Omaha daily bee., 1918-06-03
In the Supreme Court

appointment OF an administrator named hy
| them after the expiration OF more than
| 90 days after the death OF their father. The
! third filed objections but suggested the
appointment of any one Of eight persons
| named by her "or any other good and re-
! liable citizen Of Lancaster county" The
| testimony indicated that under the circufn-
stances the person proposed by the two
sisters was unsuitable. Held that the county
court In pursuance OF section 1889, Rev. st.
| 1918, had power TO appoint as administrator
/ a duly authorized Trust company, resident
| In Lancaster county and whose principal
| place OF business was therein.
2. Where the county court In pursuance
| of section 74s. Rev. ST. 1918. appoints a
| Trust company resident in the county, ad-
mnistrator OF the estate OF an intestate
| decedent, such appointment on appeal
should not be set aside merely because the
appointee is not natural person.
19I4i-Carr against Carr. Appeal, Lancas-
ter. Affirmed. Hamer. j. Sedgwiek. j."
| not sitting.
/, The evidence examined. stated In the
| opinion, and held to be insufficient to estab-
! lish the plaintiffs contention that he had
| another sum OF $4,000 coming to him from
| his fathers estate as claimed In his sup
Elemental amended petition.
.. II is also further held that the IS, 600
paid by the father. Newton L. Carr, TO the
| plaintiff, William u. Carr. was In fun set
| tlement of a lawsuit between them in which
| certain other parties appeared, and that 1t
was also the purpose of William II. Carr
| and Newton E. Carr that the said William
| e. Carr should, by the payment to him of
| the said sum of 5000 by Newton L. Carr,
| be thereby paid In full for any and all sums
of money due. or to come due, to him from
said Newton t. Carr, or any interest in any
way to come TO him from his fathers
estate and that he thereby released said
estate from any and all claims that he
might thereafter have against the same.
1s766-Kaley against Northwestern Mn-
tual Life Insurance company Appeal
Douglas. Affirmed. Letton. J, Sedgwick,
j., not sitting. Hamer. j. concurring sep
arately.
\ /. A paper entitled "A Conservation Es.
innate OF the Semi-tontine Policy ,ineon-
sstent in several respects with the condi-
tons of the policy was shown to an appli-
cant for life insurance by an agent to the
policy when 1t was receivedl BY him from
the main office Of the insurance company
and 1t was then forwarded by him to the
insured by mail The application and policy
both contained limitations on the authority
of the agent. and the officers OF the COM
pany had no knowledge OF the existence of
the paper or Of its having been attached
to the policy. In this action to recover the
difference between the amount due under
the policy and the amount stated In the
estimate 1t Is held that the policy and
applica tion constituted the contract and that
the insurer was not bound by such "esti-
mate"
Z. An agent OF Ire insurance company,
the limitation OF whose power IL set forth
in the application for Insurance, which limi-
taton is expressly called to the attention
Of the applicant. cannot vary the terms of
the policy by an estimate Of results of the
policy attached by him thereto.
1977i-Blakely against BlakeY. Appeal
Douglas. Reversed and rema nded. Hamer
j. Sedgwck, j.. not sitting.
l. The defendant. within six months Of
the rendition Of decree of the district
an application to vacate the decree. consist
ing of a motion. an affidavit, and subse-
quent petitions. the contents Of which are
stated in the opinion; held, that the court
erred in refusing to grant the application.
2. In such an order made by the
trial court after the term when the decree
of divorce Is entered. but within six months
OF its date, and based on alleged fraud and
deceit, would be within the jurisdiction of
the court Section 1906. Rev. st. 1913;
Everson against Everson, 164 w. TIT.
g. The original motion and the subse-
quent petitions will be considered together
as parts of the same application, the court
having assumed jurisdiction before the ex-
piration of six months from the date of the
decree and permitting the filing of the Pc
titions
T. 1t is ordinarily within the Jurisdiction
Of the district court to allow or to refuse
to allow suit money. alimony and attor-
ney's fees In a divorce suit and the re-.
instant case was without error.
19SO0-Nattinger against Howard APP
peal. Lincoln. Affirmed. Dean, ]. Sedg-
wick j., not sitting.
!. The location of original government
corners. IL clearly established will overcome
recitals in the. original government field
notes that may be at variance Herewith
and such corners are controlling, no mat
ter how inaccurate they may be nor how
enormously they may be placed.
In har te
shown as between monuments and measure
ments the monuments control.
3. Equity will afford relief by the proc.
ess Of injunction against repeated acts of
trespass, especially where committed under
a claim which indicates continuance and
constant repetition of It," Hackney against
McIninch, 70 Neb. 12S.
19S35-Opp against Smith, Appeal Nor
rill. Affirmed Rose. J. Sedgwick. j. not
sitting.
/. Under the revenue law of 1878 a per-
son seeking to redeem land from tax sale
was required to begin his action within
three years from the making OF the tax
deed, unless such deed void on its face,
and the period was extended to five years
by the revenue law of 1903 Comp. st. 1889,
ch. IT, art. /, sec. 1874; Comp st. 1903. ch.
H. art. I, sec. 23O.
.. A duly certified copy Of an authentic
public record of treasurer's tax deed,
bearing the word seal and containing the
recital given under my hand and official
seal" is, in absence of evidence to the con-
trary, sufficient to show the of such
seal, II authorized by statute.
8. A county treasurer could make a valid
tax sale under the revenue law of 1879 and
he could execute and deliver to the pur-
chaser valid tax deed under the revenue
law Of 1903, which preserved to such pur
chaser all rights acquired by him under the
old law. Comp. st. 1889. ch. II, art. 1;
Comm. st. 1908. ch. H. art. |.
l9S57-Burnham- Munger Root Dry Goods
Company against Strahl. Appeal, Pierce.
Affirmed. Letton. J. Dean and Hamer, u,
dissenting separately. Sedgwick, j., not sit
ting
After a defendant in an attachment pro-
ceeding has given forthcoming" bond un-
der the provisions of section 7740 Rev. st.
1913, he may move to dissolve the attach
ment. because the attachment Is still in
force and effect but he may not do so II
he gives a discharge bond under section
7753, Rev. st. 1918, because the approval
of such a bond ipso facto discharges the
writ and there. is nothing left to dissolve.
20334-In re Estate of Dovey. Schlater
against Dovey. Appeal. Cass. Modified by
determining that on the death Of e. G.
Dovey, Jane A. Dovey became his widow and
that his only heirs were George E. Dovey.
Horatio N Dovey and OlEer c. Dovey Costs
taxed to appellant Affirmed as modified.
Letton, J. Sedgwclz j., not sitting.
l. An administrator was appointed but
filed no inventory. The widow and heirs
thereafter consented that the funds belong
ing to the estate should be paid into part
nership business formerly owned and car
ried on by the deceased and his son, the
administrator, and after the death of the
father the business was conducted by the j
sons each of the parties including the widow
drawing money from the firm from time
to time There were no debts No report was
ever made by the administrator nor was
one requested for more than 30 years. when
the administrator of the widow. who had
died a short time before, requested an ac-
counting Held that by consent and ac-
auiescepce In this course Of conduct for so