St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-07
THE SUPREME COURT
Hands Down Its legal Construc-
tions-Five Decisions and a Lit
tie Routine.

tie Routine.
Five decisions were yesterday filed in
the supreme court. They are:
The order of the lower court is af-
firmed in the case, Josiah Fairchild ct
a., respondents, VS.. William Marshall.
appellant. The respondents brought
this action to compel the appellant TO
| specifically perform his contract with
them for the purchase Of certain real
estate. Defendant resisted upon the
| ground that plaintiffs were unable to
| convey good and marketable title to
| the property. The points decided on by
| the supreme court are:
a. The acceptance by widow Of the
| provisions made for her In her husband
VIII constitutes bar to her claim Of dover
--so-called--in lands conveyed by him, dur
ing coyertnre, by deed of warranty in which
the wife did not join; such claim of dover
| appearing to be inconsistent with the pro-
visions of the will. ca The appellant en-
tered into contract with the respondents
Tor 1.-The purchase OF certain tract OF land
and then refused to perform upon the ground
that the title was doubtful and unmarked
able. The respondents tito was derived
through mesne conveyance from one W..
VINO mad conveyed by deed containing full
covenants OF warranty during eoyerture. His
wife did not join In this deed, has never con-
veyed her interest in the land, is still living
and is tho widow whose rights were involved
IN the case OF Washburn vs. Van Steenwyk,
~ Mimi, 1886. Held that In view of the de-
cision in that case and Of what this court re-
CARDS as a conclusive line OF authorities in
this country supporting the rule stated in the
llrst paragraph of this syllabus, the respon-
dents title to said tract of land was and is
not doubtful or unmarketable. Opinion by
Judge Collins.
The order of the trial court Is reversed
in the case: Logan Nj. Bullitt. appel
liant, VS.. Frank w. Farrar, respondent.
This was an action to recover damages
for deceit in the sale Of city lot. The
findings of the appellate court are:
% If one makes an untrue representation
as OF his own knowledge, not knowing
whether 1t Is true or false 1t is fraud. An
unqualified affirmation amounts to all atir-
nation as of ones own knowledge. ~ A
charge Of fraudulent intent in an action for
deceit may be maintained by proof of q
statement made as of the party s own knOwl-
edge. which is false; provided the thing
stated is not merely matter OF opinion. estI-
mate or Judgment, but is susceptible OF actual
knowledge. and in such case it Is not neces-
sary to make proof of an actual intent to de-
ceive. 3D. 1t is immaterial whether such
statements are made innocently or know
lngly. 1t is as fraudulent to affirm the exist
ence of fact about which one is in entire
ignorance as 1t is to Affirm what is false,
knowing it to be SO. Opinion by Judge Col
Inns.
In re assignment of Fuller & Kirk,
John Scheffer, assignee, respondent, VS..
Anthony Kelly & Co., appellants.
Order vacated.
Mary McGrath. respondent, VS.. James
O'Brien, appellant. Judgment re-
verSed.
In re assignment of Levi Lyons, J.V.
Farwell q Co., appellants, VS.. Levi
Lyons, respondent. Order affirmed.
The routine of the court was: nj. j.
Aiken, appellant, VS.. Lesser Franklin,
respondent, argued and submitted.
UniyerSalist General Convention, re-
spondent, VS.. Mary r. Bottineau ct al,
appellants; argued and submitted, In
re assignment of John Miller, respond
ent. VS.. B. Tarbox ct al, appellants;
argued and submitted. State. eX rel.
Octavius DeruSha, relator, VS.. w. st. r.
McMartin and John J. Cullen, respond
ents: motion to quash writ of prohibit
ton argued and submitted. The latter
involves the validity of the appointment
of Justice .McMartin, of the West side
justice court. 1t Is argued that Mayor
Smith had no authority to make this
appointment.