Tbe rule in Nebraska

1920Halliburton v. Sumner, 27 Ark. 460 , is a case very similar to the one in band: “Lands were sold by an administrator by order of tbe probate court; but, previous to the time of confirmation and subsequent to the time of sale, tbe same administrator, with tbe approbation of tbe probate court, rented tbe lands to another party.

1916Tbe defendant cites Heffner v. Cass and Mor gan Counties, 193 Ill. 439 , as holding that a drainage district is not liable for the negligence of its officers.

1916In a more recent case, Bradbury v. Vandalia Levee and Drainage District, 236 Ill. 36, 47 , Í9 L.

1913Powers v. Bohuslav, 84 Neb. 179 .

1906Co. v. Andreesen, 62 Neb. 456 , in which it was said: “Damages are recoverable by a landowner against a railway company for maintaining an insufficient culvert or drain in an embankment, whereby bis lands are flooded, although damages may have been recovered by plaintiff! or bis grantor for tbe location of tbe road, because tbe damages then recoverable were to be estimated upon tbe theory that tbe road would be constructed and maintained in a reasonably proper and skillful manner.” Tbe doctrine here announced was adhered to in tbe later case of Chicago, B. & Q.

1904Lowe v. Prospect Hill Cemetery Ass’n, 58 Neb. 94 ; Omaha Fire Ins.

1903Jones v. Nellis, 41 Ill., 482 , was an action in trover to recover tbe value of certain government bonds which had been stolen from tbe plaintiff and bought by tbe defendant for a valuable consideration in tbe due course of business without knowledge that it was stolen property.

1903Tbe court says: “Tbe rule is well settled, at common law, that tbe bona-fide bolder of money or negotiable paper, transferable by mere delivery and not overdue, who has taken it in the usual course of business, and for a valuable consideration, acquires a perfect title. * This exception to the common-law rule, that the purchaser of a chattel can acquire no better title than the vendor had, has been adopted because, in the language of Lord Kenyon, in Lawson v. Weston, 4 Esp. [Eng.], 56, the contrary principle ‘would at once paralyze the circulation of all paper in the country, and with it all i

1902Kemper v. Renshaw, 58 Nebr., 513; Rockford Watch Co. v. Manifold, 36 Nebr., 801; Graham v. Estate of Townsend, 62 Nebr., 364; Leasure v. Forquer, 27 Ore., 334 , 41 Pac.

1902Kemper v. Renshaw, 58 Nebr., 513; Rockford Watch Co. v. Manifold, 36 Nebr., 801; Graham v. Estate of Townsend, 62 Nebr., 364; Leasure v. Forquer, 27 Ore., 334 , 41 Pac.

1899(Barr v. City of Omaha, 42 Neb. 341 ; German Nat.

1898(Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 ; Head v. State, 43 Neb. 30 ; Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856 ; Ford v. State, 46 Neb. 390 .) In tbe case at bar the prisoner was entitled to have tbe jury consider tbe evidence wbicb tended to show that be was intoxicated at tbe time it was alleged be committed tbe crime, for tbe purpose of ascertaining and determining tbe status and condition oí tbe prisoner’s mind at that time.

1898(Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 ; Head v. State, 43 Neb. 30 ; Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856 ; Ford v. State, 46 Neb. 390 .) In tbe case at bar the prisoner was entitled to have tbe jury consider tbe evidence wbicb tended to show that be was intoxicated at tbe time it was alleged be committed tbe crime, for tbe purpose of ascertaining and determining tbe status and condition oí tbe prisoner’s mind at that time.

1898(Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 ; Head v. State, 43 Neb. 30 ; Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856 ; Ford v. State, 46 Neb. 390 .) In tbe case at bar the prisoner was entitled to have tbe jury consider tbe evidence wbicb tended to show that be was intoxicated at tbe time it was alleged be committed tbe crime, for tbe purpose of ascertaining and determining tbe status and condition oí tbe prisoner’s mind at that time.

1898(Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 ; Head v. State, 43 Neb. 30 ; Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856 ; Ford v. State, 46 Neb. 390 .) In tbe case at bar the prisoner was entitled to have tbe jury consider tbe evidence wbicb tended to show that be was intoxicated at tbe time it was alleged be committed tbe crime, for tbe purpose of ascertaining and determining tbe status and condition oí tbe prisoner’s mind at that time.

1896Tbe defendant is not merely prohibited from interfering with tbe access of the plaintiff and bis tenants to tbe building of the latter by means of the common hallways and their free enjoyment of the common skylight, but equity would interfere to prevent the tearing down or destroying by him of his own building during the existence of such easement (2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence [12th ed.], sec. 927; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y., 440 ; Henry v. Koch, 80 Ky., 391 ); and should he ■suffer his building to decay, the plaintiff would have the right to enter for the purpose of repa

1896Tbe defendant is not merely prohibited from interfering with tbe access of the plaintiff and bis tenants to tbe building of the latter by means of the common hallways and their free enjoyment of the common skylight, but equity would interfere to prevent the tearing down or destroying by him of his own building during the existence of such easement (2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence [12th ed.], sec. 927; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y., 440 ; Henry v. Koch, 80 Ky., 391 ); and should he ■suffer his building to decay, the plaintiff would have the right to enter for the purpose of repa

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896In Schlencker v. State, 9 Neb., 241 , it was held that the opinion of a witness not an expert is competent evidence upon the question of the prisoner’s sanity where such opinion is formed upon facts within the personal knowledge of the witness and sworn to by him before the jury.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896(Smails v. White, 4 Neb., 353 ; Jones v. Davis, 6 Neb., 33 ; State v. Maccuaig, 8 Neb., 215 ; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb., 252 ; State v. Page, 12 Neb., 386 ; State v. Ream, 16 Neb., 681 ; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb., 389 ; Herold v. State, 21 Neb., 50 ; State v. Arnold, 31 Neb., 75 ; Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb., 362 ; State v. Benton, 33 Neb., 823 ; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb., 724 .) Tbe rule last above stated is not assailed as being unsound, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, since the law under consideration contains no specific or general repealing clause.

1896Tbe defendant is not merely prohibited from interfering with tbe access of the plaintiff and bis tenants to tbe building of the latter by means of the common hallways and their free enjoyment of the common skylight, but equity would interfere to prevent the tearing down or destroying by him of his own building during the existence of such easement (2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence [12th ed.], sec. 927; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y., 440 ; Henry v. Koch, 80 Ky., 391 ); and should he ■suffer his building to decay, the plaintiff would have the right to enter for the purpose of repa