St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-30
SAINT PAUL.
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI.
Cattle Guards Refer to Public Roads,
Not Farm Crossings.
WHAT CoNSTITUTESA LIBEL.
Stone Taken From the Streets by Con-
= tractors Cannot Ee Charged as an OF
tense by the City.


burgh. j."
Weld Philbrook, appellant, VS.. I. M.
Fullerton ct al, respondents.
Syllabus-To sustain the title OF the
holder of state assignment certificate
issued under sec. 129, chap. l, Laws
1874, it is necessary for him to establish
the execution in due form OF certlf-
icate of sale to the state by the county
auditor, as an essential mulnment OF
his title, The issuance of such certlt-
icate of sale held not established by the
evidence in this case. Prescriptions of
the performance of official duty cannot
be used to supply the essential facts III
the derivation Of title.
Preston J. Sather, respondent, VS.. The
Chicago, Milwaukee IL st. Paul Rail
way Company, appellant.
Syllabus-The term wagon cross
ings," as used in see. 81, chap. 81,
General Statutes 1878, requiring rail-
way companies to build and maintain
"cattle guards" refers to wagon roads
used for public travel crossing railroads,
and not to private ways: OF farm cross
ings. The provision in sec. 4, chap.
9S. Gen. Stat. 1878, that railroad COM
panles may furnish land owners with
locks for gates at farm crossings is per-
missive, and not mandatory, and. Ill
case no such locks are furnished, the
question of negligence of the corpora
ton in any particular case, as respects
the opening or closing of such gates, or
their being securely fastened, is open
for investigation, and is not affected by
the statutory provision referred to. Evil
dence considered and held insufficient
to establish negligence on the part OF
the defendant in this case.
Thomas McDermott, respondent, VS..
Charles T. Deither, appellant.
Action to recover the amount due on
q prOmiSsOry note executed by one Mel
ady to plaintiff, and dated June Is, 1887.
The complaint alleged that after the eX-
ecution of the note the defendant en-
tered into written contract with Mel
adv, and thereby for valuable cOnsid-
Grafton promised and agreed to pay the
note to plaintiff. The answer consisted
of denials, and the plaintiff upon affi-
davits moved to strike out defendants
answer as sham and his motipn was
granted.
: Syllabus: Where it was alleged
by plaintiff that defendant for
value executed contract i'll writ
ing to pay note previously
made by third party to plaintiff and
held by him, and the answer IS gen.
eral denial, held, on motion to strike
out the ansWer.aS sham. upon which 1t
appeared that such contract was not
specific agreement to pay the note, but
the partnership and individual debts OF
the maker thereof, not exceeding sum
certain that the defendant might show
upon the trial under his general denial
that the agreement had already been
otherwise satisfied, and did not include
the plaintiffs claim, and hence that it
did not iudisputably appear that the an
sWer was sham or interpOSed i'll bad
faith.
R. P. Russell, respondent, VS.. E. Y.
Hayden ct al, appellants.
Action to enforce mechanics lien in
favor of plaintiff for lumber and ma
terlalS furnished by him for, and used
in. the construction of certain brick
block built for them on lots owned by
them in the city of Minneapolis. De-
PENDANTS admitted that they owned the
land on which the building was erected,
and that plaintiff furnished building
material therefor and used therein, but
averred that it was OF the reasonable
value of $500 and no more. Plaintiff
claimed s3,699.54. Defendant also
raised the objection that the description
of the premises in the affidavit and ac-
count for lien, filed for record, was
imperfect and insufficient to identify
the lots in question.
Syllabus-The description of premises
in the statement for mechanics lien,
filed with the register of deeds, VIZ:
lots and 6. in block IS, in ''North Min
neapoiS addition to Minneapolis" held
sufficient Identification OF lots 5 and 6
in block Is, in North Minneapolis"
within the city of Minneapolis. belong
ing 10 defendants, and upon which the
materials in question were used, there
being no addition or division to or with
in the city except the latter to which
the description could he applied. Upon
an issue whether the lumber furnished
by plaintiff amounted in value to GER
tain sum, witness not shown to be &C
Quainted with the market value and
prices of lumber at the time, or to have
seen and examined the lumber delivered
by plaintiff, was not competent to tes-
tify.
L. d. Reyes, appellant, VS.. W. c. Clare,
respondent.
This action was brought in the mu-
hicipal court of Minneapolis. The sum-
mons and complaint were served July
IL, 1887: and July % the defendant
served demurrer. July % plaintiff
served an amended complaint upon de-
PENDANTS attorney, which was retained
by him, and on Aug. following, no an
swer thereto having been served, the
plaintiff entered judgment. Defendant
thereupon moved to set aside the judg-
ment on the ground that the time for
answering the amended complaint had
not expired when it was entered, and
the motion was granted, the court hold
ing that und,r sec. 1913, chap. &c, Cen
eral Statutes, which applies to the NIL
nicipal court. the plaintiff had twenty
days to amend after the demurrer was
served, and the defendant had like
time to answer the same.
Syllabus-The effect of sec. 8, chap.
81. Special Laws of 1887, relating to
pleading and proceedings in the NUM-
cipal court of the city of Minneapolis,
and making certain titles of chap. 66,
General Statutes. applicable thereto,
is to make ten days the uniform period
in which to serve answers to such
pleadings, whether original or amended.
An application for leave to answer after
default must be considered and passed
upon by the trial court before it will be
considered by the appellate court.
Levi NJ. Stewart. appellant, VS.. Mime
sofa Tribune Company, respondent.
Syllabus-In order to maintain an &C
ton for libel, it must appear that the
plaintiff has sustained some special loss
or damage resulting from the publica-
ton, or the charge itself must be such
that the court can legally presume that
the party has been injured in his repu-
tatiOn or business, or SuDloctaQ to pub
lie scandal in consequence thereof. 1t
is not libelous to publish of a profess
sional man that he has removed his
office to his house to save expense"
Order affirmed.
Rosanna M. Ogden, respondent, VS..
Sarah W. Ball ct al, appellants.