Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the rule of responsibility of bailees for hire has been applied, exonerating officers who have been found guiltless of negligence, this measure of responsibility is not generally accepted. The great weight of authority in this country will sustain the general propositions, with respect to the liability of such officers, and their sureties, for the loss of public moneys, that where the statute in direct terms, or from its general tenor, imposes the duty to pay over public moneys received and held as such, and no condition limiting that obligation is discoverable in the statute, the obligation thus imposed upon and assumed by the officer will be deemed to be absolute, and the plea that the money has been stolen or lost without his fault does not constitute a defense to an action for its recovery; that the rule of responsibility of bailees for hire is not applicable in such cases; that where the condition of a bond is that the officer will faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and where the statute, as before stated, imposes the duty of payment or accountability for the money, without condition, the obligors in the bond are subject to the same high degree of responsibility; and that the reasons upon which these propositions rest are to be found both in the unqualified terms of the contract, and in considerations of public policy. U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578; U. S. v. Dashiel, 4 Wall. 182; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 17; Inhabitants of Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112; Inhabitants of New Providence v. McEachron, 33 N. J. Law, 339, affirmed, 35 N. J. Law, 528; Com. v. Comly, 3 Pa. St. 372; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607; District Tp. of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550; Thompson v. Board, 30 Ill. 99; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86; Ward v. School-Dist., 10 Neb. 293, 4 N. W. Rep. 1001; Wilson v. Wichita Co., 67 Tex. 647, 4 S. W. Rep. 67; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162, 7 Pac. Rep. 650; State v. Moore, 74 Mo. 413; State v. Powell, 67 Mo. 395; Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231. The tenor of our own decisions has been in harmony with these authorities, and they may be said to have been based largely at least upon the same reasons above stated. County Com'rs v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199, (Gil. 182;) County Com'rs v. Gilbert, 19 Minn. 214, (Gil. 176;) Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45, 8 N. W. Rep. 907. This being, as we deem, the generally estabished rule of law, and this strict measure ⚫ of responsibility having been so long ago declared by this court upon grounds which, as we think, support the propositions above stated, it should be left for the legislature to modify the law, if the prevailing doctrine is deemed to be inexpedient. From the fact, however, that, notwithstanding the decisions of this court above cited, no legislation upon the subject has followed, it may be inferred that in the judgment of the legislature no change in the law has been deemed to be expedient. Applying to this case the propositions above stated, the officer and his sureties were responsible. Not only familiar considerations of public policy support this conclusion, but, by the terms of the statute and of the bond, the obligation of the

treasurer to pay over the public moneys received by him is subject to no qualification which would permit the defense here relied upon to be interposed. Neither the statute nor the bond seem to contemplate any other mode by which the officer is to be relieved from accountability than by payment of the money received by him. Whether it would be a defense if by act of God or of the public enemy he were prevented from paying the money we do not decide. Such was the case of U. S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall. 337, relied upon by the appellants. That decision was not intended to overrule the prior decisions of that court above cited, holding that a loss of the money by theft is no defense. The decision was based upon considerations which were regarded as distinguishing the case from those previously before the court. The further defense was made that, at a special meeting of the qualified voters of the district, and at a meeting of the board of education of the village, resolutions were adopted to the effect that the district should assume the loss, and that the treasurer be discharged from liability. We are of the opinion that neither the action of the board nor that of the district was legally effectual to gratuitously discharge the obligation of the treasurer. The express provision in the statute that, in case of any breach in the conditions of the treasurer's bond, "the board shall cause an action to be commenced thereon," etc., (section 107,) in connection with the fact that the statute contains no express authority to discharge such an obligation, nor, so far as we can discover, anything from which such authority is to be implied, is enough to justify the conclusion that no such power has been conferred. We have used the term "gratuitously" for the rea son that no consideration for the surrender or discharge of the obligation is apparent. See, upon this subject, Ward v. School-Dist., 10 Neb. 293, 4 N. W. Rep. 1001; District Tp. of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550; Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231. Order refusing a new trial affirmed.

(30 Neb. 654)

OPPENHEIMER et al. v. MALONE. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. Oct. 28, 1890.) APPEAL-DISMISSAL-FAILURE TO FILE TRAN

SCRIPT.

1. A judgment was rendered against the plaintiffs in error in the county court of Lancaster county. Within 10 days thereafter, an appealbond was filed and a transcript of the proceedings was ordered. The judge thereupon promised to make out a transcript and file the same in the district court within the statutory time, but failed to do so. The transcript was filed more than 30 days after the rendition of the judgment. Held, that the neglect of the judge to file the transcript in time is the neglect of the appellants. 2. Held, that it was not error to sustain the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to district court, Lancaster county; FIELD, Judge.

Pound & Burr, for plaintiffs in error. Chas. E. Magoon, for defendant in error.

NORVAL, J. The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the plaintiffs

in error in the county court of Lancaster county, on the 10th day of December, 1887. The defendants below gave an appealbond, and filed a transcript of the judgment in the office of the clerk of the district court of the county, on the 7th day of February, 1888. Malone filed in that court a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the transcript was not filed within 30 days from the rendition of the judgment. The motion was sustained, and the appeal dismissed. The transcript was not filed within the time limited by the statutes for the taking of appeals. It is claimed that the failure to perfect the appeal sooner is not attributable to the fault or neglect of the plaintiffs in error, but to that of the county judge. It appears that Isaac Oppenheimer, one of the defendants below, within 10 days after the entry of the judgment in the county court, and at the time of filing the appeal undertaking, applied to the judge of that court for a transcript of the proceedings, and was informed by the judge that he could not prepare the transcript just then, but he would make out and file the same with the clerk of the district court in the time required by law. Relying upon this promise, Oppenheimer, the next day, left the state on business, and did not return for more than a month afterwards. The Judge neglected to make out and file the transcript as he agreed. When Oppenheimer returned, he procured and filed one. The proofs offered in resistance of the motion to dismiss the appeal fail to show that the appellants were diligent in perfecting their appeal. The neglect of the county judge to deliver the transcript to the clerk of the district court was not an omission of any official duty he owed the appellants. It was their duty, under the law, to have their appeal docketed in the district court, and a failure of the county Judge to do so is attributable to them. It can make no difference that the judge, of his own accord, volunteered to perform the services for the appellants. They could not, by relying upon his promises to perform for them an unofficial act, escape the consequences of his neglect. It is quite Immaterial that the offices of the county judge and clerk of the district court were at the time in the same building. The facts in this case bring it within the decisions of Gifford v. Railroad Co., 20 Neb. 538, 31 N. W. Rep. 11, and Railroad Co. v. Marston, 22 Neb. 722, 36 N. W. Rep. 153. the former case, the appellant, by letter, ordered the transcript, and requested the county judge to deliver or send it to the clerk of the district court. The court in the opinion say: "This was not a service which, in any event, or upon any demand and tender of fees, would become due to the plaintiff or to any party from the county judge. It was not demanded as a matter of law or right, but requested, doubtless, as a matter of favor or courtesy. Had this service been performed by the county judge as requested, so far as delivering or sending the transcript to the clerk of the district court was concerned, he would have done it only as the friend or agent of the plaintiff or his attorney, and not in his official capacity as

In

county judge; and so his fallure or neglect in that regard is the failure or negligence of the plaintiff." In the second case, the appellant's attorney made an arrangement with the justice of the peace, before whom the cause was tried, to file the transcript in time. The justice failed to do so. It was held that the neglect of the justice did not relieve the appellant of the consequences of such neglect. The plaintiffs in error not having shown sufficient excuse for the failure to file the transcript within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment, the district court did not err in dismissing the appeal. The judg| ment is affirmed. The other judges concur. (30 Neb. 624)

GILES V. GILES. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. Oct. 28, 1890.)

DIVORCE-CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

l., having a child which was a minor, were A husband and wife, living in Aurora, divorced, there being no provision in the decree for the custody of such child. Afterwards the parties agreed that the mother should retain the custody of such infant, the father to pay five dollars per week for its support. This he did for some time, when the mother removed to Omaha, bringing the infant with her. In a proceeding on tody of the child, held, that he had no absolute habeas corpus by the father to obtain the cusvested right in the custody of such infant, and that the paramount consideration is, what is really demanded by the child's best interests! and the court in awarding the custody to the father, mother, or other person will be guided by what may seem best for the child.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; CLARKSON, Judge.

Fawcett & Sturdevant, and John P. Davis, for appellant. C. P. Halligan, for appellee.

MAXWELL, J. The plaintiff instituted a proceeding by habeas corpus in the district court of Douglas county to recover the possession of his infant son, Haeckel Humbolt Giles. A large amount of testimony was taken before the district court, and judgment was rendered by it, that the defendant retain the custody of the child. From that judgment the cause is brought into this court by petition in error. It appears from the record that in October, 1865, William Giles and Mary A. Giles were married in the state of Illinois, and resided in that state as husband and wife until July, 1889; that four children were born to them, of which the two oldest are of age; that the third child was about 20 years of age; and that the youngest son, the subject of this controversy, is about 10 years of age. The testimony also shows that the plaintiff, for many years prior to 1889, had been the traveling agent of a firm in Chicago, engaged in the sewing-machine business. His territory seems to have covered a considerable part or all of Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc., so that he was absent from home nearly all the time. As testified to by his daughter, his absences were prolonged from two to ave months, and it is claimed, and there is some testimony tending to show, that from 1887 to July, 1889, he did not provide full support for his family. He explains

this, however, to some extent in his tes- I made with a single reference to the best intimony by saying that two of his children were absent from home at an educational institution, and he necessarily had to provide the means for their support. The defendant also was engaged in business on her own account, and had been for many years prior to July, 1889. For many years prior to the date last named, the family had resided in Aurora, Ill. On the 11th of July, 1889, the defendant was granted an absolute decree of divorce from the plaintiff in error, her husband, by one of the courts in the state of Illinois, on the alleged ground of desertion and failure to support.

From the evidence in the record before us, it may well be questioned whether a divorce should have been granted. So far as we can judge, there was no such desertion and failure to support as are coutemplated by the statute. But that question is not before the court. In the decree there is no provision for the care of the minor children. There is some testimony tending to show that, after the divorce was obtained, the defendant said to the plaintiff that she was willing that he should take their youngest son, and care for him, but that he objected on the ground that he had no home to place him in, and said, if she would care for him, he would pay her five dollars per week. This sum he seems to have paid up to December 6, 1889, when the defendant removed to Omaha, bringing the child with her, and the plaintiff now brings this action to obtain the custody of the child. The testimony shows that he has no home of his own; that he proposes to place the child in the family of a friend in Aurora, Ill. We have no means of knowing the qualifications of this family to care for and train a child of tender years, nor, indeed, is there any evidence of a valid contract for the support of the child. For aught that appears, they might at any time in a day, a week, or a month, abandon the care of the child without bad faith or a violation of the agreement. But suppose it did appear that the family named was unobjectionable, and that the father had entered into a valid contract with such family to care for and furnish a home for his child, still it would not follow that the father would be given the custody of such child. Under the stern rules of the common law, when the wife and mother was but little better than a slave, the father was given the custody of his children without question. This rule of the common law has not generally prevailed in this country. In U.S. v. Green, 3 Mason, 482, Judge STORY says it is an entire mistake to suppose that the "father has an absolute vested right in the custody of an infant." In Corrie v. Corrie, 42 Mich. 509, 4 N. W. Rep. 213, it is said: "In contests of this kind, the opinion is now nearly universal that neither of the parties has any rights that can be allowed to seriously militate against the welfare of the child. The paramount consideration is what is really demanded by its best interests." In Sturtevant v. State, 15 Neb. 459, 19 N. W. Rep. 617, this court held that, in a controversy for the custody of a child, the order of the court should be

terests of such child. This rule, we believe, has been adopted generally by the courts of this country. Schouler, Dom. Rel. § 248, and cases cited. The testimony of the father tends to show that the mother is an industrious woman and of good charac ter. He at least has been willing to trust the child in her custody, and the principal objection made by him at this time is that she has removed from the state of Illinois. This removal was occasioned by her entering into the employment of a company at a good salary so that she might be able to support herself and child, and not from any desire to exclude the plaintiff from seeing it when he so desired. He has a right to call upon and see his child at reasonable times, and, should this privilege be denied, it might require the interposition of the court. Where there are minor children, the separation of the parents by divorce almost necessarily will cause more or less pain to one or both of the parties. This is almost unavoidable, and is a matter for the serious consideration of those who, through real or fancied grievances, seek relief in the divorce courts; but neither parent has an absolute right to the custody of the minor children, but the court will consider their best interests, and make such orders in the premises as seem to be just and proper. The judgment of the court below is right, and is affirmed. The other judges concur.

(30 Neb. 651)

STATE ex rel. DUNDERMAN V. GASLIN,
Judge.

(Supreme Court of Nebraska. Oct. 28, 1890.) TRIAL BY REFEREE-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

In a case tried before a referee it is his duty to sign any true exceptions taken to any order or decision made by him in the case. Such bill of exceptions is not to be signed by the judge. Light v. Kennard, 10 Neb. 330, 6 N. W. Rep. 372; Turner v. Turner, 12 Neb. 161, 10 N. W. Rep. 545.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Mandamus.

Bowen & Hoeppner, for relator. Capps, McCreary & Stevens, for respondent.

NORVAL, J. This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, as judge of the eighth judicial district, to sign a bill of exceptions in a cause tried in the district court of Adams county be. fore a referee. It appears from the record before us that on the 20th day of May, 1889, there was pending in the district court of Adams county the case of Joseph Story v. John H. Dunderman, and on said date, by the agreement of the parties, the court appointed W. L. Marshall, Esq., sole referee to take the testimony in said cause, and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. The cause was tried before said referee, who, on the 25th day of November, 1889, reported to said court his findings of law and fact. Exceptions to the report of the referee were filed, and, on November 30, 1889, the same were by the court overruled, and judgment was rendered in favor of said

fore must be denied.
concur.

The other judges

(30 Neb. 620)

MACE et al. v. HEATH. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. Oct. 28, 1890.) ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS-ERASURE OF NOTE:

-STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

Joseph Story, and against the relator, for | court, but by the referee. The writ there$621.36. The relator's motion for a new trial was on the last-named date overruled; an exception was taken to the ruling of the court thereon; and 40 days was given to settle a bill of exceptions. The November, 1889, term of the district court adjourned sine die on the 28th day of December, 1889. On the 16th day of January, 1890, the relator presented to the attor neys of said Joseph Story his proposed bill of exceptions, containing all of the testimony taken on the trial before the referee, and said attorneys refused to accept for examination said draft of the bill of exceptions, and declined to state the reason or grounds for such refusal. On the 17th day of January, 1890, the relator served notice upon Joseph Story that he would present said proposed bill of exceptions on January 23, 1890, to said referee for allowance. The proposed bill was on that day presented to the referee for settlement, who refused to sign the same, on the ground that it was not presented within proper time. The relator on the 29th day of January, 1890, applied to the respondent for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the referee to sign, settle, and allow said bill, which application was denied. On the 1st day of March, 1890, the relator presented the proposed bill of exceptions to the respondent, for settlement and allowance, who refused to sign the same.

The sole question presented for our consideration is, has a judge of the district court any power or authority to settle and allow a bill of exceptions in a cause tried before a referee? Section 303 of the Code provides that "it shall be the duty of the referees to sign any true exceptions taken to any order or decision by them made in the case, and return the same with their report to the court making the reference." This section confers ample authority upon a referee to sign a bill of exceptions. It makes it his duty to sign any true bill. There is no law or statute in this state making it the duty of the judge making the reference to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause tried before a referee. The judge cannot know what exceptions were taken to the rulings made by the referee, or what testimony was introduced on the trial. Section 311 of the Code does not govern the settlement of the bill of exceptions in cases tried before a referee, either as to the person who shall sign the same or the time in which it shall be allowed. A similar question to that involved in this action arose in the case of Light v. Kennard, 10 Neb. 330, 6 N. W. Rep. 372. In that case, the referee signed a bill of exceptions and returned the same with his report to the district court making the reference. The report was confirmed, and the cause was brought to this court on error. The defendant in error moved to quash the bill of exceptions, on the ground that the same was not signed by the district judge. This court held that the bill should be signed by the referee and not by the judge. The question was again before the court in Turner v. Turner, 12 Neb. 161, 10 N. W. Rep. 545, in which it was held that in a case tried before a referee the bill of exceptions is not to be signed by the judge of the district

1. Two persons jointly purchased the fixtures, furniture, stock, and lease of a feed-store in the city of Omaha, for the sum of $1,008, and paid thereon the sum of $400 cash, and gave their notes due in three and six months for $304 each. The tained the words: "Payable at the Merchants' notes were drawn on printed forms, and conNational Bank of Omaha, Nebraska." These words were erased before the notes were signed, but the word "maturity," indicating the time when the interest would commence, was not erased. A short time afterwards, the payce called the attention of one of the makers to the omission to erase the word, and it was thereupon erased, and thereby the notes drew interest from date. Held, that as there was testimony tending to show that the notes were to draw interest from date, and that the makers were partners, the erasure therefore bound the firm.

2. A verbal contract to engage in the business of purchasing five car-loads of baled hay, and dividing the same with the defendants, the value being in excess of $50, no part of the hay being paid, is within the statute of frauds, and void. delivered, nor any portion of the consideration (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to district court, Douglas coun ty; DOANE, Judge.

Breen & Duffie, for plaintiffs in error. Gregory, Day & Day, for defendant in er

ror.

MAXWELL, J. The defendant in error brought an action in the district court of Douglas county on two promissory notes, as follows:

"$304. Omaha, Neb., May 3, 1887. Three months after date we promise to pay to John B. Heath or order, three hundred and four dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from

until paid. Due August 3, 1887. W. W. MACE. G. A. CLEMENT."

"$304. Omaha, Neb., May 3, 1887. Six months after date we promise to pay to John B. Heath or order, three hundred and four dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from

until paid. Due Nov. 3, 1887. W. W. MACE. Č. A. CLEMENT."

There is also a count in the petition for goods, wares, merchandise, etc., sold and delivered to the defendants below. The prayer is for $558, with interest from May 3, 1887. The defendants below in their answer allege that the notes were to draw interest from maturity, but that the plaintiff erased the word "maturity." (2) They allege that the second cause of action set forth in the petition is the same as that for which the notes were given. (3) They plead a counter-claim in the sum of $250, for a violation by the defendant in error of a contract that he would not open another feed-store in the vicinity of the place of business of the plaintiffs in error. (4) That the defendant in error entered into a contract with them to deliver five carloads of hay, which was to be purchased by him and shipped in his name, which

contract he refused to perform. The fifth The fifth ground is that they purchased a claim of $139.60 against the defendant in error prior to the bringing of this action. On the trial of the cause, the defendants below filed a motion to require the plaintiff to elect upon which count of the petition he will proceed. This motion was overruled, and no point is made upon it, so that it need not be further noticed. The court found in favor of the defendant in error, and rendered judgment for $500.39. The testimony shows that prior to May 3, 1887, the plaintiff below had been engaged in the feed business in the city of Omaha. On that day the defendants below purchased the business, furniture, and fixtures and lease of the premises of the plaintiff below. The price was $1,008. Of this amount the defendants below paid $400 in cash, and executed the two notes sued on. The notes were made out on printed forms, and the words "payable at the Merchants' National Bank of Omaha, Nebraska," was in the form, but Mr. Clement testifies that he filled the notes out and erased those words before the notes were signed. The word "maturity," which seems to have been in the printed form, was not erased at that time. This is claimed to have been done after the notes were executed and delivered. There is testimony tending to show that the notes should draw interest from date, and a day or two after the making of the notes the plaintiff below seems to have called the attention of Mr. Clement to the fact that the notes were drawn not to draw interest until maturity. The word "maturity" was thereupon, by agreement, erased, and this, it is claimed, discharged Mr. Mace. We think differently, however. Mr. Mace and Mr. Clement are shown to have purchased the stock in partnership, and continued to be partners for some considerable time afterwards. The change in question was simply making the notes conform to the contract, and was within the scope of the partnership business.

2. The court below seems to have found that the contract in relation to the five car-loads of hay was within the statute of frauds and void. The amount of the property involved exceeded $50. in value, and no note or memorandum of the contract was made in writing subscribed by the parties to be charged thereby, nor was any portion of the goods accepted or received, or any part of the purchase money paid. There was no error, therefore, in rejecting the claim. The plaintiffs in error have received the defendant in error's property, and are still indebted for the same in the amount found due by the district court. This should be paid. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The other judges concur.

(30 Neb. 633) }

CITY OF OMAHA V. HOWELL LUMBER Co. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. Oct. 28, 1890.) OPENING STREET-COMPENSATION FOR LAND TAKEN.

Where land is condemned for public use, as for opening a street, the owner is entitled to the fair market value of the land actually taken, and special benefits to the residue of the tract cannot be set off against such value, but may be

[blocks in formation]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to district court, Douglas county; DOANE, Judge.

A. J. Poppleton, for plaintiff in error. Congdon & Hunt, for defendant in error.

MAXWELL, J. The city of Omaha extended Leavenworth street from block 187 to the Missouri river, and, in doing so, condemned a portion of the defendant in error's land. Appraisers were duly appointed who estimated the damages and made an award. An appeal was taken to the district court, where the jury returned a verdict as follows: "We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the above-entitled case, do find that the market value of the strip in controversy, at the time of the condemnation proceedings, was $8,625. We do further find that the special benefits to the remaining land of the Howell Lumber Company through the opening of Leavenworth street amounted to the sum of $5,000." A motion for a new trial having been overruled, judgment was entered on the verdict excluding the special benefits.

The sole question presented is, can special benefits be set off against the value of the land actually taken? This question was carefully considered in Wagner v. Gage Co., 3 Neb. 237. In that case, about 6% acres of plaintiff's land was taken for a public road. The case was tried before Judge GANTT, who, in effect, instructed the jury that they might set off special benefits against the value of the land actually taken. The jury thereupon returned a verdict finding that there were no damages to the land-owner. This court, after a very careful consideration of the decisions and the rule which should be adopted in such case, held that the value of the land taken, must, in all cases, be paid in money, but that special benefits may be set off against incidental damages to the residue of the tract. That case was followed in Railroad Co. v. Whalen, 11 Neb. 585, 10 N. W. Rep. 491. In the latter case, Judge LAKE, who wrote the opinion and prepared the syllabus, says: "Where land is condemned for railroad purposes, the owner is entitled to have, as one item of damage, in all cases, the fair market value of the part actually taken." This case was followed in Schaller v. Omaha, 23 Neb. 325, 36 N. W. Rep. 533. In that case, after referring to Wagner v. Gage Co., it is said in the published opinion: "That decision has become the rule of practice in this state." The word "practice" was originally written "property " but, by mistake, was changed to "practice," and the change overlooked. In Blakeley v. Railway Co. 25 Neb. 207, 40 N. W. Rep. 956, the rule of Wagner v. Gage Co. was adhered to, and must be regarded as the settled law of this state. It is true there are many decisions holding that special benefits may be set off against the value of the property taken. Almost invariably such benefits are largely speculative, and are such as are shared by the public at large. We must remember that it is not the property owner who is desiring the improvement.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »