St. Paul daily globe., 1890-06-06
A COUNTY SEAT CASE
Handed Down With Others by
the Supreme Court.


One of the four decisions yesterday
handed down in the supreme court was
upon the Murray county seat litigation.
This was an appeal from the decision of
the district court in proceeding insti-
tuted to contest the validity of a special
election held pursuant to chapter 174,
General Laws, 1889, upon the question
of changing the county seat of Murray
county. The case is brought here upon
the findings of the trial court, and the
only question is whether the findings
support the conclusions of law. A petit
tiOn for the removal of the county seat,
purported to be signed by the requisite
number of legal voters Of the county,
and was accompanied by required affi-
davitS. The auditor, upon receiving
this certificate, made an order for
special election. which was held, and a
majority of the voters were in favor of
the proposed change. The contestants
claim that 256 persons who signed the
petition for the change of county seat
subsequently signed a remonstrance;
withdrawal of their names from
the petition upon which the election
was held, and that with these names
deducted, the number remaining would
have been insufficient to authorize Or
dering an election. Judge Mitchell, in
reviewing the case, says:
1.-The act of 1879, in relation to the re-
moval of county seats, has few equals
even in our statutes as examples of
crude legislation: and we deem it wise
to contine ourselves strictly to the ques-
tionS necessary to be decided in each
case as they arise, hoping that the law
may be amended before either the peo-
pie or the courts will be further troubled
in attempting the difficult task of con-
STRUNG or recOnciling its provisions"
The court then holds that the certifi-
cate to the county board as to what sig
natures, if any, are improperly on the
petition is final and conclusive, and the
court has no power to review the deter
mination of the commissioners, as the
law does. not give 1t the right to con-
slider the evidence upon which the COM
miSSionerS acted. The order is there
fore affirmed, the syllabus of the case
being given below:
Neil Currie ct al, appellants, VS.. J. A. Paul
son ct al, respondents. Judgmen affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
Where the board of county commits
SlOnerS in accordance with the prOviS-
ions of Ch. ia, laws of 1889, inquire
into and determine what, if any, sigma
lures to petition for the removal of a
county seat should be deducted there
from, and file their certificate thereof,
and according to such certificate there
still remain on the petition sufficient
names to authorize the ordering of an
election, it becomes the duty of the
county auditor to make such order, and
the election held in pursuance thereof
will not be void because of any error or
mistake of the board in determining,
upon the evidence before them, what
signatures were improperly OH the pc
tition. The determination of the board
in that regard. at least in the absence
of fraud. is conclusive. Vanderburgh,
D., did not sit in this case.
Angeline Goodwin ct al, appellant, VS..
Christian F. Krum ct al, respond ents.
Judgment reversed. mitchell L, j.
Syllabus: The doctrine of rebutter
by collateral warranty is not part of
the common law of this state. Under
Gen. st. 1878, chap. 46, sec. 3, it is only
lands of which the husband died seized
or possessed, which is Subject in its
just proportion with other real estate
to the payment OF such debts of the de-
ceased as are not paid from the personal
estate"
c. Aultmau & Co, appellants, VS. Ole Olson,
Jr., respondent. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL J.
Syllabus: Minnesota Harvester Works
VS.. Haley, 81 MIMI, 495, followed, hold
ing that a certain instrument c0nSti-
tuted conditional sale, and that an ac-
tiOn could not be maintained against the
purchaser of note given for the pur-
chase price after the property, which
was the expressed consideration for the
instrument, had been taken from him
by the vendor. Held, also, that there
was no evidence of any consideration
for subsequent promise to pay the
note.
Johanna Dugan, respondent, VS.. The st. Paul
d Duluth Railroad Company, appellant.
Order affirmed. MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus: Held, that upon the evil
dence the question whether the blowing
of To- motive whistle by defendants
servants was, under the circumstances,
negligent, was for the jury. Held, also,
that error in admitting in evidence
void city ordinance regulating the blow
ing of locomotive whistles was fully
corrected by the court subsequen tly in
Structing the jury that it was void and
that they should not consider it, but
treat the case as if no ordinance had
been passed, and then inStruc ting them
correctly as to the rules of law applica-
bic to the case. Such a case distln-
guishes from one where incompetent
evidence as to the facts has been once
admitted and subsequently withdrawn
from the consideration of the jury.
The following cases were argued and
submitted in the supreme court yeSter-
day: Il. G. Jefferson ct al, respond
ents, VS.. G. j. Mccarthy ct al, appel
lants; Charles Alf Williams, appellant,
VS.. The Journal Printing Company, re-
spondent; Caleb D. Dorr, respondent,
VS.. p. Mcdonald, appellant.