soundness rule in Nebraska

1968S. 1943, provides: “So much of the common law of England as is applicable and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, with the organic law of this state, or with any law passed or to be passed by the Legislature of this state, is adopted and declared to be law within the State of Nebraska.” In State v. Tautges, Rerat & Welch, 146 Neb. 439 , 20 N. W. 2d 232 , this court held:- “The courts have power to modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inapplicable.” This court cited with approval the reasons of the sou

1968S. 1943, provides: “So much of the common law of England as is applicable and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, with the organic law of this state, or with any law passed or to be passed by the Legislature of this state, is adopted and declared to be law within the State of Nebraska.” In State v. Tautges, Rerat & Welch, 146 Neb. 439 , 20 N. W. 2d 232 , this court held:- “The courts have power to modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inapplicable.” This court cited with approval the reasons of the sou

1934St. sec. 9644), as an unlawful preference, and not within the rule that, where a deposit is made in good faith and in the usual course of business within four months before the petition in bankruptcy, the bank is allowed to credit the amount on notes of the bankrupt held by it.” In the body of the opinion it is said: “We recognize, of course, the soundness of the rule stated in such cases as American Bank & Trust Co. v. Coppard, 227 Fed. 597 , 142 C.

1934St. sec. 9644), as an unlawful preference, and not within the rule that, where a deposit is made in good faith and in the usual course of business within four months before the petition in bankruptcy, the bank is allowed to credit the amount on notes of the bankrupt held by it.” In the body of the opinion it is said: “We recognize, of course, the soundness of the rule stated in such cases as American Bank & Trust Co. v. Coppard, 227 Fed. 597 , 142 C.

1910In Lewis v. City of Lincoln, 55 Neb. 1 , we stated in the second paragraph of the syllabus: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a continuous user by the public under a claim of right, distinctly manifested by some appropriate action on the part of the public authorities, for a period equal to that required to bar an action for the recovery of title to land.” Counsel for the defendants argue that the district court felt bound by the law announced in Lewis v. City of Lincoln, supra, they challenge the soundness of that rule, and assert that but for said case the decree would ha

1910In Lewis v. City of Lincoln, 55 Neb. 1 , we stated in the second paragraph of the syllabus: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a continuous user by the public under a claim of right, distinctly manifested by some appropriate action on the part of the public authorities, for a period equal to that required to bar an action for the recovery of title to land.” Counsel for the defendants argue that the district court felt bound by the law announced in Lewis v. City of Lincoln, supra, they challenge the soundness of that rule, and assert that but for said case the decree would ha

1906In Brooks v. Fowle, 14 N. H. 248, it Avas said: “A pur chase of real estate completed on the credit of two and afterwards paid for wholly by one of them, does not, of itself, give rise to a resulting trust.” In Hackney v. Butts, 41 Ark. 393 , it was held that, where no money is advanced, and there is nothing more in the transaction than is implied from the violation of a parol agreement, equity will not decree the purchaser a trustee.

1903The soundness of the rule in Newton Wagon Co. v. Diers has been recognized in Lininger & Metcalf Co. v. Wheat, 49 Neb. 567 , where it is said: “The neglect to notify the guarantor of the default of his principal does not operate to discharge the guarantor, unless such neglect is, on its face, unreasonable in view of all the circumstances of the case.” And in Pollard v. Huff, 44 Neb. 892 , the rule is affirmed.

1903The soundness of the rule in Newton Wagon Co. v. Diers has been recognized in Lininger & Metcalf Co. v. Wheat, 49 Neb. 567 , where it is said: “The neglect to notify the guarantor of the default of his principal does not operate to discharge the guarantor, unless such neglect is, on its face, unreasonable in view of all the circumstances of the case.” And in Pollard v. Huff, 44 Neb. 892 , the rule is affirmed.

1903There is nothing m- the record warranting the inference of a joint liability. * * * If one is liable under the agreement, the other is not.” In an opinion by Sedgwick, C., in Swigart v. Gentert, 63 Neb. 157 , the rule is thus stated: “In an action to recover for services rendered to a third person, the general rule is that, if the person for whose benefit the promise was made is himself liable, the promise of the defendant, although made before the services were rendered, is collateral, and within the statute of frauds.” The soundness of the rule above stated is not questioned, but the defenda

1898Bank of Grundy Center v. Brown, 81 Ia. 208 ; Somers v. Sloan, 3 Harr. [N. J.] 46; Wallace v. Floyd, 29 Pa. St. 184; Crew v. McCafferty, 124 Pa. St. 200; Buntain v. Mosgrove, 25 Ill. 152 ; Adams Express Co. v. Gregg, 23 Kan. 376 ; People v. Judge Superior Court of Detroit, 41 Mich. 31 .) In the case last cited an order was held valid which granted a new trial on condition that the party Should disclose his defense, waive his right to remove the cause to the federal court, and proceed to trial at the next term.' We know there are holdings to the effect that an order granting a new trial upon a c

1898Bank of Grundy Center v. Brown, 81 Ia. 208 ; Somers v. Sloan, 3 Harr. [N. J.] 46; Wallace v. Floyd, 29 Pa. St. 184; Crew v. McCafferty, 124 Pa. St. 200; Buntain v. Mosgrove, 25 Ill. 152 ; Adams Express Co. v. Gregg, 23 Kan. 376 ; People v. Judge Superior Court of Detroit, 41 Mich. 31 .) In the case last cited an order was held valid which granted a new trial on condition that the party Should disclose his defense, waive his right to remove the cause to the federal court, and proceed to trial at the next term.' We know there are holdings to the effect that an order granting a new trial upon a c

1898Bank of Grundy Center v. Brown, 81 Ia. 208 ; Somers v. Sloan, 3 Harr. [N. J.] 46; Wallace v. Floyd, 29 Pa. St. 184; Crew v. McCafferty, 124 Pa. St. 200; Buntain v. Mosgrove, 25 Ill. 152 ; Adams Express Co. v. Gregg, 23 Kan. 376 ; People v. Judge Superior Court of Detroit, 41 Mich. 31 .) In the case last cited an order was held valid which granted a new trial on condition that the party Should disclose his defense, waive his right to remove the cause to the federal court, and proceed to trial at the next term.' We know there are holdings to the effect that an order granting a new trial upon a c

1898Bank of Grundy Center v. Brown, 81 Ia. 208 ; Somers v. Sloan, 3 Harr. [N. J.] 46; Wallace v. Floyd, 29 Pa. St. 184; Crew v. McCafferty, 124 Pa. St. 200; Buntain v. Mosgrove, 25 Ill. 152 ; Adams Express Co. v. Gregg, 23 Kan. 376 ; People v. Judge Superior Court of Detroit, 41 Mich. 31 .) In the case last cited an order was held valid which granted a new trial on condition that the party Should disclose his defense, waive his right to remove the cause to the federal court, and proceed to trial at the next term.' We know there are holdings to the effect that an order granting a new trial upon a c

1896Co. v. Hays, 15 Neb., 224 ; Nelson v. Jenkins, 42 Neb., 133 .) Counsel for plaintiff in error, recognizing the soundness of the rule stated, has requested leave to attach to the bill of exceptions copies of all exhibits therein referred to, and the motion in that behalf is submitted in connection with the merits of the cause.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896(Long v. Clapp, 15 Neb., 417 ; Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb., 661 ; Boldt v. Budwig, 19 Neb., 739 ; Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb., 41 ; Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250 ; Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306 .) The defendants do not question the soundness of the doctrine stated, but they deny the application to this case.

1896Co. v. Hays, 15 Neb., 224 ; Nelson v. Jenkins, 42 Neb., 133 .) Counsel for plaintiff in error, recognizing the soundness of the rule stated, has requested leave to attach to the bill of exceptions copies of all exhibits therein referred to, and the motion in that behalf is submitted in connection with the merits of the cause.

1895In Lydick v. Korner, 15 Neb., 500 , this court held that where a liquor license is canceled by the court, the licensee is entitled to a payment to him, pro tanto, of the sum paid for such license for the unexpired time; and in the opinion in State v. Weber, 20 Neb., 473 , Cobb, J., uses this language: “And upon such cancellation the said Lena Klindt and Lena Staltenberg will be entitled to a repayment of a portion of the sum paid into the village treasury for said license, bearing the same relation to the whole sum so paid as the unexpired portion of the year for which the same was granted bea

1894This court held in Carlow v. Aultman, 28 Neb., 672 , that a district court has no power to vacate or modify its own judgments after the term at which they are entered, except for the grounds mentioned in section 602 of the Code; and there can be no doubt of the soundness of the rule there announced.