Limitations in an action against a married
woman for necessaries does not begin to run
until execution on a judgment against defend-
ant's husband has been returned unsatisfied.-
Noreen v. Hansen (Neb.) 937.
Under Code, § 19, a court acquires jurisdic-
tion of the person of a defendant by his vol-
untary appearance at the date of such appear-
ance, and not at the date of a summons pre-
viously issued, but not served.-Hotchkiss v.
Aukermann (Neb.) 949.
A claim on a stock subscription payable on
call of the directors does not accrue, within
Comp. St. c. 23, § 262, until a call is made.
-Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav. Bank (Neb.)
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
Of carrier, see "Carriers," § 1.
LIQUOR SELLING.
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
Pendency of other action ground for abatement,
see "Abatement and Revival," § 1.
Where an execution sale took place after the
filing of the petition in an action to quiet title,
a purchaser at such sale is chargeable with
notice of the claim to the property stated in
such petition.-Bacon v. Early (Iowa) 353.
v. Musser-Sauntry Land Logging & Mfg. Co.
(Minn.) 319.
tion as to scaling could be exercised each year
Logging contract construed, and held, that op-
with reference to the work actually accom-
plished.-Boyle v. Musser-Sauntry Land Log-
ging & Mfg. Co. (Minn.) 319.
view of the nature of the business, the parties
Logging contract construed, and held that, in
contemplated, not only that some of the logs
cut and banked each year would fail to arrive
in time for the annual official scaling, and
would come in during subsequent drives, but
also that some of these might be lost or stolen,
and never reach_ their destination.-Boyle v.
Musser-Sauntry Land Logging & Mfg. Co.
(Minn.) 319.
Where by the terms of a logging contract set-
tlement was to be made annually on the 1st
day of September, the sum actually settled for
each year became due on that day, and interest
was properly allowed from such time.-Boyle_v.
Musser-Sauntry Land Logging & Mfg. Co.
(Minn.) 319.
LOST INSTRUMENTS.
claiming under a lost deed, a contention that
In ejectment against a railroad company
the substance of the deed was not sufficiently
Flint & P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 1037.
proved held not sustainable.-Thompson v
The commencement of an action for specific
performance of a contract to convey real es- See "Logs and Logging."
tate, prior to the recording of a deed conveying
such property, was notice to the grantee of the
claimant's rights.-Townsend
(Iowa) 519.
LITTORAL RIGHTS.
See "Navigable Waters," § 1.
Injuries from operation of railroads, see "Rail-
roads," § 2.
LOAN COMPANIES.
See "Building and Loan Associations."
See "Building and Loan Associations," § 3.
Traffic in intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxicating
Liquors," § 2.
LOGS AND LOGGING.
Under Comp. Laws, § 10,760, a justice of the
peace of the town in which logs lie has juris-
diction to issue an attachment in an action to
enforce a lien on the logs, though none of the
parties reside in the county.-Harris v. Doyle
(Mich.) 293; Culley v. Same, Id.
The annual official scale of logs delivered un-
der a contract established prima facie the num-
ber of feet cut yearly, and was the proper basis
on which to estimate the compensation.-Boyle
Production and use of electricity, see "Electric-
ity."
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
See "False Imprisonment."
1. Want of probable cause.
In an action for malicious prosecution, in-
structions on probable cause, charging defend-
ant with the duty of exercising the care of an
ordinarily careful and prudent man in causing
the arrest, did not impose too high a degree of
care.-Flam v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution, where
advice of counsel is relied on as a defense, de-
fendant must state what facts and circum-
stances he set forth to counsel.-Perrenoud v.
Helm (Neb.) 980.
In an action for malicious prosecution, testi-
mony of plaintiff's father as to his statements
which was the same night the crime for which
to the sheriff on the night of plaintiff's arrest,
he was arrested was committed, as to plain-
tiff's whereabouts on that evening, was not so
clearly prejudicial as to require reversal.-Flam
v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution, it was
competent for plaintiff to describe his mental
sufferings while in custody.-Flam v. Lee (Iowa)
70.
In an action for malicious prosecution, it was
not error to permit plaintiff to show that on his
arrest at his home his mother fainted or was
prostrated by the shock, and that plaintiff
thereby suffered distress of mind.-Flam v. Lee
(Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution on a executive department is to hear and determine,
charge of attempting to murder defendant's to give judgment, but not to enforce it by co-
daughter, evidence of plaintiff's statements that ercive process.-State v. Savage (Neb.) 898.
the daughter was unchaste held not admissible.
-Flam v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution on
charge of attempting to murder defendant's See "Mandamus."
daughter, evidence of plaintiff's statements that
the daughter was unchaste was not admissible
to rebut presumption of malice in causing plain-
tiff's arrest.-Flam v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution, evi-
dence that, immediately after plaintiff's arrest,
he ceased to be invited to social entertainments
at which he had formerly been a guest, was
admissible, without plaintiff showing that his
arrest caused the loss of social favor.-Flam v.
Lee (Iowa) 70.
See "Divorce"; "Husband and Wife."
Evidence held to warrant a holding that a sec-
ond marriage was valid, and that the husband
had been divorced from his first wife.-Tuttle v.
Raish (Iowa) 66.
In an action for malicious prosecution, it was
not error to allow the plaintiff to describe the See "Husband and Wife."
place in which he was confined when arrested.
-Flam v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
Evidence as to chastity held not admissible
without special plea, under Code, § 3593.-Flam
v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
In an action for malicious prosecution, allow-
ing plaintiff to testify that, when he was ar-
rested and taken to prison, other prisoners call-
ed him by name and wanted to know what he
was doing there, was not reversible error.-
Flam v. Lee (Iowa) 70.
Plaintiff cannot testify that he believed the
defendant guilty of the crime charged, without
stating the facts and circumstances on which
he based his belief.-Perrenoud v. Helm (Neb.)
980.
Where there is some competent evidence that
the attorney consulted by defendant was not
unbiased, and that defendant knew it, plaintiff
is entitled to have the jury properly instructed
on that subject.-Perrououd v. Helm (Neb.)
980.
§ 1. Nature and grounds in general.
The issuance of a writ of mandamus is a mat-
ter of discretion, and not a matter of right,
and the writ should not issue until it appears
that justice requires it.-MacKinnon v. Auditor
General (Mich.) 329.
Under Comp. Laws, 88 1014, 1018, providing
for appeal in garnishment, mandamus requiring
a justice to set aside an order dismissing a suit
against a corporation garnishee is not the
proper remedy.-Hyde v. Chadwick (Mich.) 333.
Mandamus to compel allowance of costs in
an injunction suit refused on the ground that
abstract justice did not require the writ to
issue, though a technical rule may have been
violated.-O'Brien v. Donovan (Mich.) 680.
A party who complains that a trial judge has
incorporated improper matter in a bill of ex-
ceptions has an adequate remedy at law, with-
in Code Civ. Proc. § 646, so that mandamus to
correct the record will not be granted.-State
v. Fawcett (Neb.) 250.
§ 2. Subjects and purposes of relief.
Where a law in positive terms enjoins the
governor or other executive officer to perform a
mere ministerial duty, leaving him no choice
or discretion, the writ of mandamus may is-
sue.-State v. Savage (Neb.) 898.
Whether the writ of mandamus shall issue to
an executive officer depends on the character
of the act, and not upon the office held by the
respondent.-State v. Savage (Neb.) 898.
§ 3. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-
The furthest limit of judicial authority in
mandamus proceedings against officers of the
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See "Work and Labor."
Employés of municipal corporations, see "Mu-
nicipal Corporations," § 4.
Validity of statute prohibiting discharge of
employé because member of labor union as
restricting freedom to contract, see "Consti-
tutional Law," § 4.
Employers, assuming to act as final arbiters
of the propriety of dismissing their employés,
take the responsibility which attaches to a dis-
missal without cause.-Potter v. Barton (Minn.)
529.
Where a contract for work has been substan-
tially performed, an employer cannot refuse to
carry out a contract previously made for a term
not expired.-Potter v. Barton (Minn.) 529.
§ 2. Services and compensation.
In an action by a city servant for overtime,
evidence of declarations of the master's agent
held admissible to negative a waiver of the
right to compensation for overtime.-O'Boyle
v. City of Detroit (Mich.) 669.
3. Master's liability for injuries to
servant.
That cutting off the engine while the train
was in motion was unusual on other roads held
not to show negligence on the part of a railroad
company, in an action for personal injuries re-
ceived by a brakeman while so engaged.-Gor-
man v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 79.
Railroad company, knowing of defect in en-
gine, held guilty of negligence in failing to re-
port it.-Kerrigan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co. (Minn.) 976.
Under Code, § 2071, an employé who is in-
jured by the negligent act of a co-employé
while transferring rails from one car to another
by use of a locomotive, may recover of the rail-
way company for his injuries.-Stebbins v.
Crooked Creek R. & Coal Co. (Iowa) 355.
In an action for damages for injuries result-
evidence considered, and held, the negligence
ing from a plank falling down a mine shaft,
was that of his fellow servant, who had been
furnished proper appliances.-Erickson v. Vic-
toria Copper Min. Co. (Mich.) 291.
Servants in the control of work train held for
the time being the servants of the railroad con-
tractor.-Roe v. Winston (Minn.) 122.
In determining whether the doctrine of re-
spondeat superior applies, the test is whether
the person holding the position of master has
control over the servant in respect to the per-
formance of his duties.-Roe v. Winston (Min.)
122.
Defendants, engaged in straightening a line]
of railroad track, and using trains with employés
to operate the same, in the performance of the
work held within Rev. St. Wis. 1898, § 1816,
providing that every railroad company shall be
liable for damages sustained by any of its em-
ployés by reason of the negligence of fellow
servants.-Roe v. Winston (Minn.) 122.
In an action by an employé in a coal yard
for injuries resulting from dumping a bucket
of coal on him, evidence considered, and held,
that the negligence was that of the foreman
while acting as a fellow servant, for which de-
fendant was not liable.-Okonski v. Pennsyl-
vania & O. Coal Co. (Wis.) 429.
§ 5.
Risks assumed by servant.
Brakeman, told to uncouple a train of moving
cars, held to have assumed the risk.-Gorman
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 79.
That directions and warning were given by
the engineer, and not the conductor, did not af-
fect the question of assumption of risk, in an
action by a brakeman for injuries received.-
Gorman v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Iowa)
Woman employed in icing room of a baking
company, and injured while shifting belt from
the icing tank, by her foot catching in the belt,
held to have assumed the risk.-Price v. Unit-
ed States Baking Co. (Mich.) 286.
In an action for the death of a lineman, caus-
ed by the breaking of a pole on which he was
at work, evidence held to show that he assumed
the risk.-Krimmel v. Edison Illuminating Co.
(Mich.) 336.
In an action by an employé to recover for
injuries received, plaintiff's evidence held to
show that she assumed the risks of the employ
ment. Blom v. Yellowstone Park Ass'n
(Minn.) 397.
A fireman does not assume the risk of de-
fects in a step on the engine which he is com-
pelled to use in the discharge of his_duty.-
Kerrigan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
(Minn.) 976.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.cl/books/content?id=ExE8AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA1188&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=%22person+described+In,+and+who+executed,+the+foregoing+Instrument+and+he+acknowledged%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U17eqa1FeboGeKppVWUE2o09k3qwg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=70,917,462,43)
Plaintiff, injured by having his toes caught
by the revolving knives of a machine, held not,
as a matter of law, guilty of contributory neg-
ligence. Torske v. Commonwealth Lumber Co.
(Minn.) 532.
A fireman is not guilty of contributory negli-
gence in using a step on an engine which is
out of repair, where he has no knowledge of
the defects.-Kerrigan v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co. (Minn.) 976.
In an action for the death of plaintiff's in-
testate, evidence held not to show conclusively
that defendant was guilty of contributory neg-
ligence. Klages v. Gillette-Herzog Mfg. Co.
(Minn.) 1116.
The evidence being conflicting as to whether
a brakeman entered between two trains before
or after one of the trains was moving, the ques-
tion of his contributory negligence was for the
jury.-Roe v. Winston (Minn.) 122.
A complaint in an action by a section hand
to recover for personal injuries held to state
a cause of action within the fellow servants
act (Gen. St. 1894, § 2701); the danger being
peculiar to plaintiff's employment.-Lindgren v.
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Minn.) 381.
Whether an employé in a shoe factory, or-
dered to wash windows of the factory, knew
that the place in which he was required to
work was dangerous and understood the risks,
held for the jury.-Zeigler v. C. Gotzian & Co.
(Minn.) 387.
Though defendant was not guilty of negli-
gence by a mere failure to guard the knives in
a molding machine, it was a question for the
jury whether he was guilty of negligence in
failing to warn plaintiff of the danger in work-
ing around the machine.-Torske v. Common-
wealth Lumber Co. (Minn.) 532.
Whether or not it was negligence for plaintiff,
in attempting to pull a board out of the molding
machine, to brace his foot against the end piece,
held a question for the jury.-Torske v. Com-
monwealth Lumber Co. (Minn.) 532.
a sawmill, that dangerous wheels by which
An instruction, in an action for injuries in
plaintiff was injured should have been, as far
as practicable, properly guarded or otherwise
protected, is proper, under Gen. St. 1894, §
2248.-Walker v. Grand Forks Lumber Co.
(Minn.) 573.
Whether an employé, injured in a sawmill,
was guilty of contributory negligence, was for
the jury.-Walker v. Grand Forks Lumber Co.
(Minn.) 573.
ceived by the alleged negligence of the master,
In an action by an employé for injuries re-
the question of such negligence was one for
the jury.-Walker v. Grand Forks Lumber
Co. (Minn.) 573.
In an action for personal injuries to a sec-
tionman in a railroad yard, held error to direct
a verdict for defendant.-Murran v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 1056.
In an action by an employé in a coal yard
for injuries from dumping a bucket of coal on
him, negligence in not providing a torch held
that of fellow servants.-Okonski v. Pennsyl-
vania & O. Coal Co. (Wis.) 429.
for injuries resulting from dumping coal on
In an action by an employé in a coal yard
him, the submission to the jury of an issue as
to negligence of fellow servants in a matter not
pleaded held error.-Okonski v. Pennsylvania &
O. Coal Co. (Wis.) 429.
in a coal yard to recover for injuries resulting
Evidence considered in an action by a laborer
from the fall of a defectively supported timber,
and held to justify the findings in his favor.-
Nix v. C. Reiss Coal Co. (Wis.) 437.
Finding of proximate cause of injury to em-
ployé held not conjectural, or necessarily incon-
sistent with physical facts.-Nix v. Č. Reiss
Coal Co. (Wis.) 437.
An instruction as to proximate cause, in an
action by a laborer in a coal yard to recover
for injuries resulting from the fall of a de-
fectively supported timber, considered, and held
proper and sufficient, in the absence of a re-
quest to make more explicit.-Nix v. C. Reiss
Coal Co. (Wis.) 437.
In an action to recover for personal injury.
held not error to refuse to subinit to the jury
questions as to which there is no conflict in the
evidence, or which are fully covered by, or
merely evidentiary on, certain issues which are
submitted.-Nix v. C. Reiss Coal Co. (Wis.) +37.
§ 8. Liabilities for injuries to third
persons.
Where a contract between the original con-
tractor and a subcontractor was not executed
in good faith, or if supervision of the work was
assumed by the original contractor, then the
application of the rule is to be determined by
the conduct of the parties. Klages v. Gillette-
Herzog Mfg. Co. (Minn.) 1116.
Whether the doctrine of respondeat superior
applies to any particular case between the orig-
inal contractor and a subcontractor held deter-
minable by the contract.-Klages v. Gillette-
Herzog Mfg. Co. (Minn.) 1116.
In an action for death, where plaintiff's hus-
band was killed by an electric shock, caused by
the cables of a derrick coming in contact with
electric wires, evidence reviewed, and held not
to show that the derrick was placed in position Of contract, see "Contracts," § 3.
and operated by independent contractors.-Kla-
ges v. Gillette-Herzog Mfg. Co. (Minn.) 1116.
Of equity, see "Equity," 1.
MECHANICS' LIENS.
§ 1. Right to lien.
Under Code. § 3089, it is the furnishing of
material which entitled one to a mechanic's
lien, and its actual use need not be shown.-
Frudden Lumber Co. v. Kinnan (Iowa) 515.
An owner paying claims after a lien for ma-
terial had been filed held liable under the lien.
-Frudden Lumber Co. v. Kinnan (Iowa) 515.
Material men, who furnished material to a
contractor with the knowledge of the property
owner, at a time when the owner had suffi-
cient of the contract price to pay them, held,
in view of the terms of the contract, under
which the owner could have protected himself,
entitled to a mechanic's lien.-Queal v. Strad-
ley (Iowa) 588.
§ 2. Proceedings to perfect.
A statement of a material man's lien held
sufficient, in view of the facts, though the sep-
arate prices of some items were not given.-
Queal v. Stradley (Iowa) 588.
$$ 3, 4. Enforcement.
Evidence considered, and held sufficient to es-
tablish a lien for material furnished.--Frudden
Lumber Co. v. Kinnan (Iowa) 515.
§ 5. Indennity against liens.
Bond of contractor held to have been intended
for the benefit of material men, and that they
could sue thereon. -Green Bay Lumber Co. v.
Independent School Dist. (Iowa) 504.
A payment made by a stockbroker's agent in
settlement of the amount due from his princi-
pals to one who had been dealing with them
held to have been made for the principals, and
not as a personal loan.-Clippinger v. Starr
(Mich.) 280.
MONEY RECEIVED.
Recovery of payment in general, see "Payment,"
§ 2.
Recovery of tax paid, see "Taxation," § 7.
Question whether money received by deceased
was for plaintiff's use held for the jury.-
Shouldice v. McLeod's Estate (Mich.) 288.
In action for money had and received, an in-
struction held, under the evidence, not mislead-
ing.-Shouldice v. McLeod's Estate (Mich.) 288.
Town, having paid money to a county for the
debt of an illegally incorporated village located
therein which had already paid the amount to
the county, held entitled to recover such sum in
an action for money received.-Town of Mil-
waukee v. Milwaukee County (Wis.) 447.
Acknowledgment of execution, see "Acknowl-
edgment," § 1.
By executor, see "Executors and Administra-
tors," § 3.
Of decedent's property, see "Executors and Ad-
ministrators," § 3.
Of personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages."
Right of mortgagee to proceeds of insurance pol-
icy, see "Insurance,' § 8.
Subrogation of purchaser at sale, see "Subroga-
tion."
1. Requisites and validity.
Evidence held to show that a deed absolute
was a mortgage.-Wall
Albion College
(Mich.) 321.
The liability on a building contractor's bond
became fixed on the failure of the principal to 2. Construction and operation.
pay the material men, and no demand before
A second mortgage, executed after a first
suit brought was necessary.-Green Bay Lun- mortgagee had levied execution on the personal
ber Co. v. Independent School Dist. (Iowa) 504. property of the debtor, held a prior lien on the
Sureties on a contractor's bond held released land, as against a chattel mortgagee of the
from liability for mechanics' liens by a varia-debtor who procured an assignment of the first
tion from the terms of the contract by the mortgage_and_released the levy.-Valley Nat.
owner-Queal v. Stradley (Iowa) 588.
School district meetings, see "Schools and School
Districts," § 1.
MINES AND MINERALS.
81. Title, conveyances, and contracts.
Evidence in an action to cancel an agreement
to reduce the royalty provided in a mining
lease, on the ground of fraud, held to entitle
complainants to the relief prayed for.-Lasier
v. Appleton Land & Iron Co. (Mich.) 322.
MISREPRESENTATION.
See "False Pretenses"; "Fraud."
By insured, see "Insurance," § 4.
Of damages, see "Libel and Slander," § 2.
Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank (Iowa) 342.
Where both note and mortgage provide for
10 per cent. interest after maturity, it fixes the
interest on foreclosure.-Yarnal v. Hupp (Neb.)
645.
Remedy, where the agent of a prior lien
holder falsely represents that the lien is satis-
fied, whereby another is induced to loan money
upon mortgage on the property, determined.-
Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. City of
Omaha (Neb.) 1005.
§ 3. Transfer of property mortgaged
or of equity of redemption.
That a mortgagee released a portion of the
property after a purchaser from the mortgagor
had entered on another portion held insufficient
to charge the mortgagee with notice of the pur-
chaser's rights, so as to discharge him by rea-
son of the release.-Balen v. Lewis (Mich.) 416.
On foreclosure of a mortgage against a pur-
chaser of part of the realty before release of
other parcels, the purchaser held not entitled
to claim that the mortgagee was obliged to col-
lect a sum secured by a purchase-money mort-
gage given by him, which he had paid to the
mortgagor in ignorance of the mortgage.-Balen
v. Lewis (Mich.) 416.
§ 4. Payment or performance of con-
dition, release, and satisfaction.
A satisfaction entered on the record by a
mortgagee, after sale and delivery of the notes
secured by mortgage to a third party, will pro-
tect a subsequent mortgagee or bona fide pur
chaser.-Columbia Nat. Bank V. Marshall
(Neb.) 218.
The amount due on a mortgage is not affect
ed by the fact that an action on the note which
it secures is barred by limitation.-Yarnal v.
Hupp (Neb.) 645.
§§ 5, 6. Foreclosure by action-Right to
foreclose and defenses.
A prima facie showing that no proceedings
have been had at law held sufficient to sustain
a decree of foreclosure.-Ure v. Bunn (Neb.)
Pleading and evidence.
On foreclosure, where general denial is filed,
the burden is on plaintiff to show that no ac-
tion at law has been instituted to collect the
debt.-Hedbloom v. Pierson (Neb.) 218.
On foreclosure, evidence to show that plain-
tiff was the owner of the note and mortgage
held sufficient.-Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Klatt (Neb.) 754.
Evidence in an action to foreclose, held in-
sufficient to sustain a decree for plaintiff.—
Stewart v. Hoagland (Neb.) 1127.
A petition on foreclosure held sufficient, as
against an objection, raised after trial begun,
on an offer to introduce evidence to support it.
-Zug v. Forgan (Neb.) 1129.
§ 8.
Judgment or decree and exe-
The right of a holder of a certificate of tax
sale to a deed after the certificate matures is
not cut off or barred by a decree in a mortgage
foreclosure suit, by which his right to redeem
from the mortgage was cut off and foreclosed.
-Browne v. Kiel (Iowa) 624.
The negligence of a purchaser at a fore-
closure sale of land in regard to the asser-
tion of his title held to support a contention
by the landowner that he was not served with
notice of the foreclosure proceedings.-Shehan
v. Stuart (Iowa) 614.
That a sale under execution of a mortga-
gor's interest after judgment of foreclosure
deprived the mortgagor of his equity of re-
demption held not to entitle an assignee of the
mortgagor's interest in the rents and profits,
pending execution under foreclosure, to an in-
junction restraining such sale.-Miller v. Cous-
ins (Iowa) 814.
Where several writs were issued, commanding
the sheriff to execute decree of foreclosure, the
presumption is, nothing appearing to the con-
trary, that the appraisement was valid.-Omaha
Nat. Bank v. Sanders (Neb.) 211.
An objection that the appraisers on fore-
closure were designated in the appointment by
the initials of their Christian names is not well
taken.-Peterboro Sav. Bank v. Johnson (Neb.)
Selling 200 acres of land in gross, where it
not be presumed erroneous.-Omaha Loan
is one farm, occupied by a single defendant, will
&
Trust Co. v. Lynch (Neb.) 217.
Publication of notice of sale on foreclosure in
each issue of a semiweekly paper for 30 days is
Loan & Trust Co. v. Lynch (Neb.) 217.
a sufficient compliance with the statute.-Omaha
Objections to appraisement on foreclosure
should be filed before sale is had.-Omaha Loan
& Trust Co. v. Lynch (Neb.) 217.
That a copy of the appraisement on fore-
closure was not filed until the fourth day after
it was made does not show that the sheriff's
return that he filed it "forthwith" was incor-
rect.-Hubbard v. Hennessey (Neb.) 220.
In the absence of fraud, an appraisement on
foreclosure cannot be successfully attacked
solely on the ground that the property was ap-
praised too low.-Hubbard v. Hennessey (Neb.)
220.
Code Civ. Proc. § 491d, requiring appraise-
ment on foreclosure to be filed "forthwith."
means with reasonable dispatch in the ordi-
nary course of business.-Hubbard v. Hennes-
sey (Neb.) 220.
An appraisement on foreclosure will not be
set aside, unless so grossly inadequate as to
compel conclusion that it is fraudulent.-Oma-
ha Loan & Trust Co. v. Walenz (Neb.) 222.
A difference of opinion between appraisers
and witnesses as to the value of real estate
sold under foreclosure affords no ground for
setting the sale aside.-Gibson v. Sweet (Neb.)
certain order as
If the court had no authority to make a
where the land sold for more than two-thirds
to the appraisement, yet,
of its appraised value, the mortgagor held not
prejudiced thereby.-Ashley v. First Nat. Bank
(Neb.) 639.
A notice of sale, which follows decree in
stating the claims for satisfaction whereof the
land is to be sold, is not open to objection.—
Levy v. Hinz (Neb.) 640.
That appraisers did not examine interior of
house on property to be sold does not show
that they acted fraudulently.-Levy v. Hinz
(Neb.) 640.
An appraisement on foreclosure cannot be
attacked after the sale, except for fraud.-
Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Borders (Neb.)
642.
That the officer has the certificates or prior
liens in his possession at the time of appraise-
ment, but does not deduct the amount thereof
appraisers, does not render the appraisement
from the value of the land until separation of
oid.--Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Borders
(Neb.) 642.
Objections to a confirmation of a foreclosure
sale for defects in the appraisal come too late
after sale had.-Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Williams (Neb.) 756.
Where, on foreclosure, the appraisement and
certificates of liens are filed on the same day
the notice of sale is first published, it will be
conclusively presumed that they were filed be-
fore the notice of sale was published.-Foster
v. McKinley-Lanning Loan & Trust Co. (Neb.)
765.
Affidavit to a proof of publication of fore-
closure sale, alleging that the newspaper in
which the publication was made is a legal
newspaper, is prima facie evidence of such
|