St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-11-15
The CITY is WORSTED
In Two of the Bakers Dozen
Of Supreme Court De-
ciSiOnS.
A Board of Public Works De-
cision With Dissenting
Opinions.
The Water Commissioners
Held to Be Liable in Tres
pass Cases.
The Lower Court Decisions
Knocked Sky-High in Sew
eral Suits.

The judges of the supreme court yes
terday handed down thirteen decisions,
nine of which affirmed the decisions of
the lower courts, while in only four
cases were the decisions reversed. The
city of st. Paul as appellant was de-
feated in two cases. The most impor-
tant decision handed down was in the
case of Agnes Brennan against The
City of st. Paul, masmuch as the hon
orable judges of the supreme court dis
scented as to the construction of clause
of law. The decisl is adverse to The
city, as will be seen by the syllabus,
which is as follows:
Agnes Brennan, respondent. VS.. The City of
st. Paul, appellant. Order affirmed.
GuFuLAN, G. j.
Mitchell. j., took no part in this decision.
Judge Dickinson, in giving his opin-
ion, said: | do not concur in this de-
ciSion. AS l consider the case the board
of public works acquired jurisdiction in
the Ill amer prescribed by law to assess
the damages tor the taking of that part
of lot q which includes the land in
question, and actually made an assess
ment which was vaid-a legal assess
ment-although it was not to be final
until it should be confirmed. Upon the
facts subsequently appearing to the
board, but which had not before been
disclosed by the records or otherwise,
as to the contract by the owners of lot
& to convey to another person part of
the land to be taken, the board ought
not to have confirmed the assessment.
But the jurisdiction of the board in the
proceeding was not Invested, nor was
the assessment, which had been made
in the legal exercise of its jurisdiction,
rendered void by the disclosure of such
facts. The confirmation beng only er-
rOneous, and not void for want of
power to act, the remedy by appeal to
the district court, the remedy pre-
Scrlbed by statute as the mode for secur-
ing q correction of errors, was, l think,
the exclusive remedy,
Syllabus: In the proceedings to open
Wyoming street in the city of st. Paul, the
board of public works assessed the damages
and benefits TO lot e, Bidwell's addition, as
one lot or parcel. Prior to the proceedings
the owners of lot had executed contract
to convey part of the lot TO another, of
which the board had notice after their as
sessment but before its confirmation Held,
that the contract 10 convey severed that part
OF lot u from the remainder of that lot SO as
10 make il a separate parcel and having re-
ceived noIice of it before confirming the as
sesSment the board ought to have assessed
the damages and benefits to it as 6; separate
lot or parcel. Not having done So their pro-
ceedings were. as to that tract, void
In the case of EiSenmenger against
The Board of Water Commissioners of
st. Paul, the decision of the lower court
was sustained. The respondent en-
tered an action against the commits
CT ff.,. III 20 L., L.. l.
OverfiowS from the weir of tn e conduit.
and also prayed for an INDUCTION on The
ground that the works of the commits
siOners constituted nuisance within
the meaning OF the law. The commits
SiOnerS entered a demurrer i'm the lower
court, claiming that the respondent had
no case, as they were protected from
any action of injunction by Special
Laws of 1885. section 10, chapter ITO,
and asked that the action and injunc-
ton be dismissed. The lower court
overruled the demurrer. and the COM
miSsioners carried the case to the SUI
preme court with the result that yes
terday's decision upheld the lower
its merits. The decision was as fol-
lows:
John Fred Eisenmenger, respondent, VS.. The
Board Of Water Commissioners of st. Paul,
appellant. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, J.
Gilfllan, c. j., being disqualified with
drew from the consideration of the case
Syllabus:-The part of section 10, ch 10.
Special Laws 1885, under which chapter the
defendant is organized, providing that no
injunction shall lie maintained against the
board OF water commissioners, restraining
them from the use of the lands, etc. is ap.
plicable not to case where the board has
committed trespass, or caused nuisance
upon land not taken by 1t, but only to a case
where it has taken land for its use as a part
OF its system of works. Complaint held to
show compliance with sec. 50, requiring be-
fore action presentation of the CLAIM to and
It's rejection by the board.
James Loan, respondent, VS., John Butler.
Order affirmed, GILFITLAN c. j.
Syllabus: D held a certificate of sale of
school lands, and with his wife was occupy
ing the land as homestead. and he made an
assignment of the certificate TO b, the wife
not affiXing her signature to the assignment;
but they surrendered the possession of the
land to B, who and his assigns thereafter,
continued in possession. Held the assign
ment was void, following Barton VS.. Drake
81 Mimi, and Alt VS.. Banholzer. 80 ib. 51I
That no act of the wife (unless amounting to
an estoppeD, except ii amounted 10 aft king
her signature, could make the assignment
effectual.
That to make the assignment effectual
by estoppel the estoppel must operate as to
both husband and wife. Facts considered
and held not to make an estoppel as to the
wife (even if she could not estop HERSELF
The assignment did not become operative
upon the land afterward ceasng to be a
homestead. vendors lien upon real estate
is not in general assignable, following Ham
mond VS.. Peyton, 81 Mimi. 500. Facts con-
sidered and held not to show a subrogatiou
of defendant, claiming under B, to vendor
lien claimed to have existed in the vendor or
assignor of d.
Charles E. Adamson, appellant VS.. Donald
Pagan ct al, respondents. Order re-
versed. GILFILLAN c. j.
Syllabus: The description in q chattel
m ortgage of white horse as a gray horse,
there being several other items of descrip-
ton conceded t. ee true, does not vitiate
the mortgage, it Icing property filed as to a
purchaser from the the mortgagor, unless he
was in fact, after due diligence misled by it,
Annie E. Bohles appellant, vs. Allen C. b.
land, respondent. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. J..
Syllabus: Reid that the reoord faiIs To