Contract of foreign building and loan association, see Building and Loan Associations, §§ 20-22.

Contract of carrier limiting liability, see Carriers, § 105.

As to validity of contract, see Contracts, $§ 1-6.

As to construction of contracts, see Contracts, §§ 163-166.

Actions on contracts, see Contracts, § 361.

As to covenants in conveyances, see Covenants, § 39.

As affecting breach of covenant, see Covenants, § 39.

What law governs as to validity of deed, see Deeds, § 1.

Law governing attestation of deeds, see Deeds, $$ 65-68.

As to descent of property, see Descent and Distribution, § 1.

Foreign decree of divorce, see Divorce, §§ 216, 217.

Law governing exemptions, see Exemptions, §§ 1-4.

Effect of order of foreign court to pay claim garnished, see Garnishment, §§ 148, 149.

Law governing homestead exemptions, see Homesteads, §§ 2 4.

unmarried

Validity of contract by woman, see Husband and Wife, §§ 52, 53.

Of insurance, see Insurance, § 75.

Law governing rate of interest, see Interest, §§ 28-30.

As to limitations of actions, see Limitations of Actions, §§ 9-11.

As to marriage, see Marriage, § 2. Law governing construction of mortgages see Mortgages, §§ 113, 114.

Law governing property rights, see Property, § 1.

Law governing contracts of sale, see Sales, § 1.

What law governs tax sale, see Taxation, §§ 573, 574.

Law governing rights under void tax sale, see Taxation, § 812.

As to usurious contracts, see Usury, §§ 6-10.

What law governs as to validity of contract to sell real property, see Vendor and Purchaser, § 1.

CROSS-REFERENCE.

See, also, Accession; Warehousemen. 1. (1888.) Where chattels of the same nature and quantity belonging to different persons are mingled in one mass-as corn in a crib any owner may recover his aliquot part by an action in replevin. Grimes v. Cannell, 23 Neb. 187 (36 N. W. 479).

2. (1893.) Where wheat is ordered by a mill and is shipped, and before it is received, the owner of the mill executes a bill of sale of the mill, such wheat, being received and ground into flour, is no part of the property, and the present owner is liable for the value of the wheat. First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Scott, 36 Neb. 607 (54 N. W. 987).

3. (1893.) Where wheat has been delivered to a mill and wrongfully converted into flour and stored with other flour belonging to the mill owner, the owner of the wheat will be entitled to such portion of the flour as the wheat would probably produce. First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Scott, 36 Neb. 607 (54 N. W. 987).

4. (1897.) A vendee of a stock of drugs

on condition that he would pay a certain sum per month to the seller from the proceeds of the business, a mixing of goods bought afterwards by absolute purchase with those bought under the conditional sale was neither wrongful or fraudulent. Richardson Drug Co. v. Teasdall, 52 Neb. 698 (72 N. W. 1028).

CONNECTING CARRIERS.

See Carriers, II, H.

CONSIDERATION.

Of accord and satisfaction, see Accord and Satisfaction, §§ 4-9.

Alteration of, effect, see Alteration of Instrument, §§ 8-10.

Of assignment, see Assignment, § 9. For promissory note, see Bills and Notes, §§ 30-56.

Sufficiency for cancelation of contract, see Cancelation of Instruments, § 13.

Of chattel mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages, $8 21-33.

Pre-existing debt as consideration for

Evidence sustaining, as arising from wager, see Gaming, §§ 13, 14.

For guaranty, see Guaranty, §§ 13-17. For indemnity bond, see Indemnity, §§ 7-9. For insurance policy, see Insurance, § 89. For lease, see Landlord and Tenant, $18. For mortgage, see Mortgages, §§ 21-23. For assignment of mortgage, see Mortgages, $274.

For release, see Release, § 2.

For contract of sale, see Sales, §§ 16, 17. Of subscription contract, see Subscription, §§ 1-2.

Contract for sale of land, see Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 24-26.

CONSOLIDATION.

Of actions, see Actions, III.

Of corporations, see Corporations, § 454. Of railroads, see Railroads, §§ 163-169. Of street railroads, see Street Railroads, §§ 24-26.

Evidence.

Admissibility, §§ 8-11. Sufficiency, §§ 12-16.

CROSS-REFERENCES.

See, also, Monopolies.

Conspiracy to steal, see Larceny, §§ 23, 24. Evidence of acts and declarations of corporations, see Evidence, §§ 252-255.

Nature and right of action.

1. (1879.) Where journeyman tailors conspire to strike and return unfinished garments to their employer to his damage, the latter may maintain an action for a recovery thereof. Mapstrick v. Ramge, 9 Neb. 390 (2 N. W. 739; 31 Am. Rep. 415).

2. (1880.) A conviction for conspiracy to violate a law of the United States, under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, is not a conviction of a felony, but of a misdemeanor merely. Gandy v. State, 10 Neb. 243 (4 N. W. 1019).

3. (1901.) In an action for conspiracy, the damage, and not the wrongful confederation, is the gist of the action. Commer

cial Union Assurance Co. v. Shoemaker, 63 Neb. 173 (88 N. W. 156).

4. (1902.) An action for conspiracy whereby plaintiff was driven out of business as a lumber dealer, under section 11, chapter 91a, Compiled Statutes, is an action in tort. Cleland v. Anderson, 66 Neb. 276 (98 N. W. 1075).

Pleading.

5. (1879.) A petition setting out that a number of tailors employed by plaintiff conspired to stop work and return all work unfinished, and so did, states a cause of action. Mapstrick v. Ramge, 9 Neb. 390 (2 N. W. 739; 31 Am. St. Rep. 415).

6. (1889.) Petition in an action for conspiracy held to state a cause of action against the several defendants. Booker t. Puyear, 27 Neb. 346 (43 N. W. 133).

7. (1901.) To state a cause of action for conspiracy, it is necessary to allege not only

the confederation and conspiracy and doing of the wrongful act, but also the facts from which damages have resulted. Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Shoemaker, 63 Neb. 173 (88 N. W. 156).

Evidence.

Admissibility.

8. 1897.) In order to justify the admission in evidence, for the purpose of establishing an alleged conspiracy, of acts of individuals charged with the conspiracy, it is not necessary to first prove by other evidence the existence of the conspiracy. Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 (70 N. W. 231).

9. (1894.) Acts and declarations of conspirators which are parts of the res gestæ, and therefore admissible against their coconspirators, include those only which are done and made during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objects. Stratton v. Oldfield, 41 Neb. 702 (60 N. W. 82).

10. (1897.) Declarations made in pursuance of the object are admissible, but to be so they must not be merely narrative of past occurrences or statements of future purposes; they must tend so directly toward the accomplishment of the alleged common object as to constitute a part of the res gesta. Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 (70 N. W. 231).

11. (1897.) Evidence of acts or declarations of alleged conspirators may have a twofold purpose: First, the proof of the existence of the conspiracy; second, the conspiracy having been proved, to charge each member thereof with the consequence of such acts or declarations. For the first purpose the evidence is admissible generally as against all. For the second purpose it cannot be considered against those not participating in the acts or declarations, unless from all the evidence the existence of the conspiracy has been proved. Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 (70 N. W. 231).

Sufficiency.

12. (1889.) Evidence in an action for conspiracy held to sustain a verdict and

judgment for plaintiff. Booker v. Puyear, 27 Neb. 346 (43 N. W. 133).

13. (1889.) Although a petition charged a conspiracy on the part of the three defendants to defraud plaintiff, it is not necessary to his recovery that there should be actual evidence that the defendants conspired together, nor that any of the peculiar rules governing the trial of an indictment for criminal conspiracy prevail on the trial of the case at bar. Hence, if the jury believed that plaintiff was defrauded by one defendant who turned the property obtained over to the other defendants they might return their verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of his damages so sustained, though there might have been no proof that any two of the defendants actually conspired together for the purpose of perpetrating such wrong upon the plaintiff. Booker v. Puyear, 27 Neb. 346 (43 N. W. 133).

14. (1897.) A conspiracy, like other facts, may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and one means of proof is by showing overt acts of the individuals charged with conspiring. From the fact that different persons at different times by their acts pursue the same object, the jury may, in connection with other facts, infer the existence of a conspiracy to effect that object. Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 (70 N. W. 231).

15. (1903.) A conspiracy, like any other fact which is the subject of judicial investigation, may be proved inferentially or by circumstancial evidence. O'Brien v. State, 69 Neb. 691 (96 N. W. 619).

16. (1906.) Where several defendants are proceeded against as conspirators in the commission of a tort, which would be actionable if committed by one alone, a judgment against one or more of such defendants may be sustained without proof of a conspiracy among all of them. Harvey v. Harvey, 75 Neb. 557 (106 N. W. 660).

CONSTABLES.

See Sheriffs and Constables.

X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.

CROSS-REFERENCES.

Constitutionality of statutes relating to particular subjects, see specific topics. Effect of partial unconstitutionality of statute, see Statutes, §§ 83-100.

Special laws, see Statutes, §§ 101-124. Requirement that subject of statute be contained in title, see Statutes, §§ 125-202. Uniform operation of statutes, see Statutes, §§ 101-124.

Requirements as to taxes, see Taxation.

I. ESTABLISMENT AND AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION.

Adoption of state constitution.

1. (1872.) Territorial legislatures have not inherent power to make or submit constitutions. Whatever they may do in that direction is without authority and is done only by indulgence of congress. Brittle v. People, 2 Neb. 198.

2. (1872.) The question, whether a state constitution was regularly and legally adopted after the same has been acted upon, and the state government is, in fact, being administered under it, is a political rather than a judicial question. A court organized under a constitution would be felo de se if it should declare such constitution null for irregularity and illegality in its adoption. Brittle v. People, 2 Neb. 198.

3. (1872.) When a constitution has been adopted by the people of a territory preparatory to admission as a state, and congress prescribes certain changes and additions to be adopted by the legislature as part of the constitution, and such changes and additions are declared to be fundamental conditions of the additions of the state, and the legislature accepts such changes, additions, and conditions, and the state is thus admitted, they become thereby a part of the constitution, and binding as such, although not submitted to the people

for their approval. Brittle v. People, 2 Neb. 198.

Amendment of stato constitution.

4. (1885.) The votes necessary to adopt an amendment to the constitution under the provisions of section 1, article XV of the same must be a majority of all those cast in the state at that election for senators and representatives. State, ex rel. Stevenson, v. Babcock, 17 Neb. 188 (22 N. W. 372).

5. (1889.) A proposed amendment to the constitution possesses no efficacy until approved by a majority of the electors of the state voting at the election, and the approval of the governor is unnecessary, and adds nothing to the validity of such proposed amendments. In re Senate File 31, 25 Neb. 864 (41 N. W. 981).

6. (1889.) A proposition to amend the constitution was passed by the senate by the necessary three-fifths majority, and entered at length on the journal. The proposition was then amended by the house, and as amended was passed by that body by the requisite majority, and entered at length on the house journal. Afterwards the house amendments were concurred in by the requisite majority of the senate, and such amendments entered at length on the senate journal. Held, That there was a sufficient compliance with section 1, article XV of the constitution. In re Senate File 31,

25 Neb. 864 (41 N. W. 981).