St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-19
want of tenants, held not to interrupt
the adverse possession.
Gilfillan, c. j., dissents.

the adverse possession.
Gilfillan, c. j., dissents.
John Kemmitt, respondent, vs. W. II. Adam
son, appellant. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, j.
Where note was made for payment
of SIT, with interest at 10 per cent per
annum, but was in fact given for loan
of SIS only, the extra 50 being charged
and allowed as additional interest upon
the sum actually loaned, the note was
held usurious and void. The contract
itself being essentially usurious, it was
also held immaterial that the loan was
made by an agent of the payee. who
held in his hands moneys of the latter
with general authority to make loans.
Where a mortgage of chattelS, left IN
the possession of the mortgagor. is void
for usury or fraud, seizure OF the
mortgaged property by the mortgage
against the consent OF the mortgagor, is
wrongful and an action will lie for tres
pass; and if the MORTGAGE wrongfully
enters upon the premises of the mort.
gagor, and takes and carries away the
mortgaged property, exemplary dam
ages may be allowed by the jury, de-
pending upon the circumstances OF ag-
gravation or oppression and the nature
of the injury.
William b. Parsons. receiver, etc.. respond
ent, vs. Moses George, appellant; William
B.Parsons receiver, etc. respondent VS..
Thomas c. Derby, appellant; William g.
Parsons, receiver, etc.. respondent VS..
Leander Derby, appellant.
VANDERBJReH, J.
Evidence held sufficient to support
the findings of the trial court. Where
an insolvent firm sold and transferred
their stock of goods to fraudulent
purchaser, who as, part of the transac-
ton and in consideration of the sale, eX-
ecuted chattel mortgages upon the
stock, to secure Indebtedness due GER
tain relatives of the vendors, for the
purpose of giving them a preference
over the creditors of the firm, held that
a receiver seasonably appointed i'll pro-
ceedingS under the lnSolyent law may
maintain an action to set aside the
mortgages as fraudulent, and to recover
the goods so transferred,
Charles Miller, appellant VS.. lothian G..
Smith, respondent. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, j.
After the lapse of more than twenty
years from the date of the transaction,
the court will not entertain suit to
have deed absolute on it's face de-
clared mortgage and for all account
ing, where the note secured by such
deed is simply alleged not to have been
due at the date of the deed. Complaint
held insufficient to entitle the plaintiff
to the equitable relief sought.
John Merritt Lewis, appellant, VS.. Ella E.
Lewis. respondent. Judgment affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, j.
The courts are not authorized to de-
cree marriage contract void on the
ground of the insanity of one of the
parties, except for such want Of under
standing in such party as to render him
or her incapable of asserting thereto,
and though such person may be subject
to some vice or uncomfortable impulse
or propensity, yet if otherwise sane and
able to understand the nature and obli-
cations of the marriage contract, de-
cree of nullity will not be granted. A
contract of marriage may be avoided
when brought about by articles OF
fraudulent practices. but as a general
rule cOncealment by one of the parties
of personal traits or defects of charac-
ter, or habits, reputation, bodily health
or other peculiar infirmities, is not suffi-
Gent ground for avoiding marriage.
Abbie B. Lowell respondent, VS.. Mary F.
Doe, appellant. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, Jr.
The statute, declaring that mort
gage of real property shall not be
deemed conveyance so as to enable
the mortgage to recover possession
without foreclosure, does not abrogate
the power of the court to appoint re-
ceiver of such property, in an action to
| forecloSe the mortgage when that be-
comes necessary for the protection OF
| such equitable rights of the mortgage
| as do not rest upon the common law
principle of legal estate transferred
| by the mortgage.
The appointment of a receiver of val
| liable hotel property sustained upon the
grounds that the mortgagors had al
| lowed the hotel business to be dlScon-
| tinued. the property being especially
| valuable for that purpose; that the clos
ing of the hotel would depreciate the
value of the property so as to become
insufficient security for the debt. the
mortgagors to be maintained for the. Sc
curity of the mortgages was beins
| jeopardized by auch disuse; and thai
taxes were allowed to become delin
| qnent contrary to the stipulations Of
the mortgage.
The homestead rights of mortgagor:
| in the mortgaged property are Subjec
to the ordinary legal and equitable
rights of the mortgages as such.