St. Paul daily globe., 1890-05-01
THE HIGHEST COURT.


fro1s siI1s sisIS NE u
ID B
Sc s.
III OF I rs sEeries 81
lFS 10
Il as eGtiee, or in what particu
4frs the engineer was guilty of beng
reckless, negligent and careless; when
the complaint had alleged that the loco
motive was defective. and that Smith,
the engineer. ran it in such reckless.
negligent and careless manner, that by
season of the defective engine the
Emokestack became clogged, causing
smoke and steam to be forced into the
cab, and as a consequence the fireman
was injured. The question arose i'll the
. case of Peter Orth, respondent, VS.. The
st. Paul, Minneapolis q Manitoba Rail
way Company, appellant, and Judge
Collins affirmed the order Of the lower
court.
Robert L. Wilkins, appellant. VS.. Hutchin-
son BeVier, respondent. Judgment affirmed.
collins J. Where real property upon which
judgment creditor asserts a lien is actually
occupied by third party at the time the
Judgment is docketed the creditor is charged
with constructive notice of the occupants
in possession under lease the creditor is
also charged with constructive notice of the
rights and interests of the person from whom
the occupant leases. But the Judgment
creditor cannot be charged with notice that
the lessor-the Judgment debtor, in whose
name the title to the property appeared of
record at the time of the docketing of the
Judgment-hls sold and conveyed the prop
erty to another person, although the latter
has informed the tenant of his purchase and
1n0r lie has q deed from the debtor.
James e. Glass ct al, appellants, ysSt. Paul
Carriage and Sleigh Company ct al, re-
spondents. Order reversed Collins. j.
Where material is furnished under an en-
tire contract for the erection of several
buildings owned by the same person and
situated upon the same lot or tract of land,
lien attaches upon the whole as an entirety
and for the gross value of the material so
furnished. Following Lax ct al. VS.. Peterson
44, \. W. ReD,. 3, on this point The only
allegation in the complaint in regard TO the
making and filing of an affidavit for lien
was that for the purpose Of securing lien
upon the premises plaintiffs duly made an
account in writing of the items of material
81 sold, and of the value of the same, to
which oath was duly made uIon a certain
day; and that the same, with copy of the
written contract under whicn the lumber
was furnished was duly filed and recorded,
etc. Held, that i'll this respect the complaint
was sufficient. as against motion to strike
out all allegations relating to lien Oh the
ground that facts sufficient to entitle plant
IFS to such relief were not stated therein.
Maxfieid & Seabury. respondents, vs.
Michael Schwartz ct al. appellants. Order
affirmed. Vanderburgh J. Where the pur-
chaser OF stock of goods of a partnership
agreed, as part of the consideration there
for, 10 assume and pay the existing firm debts
of The vendors, the creditors of the firm may
enforce the contract thus made for their ben
of hy OFT cfc cT1ph YAr1r nhoC -Oh
they were not specifically named or desg
mated in the contract of sale.
Louis F. Menage, appellant. VS.. John H.
directed for the plaintiff. Dickinson j.
\ mortgage of real estate to Farnham &
Lovejoy of designated place sustained as
legally sufficient as mortgage, to Sumner
w. Farnham and James A. Lovejoy, the
members of a partnership engaged in busi-
ness under the name OF Earnham & LOvejoy.
statutory foreclosure by those persons,
under power of sale contained in the mort
gage, sustained.
Richard Cullen, appellant, VS.. Henry II.
Bell. respondent. Order affirmed. Wander
burgh, j. Where land owner agrees with
an agent to pay him specified gross sum if
he will produce purchaser of a lot of land
ut a stipulated price, the agent cannot re-
cover the sum agreed on as his commission
without producing II purchaser able, ready
negotiations by the agent with one who con-
templated buying at some price are not con-
Cluded, and the same are voluntarily broken
off by the customer and he afterwards pur-
chases the same property directly from the
owner at less price, the agent is not en-
Titled 10 recover.
G. A. Cousins appellant, VS.. The St Paul,
Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
respondent. syllabus: An accouni.showing
on one side. items for goods sold and de-
livered at different dates. and payments
made by the purchaser on.the other side, is
not a mutual open account within the mean
ing of the statute of limitations and its
operation is not suspended as respects the
earlier items of the account until the date of
the last item proved therein. Judgment
affirmed Vanderburgh, j., Mitchell, j.,
absent and took no part.
Robert j. wilkins, appellant, VS.. Henry H.
Bell ct al, respondents. Per Curlam. In this
action it was stipulated upon appeal that
the decision should follow that in wilkins
VS.. Beyier, argued and submitted with it,
i'll which an opinion has just been filed
affirming the judgment below Judgment
affirmed.
Andrew Johnson respondent, VS.. The Min
neapolis d. StLouis Railway Company appel
lants. The testimony in this case examined
and held not to have justified the verdict
therein. Judgment reversed. Collins, j.
c. Z. Grandstand, respondent VS.. Albert
G.. Whitney appellant. Continued.
The following causes were argued and sub
mitted Herman Moede, respondent, vs.
The Board of County Commissioners of Ste
vens county, appellants: Charles A. Bar
rows. appellant, VS. W s. Thomas respond
ent: Frank Reynolds, appellant vs. Mary
Med Fleming ct al. respondents. The case
of Ella M. Moore, respondent, VS.. II. G. Nor
man, appellant, was submitted Oh briefs.
Keller SIander Suit.