St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-09-24
A DECISION AT LAST.
Brothels Must Pay Bills-Two Su

Brothels Must Pay Bills-TwO SUI
preme Court Decisions.
A decision of considerable Importance
was rendered yesterday in the supreme
court. The case was that of the An
heuser-Busch Brewing association, APP
pellant, VS.. Emma Mason, respondent.
The brewing association sued for sum
over 500 on account of beer. sold, and
Judge Cory decided that the company
could not recover on account of the
agent knowing that the beer was being
sold for the furtherance of crime. The
appeal from this decision to the supreme
court attracted widespread attention,
as there are said to be scores Of trades
men who have been waiting for some
one with grit enough to test the validity
of such a decision. The appellants
counsel was J. l.. Townley The de-
ciSlon of the supreme court is explicit.
1t is as follows:
Anheuser- Busch Brewing Association, APP
pellant, VS.. Emma Mason, respondent.
Order reversed. COLLINS, j.
Plaintiff, corporation, by its agent
sold and furnished bottled beer to the
defendant, the keeper of a house of
prostitution, as the agent we'll knew.
While he had no knowledge of just
what was to be done with the beer, the
agent supposed at the time it was fur
nished that it was to be used or sold in
a brothel. No other facts appearing it
is held that plaintiff can recover bal
ance claimed to be due from defendant.
for and on account of said sale.
Samuel H. Chute ell al. appellants. VS. Will
lam D. Washburn ct al, respondents.
judgment affirmed. COLLINS, j.
fY,fiH in, n
tract of land to the defendant W., who
was then the president of the other de-
PENDANT, a railway corporation. AS
part of the same transaction, w.
acknowledged in writing, under seal,
that he held the land in trust for the
corporation, to be used for certain pur-
poses, and in the same writing con-
tracted with the plaintiffs that he would
reco nvey the land to them if the cor
poration did not within two years take,
use and occupy the same. in whole or in
part, for terminal purposes. The cor
poratiOn was cognizant of the convey
ance and contract and assented to it.
Held, that as between the parties the
deed and the concurrent contract must
be considered and treated as one in
vestment.
2. The fee to the land vested on de-
| livery OF the deed to w. in trust. sub
| Ject to dlveStlture, should there be
failure to comply with the cOndi-
ton specified, which was a
| condition subsequent, not precedent.
3. A court of equity will not lend its
aid to divest an estate for the breach of
condition subsequent.
4. Testimony in the case examined
and held sufficient to sustain a finding
of the trial court that defendant cor
poration had fulfilled in accordance
with the terms OF the contract, and had
complied with the conditions imposed
therein.
5. The acts of the corporation i'll re-
latiOn to the construction Of its road and
the establishment of its terminal, both
before and after the expiration of the
period prescribed, were admissible in
evidence for the purpose of showing
that it performed certain acts of use and
occupation of the premises involved in
! good faith and with an honest motive.