St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-11-10
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Grist from The Mills of Justice Running
Rapidly.
TRADE TALK UNSUITABLE.
Five Litigants DISPOSED Of According to
Law and the Evidence---Eailees Must
Not Question Judgments.

The judges of the supreme court are
turning out decisions at rapid rate, a
number being filed yesterday.
Peter Stollberg, appellant, VS.. A.
Brandenburg, respondent. is suit arts
ing out of the iliiterate spelling i'll a
mortgage deed. Judge Collins syllabus
reads as follows:
in an instrument fled as chattel
mortgage the description was as fol-
lows: All that certain personal prop
erty described as follows, to-wit: The
nw14 of nw4 of sw4 of nw4 of sec
ton II. township one hundred and thlr-
ty-four U34), north of range thirty
eight (3S). eightie 800 ackers in crop, 81
ackers in whead and (6) ackers DDS
all of said property etc. Other parts
of the instrument clearly indicated it
to be q mortgage upon personal prop
ertY. Held that such description must
be construed as covering crop of thir-
ty-three acres of wheat and six of oats,
growing when said mortgage was exc
cuted on the land described therein in
possession of the mortgagor. Held fur
Their, that said mortgage had, when duly
filed, general validity. Order reversed. i"
In the appeal, American Steam Boiler
Insurance company. respondent, VS.. "A.
II. Wilder, appellant, Judge Dickinson
rendered the following syllabus:
"When soliciting defendants insurance
plaintiffs agent asserted that the 'llfo
clause so-called, made part of the
policy furnished by his company. was
not contained in the policies issued 10y
a certain rival company, knowing SAID
assertion to be false. Said agent, how
ever, invited defendant to examine and
compare his proposed contract with
that of the other company, leaving his
blank form for that purpose. Suisse
quently defendant made application
for and was insured in plaintiffs com
pany. Held, that he could not refuse
to receive the policy and avoid his
agreement to pay the premiums there
for, because of said false statement"
In his opinion, Judge Dickinson says:
sit seems quite probable that by means
of the falSehood the plaintiff secured
an advantage, and obtained a risk to
which it had no moral right. But this
is net uncommon in business trans
actions, because rules of perfect NOR
ality are not regarded, nor could they
be enforced. The law cannot attempt
to rectify all WRONGS of this character.
and only interfereS when craft and cum
ming are carried too far. In this case
the agent was endeavoring to sell or
dispose of an insurance III his company;
was setting forth the advantages and
value of its contract as compared with
those of the other company. 1t should
have been expected that he would praise
and commend its good qualities. precisely
as would a seller OF goods. In fact. his
relations were of the class known III
commercial circles as trade talk" and
al, tf, xIrln IN
one has been induced to purchase goods
having equal means of information, and
being equal as we'll as qualified to
Judge ofthe value as the seller. The
BUYER. under such circumstances, is
without redress, for i is understood
that the sellers statements and com
mendations are to be received with great
allowance and diStrust.'
Charles p. HOcomb. as sheriff of
Washington county, respondent, VS..
G. n. Nelson Lumber Company, APP
Deilant.
In his appeal Judge Collins syllabus
is as follows: When sheriff rein-
quishes possession OF property which
has been seized and attached by him to
a bailee, and upon the strength of re-
ceipt for the same, the bailee or re-
ceiptor will not be permitted to ques-
ton Judgment obtained III the action
in which the property was SO seized and
attached, upon the. ground that the
judgment was secured by perjury and
fraudulent acts and practices. Judg-
ment affirmed.
Judge Collins reversed the order of
the trial court refusing a new trial in
the suit of Nellie DAILY, respondent, VS..
William Linnehan, appellant. Evidence
was held not to justify the order OF the
trial, court directing verdict for
plaintiff.
Burke Bros. & Simpson, respondents,
VS.. Theodore Cogswell, appellant.
Judgment affirmed by Judge Collins,
the testimony justifying the ten find
ings of fact and conclusions of law in
the court below.