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

Elizabeth D. Smith. Carrie L. Fitch and Els
B. Dixon, respondents, VS.. Malcolm An
derEon, appellant.
Syllabus-Under chapter So, laws 1870,
Te-enscted in chapter 81, laws 1873, Or. S.
1878. chapter 40, 21D, deeds Of lands In
counties established but not generally organ
lied, were properly recorded aud recordable
in the counties 10 which said counties were
attached for judicial purposes.
Under this statute a record in 1869 10
MeekeF county Of lands in Ksnd;yoSi county
is good, chapter 80, special laws 1869, cid
not haEe the effect TO organize KAadiyobi
county generally.
Judgment Is affirmed. BERRY J..
Frank A. Berry, appellant, vs.. Philip o'con-
nor, respondent.
Syllsbus-A mortgage may properly be
made TO secure future advances and hence
il is not on that account fraudulent as &
matter OF law as respects the mortgagors
creditors.
Our insolvent law (chaF;er 14s, laws 1881
does not render preferential mortgages.
FRAUDULENT or void, as respects the mortgaeOrs
and creditors, except in proceedings IN
der IL.
The fact that 4 mortgage IS given to secure
larger sum than is actually due from the
morigagor TO the mortgage or that IFS con
dition fails to describe the real character Of
the Indebtedness or liability intended 70 be
secured does not necessarily render the
mortgage fraudulent as respects the mort
gAgor's creditors.
Order yaeating attachment confirmed.
BERRY, J.
Slate 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
hicting aud unreasonable accounts BY him
as 10 his acquisition OF a.; an attempt By him
10 dispose OF the property 70 a pawnbroker.
aud hts fleeing, leaving the property uudis-
posed Of in the hands OF the paWubrokrr,
when led 10 suspect that his arrest was con-
tempiated, constitute sufficient evidence that
the defendant committed the larceny to war
rant conviction. The further facts appear
ing that the larceny was committed in a
dwelling house. in the night time; that the
defendant wss not an inmate of the house,
and at the time OF the closing or the house
at night had not been in Il, the proof Is suf-
hcient 10 convict the defendant of entering
the house 10 the night time with the intent
10 commit the crime Of larceny
NiNSi ann '"Su- D4ShiNSON, D.
The State Of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs.. John
Sweeney, defendant.
Syllabus-State VS.. Cotton, 90 Minnesota
lS7, followed as to the po:ut that prosecu-
ton under sections IS, G6. chapter 10, gen
eral statutes, 1878, for ohsiructing a public
highway is n criminal action aud tina. where
It is instituted before justice Of the peace,
he has jurisdiction 10 try and determine il
unless the title to real estate is involved.
ANY further proceedings before the justice
after the title to real estate appears TO be in
volved should be had under section I69.
CHAPTER 65, general statutes, 1878.
AS TO this latter point State VS.. CottUn is
overrllled. BERRY. J.
c. W Shuts, appellant, VS.. F. Z Latham,
respondent.
Syllahns-The summons by which section
8, chapters As, special laws 1883, requires civil
actions for the recovery Of money only TO be
commenced ia the municipal court OF Min
neaPolis, must be served in Henuepin
county.
Order affirmed. BERRr. ],