St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-19
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
An Old Case Recalled and Set
...ResnonSihiIityf for Notes

All OdO OdSc hccdllcO anu StG-
neutrality-suspicious. for Notes.
There were three, decisions filed yes
terday in the supreme court:
Fred Haas ct al, appellants, VS.. Ida L..
Sackett ct al, respondents.
The order of the Hennepin court was
sustained in this appeal. The defend
ants were payeeS and holders of a
prOmissory note, upon which they de-
sired to raise money, and wrote their
names on the back, applying to the
plaintiffs to discount the paper. Upon
their request defendants left the note
to give them an. opportunity of ascer-
tanning the solvency of the makers.
either to discount the note or to return
it to the defendants. The defendants
brought suit against them to recover the
/ value of the note thus withheld, and
obtained judgment, which the plaintiffs
/ paid.
Judge Mitchell filed the following:
/ SyllabuS-Defendant were notliable
as indOrSerS. Payment of the judg-
ment invested plaintiffs with title to
the converted property as to the date of
the conversion, which was merely the
obligation of the makers of the note
without any contract of Endorsement
by defendants, no such contract ever
having been contaminated. Order
affirmed.
Anna j. BaZille, respondent, VS.. Will
liam T. Murray ct al, appellants.
This was an action to determine adj
verse claim to real property. The
plaintiff alleged that she was the owner
in fee simple. The defendants denied
PLAINTIFFS title and alleged title in them
selves, Upon the trial the evidence in
troduced to support defendants claim
of title consisted, first, OF a deed from
Coris Caraire lalSo plaintiffs remote
grantor) to defendant W. 2. Murray
and one Charles BaZille, dated Aug. %,
and recorded Aug. 25. 1887; and second
evidence tending to show adverse pos
session by defendant G. c. Murray, for
more than twenty years.
Judge Mitchell also filed the syllabus
in this case:
Syllabus-The present action. al
though different in form and i'll the pre-
else nature of the relief sought, is in
effect second action upon the same
claim, and involving the same issue
viz, the title to the premises, and there
fore the Judgment i'll the former action
is a finality upon the question of title,
not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat
plaintiffs claim, but also as to any
other admissible matter which might
have been offered fer that purpose. The
issue of title having been rendered by
the complainant, the defendants were
bound to interpose every matter of de-
Tense which they had, and failure
to do so was a waiver of it for
ever. The fact that by reason of
lapse. of time such judgment can no
longer be enforced by execution will
not affect its force as an eStopped. An
avowed entry for short time upon I'M
enclosed wild land to cut natura grass
upon part of it will not, of itself, work
disseizin of the owner and create adj
verse possession against him. The bur
den was upon defendants to prove not
only their adverse possession twenty
years ago. but the continuity of that
possession for the full period necessary
under the statutes. The order is af-
frned.