St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-08-26
Chief Justice GiIfllan's Rea-
sons for Differing With
His Co-Lab0pePs.
Commissioners VIII Further
Investigate the Plea Of Ell
eVator Companies.
A Tailor Falls From a Win
dow to the Sidewalk, Fra Ct
uring His Spine.

The supreme court yesterday pre-
scented a decision from which the chief
Justice dissented. 1t was in the case OF
Beverly T. Crump ct al. against Henry
G. Ingersoll ct al. The former was the
plaintiff, and received a verdict for
damages in the court below, but they
appealed because they claimed the court
did not 20 further. Specifically, the
action was brought to set aside GER
tain contract of agency executed by the
plaintiffs and the defendants, and Tor
an accounting and the recovery OF
money alleged to have been fraudulent
" obtained by the defendants ID
effectIng the purchase Of lands.
The court below found that
the defendants we're not only
the agents of the plaintiffs who pur-
chased the lands. hut also OF the ven
doris. and that the lands were actually
purchased at much less sum thah was
reDresented to the plaintiffs, and
further. that the defendants kept the
difference, amounting to 81, ZOO; judg-
ment was given for this. but the con-
tract which gives the defendants the
care and management of the property
until sold, and One-third of the net
prOftS arising from sales or rents, was
not anulled. The syllabus of the court,
signed by Vanderburgh, j., as well as
the dissenting opinion OF the chief JUS
tee, is appended:
Beverly r. Crump ct. al VS.. Henry G. In
cersoll ct Gl. respondent. A court OF equity
NAV. ex nero motu, as we'll as upon oDJec-
ton, decline to take jurisdiction or an action
of equitable cogniZance where the plaintiff
has an adequate legal remedy, nut WheIe II
does take jurisdiction ara proceed 10 lIlal
and the case is voluntarily submitted by both
parties the case should be fully ana finally
disposed of on the merits ana tull reIeI
granted if the facts warrant IT, Inc basis OF
This rule is that ii is unjust to SUBJECT Inc
nlaintiff to the vexation and expense OF q
second trial on technical grounds provided
the court is competent TO grant the appro
pirate relief wherein al equitable ac'
lion tried as such, brought foI
the cancellation of contract
for fraud and an accounting
and recovery of moneys received under 1t
the merits were fully tried and the fact;
found in plaintiffs favor. Held, that the
court should grant the relief asked for, the
cancellation of the contract and not merely {
money Judgment, notwithstanding the PLAIN
tiff may have legal defense TO the enforce
ment of the contract to the end that the con
troyersy might be fully settled in that on
action The facts found upon the trlal o
this action, which were considered on IN
former appeal, a Mimi, IS; held suulclent l
warrant the equitable relief asked.
Case remanded TO district court Win o.
reetions TO modify the judgment III accord
ance with the opinion.
Chief justice Gillian dissents. addlng'
The case was not one over which a cour'
of equity would have entertained q suit fol
cancellation Of a contract. The fact tina
there was a full trial Of everything aHeetln:
the validity Of the contract, which defend
ants could not present nor object 10, is n(
ground for relief which a court of eqult
would have refused had suit been brough
for it