St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-06
LUCAS LIEN LAW
Held by the Supreme Court to Be Consti-
tutional.
FAR-FAMED CROSSING CASE.
A Grist of Decisions Ground Out by the
Judges of the Highest
Court.

The famous Lucas lien law is consti-
tutional and valid. So the supreme
court of Minnesota held in an opinion
filed Yesterday in the case of The State
VS.. Robert Brachvogel. This law gives
labor the right to first lien and material
furnished second lien. The district
court of Iennepin county decided that
the law would not hold. but that decis-
ion is reversed. The syllabus follows:
The State of Minnesota, appellant, VS..
Robert Brachvogel, respondent.
Svllabus-Section 8, CHI. ITO, General
Laws 1887, makes it criminal offense
for contractor for any building, ETC.,
upon which there is right OF lien,
under that law. in favor of laborerS or
material men, to himself receive full
payment under his contract and neglect
to discharge his obligation to laborers
and material men, so that the latter shall
impose a lien upon the property OF the
owner. Held that the title of this act
was sufficient to Justify this enactment,
the act being entitled as one giving
labor the right of first lien and material
furnished a second lien on all property"
Order reversed. DICKINSON, j.
The supreme court filed another very
important decision yesterday in the case
of the state eX rel. the city of Minneap-
oils VS.. the Manitoba Railway company.
This is the famous street crossing case
which has been attracting so much at
tention in Minneapolis for the last year,
at least. 1t was brought to compel the
Minneapolis & st. Louis to accept GER
tain plans for the crossing approved by
the Manitoba and the city of Minneap-
oils. The lower court held that in case
the plans of the Minneapolis Il st. Louis
were adequate, suitable and appropriate
for such purpose the road cannot be
compelled to make any different ar
rangement. The supreme court yester-
day affirmed the decision by a majority
of the court. Judge Mitchell files dis
senting opinion, in which he claims
that the Minneapolis & st. Louis was
under the necessity of putting the cross
ing in as good shape as it found 1T, and
if it does not do this it ought to give
it up. The syllabus is as follows:
The State of Minnesota eA REL, The
City of Minneapolis, respondent, VS..
The st. Paul, Minneapolis q Mani
toba Railway Company, appellant.
SallabuS-Wherei in mandamuS pro-
ceedings to compel railway company
to II store a street crossing to suitable
and safety the court found that the
plan proposed by the relatOr was suita-
BILE, appropriate and adequate for such
purpose, and the return to this court
fails to disclose the evidence upon
which such finding is based, it will be
presumed that the evidence on which
the court acted was sufficient to justify
it's determination. Where the plan in
cludeS bridge over the contiguous
tracks of two railway companies it must
necessarily have reference to the
rights of each in accomplishing the gen.
eral purpose of the public accommoda-
ton and convenience, and neither can
be compelled to surrender its property
OF change its route further than is rea-
Sonably necessary for such purpose.
VANDERBURG, j.
Mitchell, j. files dissenting opinion.
OTHER SYLLABI.
BENJAMIN F. Nelson ct al, Nelson
Tenney & Co., appellants, VS.. Nels
Johnson, respondent.
Syllabus-The defendant upon selling
out his business and stock in trade
agreed with the plaintiff upon suffice MT
consideration not to engage in the same
business at the same place again, either
directly or indirectly for five years, and
stipulated large damages in case of
breach of the contract; held that such a
contract is not to be extended by con-
struction beyond the fair and natural
import of the language used,
and in this instance did not extend
to isolated acts, or occasional services in
good faith rendered for the accommoda-
ton of another's dealer by defendant,
nor to employment in some subordinate
capacity not affecting the management
of the business OF influencing custom,
but did prohibit him from engaging in
business with another, or in his name,
Or for him in any such capacity. whether
foreman, salesman or manager, which
would result in the mischief which it
was the plain purpose Of this agreement
to prevent.
Held upon the evidence in the case
that it was for the jury to determine
whether the defendant had so engaged
his services to rival dealer, or that
there had been any fraudulent evasion
of the contract by him. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, j.
Frank Evans, respondent, VS.. William
r. Miller and E. H. Phelps, partners
as Miller q Phelps, appellants.
SylldbuS-CaSe considered as showing
such part performance of an agreement
for the sale of land that specific per-
Torrance should be decreed. The de-
PENDANTS cannot complain that the
plaintiff, being still in possession, is
allowed to recover damages for the re-
fusal to convey, unless the defendant
should convey within specified time,
since he may satisfy the Judgment by
conveying as he should be required to
do. Order affirmed. DICKINSON, j.
State of Minnesota, Thos. Coleman
respondent, VS.. The st. Paul, Min
neapolis & Manitoba Railway Com
pany, appellant.
Syllabus-Wh the act of congress
of March 3, 1857, commonly known as
the land grant act, was passed the title
to the government sections 16 and 36,
within the territory of Minnesota, and
the right to dispose thereof, still re-
manned in the United States. Under
that act and the act of the legislative
assembly of the territory, passed May
%, 1857, the Minnesota q Pacific Rail
way company acquired right of way
over the even sections not disposed of
prior to the location of its lines, includ-
ing sections Ii and SO; SimSOnSon VS..
Thompson, % Mimi, 455.. When there
is no general verdict, but special find
ings only, all the material issues must
be passed upon to authorize the court to
order a Judgment in such case. Judg-
ment reversed. VANDERBURGH, j.