St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-12-25
CONTRACTORS WILL NOTE.
Important Ruling ON Contracts in the
Supreme Court.
SIX SPANKING DECISIONS
The Wearers OF the Ermine Decide
=! Many Fine and Knotty
POin.s.

Six decisions were yesterday filed in
the supreme court:
St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway COM
pany, respondent VS.. George B. Bradbury
ct o., appellants. Order affirmed. -.
MITCHELL. j.
the construction of certain buildings
had annexed to it the plans and speciti-
cations of the buildings, and also estl-
mates by plaintiffs engineers OF the
amount of material required to construct
them; but also stated that the quanti-
ties and amounts given In these eSti-
mates must be verified by the proposer
by the aid of the plans, as the plaintiff
would not be responsible for anv error
resulting from their use. A prOpoSer,
without verifying these estimates. but
supposing them to be correct, put ii a
bid and made contract to furnish
the material and erect the build
ingS according to the plans
Tor gross sum. Held, that
the fact that it required more material
to construct the buildings than the 'es-
tiniateS annexed to the notice did not
entitle him to an allowance beyond the
contract price. The contract conSti-
tuted the plaintiffs chief engineer sole
umpire to decide the amount aild guam
tity. character and kind of work per
formed and material furnished under
the contract, and stipulated that his de-
distOn should be final and conclusive
upon both parties-I1eld that his decis-
ion. i'm the absence of fraud or such
gross mistake as would imply bad faith
or failure to exercise an honest Judg-
,nent, is conclusive. 1t will be pre-
suIiled, in the absence of anything to
the contrary, that the parties voluE-
tarily consented to try all issues COW
cred by the findings of the court, al
though not written in the pleadings.
Duluth Chamber Of Commerce. respondent,
VS.. Joseph E. Knowlton ct al. appellants.
Order affirmed. MITCHELL, j.
The payment Of part of debt or
demand will in no case discharge the
whole without a release of the residue.
To constitute an accord and satisfaction
the payment must have been accepted
as such. The mere retention by the
creditor of money to which be is en-
titled absolutely, will not amount to an
accord and satisfaction, although ten
dered or transmitted to him as payment
i'm full of the demand. If, when the
evidence on both sides is closed. plain
tiff is entitled as matter of law to a
verdict, the proper practice is tore
quest the court to direct verdict In his
favor; but to render Judgment instead
of directing a verdict, is at most All IT.
regularity without prejudice, and no
ground for new trial. at -
Minneapolis & Northern Elevator Company,
appellant VS.. Emit Betcher, respondent.
Order reversed. MITCHELL, J.
In the case Of a pledge. In the alb
sence of an express contract making it
the duty of the pledgee. is to exercise
ordinary care. and he is liable only for
neglect Of such care. The pledger can
not make it the duty of the pieftgee to
sell merely by requesting or directing
him so to do after the contract of ptedg-
ing has been made; following Cooper
VS.. Simpson, 42 N. w. Rep.
A. Lux ct al, respondents, VS.. Hans o. Pc
terson, ct al, appellants. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. J.
Rosa Walter, respondent, VS.. Odd Fellows
Mutual Benefit Society. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL. j.
In re estate of Charles Mossean, Paul Mos
sean, petitioner, respondent VS.. Bernard
Mossean ct al. appellants. Judgment at
frned. MITCHELL, j.