St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-15
The Sioux City & Northern
Case Before the Supreme
Court.
Numerous Interesting Deei-
sions Handed Down by
the Big Wigs.
An Improvement Society
Amuses Itself by Boune-
ing an Alderman.
A Scheme to Substitute Num-
bers for Names in City
Additions.

The usually dull proceedings at the
morning sessions Of the supreme court
were enlivened yesterday morning by a
hearing on question of some import
lance to the revenue interests of the
state. 1t was The State ex-rel., the at
torney general as relator, VS.. The Sioux
City q Northern Railroad Company, re-
spondent. The respondent corporation
has been incorporated i'll Iowa, and, de-
String to construct its lines into Mime
sofa, seeks to become a domestic cor
poration. But the Sioux City Sc
Northern doesn't want to pay for
this luxury-at least not the price
fixed by the last Legislature. 1t claims
that its prior incorporation in Iowa
ought to absnlve it from this heavy tax,
amounting in this instance to $1,000.
The state claims that the statute makes
no distinction between companies pre-
ViouSly incorporated in other states and
those originating within the state when
IT comes to paying incorporation fees.
The attorney general presented the case
for the state. and Hon. Daniel Rohrer,
of w orthington, did the same for the
Sioux City Dc Northern. The supreme
court took the matter under Amusement.
The balance of the morning session was
devoted to the following cases, which
we've argued and submitted:
+. II. Cobb, ct al, appellants. VS.. Vernon
A Wright. respondents. st. Croix Lumber
Company, appellant, VS.. l.. G. Mittlestadt ex-
ecutor, etc., respondent. Minnesota Farm
ers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appel
liant. VS.. Ludwig olsen respondent. Sub
mitted on briefs: Anna Michaels, respond
emit VS.. Fred Michaels, appellant State ex
rel Attorney General, relator Us. Sioux City
d Northern Railway Company, respondent.
Inc State OF Minnesota, respondent VS..
Anton Framness appellant. Margaret Bell
ct al, respondents, VS.. c. D. Baker, appel
liant.
Judge Mitchell took a turn at the
wheel yesterday and ground out six de-
cisions, affirming the action of the
lower courts in each instance.
The syIlabi are given below:
Charles J. Swanson ct al. appellants, VS..
The Mississippi & Rum River Boom Com
pany, respondents Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
The right to use navigable river is
public and not a private right, and the
owner of @and Oh the stream cannot
maintain an action for an illegal OBJ
struction of navigation which prevents
his use of the public right. To entitIe
him to maintain a private action the OBJ
structiOu must continue an invasion or
violation of some private right as dis
tinguisned from the public right which
he has of navigating the river in COM
mon with the rest of the public. Held,
that certain of the causes of action were
properly dismissed because they did not
state facts constituting special damage
for which a private action would lie, and
that the others were also properly dis
missed because the evidence did not
tend to connect the injuries complained
of with any illegal or negligent act of
the defendant or to show that they were
the prOXimate result of any such act.
Marshall Fl. Alworth, respondent, vs. Jemi-
ma Seymour, appellant. Order athrmed.
MITCHELL j.
Held that the complaint does not
state a case eutitling the plainti # to
specific performance for the reasons:
First-That the contract disclosed
did not create a power coupled with an
interest, but mere naked agency,
which the defendant had the power to
revoke at any time. Second-rhat, as
the contract calls for the future per-
sonal service of plaintiff, the perform
ance of which the court has no power to
compel, there is no mutually or rem
edy. But held that general demurrer
to the complaint was properly over
ruled, because it states facts emitting
plaintiff to recover for services per-
formed and money expended for de-
PENDANT as her agent, and the fact that
the wrong relief is asked is no ground
of demurrer, following former decisions.
Edward A. Ziebarth, respondent. VS.. Eli s.
Nye ct al, appellants. order affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
Defendant unlawfully entered upon
plaintiffs farm and dug two parallel
bitches thirty feet apart, and threw up
the dirt between them into turnpike,
claiming Out enormously that the locus
in quo was public highway. Held,
that these acts constituted a single tres
pass and gave only single cause of
action, in which the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover all damages, present or
prospective, resulting to the land from
the treSpaSS; that the measure of dam
aye would be the elimination of the value
of the land by reason of the tortiouS
acts. This difference in value is not to
be estimated upon the basis that
the strip of land is to be per-
manently devoted to highway purposes,
nor is it necessary to be estimated upon
the assumption that the bitches and
turnpike are always to remain, for if it
appears that the cost of restoring the
land i'll Slatu quo would be less than the
injury that would result to the land by
letting the nuisance remain, such cost
would be the amount to which the value
of the land would be deemed to have
been Iessened. But the court cannot
assume that the cost of restoring the
property would be less than the diminu-
ton in the value of the land from the
treSpaSS. If such is the fact, it is in
cumbent OH the defendant to prove it,
The court instructed the jury that the
measure of damages was the difference
in the value of the farm with the
bitches and turnpike and without
them" Held, that aS general state
ment of the rule this was correct, and
that If defendant desired more specific
instructions to be given to the basis
upon which this difference in value was
to be estimated ne ought to have so re-
QueSted.
Nicholas Henkes, appellant, VS.. The City OF
Minneapolis, respondent. Order affirmed
MITCHELL j.
The duty of city to use reasonable
care to keep its sidewalks in a safe con-
ditlon does not extend to the removal
of ice. which constitutes no other de-
feet than siipperiness, there being no
such accumulation of ice as to constitute
an obstruction to travel and no ridges
or inequalities of such height, or lying
at such inclination or angle as would be