Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-03-25

| 80 -, .-I.LG. 49,. jt.,-a.;,,,
h"t ehiy. witmn tne souno -ulssrsuon,
~ pa. s, Is tne Guy 81 sne eo nch suhlsr
ovi rst1 Sc 70 issue tease 70 such suose
| a .,., ,o,as,n,,. share
q. 81 aYn ioI .na ~ las,,sra1 rs
$500, ~ Al rs tns AN, nde5 IN The
sn,ss Sd 70 40 Lis ael aen,s ,sS n 10
spns ", IN Ior sucn VII woui1 ve I'll, IN
volnpsL pm TO- 90 q wrong. the WITH WIN
o1 I@sd 81 ..s,x.. ,,oaa., t,ro,bar.
~ Sens saeI asafhsI mpu sr
cS S - AffirmsS Raa, ssSgwiek' j..
oisssnung .,,.,. =, rfa
,,s.,, rn an -, sou9n 1poh = ,poaS unon
REPRESENTATIVE 80 W DuIuen Q, P,ovn .rarondsr-
spsa ~ thaa s,,s n ps costnoyertsd de-
49, % 3h me eS,asnse AZ D,hs rsS,'It
- .nat tne assurea 1le9 a. ,,S sne s,,,cisai
81 ~ Epson sen aoinihlstefeo WIN suie'u"'
in se,r. :. -,
go Inc de,ense IN see I cS IssrI, ma mo-
anniftsI..sbly pointt to the cone !, on
fessonable PROBABILITY Of death by ae-
e'geTt rsltSin ,na - S ese ,h,s cass
IS. ne .esle .ssl lau r " ' mnon IN
~ i,ss,,S.. ~ any y u .,tsirssrt ~ ans
~, = ,.Sra,as n, * nia in9,yTs favor,
| s1sssos rs-e "a ,rr,,as eon,uanv AGAINST
| Nail a .fsalr ,,d,,S I sncoir county AZ
| firs1ad TaThStf 4
| Afnotafv n,ibiic IL nat DISQUALIFIED from
taxing al ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 81 a mort
| SAGE r,,ads 10 4 i6ati- company. merely
because n ia shown that he was al the
time local agenf. Of the MORTGAGE. It not
4 appearing that he was a stakeholder In
sgch company or. otherwise .beneficially
interested in Having the mortgage made.
Nor would the fac. that such mortgage
was executed as -renewai-of prior
| mortgage, IN which such notary had an
Indirect interest, disqualify him, IL not
appearing THAT the execution OF such re-
newal morteage operated 70 ms pene ehs
In relation to his indirect interest IN the
original mortgage.
l6S. votaws against Notaw Appeai
from Lincoln county. AIIirInlie1' ,r%sssS,t,;
Afaise accusations on marits. ihiiue, ~
may constitute extreme eTueiy On b bms
psrts OF a nuspspu lns - n,sS A.
v9r yne on : that ground depends upon the
$50 rsss,r,,,,,,, ...t,st aarnv countv
,nsSst tro,, Sam m, eei,,ty ptyerssd and
rns,ss naad Eawastt Rarnss and Rose
| TT Slsaentins
i Wbere a. the close of a trial in the
,ien a. e q dirsctsS vsrsInt az objection
go ina .ihat sths. 'ayidsroe 10 insuffi-
cisnt 10 snstain a ysrdict IN favor of the
idesindant rso,,es,s ilstruction on a ma
tsriai issue az fact IN controversy. which
is si,an ~ ~ cosst n. w,il not there
aftsr'be bsstS 10 ssy that An adverse
TnSipg tbareon ia not sustained nv suffi-
IN. s.tsa. 20 nv ~
NJ, ,.hsr. ~ .n..,a, ara,rg. .ra
.,,h,,,I.,aa ~ ~. i,,,S snd ,hara az ,wo
or n,ors material questions involved.
,r,. oi,h - a,t,,,q .hs ,.n,to, ,,ieb,
poa s sner $50 % wn ~ ,ae, ,he, az 10.
nsve peen ooseo; ne laet tnat Wv ~
iLeateu patty ~, Wy ndNIns Iequesteu ~
s.rrctions. estoppea 70 QUESTION tne SUI
iiciehcy OF tne evIuence upon one poih..
does not -estop nim'irom questioning we
suInciency OF tne evidence 70 sustain
the Verdlct on otners points upon Whlch
no INSTRUCTIONS Were requeste9 % nun.
s. The record examined AND heid 70
the material Issues in controversy the
verdict rs based.
4. Evidence examined and referred 10
IN, the opinion held insufficient TO sus-
tain the verdict OF the jury upon point T.
lIost. Russell against Elactrio Garage
II plaintiff within thirty days niles In
this court further, reniittitur OF sl.Ooo.
Judgment OF district court as thus modi-
fled to be affirmed Plaintiff to pay
costs In supreme court. II such remit
THUR be not filed. Judgment of district
court TO be reversed and csuse remanded.
Fawcett j.. Sedgwick, j.. dissenting.
Barnes, j., dissenting separately.
1859. state against American Surety
motion for .rehesrine. Former Judgment
OF this court vacated and set aside; judg-
ment of district court vacated and cause
remanded for further proceedings. Let
ton, j. Reese, &C. j., not sitting.
L II is within the. power OF the legis-
| lature within reasonable limitations to
/. define the terms used In its enactments.
Ii cannot extend the definition u a term
. so as 10 denote. ideas entirely without
It's province, but II may properly use the
word IN the broadcast sense and include
within its meaning any thought not I'M
warranted by usage, though. perhaps. not
, entirely within it's ordinary definition.
2. BY the provisions OF chapter ~
laws OF, 1897. commonly known as the
. uondring act. combinations TO prevent
, eonpetltlon in Insurance Of any kind, or
TO settle the price OF the same, are de-
clared to be, trust and an unlawful
conspiracy against trade and business
q The words trade and business" In
this act are intended as generic term
embracing All the transactions and prac-
trust" Is properly made TO include COM
bipatIons or contrasts in restraint OF
compstition in insurance.
The entire series. OF statutes alrec ,,sl
against. combinations and monopones
should be considsred as parts OF a con;
fiected system, and recourse may be mac
IN considering the Intention OF the legs,
iature-in the. later acts to definitions OF
terms used 10 pilot acts IN eonnecion
With the same subject matter
5. Considering the PRIOR. Legislative
definitions. 2 combination 70 preven'
competition In insurance may properly
be a subject for legislation unuer tIls
title OF An act 70 protecl raoe anG
commerce from unlaWtui Restraints ano
rnonopolies. etc"
g. The purpose of section OF that act
requiring certain, statements and under-
standinss 10 De riIeu IN Sne oiiiee y. sne
attorney general is 70 aid him in entorc-
! lHg the statute, and, the subject matter
OF the section fails properly within the
scope Of. the, title Of The act.
I. Permission granted by former stat-
,ites to foreign surety companies TO do
business in /. this state, under certain
conditions. does not create a contract be-
tween such companies and the state. but,
AvSn n n did .the. state tfr1der Its police