Omaha daily bee., 1919-07-14
Supreme Court sylabi.
Opinons Filed July 2. 1919.

eo4:4-w. l.. Stickel uLmber Co VS.
City Of Kearney. Appeal. Buffalo AZ
frned Rose j. dissenting hs nisor Aidricn' d.
Where the city has the power TO enter
into a contract but the manner OF the
exercise of the power is irregular or de,
still retains property purchased under
such irregular proceedings. no element OF
fraud or lack of consideration being
shown, the allowance of the claim by the
city council will not be set ASIDE at the
suit OF a tax payer.
204T2-Marsh & Marsh Chicago &
n W. r. Co Appeal Douglas. Affirmed
Sedwick, j.. concurring separately: Nor MOI
risse,, C. j., not sitting. Opinion by AID
i. when a railroad company contracts
to deliver goods at certain place OF pusl-
ness in another state, and is compelled to
ira 1sfer it to another railroad for delivery.
II is liza BILE for damages for delay in deliv-
cry of same as If the delay had occurred
Oh its own line.
g. The attorney fees provided for in sec
ton 6OS3, Rev. St. 1913, are Of the nature
Of costs, and may be allowed in all cases
provided for in that SECTION
2otSSPgrwart onnoa HG by Dean
/. Error cannot be predicated on the
dismissal of a suit brought by the agent
of the owner Of land, against the drawer
purchase price thereof. less an incum-
hrance where the deed of conveyance was
changed in a material matter by such
agent without the knowledge of either the
owner or the proposed buyer, and the sale
for that reason was not contaminated.
., In such case the consideration Tor
the check wholly failed and suit cannot
be maintained for any part thereof even
though the buyer subsequently purchased
the land directly from the owner.
3. Evidence examined, and though con-
flictirg. held sufficient to sustain the
judgment.
2O5Io-Starr vs. Chicago B. & @. R. Co.
Appeal. Webster. Reversed and remanded
Lection, j., dissenting separately Morrissey,
G. j., concurring in dissent. Sedgwick, j.,
not sitting. Opinion by Cornish. J.
l. I'm an action to recover dana ges
from carrier for injury sustained by live
stock in transit, which are accompanied by
the owner or his agents, the burden Is on
the owner to show that the loss com
planned Of was occasioned by the carrier S
negligence" Cleve VS.. Chicago. B. & O.
R. Co. IT Neb los.
2. The act of the federal congress,
known as the Carmack Amendment Gu. S.
Comp. st. 1916. sec. S604a). does not en-
large or change the common-law liability
Of carriers for injuries to live stock In In
terstate shipments.
g. When the owner. or his agent. ac-
companies the shipment of stock, the
duty of feeding and watering the stock
when placed in the carriers yards Is pri-
marty upon the owner. II he fails 10 40
duty is also upon the carrier to furnish the
proper facilities for the feeding and wat
ering of the stock.
4 When the carrier fed and watered
the stock, the owner being present. and 1t
appears that some of the stock was in
jured by reason Of poison being contained
in the hay fed to them, the hay being fur
nished by the carrier: held, that in such
case the carrier is not an insurer Of the
stock against loss by reason of the pois-
oned hay but would be liable only for
negligence.
surance company. Appeal, Platte. Re-
versed and dismissed. Letton, j., not sit
ting. Opinion by Rose, J.
In an action against an insurance COM
pany for negligence in delaying action on
an application for life insurance. in fall
Ing to deliver a policy or of the occasion
for it and in failing TO deliver policy
during his lifetime. the evidence summar-
lied in the opinion, held insufficient to
sustain a Judgment in favor of plaintiff
2N9Ja-DonnvGn VS. Union Pac. r. Co.