St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-12-23
BERRY, J.

Elizabeth d. Smith. Carrie I. Fitch and Els
B. Dixon, respondents, vs.. Malcom An.
derson, appellant
syllabus-Under chapter IS, laws 1870,
Te-enacted in chapter 81, laws 1873, e. s.
1 ISIS, chapter 40, BID, deeds Of lands in
counties established but not generally organ
lied. were properly recorded aud recordabl.
in the counties % which said counties were
attached for judicial purposes.
Under this statute a record IN 1869 IN
Meeker county Of lands IN Ksn6;yo5i counts
/ Is coed, chapter 80, special laws 1859, cid
not have the effect to organize KanGiyctl
county generally.
Judgment Is affirmed. BERRY J.
Frank A. Berry, appellant, VS.. Philip o'Cou-
nor, respondent.
Syllsbus-A mortgage may pro2eriy &c
made TO secure future advances aud hence
II is not on that account fraudulent as s
matter Of law as respects the morteagors
creditors.
Our insolTeni Law (chspter 14S, laws 1881
does not render preferential mortgages.
FRAUDULENT or void, as respects the mortgasors
and creditors, except in proceedings IN
der IL
The fact that mortgage IS given 10 secure
larger sum than is actually due from the
morigagor TO the mortgage or that lis cou-
dillon fails to describe The real character OF
the Indebtedness or liability intended TO be
secured does not necessarily render the
mortgage fraudulent as respects the mort
gagor's creditors.
Order yaczting attachment confirmed.
BERRY. J.
State Of Minnesota, respondent, vs. William
Johnson, indicted as William Smith, ap-
pellant
Syliabus-The possession Of stolen property
by the defendant shortly after the theft; con
nictiug and unreasonable accounts by him
as TO his acquisition Of Il; an attempt by him
to dispose OF the property to pawnbroker,
and his fleeing, leaving the property undis-
posed of In the hands of the pawnbroker,
when led - suspect that his arrest was con-
tempiated, constitute sufficient evidence that
the defendant committed the larceny 10 war
rant conviction. The further facts appear
ing that the larceny was committed in a
dwelling house. in the night time; that the
defendant was not an inmate of the house,
and at the time. OF the closing Of the house
at night had not been In IL, the proof Is suf-
hcient TO convict the defendant Of entering
the house iu the night time with the intent
TO commit the crime OF larceny.
Order afir6ed. Dickinson, j.
The State OF Minnesota, plaintiff, VS.. John
Sweeney, defendant
Syliabus-Stste vs.. Cotton, 90 Minnesota
Isl, followedGs to the poiut that a prosecu-
ton under 81 ctions Go, CO. chapter 10, gen
eral statutef 1873. for obsiruciiug public
highway is chRinal action aud that where
1t is Instituted bffIre justice Of the peace,
be has jurisdiction TO try and determine il
unless the title % real estate is involved.
Any further Proceedings before the justice
after the title 70 real estate appears 70 be in
yolyed should be had under section 100,
chafter 65, general statutes, 1878.
As 10 this latter point State VS.. CottUn is
overruled. BERRY. j.
Z. w Shuts, appellant, vs.. F. Z. Latham,
respondent.
Syllabus-The summons by which section
o, chapter IS, special laws 1888, requires civil
actions for the recovery Of money only TO be
commenced In the municipal court Of Min
neafolis, must be served In HennepIn
county.
Order affirmed. BERRY, J.