St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-07-18
SIX CASES DECIDED.
Railroad Suits stand Tie, One For
and One Against.

The supreme court yesterday affirmed
the order of the lower court in the case
of Ernest A. Harold, respondent, VS..
The WinOna & st. Peter Railway Com
pany, appellant. 1t is held in tie syi
labus that the complaint stated cause
of action and that the verdict was sus-
tanned by the evidence. The defendant
in its answer and upon the trial
having justified the action OF
its employe i'll Selling the plain
tiff in order to prevent him from
boarding a train, exclusively upon the
the safety of the plaintiff in view of the
facts that he was intoxicated and that
the train was already in motion, the
court properly refused to instruct the
jury that defendant had right to eX-
clude the plaintiff from the train on the
ground that he was an unfit passenger
because of his intoXication. as not being
applicable to the issues rendered by the
answer. The principal injury COM
planned of being a fracture and diSlO-
cation of the shoulder, which had i'm
paired plaintiffs power to use his arm,
and the defense having claimed that
these injuries were feigned, it was not
preiudicial error to permit an expert
WllHtSS WIN Hdu LColllCu ~ q
condition of the arm, which could not
have been caused by mere disuse.
Rudolph NJ. Hunter, respondent. vs. William
A. Frost, appellant. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL. j.
Tenancies from year to year still exist
in this state as at common law, except
so far as the length of the notice re-
quired to terminate them has been
changed by statute. The provisions of
Gen. st. 1878. CHI. Is, sec. 40, relative to
notices to quit, apply to tenancies from
year to year, everything Smith VS.. Bell.
But this statute changes only the length
of notice, and not the time when 1T
should terminate. Hence, in the case
of tenancy from year to year the
notice to quit must still terminate at the
end of the year.
Henry j. Farrell respondent, VS.. Phil p
Fabel, appellant. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL. ].
Where a bond, complete on its face,
has been actually delivered, the Obligee
cannot be affected by all agreement be-
tween the principal and the surety. not
communicated to the obligee, that the
bond should not take effect until exc
cuted by another surety; following Ber-
KEY VS.. Judd, 81 Mimi. S93. The an
swer held insufficient because not alIeg-
ing that the agreement between the
principal and the surety was known to
the obligee at or before the delivery of
the bond.
Bernard Pearson. appellant, VS.. The Chicago,
Milwaukee & st. Paul Railway Company,
respondent. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
A crew of section men, of which
plaintiff was one, was engaged in load
ing railroad iron from the ground upon
a flat car, when one of the crew negli-
gently let one of the iron rails fall upon
the plaintiffs arm. Held that the in
Jury was not the result Of any danger
peculiar to or directly connected with
the use and operation of the railroad,
and hence not within the provisions of
chapter Is, Laws 1887, making railroad
companies liable to an employe for in
juries caused by the negligence of CO.
employe.
Peter svanse, respondent vs.. Lars Peter
Larson appellant Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
Evidence considered and held suffi-
cient to justify the verdict.
Paul Quehl, as assignee. respondent. VS..
Henry Peterson, appellant Order for
Judgment modified. MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus-Tbe terms occupancy"
and residence" as used in the home
stead exemption laws, refer to an actual
occupancy of the premises, and an
actual residence thereon as a home
and dwelling place. Hence, if the
owner remove from and cease to
actually occupy the premises for more
than six months without filing the no
tlce required by Gen. st. 1878, CHI. :,
sec. 9, his right to claim the same as
homestead ceases, although he may
have removed therefrom with the in
tention of returning and resuming his
occupancy at some future time. Mel
Their will his right be regained by his
mere intention and preparation to re-
turn, unaccompanied by an actual re-
sumption of his occupancy.
Forrest Henry, respondent, vs. Thomas j.
Meighen, appellant.
Syllabus-Where the complaint al
legged that judgment was obtained by
fraud and perjury, also that there had
been collected on it and retained by
the judgment creditor an amount in ex-
cess of the amount of the judgment, the
relief demanded being that the judy
ment be vacated and restitution made
of all that had been collected on it, or if
such relief be not granted, that the