St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-06-10
Lower Courts Upset in Five
Out Of Eight Causes Con-
sidered.
Several Interesting Decisions
Handed Down by the Su-
preme Court.
A Broker Entitled to Commits
sion When His Money Is
All Ready.
After Conviction a Defendant
Escapes on a Legal Tech
nieality.

4AAOCA4AOJe
In reversing the order of the court
below in the case of Emerson w. Peet
against Frank W. Sherwood ct al. the
supreme court relates that the plaintiff
was mortgage loan broker, to whom
defendants applied for loan of $4,000
upon city lot. The application was
in writing upon a blank furnished by
the plaintiff, in which the lot was par
ticularly described, etc. There was
mortgage of S16,S25 already standing
against the property, and the plaintiff
stated that he would be unable to secure
the amount asked for. Thereupon it
was agreed between the parties that the
plaintiff should receive per cent upon
face of loan for his services, pro-
vided the loan be for S1S,500.
Mr.. Peet could secure only $4,000, and
himself agreed to loan 81, 800, making up
the desired total. Then an Imperfect
ton was discovered in the title, and the
corporation from whom Mr.. Peet was to
have obtained the $1,000 refused to
proceed. Had it not been for this defect
the loan would have been made. Action
was brought to recover the 2 per cent
commission precisely as If the loan had
been effected, and the trial count di-
rected verdict for the defendants,
land in so doing the court erred" says
the supreme court. The syllabus:
Emerson W. Peet, appellant, VS.. Frank G..
Sherwood ct al, respondents. Order re-
Versed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus: First-The rights and du-
ties of broker employed to secure
loan depend upon the same principles
which govern the broker who under
takes to find purchaser of property.
He is entitled to his commissions when
he has procured lender ready, willing
and able to lend the money upon the
authorized terms.
Second-The borrower, when employ
ing such broker, does so upon the inn
piled conditions Qf there be no express
stipulation in respect to the matter),
that he has the ability and will make,
or render, to the lender title free from
intirmity or defect.
In the case of The State against Pat
rick Walsh, the defendant was convict
ed under Indictment for cutting and re-
moving a section of fence on each side
of strip of land occupied by railway
company. The fence had been con-
structed by the railroad company, and
the defendant appears to have removed
it to facilitate driving cattle from one
part of the farm to another. The SUI
preme court holds that the application
of two well-settled rules of construction
exclude the defendant from the opera
ton of the statute under which he was
convicted. The syllabus:
State of Minnesota, respondent VS. Patrick
nj
the cause remanded to the district court
with directions to dismiss the prosecution.
DICKINSON. j.
Syllabus: An act is not made Grim
inal by statute unless the intention to
do so is apparent in the law beyond
serious doubt.
When in statute words particularly
designating specific acts or things are
followed by and associated with words
of general import comprehenSively des-
ignating acts or things, the latter are
generally to be regarded as compre-
hending only matters of the same kind
or class as those particularly stated.
A statute making it criminal to dis
place, remove or destroy" "a rail, sleeper,
bridge, viaduct, culvert, embankment
OF structure appertaining to or con-
nected with railway" held not appll-
cable to structureS-as fence-not con-
shutting any part of the railroad proper.
The supreme court gave an important
decision upon complicated mortgage
case yesterday. Ella M. Moore brought
an action in the court below to en-
L force the delivery of span of horses
and four COWS and nine calves, by rea-
son of default on the part of Norman in
the payment Of two promissory notes
secured by chattel mortgage on the an
finals. The defendant, in his answer,
set up that he had borrowed from the
plaintiff the sum of $3.50, and no more.
for which he gave a note for SOL. dated
March 16, 1887, and payable July
following, and consequently tainted
with usury. In security for this
a chattel mortgage was executed on the
COWS and calves. 1t is furthermore re-
lated that on the Sd of March, 1887, the
plaintiff loaned the defendant 500 and
no more on a promissory note drawn
for S110; that on April 2, 1887, the de-
fendant paid $4,000 on these notes,
which was accepted in part payment;
| that on Sept. 80, 1887, the defendant
| made tender of S95 in full payment,
which amount was refused by the plant
iff.
Justice Collins, in his opinion, says:
''If the mortgagor does not tender the
| full amount due. the lien of the mort
gage is not eXtinguished. and he runs
no risk in accepting 1t. If, upon the
| other hand, it is sufficient in amount,
| his debt is paid, and that is all he has
any right to demand. 1t is his own folly
| if he attempts to exact more. The
| syllabus follows:
Ella M. Moore, respondent VS.. H. G.. Cor
| ant Ordar
COLLINS, J.
Syllabus! 1. Tender of the amount
due upon a promlssory note secured by
a chattel mortgage. though made after
the note has matured. extinguishes and
discharges the lien of a mortgage.
2. 1t is not necessary to keep the
tender good by bringing the money into
| court in case an action Is thereafter
brought by the MORTGAGE to obtain pos.
session of the chattels.
8. In such case, however, the proof
should be clear that the tender was
fairly made, and deliberately and inten
tionally refused by the mortgage. That
sufficient opportunity was afforded fol
the latter to ascertain the amount due
and that sum sufficient to cover the
whole amount due was absolutely an6
Internationally rendered.
State of Minnesota ex rel W. c. Nash, re
lator. appellant VS.. Christian Madison, re
spondent. Order reversed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus: One-An act of the legis
lature is not repugnant to the provisions
of section 27, article II of the constitu
ton, because it embraces, technically
more than one subject zone of which
only, is expressed in the title), SO thai
they are not foreign and extraneous.
Two-Itis not important that all Of
the various objects of an act be ex
pressly stated in it's title, or that the
act itself indicates objects other than
that so mentioned, provided they are
not at variance with the one SO .ex
pressed, but in cons onance Herewith
Three-The sufficiency of the title Of
an amendatory law to Justify the legis
lation under it, depends not alone or
the comprehensiveness Of the title, but
also upon the nature and extent of the
enactment, to amend which is the office
| and declared nurn0Sa of the later act