St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-02-12
SUPREME COURT SETTINGS
Arbitrat0rs' Awards Not to Be Set
Aside.
A HOMEsTEADER'S RIGHTS.
Interference Will Not Be Tolerated With
:. the Acts of an Executive Officer
Five Cases Settled.

j There were five decisions filed yester-
day in the supreme court. The opinions
were signed by Chief Justice Gilfillan,,
and synopsis of each case is as fol-
lows:
T. p. J.. Goddard ct al. appellants, VS..
James King, respondent.
Sept. %, 1881, plaintiffs leased to the
defendant certain land in the city of st.
Paul for the term of forty years from
that date, at yearly rent of $1,000 for
the first five years; for the second and
each succeeding period of five years Gf
the parties should not be able to agree
on the yearly rent it was agreed that it
should be fixed by two referees, one to
be chosen by each of the parties, and if
the two referees could not agree they
were to choose third, and the award of
any two of the three referees was to be
binding. To fix the amount of rent the
referees should first appraise the value
of the premises, exclusive of improve
ments made by defendant, and should
take 5 per cent of such appraised value
as the yearly rent of the premises for
the ensuing five years. The first period
of five years having expired, the parties
.
being unable to agree concerning the
rent, selected third. and two of the
referees made an award (the other re-
fuSing to sign it1, in which they APP
praised the value of the property at
$30,0U0 and fixed the rent at S1,500 per
year for the second five years. The ac
ton is to set aside the award.
SyllabuS-Where in a lease of real
estate the yearly rent was to be per
cent upon the value of the real estate
as appraised by referees chosen by the
parties, great difference between the
value appraised and the value as found
by court or Jury is not, of itself, a
reason for setting aside the approval.
That all award of arbitrator upon a
common law arbitration is clearly
wrong, while it may be evidence emit
tied to greater or less weight, according
to the extent and effect of the apparent
error and the other circumstances of
the case in support of the charge of
fraud or partiality on the part of the
arbltrators, is not conclusive evidence
of it. If upon such an arbitration the
arbitrators decide the matter honestly
and fairly according to their judgments,
the award will not be set aside because
they decided the facts enormously or
were mistaken in the law they applied
to them, or decided on an erroneous
theory. Order affirmed.
In re the Estate of John V. Bailitf, de-
ceased, Florence A. Bailiff. appellant.
An action involving the application
of the term homestead. In Sept. 1879,
John Victor aud Florence Bailiff were
married and moved into a house in
Minneapolis. which belonged to Victor.
In June, 1851, they went to the wife'S
home in Bloomington, Hennepin county,
and after remaining there three months,
returned to Minneapolis where they
rented rooms until Victor died, June
80. 1882. During their absence from
their first residence it was rented from
month to month. and they never owned
any other homestead. No notice claim
ing the homestead was ever filed with
the register of deeds, but at the time of
VictOr'S death they were preparing to
move back into the house. The queS-
ton was raised was the house and lot a
homestead? Judge Gilfillan holds that
it was not, and the widow loses the
property. In the opinion, he says: 1t
may be defect in the law that the sur
vlving husband or wife may lose the
right intended by section 2, chapter "A,
General Statutes 1879 through the mere
lifetime, to file the notice required to
preserve the homestead beyond the six
months. But if so, the remedy is with
the legislature.
Syllabus-When homestead right
has been lost by removal and failure to
file the notice required by section 9,
chapter 81. General Statutes of 1878, the
premises do not pass to the surviving
husband or wife under section 2, chap
ter 46, same statute. Order affirmed.
The order of the district court of
Ramsey county was affirmed in the
mandamus case against State Auditor
Braden. This was an action to compel
the auditor to issue a permit to M. u.
Tuttle to cut the Stumpage on certain
swamp lands which had been given to
Martin Gillespie. of Saltwater, but by a
mistake was included in the Stumpage
sale Of 1888.
Syllahus-Rule that courts can not
interfere with an executive officer OF
the state in his official acts, even though
they are such that the duty to perform
them might have been entrusted to
some other officer. followed. Order af-
firmed.
S. l.. Knappen ct al, appellants. VS..
IctcE L . ioNCiiSOli, do oucilit, lospoHu-
emf.
Sylabus-The rule stated in Hicks
VS.. Stone, Is Mimi, 434, as to an order
granting new trial for insuffic iency of
the evidence, unless the evidt nee is
manifestly and palpably in favor of the
verdict. applies, although the trial was
by the court without a jury. Order
affir med.
James Carroll, appellant, VS.. Wisconsin
Central Company. respondent.
Syllabus-No action lies against a
railroad company for the inconvenience
necessarily caused the premises in the
vicinity by noises, smoke, Earring of the
ground. etc, arising from properly and
prudently operating its railroad upon
its own lands or upon land in which the
party complaining has interest. Order
affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT DIGEST.
Chnnoh