St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-01
THE HIGHEST COURT.
a Batch of important Decisions
From the Supreme Bench.

Il L.
a Batch of Important Decisions
From the Supreme Bench.
The supreme court handed down a
goodly sized batch of decisions yester-
day. In one case it is decided that it is
not necessary to amend complaint so
as to show in what particular locomo-
tive was defective, or in what partIcu-
lars the engineer was guilty of being
reckless, negligent and careless; when
the complaint had alleged that the loco
motive was defective, and that Smith,
the engineer. ran it in such a reckless.
negligent and careless manner, that by
reason of the defective engine the
KmokestacI1 became clogged, causing
smoke and steam to be forced into the
cab, and as a consequence the fireman
was injured. The question arose in the
case of Peter Orth, respondent, VS.. The
st. Paul Minneapolis & Manitoba Rail-
way Company, appellant, and Judge
Collins affirmed the order of the lower
court.
Robert L. Wilkins, appellant VS.. Hutchin-
son BeYier, respondent Judgment affirmed.
Collins j. Where cal property upon which
judgment creditor asserts lien is actually
occupied by third party at the time the
Judgment is dOcketed, the creditor is charged
with constructive notice of the occupants
right and interests. And If the occupant is
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 IeSSor-the Judgment debtor, in whose
name the title to the property appeared OF
record at the time of the docketug of the
lNn TarT
erty to another person, although the latter
has informed the tenant of his purchase and
That he has deed from the debtor.
James Z. Glass ct al appellants, VISIT. Paul
Carriage and Sleigh Company ct al, re-
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, a
lien attaches upon the whole as al entirety
and for The gross value OF the material so
furnished. Following Lax ct al. VS.. Peterson,
44, n. W. ReD,. 5, on this point The only
allegation in the complaint in regard 10 the
making and filing of an affidavit for lien
was that for the purpose Of securing a lien
upon the premises plaintiffs duly made an
account in writing of the items of material
So sold, and of the value of the same, to
which oath was duly made urou certain
day; and that the same, with copy of the
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 on the
ground that facts sufficient to entltle plant
IFS to such relief were not stated therein.
Maxfeld & Seabury. respondents, VS..
Michael Schwartz ct al, appellants. Order
affirmed. Vanderburgh, j. Where the pur
chaser or stock of goods of a partnership
MOI of ff,n idor tinT1 fhnr0
for, TO assume and pay the existing firm debts
of The vendors the creditors of the firm may
enforce the contract thus made for their ben
eft, by action against such purchaser, though
they were not specifically named or deSig
mated in the contract of sale.
Louis T. Menage, appellant. VS.. John Fl.
Burke, respondent. Reversed and Judgment
directed for the plaintiff. Dickinson, j.
A mortgage of real estate to Farnham &
legally sufficient as mortgage, to Sumner
w. E8rnhan1 and James A Loveioy, the
members of partnership engaged in bust
ness under the name of Faruham d Lovejoy.
A statutory foreclosure by those persons,
under power of sale contained in the mort
gage, sustained.
Richard Cullen, appellant, VS.. Henry Fl.
Bell, respondent Order affirmed. Wander
burgh, j. Where land owner agrees with
an agent to pay him specified gross sum if
be will produce purchaser of lot Of land
at q stipulated price, the agent cannot re-
cover the sum agreed on as his commission
without producing purchaser able, ready
and willing to pay such a price. And where
negotiations by the agent with one who con-
templated buying at some price are not con-
Guided, 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 to recover.
G. A. Cousins appellant, VS. The St Paul,
Minneapolis Il Manitoba Railway Company,
respondent. Syllabus: An accountShoWing
OH one side. items for goods sold and de-
livered at different dates. and payments
made by the purchaser on.the other side, is
not 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.
Belief al. respondents Per Curam. In this
action it was stipulated upon appeal that
the decision should follow that i'll Wilkins
VS.. Bevier, argued and submitted with it.
in which an opinion has just been filed
affirming the judgment below. Judgment
affirmed
Andrew Johnson, respondent, vs. The Min
neapoIis d St.Louis Railway Company, appel
lants. The testimony i'll this case examined
and held not to have justified the verdict
therein. Judgment reversed. Collins, j.
C E. 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. 5. Thomas respond
ent: Frank Reynolds, appellant, VS.. Mary
Med. Fleming ct al. respondents. The case
of Ella Nj. Moore, respondent, VS.. II. G. Nor
man, appellant was submitted Oh briefs.
Glandar Cuif