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

School Teachers and Trustees.
Judge VaHderburgh filed two de-
fisions in the supreme court yesterday.
The most important was that of John
IF. McGinnis, respondent. vs.. School
District No. 10 of LIE Sueur county,
Mimi, appellant. This action raised
The validity of a contract between a
teacher and the trustees of the school,
and was disposed of in the following
syllabus: Where a party to an action
refuses, after due notice. 10 produce a
writing in his possession which is re-
auired TO 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 in
controversy. The party Withholding
the writing will not afterwards be per-
United 10 introduce il as evidence in
his own behalf on his side OF the case.
\ contract made between 4 teacher and
the trustees OF school district, must,
under Gen. Stat. chap. So. sec. 81, be
III writing and signed by such teacher
and majority of the trustees. The
charge OF the court on this point eN-
amined, and held not inconsistent with
the statutory provisions when con-
sidered in connection with the testi-
mony in the case.
Charles Bryersdorf. respondent. VS..
A. l.. .Sump 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, IL 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 10 be by
the affiant 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 a Judgment in such action would
be bar to 4 judgment in the second
action: and il is not material
that the form of the two actions
NAV 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, III
trespasS de 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 wTongfully and fraud
ulently withheld from the owner, for
the purpose OF subiecting them to levy
under process to be issued, the wrong
doer will not be permitted 10 show the
application thereof in satisfaction of an
execution issued uDon 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
subsequently 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:
b In the matter of the will OF Martin
Eayman: jerome Layman ct al, re-
spoudentS, VS.. lizzie |. Haley, appel
liant Submitted on briefs.
Cigarmakers' Protective Union No.
9s, respondent, vs.. David L. Conhaim
,Gt AL, appellants. Submitted on briefs.
Albert II. Hill ct al, respondents, Us.
Emily l.. Gill ct al, appellants. Action
to dismiss denied. and cause continued.
A. l.. Clendenning vs.. Frederick Mel
son as justice of the peace. Certiorari
writ quaShed.