St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-11-25
SAINT PAUL.
FOR A FINALITY.


Five Supreme Court Decisions In
voiving Interesting Principles.
Five decisions were handed down by
the supreme court yesterday, two or
which reversed the orders of the lower
courts. The syllabi OF the cases are as
follows:
Caroline Wheeler, appellant, VS.. The Odd
Fellows Mutual Aid and Accident Associa-
ton. Order affirmed. GIIFILLAN Z. j.
Syllabus: Plaintiffs husband TOOK
from defendant policy lnsurlhg nus
lite in the sum of $1,000, payable 10
her. Afterwards, for the purpose Oh IN
creaSing the insurance To $500, he LOON
from defendant second policy III the
sum of So, UUU, payable 10 her. The APP
pllcation for il, referred to Ill, aud
expressly declared part OF,
the second policy, showed that
the purpose was not 10 make auditlohai
insurance to the amount OF 5000, but
to increase the former insurance TO that
amount. Alter the husbands death,
she claimed and received from defend
ant the amount of the second policy.
Held that she WAS ctargeaDle with
notice OF the contents OF that policy ana
of the application for 1t, anu 10y accept
ing its benefits, she consented To 1t nav
ing the effect intended, that suppressed
ing the hrSt policy.
Howard l.. Smith. respondent, VS. NJ. j. Bell,
appellant. order affirmed.
1nFuLAN, c. j.
Syllabus: Application of the rule a
tenant by the year, although paying
rent monthly, becomes. by holding over
after his term expires. Il tenant from
year to year, if tie landlord SO elect.
Mere notice by the tenant, before the
term expires. that he does not wish the
premises for another year Will not
change the effect of his holding over.
Sec. 40, eli. IS, Gen. st. 1878, does not
apply To tenancy from year to year.
s. B. Carpenter etal., respondents, VS.. Artisan
Savings Bank, appellant. Judgment re-
Versed and Judgment entered for the de
PENDANT GILFnLAN, {. y.
Syllabus: A chattel mortgage to A..
rs mortgage. had not Ueen formally as
signed by HIM TO the creditor holding
the debt it was given TO secure, and the
latter tOrecloSed, attiXing the name OF A
to the notice of sale. Held that the
foreclosure WAS valid.
St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, re-
spondent, VS.. Paul hlacKmar as trustee,
elc., appellant. Order affirmed.
GILFILLAN, G. j.
Syllbus: 1t is only where there Is
doubt as to the meaning of the terms in
written contract, or the writing is
silent or incomplete as to given point,
that the court i'll interpreting the con-
tract will resort TO a practical construc-
ton which the parties may have put
upon it. Certain allegations held not
to make case of eStoppel.
UpoL All application to set aside d
Judgment and for leave to answer. the
court, even though satisfied with the
excuse for the default, need not be coll
tent with formal compliance in the
answer with the rules of pleading
which party may follow when answer
ing as matter of right, but may require
that in Its denialS 1t show the actual eX-
tent of the controversy upon the mat
tiers denied, as where the denialS are of
amounts stated in the complaint, and
the exact amounts stated are not ma
terial.
Carl DObbeTstein, respondent, VS.. Elizabeth
Murphy, appellant. Judgment reversed.
C1ILFILLAN, Z. j.
Syllabus: In an action for partition,
the Judgment provided in sec. chap.
"a, General Statutes 1878, is the iii a.
Judgment, and upon an appeal from 1t
the judgment provided in sec. 6 is open
to review. \ Quitclaim deed to the
heirs by widow, when, by the law of
the state, she was entitled to dover in
the lands of her deceased husband, if it
could not operate as a conveyance did
operate as release of the dover right.
tarnham vs.. Thompson, 81 Mimi, $50,
fnl cld to n l,at 40 n.
court HIS no jurisdiction to determine a
claim under conveyance by one of the
heirs or deYSees, and its decree assign
ing the estate GOES not affect such claim.
The supreme court yesterday heard
the following eases:
10. State of Minnesota, respondent, vs.
Redwood Falls B. and L. Association, APP
pellant; respondent submits on briefs: ar
gucd by appellant
1913. Jermau ). Keator ct al, appellants,
VS.. John Glasple, respondent; application
for reargument denied.
II. William Benfenning, appellant. VS..
Chicago, St Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Railway Company, respondent; argued and
submitted.
II. Bessie Newton, by F. H. Poole, her
guardian ad litem, respondent. VS.. Bruno
Newton ct al, appellants; argued and sub
mitted.
l79. ". W. Kimhall Company. appellant,
vs.. Elijah NJ. Coon ct al, respondent.
EXTREME VIEWS REBUKED.