St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-12
INJURED ON RAILROADS.
Two Heavy Suits for Damages
Begun Yesterday---The Court
Grind

Begun Yesterday---The Court
Grind.
Joseph Raymond, by John S. San
born, his guardian ad litem, has sued
the st. Paul IL Duluth Railway COM
pany. On the line of the Duluth road,
complaint alleges, between Duluth and
Fond du Lac, is a gravel pit known as
Spirit Lake gravel pit, which through
neglect had become dangerous place
to pass. Raymond was a brakeman on
a gravel train in charge of William
Compan. On the morning OF July 5,
when the train was backing towards
the gravel pit, it collided with hand
car, the caOOOSe was derailed and
dragged down an embankment against
a barbed wire fence. Plairtiff was Sc
verely cut in the neck, left side, right
hip.back, arm and perin8um and a
number OF his ribs broken, the Sternum
fractured and pressed inward, spine
curved and otherwise hurt as to iniure
him him for life. He asks S25, 900 dam
ages. w. w. Erwin is Raymond's at
torney.
Louis Lundquist has sued the st.
Paul. Minneapolis 81 Manitoba Railway
company for $4,000 damages He alleges
he was helper in the employ of the
road, and that on the 25th day of Feb
Tuary he was by reason of carelessness
struck by a train and seriously injured
internally, and has ever since been un-
able to work. w. w. Erwin is his at
torney.
SUPREME COURT.
The following are Syllabi of cases de-
cided by the supreme court yesterday:
c. c. Sisco, appellant, VS.. William
Sparrow. RESPONDENT.
SyllabuS-The plaintiff, minor, was
employed by defendant and rendered
service for him upon his own account.
1t did not appear either from the plead
lngs or evidence that his father con-
tracted for or made any claim to his
wages, though he knew of his employ
ment. Held that plaintiff was entitled
TO recover.
EThiS action was for work and labor
performed by Schoonover, who is a
minor. Sparrow, his employer, claimed
that the boy was not entitled to his
wages. inasmuch as his father had
claimed them. Supreme court holds
that the only question of fact litigated
was the value of the services. The
Judgment of the district court was re-
versed and that of the justice affirmed.
Peter Rauen, respondent, VS.. John
Burg, appellant.
'oS lldouS-I IcdulilSS IN JuSJlce court
held sufficient. Judgment affirmed.
Per curtain.
Rudolp Minnemacker, responde Mt, VS..
Ole j. johnson, appellant.
Syllabus-Hypothetic statements or
admissions be made in an answer for
the purposes of special issue or sep
arate defense.
A payee in promissory note who
has agreed with the maker for valu-
able consideration to transfer such note
TO third person named by him cannot,
after full performance by the maker,
turn around and inforce the collection
thereof against him in violation of his
contract. Such executed agreement is
valid equitable defense both against
the payee and his assignee with notice.
The general denial in the answer in
this case, of all matters alleged touch
ing the transfer and ownership of the
note sued OH, held sufficient to put
in issue, the transfer thereof to plaintiff
and his title thereto. Judgment re-
Versed and case remanded for trial.
FANDERBURGH, j.
Yesterdays CASES.
The following cases were submitted
10 the supreme court yesterday:
Sadie Conway, respondent, VS.. NJ. D.