purpose OF correcting -
mistake in the first and so express them
| selves In the body OF the second instru-
ment. it's effect when recorded, Is 20
| supersede the first, and the two const-
| tute one mortgage, nothing having Inter
| vened to impair mortgagees security.
! ?. Where failure to convey land under
an eNecutory contract OF sale is due
solely to the refusal OF the purchaser To
pay or tender the stipulated purchase
| price according TO the terms of his agree
| ment, he Is not entitled to specific per-
Torrance or 20 damages for breach Of
1885 Cohn against Butterfield. Appeal
from Lancaster. Reversed and remanded
| Sedswlck. j.
/. The plaintiff and appellee began an
action IN the district court by petition
| In error against this defendant and APP
| ernor removing appellee from the office
! OF notary public upon complaint OF ap-
pelant, and obtained judgment for
costs against this appellant and an order
reversing the decision OF the governor.
| Held. that the appellant has such interest
In the proceedings In the district court as
TO enable him to appeal from the tudg-
2, Upon petition In error in the district
court 90 reverse an order OF the governor
removing notary public from office the
plaintiff In error Is not entitled to trial
de novo and II is error to order the re-
versal OF the decision or the governor
for want Of prosecution in the district
against the defendant in error.
1891 Pritchett against Collins. Appea
from Douglas. Affirmed, Fawcett, J
Sedgwick, J., not sitting
In an action at law all questions OF fact
! depending upon conflicting evidence, are
for the jury, and, unless manlfeatlS
wrong the verdict should not be disturbed
on appeal.
1879 Stephenson against Murdoch. Ap
peal from Gage. Affirmed. Root, j.
Sedgwick j., not sitting,
l. A finding OF the district court based
on conflicting evidence that real estat,
sold at judicial sale was not appraised
too low will not ordinarily be disturbed
on review,
2 A finding OF the district court based
on conflicting evidence overrullng con
tentlon that the appraisers Gid not, II
fact view and appTaise the property de
scribed in the decree will be sustained II
this court. ir the evidence preponderatei
In favor OF that finding.
g. The fact that the sheriff did not sci
one lot described I'M the decree Is not ord
, nRrilv n good objection 10 the confirma
tion OF the sale OF other lots therein de
scribed.
4 In a sale made by authority OF de
cree In equity the court Is the vendor anr
! the sheriff its agent An order OF sal,
is not necessary 60 clothe the sheriff Will
authority to make the sale ana, IL Issued
will not control the decree.
! g. The clerk has no authority to with
draw from the operation of a decree par
Z OF a parcel OF land therein ordered TO b,
! sold but II he does so. an order of con
2 flrmation will not be reversed, II IL aD
. pears that the defendants were no
[ | nrpfudicpd tleFpby.