St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-19
He GETS A new TRIAL
An Austin Man Has Another
Go at the Express Com
pany.
Railroads Get the Worst OF
Several Supreme Court
Cases.
Land Troubles Settled for
Aye by the Dicta Of the
Bench.
Several Very Interesting De-
eisions in Yesterdays
Large Invoice.

Several very interesting DC
cisions in Yesterdays
Large Invoice.
Jerry ingalls,, Austin's chief of police,
must have a new trial i'll his damage
case against the Adams Express COLI
pany, says the supreme court OF Mlnlle-
sofa in a decision filed yesterday. Mr.
ingalls, was injured by being knocked
down bv a truck of the express COM
pany. He brought suit for damages,
and the lower court withdrew the case
from the Jury and decided in favor OF
the defendant company. A motion was
made for new trial and was granted
by the lower court. The syllabus fol-
lows:
Jerry E. ingalls,, respondent. vs. The Adams
Express Company, appellant; Oruer Tor
Z new trial affirmed. VANDERBURGH, d.
The owner, lessee or occupant OF
PREMISES is bound to use reasonable
care in conducting his business, so as
not to iniure persons lawfully upon
such premises.
George A. Clark & Bro. appellants, VS.. A. d.
Lindeke assignee, ct al, respondents.
Order affirmed VANDERBURGH, j.
Evidence considered and held SUIT
fcient to support the finding OF the trial
court that the claim in question pre-
scented to the assignee OF an lnS0lvent
estate for allowance had been merged
In certain contract between the IN
solvents and one of the claimants with
the knowledge and consent OF the latter,
and hence was properly rejected by the
assignee.
IN re petition of the Manchester Locomotive
Works, appellant VS.. w. H. Truesdale, re-
ceiyer, etc. e; al, respondents. Order af
firmed. DICKINSON. D.
The petitioner sold to a railroad COM
pany (the Minneapolis & st. Louis
locomotive upon the condition that it
should be paid for on delivery. 1t was
delivered but was not paid for. The
vendor, without asserting its right to
repossess itself of the locomotive, sued
to recover the price, and by garniSh-
ment and judgment secured partial sat-
isfaction. Held, that the delivery, in
the first instance conditional, became
absolute by the conduct of the vendor,
SO that the latter had no reserved lien
upon the locomotive. More than six
months after the sale the road was
placed in the hands of receiver at the
suit of the holders of mortgage bonds to
foreclose their mortgages, given long
before the sale, and covering all the
property of the railroad company, pres
ent and prospective, including it's earn
ingS. Nearly year after the appoint.
ment of the receiver the vendor ap-
piled to the court for an order requiring
the payment of the balance of its debts
out of the earnings Of the receivership.
Held that the debt was more properly
to be classed with the general debts of
the corporation than with those incurred
for current expenses proXimately con-
nected with the operation of the road
by the receiver, and hence that the
court properly refused to allow this
claim as one equitably entitled to
preference over the claims of the bond
holders secured by mortgage (ante-
dating the sale of locomotive upon the
earnings of the road.
The ST. Paul. Minneapolis & Manitoba rail-
way Company, appellant VS.. The City of
Minneapolis, respondent. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, j.
When railway company laid its
track over travelled road used by the
public as highway, which had not
heretofore been legally laid out as
such, and the public thereafter continue
to use the crossing as a highway for
many years, without interf by
the railway company, which on the con-
trary kept the same in proper repair for
public use, and planked the same and
built cattle guards on each side thereof,
held sufficient evidence of a dedication
for public use as a highway.
The Napa Valley Wire Company appellant
VS.. The Boston Block Company ct al,
respondents. Judgment affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
An agreement in a lease not to let
other premises of the lessor for the same
purpose, does not entitle the lessee tt
IN injunction against subsequent lessees
them from the enjoyment Of their lease
they being neither parties nor priYies
to the former contract.
Eugene Mcknight respondent VS. The Chi
cago, Milwaukee & st. Paul Railroad Com.
pany, appellant, Order affirmed
DICKINSON, j.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain the
conclusion of negligence in the follow
ing particulars: First. in the use of a
railroad car with the face of the draw.
head broken, leaving sharp, ragged
edge, liable to catch the clothing of q
person engaged in coupling cars; and
second, in driving a locomotive against
q car, to which it was to be coupled
with an extraordinary sudden impulse
The charge of the court held not to be
erroneous as whole, although one
statement of the law omitted a proper
qualification which had previously beer
stated to the jury. Where the charge
as a whole is correct. but it is desired
to prevent possible Misrepresentation OF
the part of the jury from the omission
of a proper qualification in part of q
Charge, the attention of the court SHOULD
be called particularly to that omission.
Eta Cora Reynolds. appellant VS.. Georg
Wade Reynolds, respondent. Order at
frmed. DICKINSON, j.
A finding by the court that the allega
tons of the complaint are not estab
lished by the evidence is equivalent tt
general finding that the facts are no
as alleged. After a cause had BEEF
tried and decided by the court the tria
judge died. Upon a case made motion
for new trial was made before anOthe
judge, requiring review and consider
ing OF the testimony. which had been O
contradictory nature. Held that il
determining such motion consideration
should be given to the superior advan
tages of the trial judge for testing tn,
credibility of witnesses. Habltua
drunkenness as a ground for divorce
must be shown to have been -indulget
In for one year Immediately precedin.
the filing of the complaint. Findings O
the court held justified by the evidence
John j. Costello, appellant, VS.. R. P Edso
ct al, respondents. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
Acts of possession of and dominion
over real estate may constitute adverS
possession, although the personal occu
pancy of the intruder be not continuous
if the nature of his acts and possession
are such as to constitute a disseizin 0
the true owner, and to clearly ant
openly manifest present appropriation
of the land by the intruder to his per
manent and exclusive use, being obvi
ously distinguishable from mere tres
pass. Proof of entry, under color O
title, by one not the owner upon plated
-.