St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-12-15
SUPREME COURT MATTERS.
Validity of Contracts Between
School Teachers and Trustees.

Judge VaRderburgh fled two de-
eisions in the Supreme court Yesterday.
The most important was that of John
i. McGinnis, respondent, VS.. School
District No. 10 of LIE Sueur county,
Mimi, appellant. This action raised
the validity of contract between a
Teacher and the trustees of the school,
and was disposed of in the following
syllabus: Where party to an action
refuses, after due notice, to produce
writing III his possession which is re-
qnired 10 be used as evidence by the
opposite party upon the trial. and
secondary evidence tending to establish
the contents thereof is introduced by
the latter, every reasonable intendment
and assumption will be against the
party who withholds the writing which
might definitely establish the matter III
controversy. The party Withholding
the writing will not afterwards be per-
United to introduce il as evidence in
his own behalf on his side of the case.
a contract made between teacher and
the trustees of school district, must.
under Gen. Stat, chap. SO, sec. 81, be
in writing and signed by such teacher
and majority OF the trustees. The
charge of the court on this point ex-
amined. and hel1 not inconsistent with
the statutory provisions when con-
SIdered in connection with the testi-
mony in the case.
Charles BryerSdOrf, respondent. VS..
A. l.. Stump and A. j. Mullen. appel
lantS, is explained in the syllabus: In
an action FOR damages for the malicious
issuance of an attachment against the
plaintiff in the attachment suit. it must
be alleged and shown that it was issued
maliciously and without probable cause.
But complaint which alleges that the
affidavit for an attachment made by the
party plaintiff in such suit was false in
every particular, and so known to be by
the at1iant at the time, is sufficient as
against general objection at the trial,
TO the admission of any evidence under
it. The pending Of former action for
the same cause and between the same
parties may be shown in abatement.
where judgment in such action would
be bar to judgment in the second
action: and it is not material
that the form of the two actions
may differ, or that there are additional
parties defendant i'll such former suit,
If each action is predicated upon sub
stantially the same facts as respects the
defendants named in both. Where. in
treSpaSS dc bonis against two defend
ants, both are found Jointly liable for a
portion of the goods, and one severally
Liable for the balance. the verdict may
be according To the facts as found.
Where goods are wrOngfully and fraud
uientiy withheld from the owner, for
the purpose of subiecting them to levy
under process to be issued, the wrong
doer will not be permitted TO show the
application thereof in satisfaction of an
execution issued upon judgment
!, against the owner. But where goods,
though detained without lawful author
ity, are subject to levy and are in good
faith and without fraud or collision
subsequent; levied on and sold under
process against the owner, that fact may
be shown in mitigation.
The routine of the court was as fol-
lows:
In the matter of the will of Martin
Layman: jerome Layman ct al. re-
spondents, vs.. lizzie 1. Haley, appel
liant Submitted on briefs.
9Cigarmakers' Protective Union No.
IS, respondent. VS.. David +. Contain
ct al, appellants. Submitted on briefs.
Albert IL. Hill ct al, respondents. VS..
Emily l.. Gill ct al, appellants. Action
to dismiss denied, and cause continued.
"A. T.. CleIdenning VS.. Frederick Mel
son as justice of the peace. Certi0fari
writ QuaShed.