Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-01-02

PENDANT valves HIS right to demur 10 the
plaintiffs petition, and that part OF his
answer which In form amounts to a gen
eIol demurrer will be treated as sur
plusage.
2 where a defendant seeks to defeat
the foreclosure of a tax lien on the
ground that the real estate in question
consisted OF two separate and distinct
tracts which were the property OF dlt-
ferent owners and were assessed and
taxed as one tract. II his answer fails to
clearly set forth facts sufficient to war
rant such a conclusion, and contains no
definite description OF each separate
tract, 1t is vulnerable to general de-
murrer
3. An allegation in an answer that de-
PENDANT has at all times been ready and
willing to pay proportion OF tax, but has
been unable to agree with another al a.,
legged owner as to the amount he should
be required to pay. Does not constitute
tax lien.
1856. Riddle against Riddle. Appeal
from Douglas. Affirmed. 'Fawcett, J.
/. IL Is the settled rule in this court
that in suit by wife for separate
maintenance, or for almony alone, the
court may at any time during the pend
ency Of the suit, make an allowance TO
the wife of a reasonable sum as suit
money, including attorneys fees, to be
paid by the husband as the court may
direct
2. And by the term during the pend
ency Of the suit" Is meant, any time from
from the commencement of the suit until
and including the final order of dismissal
Of the same.
8. And the fact that after the employ
ment of counsel and the commencement
by them Of such suit and prior to the
entry of such allowance, the parties to
such suit become reconciled, does not
Gust the court of its authority to make
such allowance.
1886. Bonge against Village of Winnie
toon. Appeal from Knox. Affirmed.
Upon examination Of the petition it is
found that a general demurrer thereto
was properly sustained
1859. State against American Surety
company. Appeal from Lancaster. Al
firmed. Reese, c. j. Rose. j., not sit
ting.
in the title OF article 2, CHI. ola, Compiled
Statutes, 1911, and are not required TO
comply with the requirements Of that act
by filing in the office of the attorney
general the statement described therein
1925. johnson against Ish. Appeal from
Douglas. Affirmed. Barnes, j.
1. 1t Is not reversible error to give to
the jury an unnecessary lnstructlon'
which is a correct statement of propo-
sition OF law, unless the complaining
party. appears to have been prejudiced
thereby.
2. Where the district court has fully
and fairly Instructed the jury upon par
ticular point, It is not error to retuse
to give further instructions thereon.
3. Assignment of error for the exclu-
sion of certain evidence commented on
and found to be without merit.
4. In an action for damages for assault
and battery where the testimony was con-
flictlng as to the nature and extent OIL
the plaintiffs injuries, a Judgment should
not be held excessive II the record con-
tains substantial evidence supporting IT;
1929. National Bank Of North Be eilS
against Thompson. Appeal from Morrlll'
Affirmed. Root, ].
/. A provision in a promissory note,
executed subsequent TO June l, 1879, that
torney's fee il suit be Instituted upon
the note, Is invalid and Will not render
the instrument usurious.
2. Separate notes executed ior past pas! uu ne
faint the original contract with usury.
1894 Claypool against Robb. Appeal
from Lincoln. Affirmed. Letton j.
l. The provision of section 10 OF the
code that THE publication must be made
! four consecutive weeks is satls1leo Dy
publication In weekly newspaper once
in each week for four weeks s1ccessrVeiy'
Davis against Huston, 10 Neb. rs.
2. But where the notice Is puplisned
| in q paper having more than one issue
during the week, insertion or the notice
/ in each of the regular issues during the
ton of the notice for that particular
week. Aoal
from Kearney. Reversed and remanueu
with directions. Reese, G, j.
/. In an action for divorce where an
answer and cross-peution or recrliInna
| ton Is filed by which divorce Is sought
| by the defendant, II 1t be shown by the
! evidence that neither party is blameless'
| and the decree OF the district court de-
MED a divorce to either, ulsinlssins OS A.
| the petition and Cross-peutlon, the oe-
cree will, TO that extent, be afflrmeo.
! q In an action by the wife for an ao-
solute decree OF divorce In which the ue-
| PENDANT presents a cross-petiuon seeking
| a similar decree, the question as 70
whether such decree should be granted
| to either party, or decree from Deu anu
board granted to the wiIe' ton co,, ,.
| and IL the case demands II, decree OF
divorce from bed and board, but without
dissolving the marriage relation VIII "
granted to the wife, the evidence shoWlhs
her to be the less guilty OF the two. -.
3. In such case, wnen property mas
Ibeen accumulated by the JOINT LABOR anu
! frugaiity OF both, but is all held by tne
husband. a proper provision will be made
| for the maintenance OF the wire,
1856. O'Donnell against Hermann. Ap'
peal from Cunning. Affirmed. Barnes
1s5s4 Kuip against Hermann. Appea
from Cunning. Affirmed: Barnes. ia,
/. A final settlement between guarola,r
! and his ward, after the ward has al,
Iained his majority. in the absence o.
fraud or INSTRUMENTATION, II made "
| a proper court after Investigation ano
t Weh "A Ni oortios Of the Destructive sharI
which ne receives OF his fathers estats
| Is the proceeds OF sale OF his land, vii
| amount TO a ratification and affirmanct
| Of such sale and the ward Is thereby
estopped to question its validity BorcheI
| against Mcclure, Sc Neb, 64e.
| i6556 Weekes against Heimann. Appea
from Cunning. Affirmed. Barnes D. Nc
| 1855 johnson against Riseberg. Al
firmed. Appeal from Boone, Root, J
Reese, c. j., dissenting. Letton' j., con
| cura in dissent
| / clear, direct and uncontradicted testi
| mony given by a disinterested witness
| that a woman having no lineal descend
ants orally promised her Stepson that u
he would remain on her farm, live IT
her house during her natural life anc
treat her as a son should treat his mother
he should have the farm at her death
Interested witnesses concerning her dec
laration to the effect that her stepsor
| had an interest in the farm and would
have Il after her death, II believed bi
the court will sustain a finding that th'
contract was made.
| 2 Acts OF performance relied on to re
move the bar OF the statute OF fraudi
TO an oral contract to transfer the TIL,
to real estate, must be unequivocal and
| ference will reasonably arise that az
| agreement OF some nature existed be
tween the parties with reference to tn
real estate,
3 II the acts of performance relate e
| services OF such a character that theil
value cannot be estimated by a pecuniarA
standard the claimant does not have al
adequate remedy In pressing demand
for a money judgment for breach o