case is within rule in Nebraska

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1893As the law applicable to this branch of the case plaintiff requested the following instruction: “You are also instructed that if you find from the evidence that the bill of sale was made to enable Chamberlain to dispose of the goods and out of the proceeds pay Hoppel’s indebtedness to the bank, to Bowen and Peycke Bros., and that after such debts were paid any part of the goods or their value was to be returned to the said Hoppel, then such sale was void, and you should find ; for the defendant without regard to what the intentions of i the parties or either of them might have been.” It is cla

1920The case is within the rule of Rogers & Bro. v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759 , Farmers Cooperative Shipping Ass’n v. Adams Grain Co., 84 Neb. 752 , Ives v. Boyce, 85 Neb, 324, Boon v. Gooch, 95 Neb. 678 , and Sunderland & Saunders v. Hibbard, 97 Neb. 21 , and the motion was properly sustained.

1920The case is within the rule of Rogers & Bro. v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759 , Farmers Cooperative Shipping Ass’n v. Adams Grain Co., 84 Neb. 752 , Ives v. Boyce, 85 Neb, 324, Boon v. Gooch, 95 Neb. 678 , and Sunderland & Saunders v. Hibbard, 97 Neb. 21 , and the motion was properly sustained.

1920The case is within the rule of Rogers & Bro. v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759 , Farmers Cooperative Shipping Ass’n v. Adams Grain Co., 84 Neb. 752 , Ives v. Boyce, 85 Neb, 324, Boon v. Gooch, 95 Neb. 678 , and Sunderland & Saunders v. Hibbard, 97 Neb. 21 , and the motion was properly sustained.

1920The case is within the rule of Rogers & Bro. v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759 , Farmers Cooperative Shipping Ass’n v. Adams Grain Co., 84 Neb. 752 , Ives v. Boyce, 85 Neb, 324, Boon v. Gooch, 95 Neb. 678 , and Sunderland & Saunders v. Hibbard, 97 Neb. 21 , and the motion was properly sustained.

1912There was in effect an execution by him of the trust reposed in him by her, and, that trust having been fully executed and respected by him for more than ten successive years, not only should the ten year statute of limitations (code, secs. 5, 6) bar a recovery, but the case is within the principle announced in Karr v. Washburn, 56 Wis. 303 , and Oberlender v. Butcher, 67 Neb. 410 .

1912There was in effect an execution by him of the trust reposed in him by her, and, that trust having been fully executed and respected by him for more than ten successive years, not only should the ten year statute of limitations (code, secs. 5, 6) bar a recovery, but the case is within the principle announced in Karr v. Washburn, 56 Wis. 303 , and Oberlender v. Butcher, 67 Neb. 410 .

1911The plaintiff, in suing Shelly and Rogers upon their guarantee, refers to Shelly-Rogers Company as a corporation, and we think the case is within the rule announced in Kleckner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176 .

1910Judge Post cites Weitz v. Wolfe, supra, wherein Mowrey v. Mast & Co., supra, is approved, and does not attempt to discredit or modify the preceding decisions of this court.

1910In Pollard v. Huff, 44 Neb. 892 , cited by defendant, a payee of a note guaranteed its payment, and the case is within the rule announced in Heard v. Dubuque County Bank, supra. The other guarantors were held, under the peculiar facts of the case, to be sureties and indorsers of the note.

1909The court by Harlan, J., say: “Upon the question of'negligence, the case is within the rule that the court may withdraw a case from the jury altogether, and ‘direct a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant, as the one or the other may be proper, where the evidence is undisputed or is of such conclusive character that the court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, would be compelled to set aside a verdict returned in opposition to it.’ ” This is quoted and approved in Southern P. Co. v. Pool, 160 U. S. 438 .

1898(State v. Dimond, 44 Neb. 154 ; City of Wahoo v. Tharp, 45 Neb. 563 .) This case is within the rule just announced, and, while the adjacent lands may not be materially benefited by their annexation, justice and equity require that the corporate limits of the village be extended to include said territory.

1898(State v. Dimond, 44 Neb. 154 ; City of Wahoo v. Tharp, 45 Neb. 563 .) This case is within the rule just announced, and, while the adjacent lands may not be materially benefited by their annexation, justice and equity require that the corporate limits of the village be extended to include said territory.

1896We think the case is within the principle of Morrow v. Jones, 41 Neb., 867 , where a grantee in a deed absolute in form was held bound through the acceptance of the deed by a defeasance executed by an attorney not in that behalf authorized.

1895In such cases the only question, in effect, is upon the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.” (See, also, Willard v. Foster, 24 Neb., 213 ; Ward v. Parlin, 30 Neb., 376 ; Tower v. Fetz, 26 Neb., 710 .) A review of the testimony has convinced us that this case is within the rule.

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1894Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb., 290 , and cases cited.) It is strenuously contended by counsel for defendant in •error that this case is within the rule announced in Bonns v. Carter, 20 Neb., 566 , 22 Neb., 495 ; but Bonns v. Carter, in so much as it refers to the assignment law, was overruled in an opinion written by Irvine, C., in the case of Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb., 816 , and had been in the case of Hamilton v. Isaacs, 34 Neb., 709 , and Hershiser v. Higman, 31 Neb., 531 , we may say overruled, but not in express terms.

1894Commenting upon the doctrine of Bonns v. Carter and the scope to be given to the provisions of our assignment law, in the case of Landauer v. Mack, 39 Neb., 8 , Ryan, C., says: “The argument of plaintiff in error seems to be based largely upon the theory that the several’ mortgages in fact constituted an assignment of the firm of G.

1892This case is within the rule announced in State v. Rey nolds, 18 Neb., 431 , and the peremptory writ will be Allowed.

1887The court per Cooley, J., say: “ We think the case is within the principle of Watson v. Judge of Superior Court, 40 Mich., 729 , and that the writ should issue.