The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1888-12-07
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

The supreme court by Chief Justice
Gilfillan handed down number of de-
cislons Friday, the first one being
that of Curtis j. Ingalls,, appellant, VS..
the Manitoba road, respondent and re-
lates to the legal status of building on
another's land. The action is one of
conversion of a dwelling house claimed
bv plaintiff to be personal property to
him, and by defendant to be part of real
estate belonging to it. The question is
whether it is personal property or part
of the realty.
The court below, on the evidence, di-
rected a verdict for the defendant. The
supreme court reverses this order and
says in the syllabus:
lone who erects building on land of
another by his license, if the considera-
ton of the case be unintluenced by
laches of The former, or other special
circumstances, is regarded to be the
owner of the building and entitled to re-
move II if it be practicable, and works
no serious injury to the land; And in
such case, on revocation of the license
to occupy the land with the building, he
is entitled TO a reasonable opportunity
to remove it, Order reversed"
Judgment is affirmed in the case of
Robert Taylor, respondent, VS.. Tennis S..
Slingerland, appellant. the action was
tried as an action in which the provi-
sions of what is called the occupying
land, and the parties conceded on the
argument here that it was so tried by
agreement of parties. The judgment
awards possession Of the land to plain
tiff on condition that within year he
pay into court for the use of defendant
the aggregate of certain sums paid by
defendant, or those to whose rights he
has succeeded, upon the sales for taxes,
which sums it adjudges to be liens. In
its syllabus the court says:
1.-The holder of the states lien on real
estate for taxes acquired by purchase of
the real estate at a void tax sale, cannot
independent of the occupying claim
ants" law defends his possession of the
real estate upon the hen, even though
he enter with the acquiesence of the
owner, His rights are not those of a
MORTGAGE in possession. Under the
occupying claimants law, chapter rs,
General Statutes S7S, section Is, the in
terest to be allowed SO satisfied is per
cent. per annum. The sum which the
Judgment in favor of the owner requires
him to pay the occupant under section
IL as a condition of execution, does not
bear interest. Judgment affirmed"
The court disposes very briefly of the
case of the State of Minnesota, respond
ent, vs. Joseph A. HEM, appellant.
It says in the syllabus: Gan Indict-
ment for an assault with a weapon, or
thing likely to do grevious bodily harm,
describing the instrument as a weapon,
to-wit, a knife, the said knife being then
and there a weapon and instrument like
ly 10 produce grevlous bodily
harm,' is sufficient. On the trial, threats
made a few hours before the alleged as
sault, to commit it may be proved. Or
der affirmed"
The court disagrees in the case of the
First National Bank of Glencoe, appel
liant, vs.. +. B. Lincoln, ct al, respond
ents. The chief justice affirms the opin-
ion of the court below, while justice Mil
Ter and Vanderburgh dissent. 1t was an
action on Joint and several bond, tried
before a referee, who directed judgment
against all the defendants for $3,0l7 .46.
The syllabus says.
"An order on a motion by defendant
for a new trial, directed q new trial of
the action, unless plaintiff should elect
to take Judgment against three of the
defendants for a specified sum and
against another of them for a specified
part of that sum. Held that plaintiff
could not under the order take judgment
against the three as specified in it and
have a new trial as to the other. Order
affirmed"