Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-02-24
Supreme Court Proceedings

purpose of the action would be better
suhserHed by the appointment OF a re-
ceiver to wind up the affairs than BY Ter
managers or directors u the insolyent
corporation as trustees. nader sectiens
T. and o. eh. r. Comp. St. II is within
Its power 10 appoint g receiver
1878. Montgomery against nreshsr. APP
peal from Douglas. Reversed and re-
manded with directions 70 enter decree
Of foreclosure. Reese. q ].
l. Since The use Of private seals has
been abolished in this state. all contracts
are upon the same footing IS simple con-
tracts.
: The filling Of blanks In a written in
slrument is not. strictly speaking. an
alteration Of the instrument. Where
blank Is filed in after the execution and
delivery Of a written instrument, II Is a
question Of authority 50 TO do.
8 The right to FIJI blanks in written
instruments after execution anu delivery
Is based upon an assumption OF consent.
IN the absence Of specific Instructions.
and the leaving OF such blanks Is con-
sidered to imply authority 10 I'LL them
and creates an agency tn tho receiver 20
do so In tho way contemplated hy tbs
maker.
1. Where a mortgage was executed with
the blanks for the name Of the mortgage
untitled. the MORTGAGE delivered TO inc
Person TO whom tho indebt edness secured
by the mortgage ran. the filling IN OF his
own name By such person would not In
validate the mortgage.
g. Upon an examination Of the evidence
II Is found that plaintiff is bona Tide
purchaser OF the notes and mortgage sued
upon.
IesS. Reed against Fisher. Appeal from
Sherman county. Affirmed. Hdse, !.
A plaintiff who, without any consIdera-
ton whatever. satisfied tapdgment In
his favor mistakenly believing that the
debt had been paid by means Of worth
less deed 20 land on which the Judgment
was lien. may have the satisfaction
Cancelled. where no right OF any lnno-
cent party has interviewed.
1851. Smith agains. Mckay. Appeal
from Dawson county. Affirmed. Rose. J.
]. The finding OF a jury on conflicting
evidence will not be disturbed on appeal
unless manifestly wrong.
2 Rulings which did not prejudice ap-
pellRnt In any way cannot be made
grounds OF reversal
ieat3 Imam against Inkster. Appeal from
Douglas county. Affirmed. Rose. ].
]. 4 petition emitting material aver
ments IS cured by an answer supplying
them.
2 The good will OF a dissolved partner
ship Is part OF the assets Of the firm.
. A partners share Of the value Of
single asset not included in the settle
ment OF the partnership affairs. as made
oy his partners without his knowledge.
may be recovered In an action at law.
4 The trial OF an Issue Of fact to a
jury IN an action at Law should not DO
abandoned because the pleadlnEs as a
whole contain matter relating 10 an ac-
counting about which there Is no dispute
between the parties to the suit.
8. a partner by merely neglecting his
duties TO the firm does not thereby for
felt his right 10 the assets Of the partner
a Al
effect.
g. Matters inhering In the verdict Of a
Jury cannot afterward be attacked by
sffidayits Of the Jurors.
l5ssi. Harmon against Fisher. Appeal
from Furnas. Root, J. Sedgwick. j.. con-
curing separately.
!. An express trust with respect to real
by parol, yet II a parent conveys a tract
OF land TO her son for the benefit OF j..
tho grantee, and his brother b. and for
1 more than ten years subsequently they
occupy the land as tenants In common. u.
filling the farm and making lasting and
valuable improvements thereon under a
claim OF ownership and j. conceding dur
ing that period that his brother owns one
half OF the land, the heirs OF ]. will not
be permitted 10 disturb y. In his possess
sion and title TO an undivided one-haif of
the real estate, notwithstanding there Is
no written evidence Of a trust or Of h. .
title and none was ever executed.
Z. In contest between heirs OF the
whole blood and heirs OF tho half blood
Of an Interstate, oral evidence Is admissible
70 prove that the sole consideration for
the deed from his mother whereby he was
vested with title TO the tract of land IN
controversy, was love and affection, not
withsianding the sole recitation in the
deed OK a consideration, Is substantial.
valuable consideration.
| Ife91 Wamtar.. Tfx4Aan fsau.sx...4fu..
company against County OF Cheyenne
and County of Morrill,. Appeal from
Cheyenne. Reversed and remanded.
Barnes. J, iiamer. j., dissenting.
J. Cheyenne county by taxation created
and collected fund with which TO build
a bridge across the North Platte river
as a part OF one Of its highways, and
10 that end entered into a valid writ
ten contract with Bridge company. Be-
fore the bridge was built the county was
dtyidei AM Morrill, county was created and
organized out Of that part OF the territory
formerly In Cheyenne county In when
the bridge was to be constructed. There
after Cheyenne county attempted l.. re-
pudiate the bridge contract Held. tina {
the county board OF Cheyenne county
could not abrosale the contract wtthouy
the consent Of Morrill, county.
2. In such case the bridge company
had the right 10 construct the bridge.
ana Cheyenne county was liable to pay
the contract price therefor. out of the
fund which had been created for thar
i purpose, and the bridge company was
entitled 10 Judgment against the county
for that amount.
.. II appeared that in the division
OF property between the counties as pro-
yided by section is. article l, chapter Ii.
Complied Statutes. lsll, Morrill, county
was entitled 70 receive one-third OF tho
bridge fund IN the treasury Of Cheyenne
county. Held. that Cheyenne county
could apply that fund to part payment
and satisfaction OF the judgment. and tina
such payment would satisfy the claim OF
Morrill, county for its part OF the bridge
fund
& Where two actions are consolidated
and submitted to the district court 10
determine all OF the rights, duties and
equities CT all the parties TO both actions,
IL Is the duty Of the court 10 dispose
OF all Of such matters. and q failure 10
perform that duty may constitute re-
versible error.
1868 Reasoner against Yates. Appeal
from jefferson Affirmed. Letton. y.
!. IL a vendor OF lands enters into a
contract Of sale OF the same with a COM
petent purchaser produced BY q land
broker or agent. the subsequent inability
OF the vendor TO convey good title. BY
reason Of which the contract is not per-
formed. does not release him from this
obligation 10 pay tho agents commission.
:. Tho fact that the contract IL can
eeiled afterwards BY mutual consent Of
the vendor and the yendeo cannot Rffoe.
the right OF the agent to recover the
agreed compensation for procuring a par-
chaser where the vendso mas al all times
been in such a position that performances
could have been enforced.
3 So also With reference to the iiahii-
lity OF a general agent for commission
to persons whom he may employ az sub
agents. In such transactions the original
agent stands In the same relation TO the
. subagent as the vendor does TO firr, and
when the subagent has produced pur-
chaser With the requisite qualifications.
the liability OF Ills principal 10 pay the
| agreed commission exists. Irrespective OF
whether the owner Of the land refuses
to ratify the sale or Is unable to make
q good and satisfactory title.
& In an action by an agent against
an nr..t,ar iE tha nnlH asnn that a sale