St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-29
OTIS KNOCKED OUT.
The Probate Code Declared
Constitutional by Appel
late Judges,
Thereby Reversing a Decision
Of a Ramsey District
Judge.
A Variety OF Cases Elueidated
by the Supreme
Court,
In Which Lawyers and Liti-
In Which Lawyers and Liti-
giants Are Generally
Rounded Up.

AOdA0OA " ps
The supreme court handed down an
opinion yesterday declaring the probate
code OF the state constitutional, and
thereby reversing the decision of Judge
Otis, of the district court. The opinion
was written 10y Judge Mitchell, and is
Incontroyertible as to its conclusions,
because it eXhauStS the rules of con-
STRUNG laws. The syllabus of the case
is as follows:
In re appeal OF Stina johnson, etc. Stina
Johnson, respondent, VS.. Lawrence l..
Harrison. administrator, ETC., appellant.
Order reversed. MITCHELL, j.
Chapter 10, Laws of 1889, entitled. IAN act
to establish probate code, D." is not obnoxious
10 the constitutional provision that mo law
shall embrace more than one subject which
shall be expressed In the title"
The cause was appealed from the dis
trlct court OF Ramsey county, where 1t
was held that the code is unconStitu-
tional on the theory that more than one
subject was expressed in the title of the
act of the legislature enactiug the code.
In the opinion Judge Mitchell says the
purposes of the constitutional provision
are designed to prevent mischief. These
purposes are two: First. to prevent
what is termed log-rOlling legislation or
and disconnected subjects are Joined
IN a bill and then carried through
by combination of interests;
second, it prevents surprise and fraud
upon the people and the legislature by
including provisions in a bill whose
title gives no intimatlOn of the nature of
the proposed legislation. or of the in
terests likely to be affected by Its be-
coming law. And in deciding whether
an act is obnoxious to this provision of
the constitution, very good test to ap-
ply is whether it is within the miSchiefS
intended to be remedied.
Again, while this provision is manda-
tory, yet it is to be given liberal and
not strict Interpretation. 1t is not in
tented, nor should it be so constituted,
as to embarrass legislation by making
laws unnecessarily restrictive in their
scope and operation, or by multiplying
their number, or by preventing the leg
iSlature from embracing in one act all
matters properly connected with one
general subject. The term subject"
as used in the constitution is to be given
broad and extended meaning, so as to
allow the legislature full scope to in
clude in one act all matters having a
logical or natural connection. To con-
stitute dGpllcity of subject, an act must
embrace two or more disSimilar and dis
cordant subjects that by no fair intend
ment can be considered as having any
legitimate connection with or relation
to each other.
The connection Or relationship of
several matters such as will render
them germane to one subject and TO
each other can be of various kinds-aS,
for example, of means to ends, OF differ
ent subdivisions of the same subject. or
hot oil 4 srrrt,r
pose, or that both are designated by the
same term. Neither is it necessary that
the connection or relationship should
be logical; it is enough that the matters
are connected with and related to a
single subject in popular Specification.
The generality of the title of an act is
no objection, provided only it is suf-
ficient to give notice of the general sub
ject of the proposed legislation and of
the interests likely to be affected. The
tile was never intended to be an index
of the law. Tested by these general
rules. we are of opinion that the PRO
bate Code" embraces a single general
subject, and that this subject is Suffi-
GENTLY expressed III its title.
Was Justified.
Philip Reilly, substituted for August Jack
son, respondent, VS.. John e. Williams ct
al, appellants. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. y.
Evidence held TO justify the finding of fact
as 10 the time when the building contract
under which Il lien is claimed was fully per-
formed. A contractor who, under one gen
eral contract with the owner had construct
ed upon contiguous lots two separate build
ings, each requiring the same amount and
character of labor and material. after having
been paid more than half the contract price,
released one of the houses and lots from his
lien under the agreement with the
owner that he should retain
lien on the other for the balance
due on his contact: Held that he could
file and enforce his lien on the remaining
house and lot for the entire balance due him
where there were no third parties whose in
tereSts were preiudicially affected by the re-
lease of the other house aud lot Where a
vendor accepts from the vendee, as security
fo- part of the purchase money. mortgage
OF the property subject to prior mortgage
by the vendee 10 third party he holds il
also subject to q mechanics lien in favor of
q contractor of the vendee, which attached
prior to the lien of the first mortgage.
Process and service.
Robert Crombie, respondent vs.. William
r. Little ct al, appellants. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. j.
The act of March 10, 1853 Compiled stat
utes 1855 page $500. was TO make. both the
form of process ana the manner of its sery-
obtained in other civil actions. An action
to foreclose mortgage upon real estate wss
one, the subject of which is real prop
erty and liz W hich the relief demanded con-
sisted partly in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein. within the mean
ing of the fifth subdivision Of section |.
chapter -, Laws 1854. providing for
the publication of summons. An affi-
davit for the publication of a summons
need not be sworn 10 on the day
the action IS commenced. All that
is necessary is that it be sworn to within such
reasonably BRIEF period before the publica-
tioni that no presumption can fairly arise
that the state of facts has changed in the
meantime. Such an affidavit is not void be-
cause entitled in an action not actually COM
TIenced when the action was sworn to-
Where an affidavit Is sworn to before the
deputy clerk of the district court a
jurat. signed by him "a. b.. Clerk, by
{. D., deputy IS good II the affidavit for
publication is filed with the clerk Of the dis
trict court. the fact that he failed to keep his
Office at the county seat will not invalidate
the publication CT The summons y certain
instrument purporting and intended to be a
sheriff deed on foreclosure sale, which
contained all that was required in a "certifi-
cate Of sale, . held operative as a certificate,
although unauthorized as deed.
Properly Rendered.
Patrick Keigher, respondent VS.. John Dow
Ian ct al, defendants; James a. +. Dow
Ian ct al. appellants. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. J.
Plaintiff sued persons as joint defendants
alleging (as the fact was) that they were
partners. He proved a cause of acton
against two OF the defendants but not
against the third Held that judgment VAS
properly rendered against two. General
Statutes. chap. SO, Sec 700
Dyspepsia
r....z7a - ,1r.oet ,-,sold rorE