St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-15
SAINT PAUL.
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI.
Chief Justice Gillian Settles Number
of Appeals.
A MILL CITY ORDINANCE.
Value Of Personal Property Imnaterial
If 1t Was Not Offered for Sale---
Agreement to Sell Real Estate.


terday in the supreme court.
State of Minnesota, respondent, vs..
Mary hammond, appellant.
The charter of the city of Minneap-
oils provides, "that the city council
shall have full power and authority to
make, order, publish, inforce, after,
amend or repeal all such ordinances for
the government and good order OF the
city, for the suppression of vice and IN
Temperance and for the prevention OF
crime as it shall deem eXpedient =
and for this purpose the said city ceun-
Gil shall have authority by such ordln-
ances Il to prevent open or motor
ious drunkenness and obscenlty IN the
streets or public places or SAID city"
The council passed an ordinance I'M
posing penalty upon any person who
commits an actof lewdneSS or indecency
within the limits of Minneapolis, and
under this law Mary Hammond was con-
victed and sentenced in the municipal
court. She appealed. Chief Justice
Gillian, in the opiuion filed, says:
"In respect to preventing and punish
ing lewdness, indecency or obscenity,
the specification above quoted. and 1t is
the only one including that subject,
refers only to acts or conduct on the
streets or public places of the city, only
to such as may affect the public peace.
decency and good order, and does not
authorize punishment for private COLI
duct, however reprehensible it may be
in the matter of morals. The ordl-
nance exceeds the power and is there
fore void"
Syllabus: That part of section 4 Of
ordinance 5, of the city of Minneapolis,
which imposes penalty upon any per-
son who commits any act of lewdness
or indecencv within the limits of said
city is void, because it is i'll excess OF
the power vested in the city council;
judgment reversed.
The Village of Glencoe, respondent, VS..
Board of County Commissioners OF
Mcleod County, appellant.
The claim in this was that action was
barred by the statute of limitations.
The order of the lower court was re-
Versed.
Syllabus: Where one wrongfully re-
ceives the money of another, cause of
action to recover it accrueS to the latter
without any demand. Applied to case
where village authorities paid into the
county treasury money of the village
upon an agreement with the county
commissioners is void, because the latter
had no power to make it. Order re-
Versed.
In the assignment of the Church &
Graves Manufacturing Company.
Feb ID, 1888, this company executed
an assignment of all its property for the
benefit of its creditors. Dec. 9, 1857, the
Mile Laos Lumber company recovered
in the district court of Hennepin county
a Judgment for large sum against the
assigning corporation. After the filing
of the assignment execution was issued,
and Feb. p, 1885, levied upon real estate
belonging to the judgment debtor at the
time of the assignment. April 16, 1883,
the district court made an order diSsolv-
ing the the levy OF said execution, di-
recting the execution to be returned.
the levy to be released and stopping
further proceedings until the estate was
closed. From this order the Mile Laos
Lumber company appealed to the SUI
preme court, which reversed the order.
Syllabus-Held that the assignment
did not affect the Judgment nor it's lien
on real estate. Also, that the only way
in which the assignee may avoid the
Judgment or lien is by action under sec
tion of the chapter. Also, that as the
chapter contains no provision under
which the assignee or receiver may sell
the property free from membranes
and distribute the proceeds to those en-
titled, first to lienholderS, according to
their priorities, and then to the general
creditors, nor any whereby the lien
holder may foreclose his lien in the in
ventory proceeding, he may. unless
his lien is impeached, as provided in
section 4. proceed and enforce his lien
common law assignment. Order re-
yersed.
Ann Burke, appellant. VS.. James D.
Ray ct al, respondents.
Syllabus-Specific performance of an
oral agreement to convey land can not
be decreed on finding of fact that the
trial court is unable to determine from
the evidence what the terms of the
agreement are. A written receipt, eX-
cept so far as it may include contract,
may be contradicted or explained by
parOl. Judgment affirmed.
Pascal Static, respondent, VS.. Frank
Lemke, appellant; John Schwickert.
respondent. VS.. Henry Bruecker, John
SaurWein and Frank Lemke, appel
lantS.
Syllabus-In an action upon joint
and several obligation all or any one or
more of the parties liable may be made
defendant. In an action ON bond eX-
ecuted and filed under section 5,
chapter so, General Statutes, 1878,
it is immaterial what interest the NOM
inal obligee has, or that he has or has
not any interest in the land on which
the building is to be constructed, if he
be the person who as owner has con-
tracted to have the building constructed.
The rights of the real obligee in such
bond, to-wit: Those furnishing labor or
material against the SuretieS cannot be
affected by any agreement or act of the
principal obligor and nominal Obligee.
An extension of the time for compiet-
ing the building does not affect the OBJ
legation of the sureties. Judgment
affirmed.
George L. D. Weymouth, appellant. VS..
o. c. Tregg ct AL, respondents.
Syllabus-FactS considered and held
not to justify an order opening judg-
ment reversed on defaulO and allowing
All answer on the ground that the judg-
ment was recovered through the de-
PENDANTS mistake, inadvertence or eX-
cuSable neglect; order reversed.
Ann Burke, appellant, VS.. James D.
Roy ct al, respondents.
SyllabuS-Specific performance of an
oral agreement to convey lands cannot
be decreed on a finding of fact that the
trial court is unable to determine from
the evidence what the terms of the
agreement are. A written receipt, ex-
cept SO far as it may include a contract,
may be contradicted or explained by
parol. Judgment affirmed.
Michael Doran. appellant, VS.. Samuel
). Eaton ct al, respondents,
of personal property, evidence that it
has no market value, where it does not
appear that such property was ever Of
fered for sale, is immaterial. Opinions