Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-08-21
TIE COURTS,
Supreme Court Decisions,

Sylabi-The Minneapolis harvester works.
appellant.v vs.. Thomas Bonnallie, respondent:
Gelser Thre5hing machine company Va.
Farmer, u MINI. 428, followed to The effect
That In an action upon one of several notes
given for a chattel, the defendant alleging a
breach OF warranty may iDterpose a counter
claim Tor his entire Cause Of seton for dam.
ages growing out Of the alleged false war.
ranty.
Where the parties proceeded to trial upon an
answer which set up false warranty upon
sale OF a chattel and a counter claim for dam
ages, and also alleged a recision of the con-
tract, which was denied by the reply. The
court properly proceeded to hear the case up.
on the merits of the counter claim and with
drew from the jury the issue as to the reels
ion.
The correct rule OF damages upon recovery
for breach Of warranty In such case is the dit
ference between the lowest value of the prop
erty as represented and warranted and ats
actual value with interest. In the absence OF
other evidence the purchase price is prima
facie its value as warranted.
Order denying new trial affirmed.
FANDERBURGH, j.
Hugh Cochrane and Carson N. Cosgroye, re-
spondents VS.. Peter Quackenbush. Living
stone Quackenbush and Anthony P.Halsey
Livingstone Quackenbush) appellant.
Where several parties have suffered joint
injury caused by tbs Issuance OF an attsch-
ment in a civil suit sued out maliciously and
without probable cause, they may unite in an
action to recover their joint damages.
In such action special damages may be
alleged and proved for injuries to their joint
credit, business and property.
The gravamen is the injury caused by the
groundless and malicious issuance of legal
process, and where the complaint failed 10
Ill faJ 80 e 1ox
ment (Which affidavit was made part of the
complaint), but alleged that the writ was ls-
sued maliciously and without probable cause,
held sufficient as against general objection
fer ineufticiency made for the first time On
the trial. UpoE the trial OF this case evidence
was received of the disposition OF the partner
ship property subsequent to the vacation OF
the writ of attachmenI bya receiver appointed
in suit for dissolution OF the partnership,
also of the loss and shrinkage in the assets
on the receivers sale held improper and t 40
remote On the question OF damsges. Order
denying new trial reversed.
VANDERBURG, J.
Sarah Mills, George G. Richmond, James
d. Richmond, Cornelius j. Richmond, John
Richmond, Caroline Staples ct al. ,heirs at
law, respondents, Us. Z. W. Rohstock, ]. P.
Leitner, and John A. Gilman, managers of the
widows and orphans fund of the United
Ancient Order of Druids of The state of Min
nesota, appellants:
The constitution and bylaws Of "Mutual
Benefit association" organized to secure the
benefit OF life insurance TO the heirs OF de-
ceased members, on the death assessment
| plan, and which issues DO policies stand in
| the place of policy, and where such copsti-
tuition and laws contain no provision qualify
ing the right of recovery i'll case OF suicide,
the heirs of member are entitled 10 recover
| the amount stipulated, irrespective of the
| mode of his death.
Evidence in this case considered and held
| sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial
court that deceased member was sin good
standing" in the order at his death.
Order affirmed. VANDERBURGH, j.
Ferdinand Holtz, respondent, vs.. the Mime
apolis & st. Louis railway, appellants.
Evidence in this case held deficient TO sup
| port plaintiffs allegations, that the defend
| ant corporation was guilty of negligence in
failing to maintain and keep in repair its
fences previously built along its right of way
| through plaintiffs land. and that in conse-
quence plaintiffs cattle escaped upon the track
and were killed by defendants cars. Order
| affirmed by the court Justice Mitchell
absent). VANDERBURGH, j.
| John j. SchOrrege and VIM. Schorrege, sub
stituted by the court as plaintiff in place of
James Arnold, respondents, VS.. Bishop,
! Gordon & Co., H. Mccormick aud Leander
j. Mccormick, partners as Mccormick
Bros, appellants.
| An attorney employed TO enforce and collect
| Judgment for non re sident client will be
deemed vested by virtue of his employment
with reasonable discretion in the selection and
use OF ordinary means aud remedies necessary
for the accomplishment Of such object.
| He will be ansWerable to his client in dam
| ages for any abuse of his trust and the conse-
quence Of his negligence, Ignorance or indis-
| cretion. But where he simply adopts a rem
edy which the law provides or resorts to eX
Iedients or means to secure and collect the
| debt, his acts should not ordinarily be
permitted 10 prejudice public officers
and Others who are entitled to regard him rs
| the adviser and representative of his client
Where an attorney for foreign clients, plain
| tifls in the execution executed in their name
| and for them (but without express authority,
an instrument under seal indemnifying a sher-
! If against the claim of a third party to prop
erty in the possession of Judgment debtor,
levied by him, and which indemnity was nee
| essarily required in order to preserve and con-
time the levy in their behalf. Held first, that
| the seal being unnecessary to its validity the
instrument might stand and be valid as an
undertaking under the statute.
Second, that there being in this
case no reason 10 question the good
| faith of the attorney or the exercise of reason
able prudence and discretion on his part, it is
not considered that he transcribed the limits
of his implied authority in the premises.
Clark VS. Randall, 8 Wisconsin *135.
| Approved. Order affirmed.
! VANDERBURsH