St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-11-22
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court,
DECISIONS.

| r. w. frsDee ana N. T.. frlsDee, partners,
etc, respondents, VS.. Horace Poole, 7. F.
GilfIlan, ct al, partners, etc, appellants.
Opinion of the court-The terms of the
mortgage are as follows: ''This mortgage is
given as collateral security TO the payment Of
certain book accounts according 20 the terms Of
certain contract bearing date here1oiA ex-
ecuted by the parties of the second part"
There is nothing on the face Of the mort
gage itself showing that it was to secure fu-
ture advances.
The court upon a substantial conflict Of
evidence on that point, finds AS q fault that
the contract referred 10 in the mortgage,
| (Which had been lost,) did not provide for
future advances TO the mortgagor.
This is conclusive that the mortgage does
| not secure future advances.
1t is therefore unnecessary to consider
any other questions.
Order affirmed.
! Robert Osborne VS.. the Knife Falls Boom
company and the st. Louis Boom and I'm
proYement company.
Syllabus: il is assumed in this case that
the st. Louis is a navigable river of the Uni
ted States, and as such protected by our con-
| gressional enabling act and by the constitu-
! ton and laws OF this state, which make rivers
! OF that character common highways and for
ever free as well 10 the inhabitants Of Mime
| sofa as to all other citizens of the United
States, without any tax, duty, impost or toll
therefor. 1t appears that the navigability of
the river in those parts OF it INSTRUCTED
by defendants works com planned
of by plaintiff and hereafter
mentioned is a mere h0atability for loose
logs SO that the practical questions presented
by the case relate solely 10 the rights of the
plaintiffs to the use of the river in those parts
far no rur n I.ld
that the act of the legislature, chapter LOG,
special laws 1872 as amended by chapter 73,
special laws 1873, which authorizes aud re-
QuiTes the Knife Falls Boom company within
certain limits 10 construct and maintain
booms in SAID river and 10 receive and take
the entire control of ali logs and lumber COM
ing within such limits, and boom, scale and
deliver them 10 the proper owners upon rea-
sonable request. Those required To be de-
liVered above Knife Falls To be delivered as
directed by the surveyor general. Those
required to be turned over Knife
Falls to be so turned over such
turning over being as TO them the only de-
livery required said act also authorizing
said company 10 charge and collect boomage
on the logs so turned over as well us on
those delivered above Knife Falls is valid
and not in violation OF our enabling ] act on
state constitution, Notwithstanding the
works of defendant erected and operated un-
der the act materially intefered with and in
terrupt the use of the river for floating ogs
therein over said falls aud seriously delay
the logs by those attempting aud desiring TO
use it in that way The trial court finds
that the capacity of defendants works con-
structed and operated under the act eau be
increased without unreasonable expulse so as
to reduce the delay, and interruption men
toned though as much OF more will always
depend upon the proper manning and oper-
ating Of the works as upon their con-
struction and capacity, held that if the
act under which defendants are pro-
ceeding though within the scope of legisla-
tive authority is imperfect or defective in de-
tails or for want of details, if it operates un-
fairly or allows excessive charges, further
legislation may be applied for and if the APP
plcation is reasonable, il is TO be pre- sumed
that II will be granted. Held further that If
defendants neglect or refuse 10 perform any
duty cast upon them by the act they may be
proceeded against for forfeiture of fran
chise, or if any one suffers special injury
from such misconduct he has his action for
damages but that none Of these grounds of
complaint entitled plaintiff to an injunction
against the maintenance and operation of
defendants works under the act aforesaid.
Judgment affirmed. BERRY, j.
Yesterdays SESSION.
AT yesterdays session all the justices we're
present but Chief Justice Gilfllan, and the
following business was transacted:
John II. Hail, respondent, VS.. James
Powers, appellant; argued by appellant and
submitted by respondent
North Star Iron Works company, respon-
dent, VS.. Martin Strong, ct al, and J. B.
Creneer, assignee, etc, Charles L. vance,,
appellant; argued and submitted.
a M