Omaha daily bee., 1912-03-11

was dismissed al the Plaintiffs request
The petition In this case is substantially
IDENTICAL with the latter petition in the
ederai court. Held, that the ruling upon
me demurrer to the first petition and the
Judgment Of voluntary dismissal do not
establish the defense Of former adjudica-
ton.
3 Where a resident Of Nebraska, who
then owned q paid up policy of Insurance
in the defendant company, made an appii-
cation at his home in this state for new
policy to an agent OF the defendant who
was authorized TO transact business for
II in the state. and submitted to a medi-
cal examination and delivered to the
agent here his paid UP policy with a
paper authorizing and directing the COM
psny TO apply from the surrender value OF
the former policy the amount OF the first
two premiums. and pay the balance to
him In cash. and afterwards without any
communication between the applicant and
the home office, the agent In this state
delivered the new policy and a check for
the balance due on the surrender value.
the contract was completed In Nebraska,
ana Is TO be governed by the laws Of this
state and not by those Of the state Of
New York. where the home office OF the
defendant Is.
4. Whether or not the Insurance con-
tract was abandoned IL a question Of fact
for the jury TO determine.
d When the insured died the insurer
had In Its possession an accumulated re-
serve on his policy sufficient to pay the
premiums upon the policies for more than
three years and until after his death.
There being no forfeiture clause in the
policy. held. that the insurance was IN
force at the time Of his death, unless the
policies we're abandoned.
.. The incontestable clause OF the poll
cies sued upon does not apply to the de-
tense or lapse OF forfeiture by nonpay-
abandonment Of the contract
!. There being no forfeiture clause In
the policy, Its provisions allowing options
TO the insured Of taking a paid up policy,
ETC.. on default Of payment of premium
on the day fixed did not bind the insured
70 exercise the options. and he had the
rignt 10 rely upon the main and not upon
the sncillary or subordinate stipulation..
II II seemed best TO him so to do.
loos. The Farmers and Merchants Ir-
rieauon company against Hill. Appeal
from Dawson. Affirmed. Hamer. j.
purchaser OF land from one who
noids water right contract thereon with
an irrigation company. and who takes
title thereto by a deed containing the
ordinary covenants of warranty with no
reference to the question Of water rights,
and who refuses to accept water from the
company. Is not personally liable for the
maintenance fee mentioned in the water
right contract between his grantor and
the irrigation company, and an action
cannot be maintained against him TO
recover personal judgment therefor.
1876. Bayer against Bayer. Appeal
from Kearney. Reversed and remanded
sedgwick, J. Lstton. j., not sitting.
]. A demurrer 10 a petition In equity on
the ground that several causes OF action
are improperly Joined cannot be sustained
because Of uncertainty as TO which OF the
plaintiffs IL entitled to the relief de-
manded IL the uncertainty as TO the
respective rights Of the plaintiffs arises
from the language OF the grant under
which they claim. II Is for a court OF
equity to determine their respective rights.
. A plaintiff who claims a life interest
in real estate may Join with those who
claim the remainder In an action to quiet
title against one IN possession who re-
fuses TO recognize the right of either and
claims the land under q clause IN the
deed through which all Of the plaintiffs
derive their rights.
ISIS. Longnecker against Longnecker.