St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-11-20

John S. Sepp. respondent, against Frank P
McCann ct al. defendants, John Silk, APP
pellant. Order affirmed.
GILFILLAN. c. j.
Syllabus-A certain bond to the city
of st. Paul, executed upon taking con-
tract to do public work, held good I'M
der chapter $50, Special Laws 1889. and
to inure to the benefit of laborerS work
ing for subcOntractOr. a cause Of ac-
ton on such bond is assignable, and
passes upon an assignment of the claim
for the labor. The city is not neces-
sary party to an action on such bond.
Frederick WIschstadt Jr, respondent, against
Frederick Wischstadt ST.. appellant Order
reversed. GnFILLAN, c. j.
SyllabuS-In an action for SANDER, in
order to prove the uttering of the
words, the plaintiff may prove defend
ants plea of guilty in a criminal pro-
ceeding in the warrant in which the
SlanderOuS words were, in substance
and meaning, though not literally, set
forth as the basis of the criminal charge.
To diScred't witness on the ground of
supposed i'll feeling OIL his part tOwar d
the party against whom he is called, it
is not proper to prove only that the
party had brought an action against the
witness. TO prove hostile feelings,
when denied, some act or declaration of
the witness indicating it must be shown.
II is not enough to prove merely what
might be a reason for it.
William Salisbury. appellant. vs. Patrick
Helgher ct al respondents. Judgment re-
Versed GILFLLAN, c. j.
Sylabus-The questions IN this case
are decided in Sepp VS.. Mccain, the
opinion just filed.
John Phillip Schaller. respondent, VS.. Peter
Berger, appellant. Order reversed.
GILFILLAN, G. j.
SyllabuS-The payee named in a note
procured the maker, who could not read,
to sign it by fraudulently representing
that it was payable to another person.
to whom the maker was indebted.
Held, that the note in the hands of the
payee was void. Also, that any pay
ments upon it made to the payee under
the belief induced by such fraudulent
representations may be recovered back.
W. s. Saver, respondent, VS.. F. A Burdick,
appellant. Order reversed.
GILFnLAN. C. j.
Syllabus-Parol proof of a cOnsidera-
ton for written contract other than
that expressed in it is not admissible to
vary its terms. So where a bill of sale
recited as the consideration a sum in
hand paid and also contained a covenant
on the part of the vendee to pay the
partnership debts of himself and the
vendor, it is not admissible to prove for
the purpose Of enforcing such parol
promise that the vendee also in consd-
Grafton of the sale to him promised by
parOl to pay individual debts of the
vendor. One who seeks to enforce
promise made to another for his benefit
is bound the same as the prOmisee would
be, by the rule excluding parol proof to
vary a written contract.
State of Minnesota VS.. Duluth Street Railway
company. Order affirmed
GILFTLLAN, c. j.
Syllabus-An appeal with the stay
provided in Gen. st. 1878, ch Sc. sec. 10,
from an order dissolving an Injunction
suspends the operation of the order dis
solving and the injunction remains in
force. 1t does not affect this that the
injunction issued on an order exparte.
Mitchell, j., and Collins, j., join in a
dissenting opinion.