St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-12-01
HANDED DOWN BY JUDGES.
Decisions Filed in Appeals to the SD
preme Court.
KNIVES ARE WEAPONS.
Clearing Away Clouds From a Title---
Parol Evidence In admis sible Against
a Written Agreement.

appeals were disposed OF, Chief Justice
| Gilillan filing all the decisions.
Eustis J. ingalls,, appellant, VS.. ST.
Paul, Minneapolis q Manitoba Rail
way Company, respondents.
Action for converting a dwelling
house claimed by plaintiff to be per-
| sonal property to him and by defendant
| to be part of real estate belonging to it.
| The case. as it is presented here, must
| turn on the decision of the question
whether it was personal property or
| was part of the realty. or rather, whether
| there was evidence from which the jury
might find it personal property. On
! the evidence the court below directed
verdict for the defendant, and the YER
| di was SO rendered.
Syllabus-One who ereets building
| on land Of another by his license, If the
! consideration Of the case be uninftu-
| enced by Iaches of the former, or other
special circumstances, is regarded to be
the owner of the building, and entitled
| to remove it, if it be practicable, and
works no injury to the land. And i'll
such case. on revocation of the license
| to occupy the land with the building.
| he is entitled to reasonable Opp0r-
tunity to remove it. Order reversed.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS..
Joseph A. Hem, appellant.
Indictmentfor assault in the second de-
gree, with weapon, to vita knife. "lt
is objected that as knife is not neces-
sarily weapon likely to do grieyouS
bodily harm, but may or may not be 50,
this knife ought to be more particularly
described in the Indictment, SO that
from the description it may be seen
whether it was such q weapon or lnStru-
ment OF not.
Syllabus An Indictment for assault
with weapon or thing likely to do
grevous bodily harm, describing the in
strument as "a weapon. to wit, a knife;
the said knife being then and there
weapon and instrument likely to pro
duce grievous bodily harm,' is suffi-
cient. On the trial threats made few
hours before the alleged assault to COM
nit it may be proved.
First National Bank of Glencoe, ap-
pellant, VS.. E. B. Lincoln ct al, re-
SpondentS.
Action on joint and several bond. 1t
was tried before referee. who di-
rected Judgment against all the defend
ants for S3.017.46. Defendants moved
for a new trial, and the district court
made an order granting the motion. ull-
less the plaintiff should, within thirty
days after notice, elect to take Judg-
ment against the defendants, E. S. Lin
coin. Isaac Lincoln, Jr., and L.W. Les
ter, for S2.Sl4.G3, and against the de-
PENDANT Howe for s2S0.50.. Plaintiff APP
pealed to the supreme court. where the
order was directed to be modified by
changing the sum of s2,S14.63 to
S5,U16 10. On the cause being remanded
to the district court the plaintiff elected
to take judgment against E. b. Lincoln,
|. Lincoln, Jr., and l.. w. Lester, and
it was so entered. Plaintiff then moved 1
the court for a new trial as to defend
ant Howe, and this motion was denied.
Syllabus-An order, on a motion by
defendant for a new trial, directed a
new trial Tor 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 three. as speci-
fed in it, and have new trial as to the
other. Order affirmed.
Judges Vanderburgh and Mitchell
filed a dissenting opinion: 1.-The de-
PENDANTS were each severally liable on
the bond in suit. Plaintiff might have
commenced his action against all OF
any one of them. Howe answered
Separately, raising different issues
from those made by the other defend
ants.
Robert Taylor, respondent. VS.. Tennis
s. Slingeriand, appellant.
Appeal from Judgment in an action
to cancel certain tax sale certificates
and tax deeds, as clouds upon plaintiffs
title. The findings indicate that the
action was tried as an action in which
the provisions of what is called the
occupying claimants law are applica-
bic, to wit: an action to test. the
validity of the title :and the parties con-
ceded on the agreement here, that it
was so tried by agreement of parties.
The Judgment awards possession of the
land to plaintiff 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 and for taxes, which
sums It adjudges to be liens.
Syllabus-The holder of the states
lien On zeal estate for taxes, acquired
by purchase of the real estate at a void
tax sale. cannot, independent of the
occupying claimants law. defend his
possession of the real estate upon the
lien, even though he enter with the ac-
quieScence of the owner. His rights
are not like those of mortgage in
possession. Under the occupying
claimants law, chap. rs, General
Statutes 1878, see. 10, the interest to be
allowed for taxes so satisfied is seven
per cent per. annum. The sum which
the judgment in favor of the owner re-
quireS him to pay the occupant under
section II, as condition to the issuing
execution, does not bear interest.
Judgment affirmed.
The Mccormick Harvesting Machine
Company, appellant, VS.. Hill Ii. Will
son, respondent.
Syllabus-To enable any one to re-
cover as upon an account Stated'' he
must declare upon it as such. If in his !
pleading he rely upon the original
transactions or the items included in
the account, they are open TO proofs by
the other party. When written con-
tract is made and delivered, and moth
ing remains to complete its execution,
parol evidence is inadmissible to prove
an understanding that it shall not be
operative according to its terms. Order
reversed.
National Albany Exchange Bank, APP
pellant, VS.. W. ID. Cargill ct al, re-
spondents.
Appeal from an order denying plant
ifs motion to strike out the answer as
sham, and for Judgment, notWithstand-
ing the same, as for want of answer.
The answer consisted of denials. Re-
SpondentS insist that the order is not
apDealabIe.