St. Paul daily globe., 1892-06-16
IN SUPRhNiE COURT. !,
Decisions Handed Down Yester-
day by the Judges.

Decisions Handed Down Yester-
day by the Judges.
County of Scott, reSpondentvs. Henry Minds,
appellant. Order affirmed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus-First = Under the provis-
ions of General Statutes 1873, chapter
II, section 20, an omission to have All
assessment OF real property revised and
equalized by the county board will not
affect or inValidate the taxes upon such
property, in the absence of any claim
by the owner. that the omission had re-
suited to his prejudice and that the
taxes against the property have been
partially, unfairly, unequally assessed.
The legality of the special assessment
against certain city lots for expenses of
constructing sidewalks in front OF the
same is not affected by the fact that in
the tax list the amount of the assess
ment against each lot appeared in a col
umn headed ''delinquent road tax" in
the absence of any claim by the owner
of the lots that he had been misled or
prejudiced by the alleged error in the
heading.
Thirdly one of the provisions of
the city charter the expense of con-
structing sidewalks where the owner of
the adjoining property had failed TO
be assessed against the "lots and par
GELS of lands adjoining said Sidewalks"
Held that this language is equivalent
to that found in Sec. l, Art. of the
state constitution, which authorizes and
provides that such assessments may De
made upon the property fronting upon
such improvements"
FOurth-With such charter provision
it was unnecessary for the city council.
when directing that the sidewalks be
constructed. the lOtOWnerS having failed
to build, to specially direct that such
construction should be at the expense OF
the "lots adjoining the walks"
Fifth-Where sidewalk is built in
front of park, part only of single
tract of land, such as city lot owned
by one person, the cost of construction
is a proper charge against the entire
tract.
SiXth-In determining for the purpose
of special assessment what property
fronts upon sidewalk, practical 'front.'
age is not the test. The officials must
be guided by the plals and records.
Seventh-Othel points in regard to n
special assessment to cover the expense
of constructing sidewalks disposed of.
August Rosquist appellant VS.. D. NJ. Gill
more more Furniture t1 Company respondent.
Syllabus -First-It Is nthe discretion
of the tridfcourt to permit evidence to be
given III reply which properly should
have been given III chief.
Second-In its charge to the jury the
court gave almost verbatim four out of
plaintiffs requests to charge, and ali
of the defendants, seven in number.
The exception taken was 1.-The plant
iff exceptS to the refusal of the court
to give plaintiffs fourth, fifth, sixth, sew
enth, eighth ana ninth requests. and to
the modification of the first and second
of plaintiffs requests as given. Plaint-
iff also excerpts to the giving Of each of
defendants requests" Held not suffi-
ciently specific.
We are not prepared to say that
plaintiffs exception to the courts re-
fusalS to charge was not sufficiently
specific, but concur in the result on the
ground that such refuSalS constitute no
prejudicial error.
MITCHELL, j. and DICKINSON, j.
N. J. Reilly, respondent VS.. Robert E.
+ Bader defendant, respondent and Amos
C.. Sardenson, intervenOr appellant. Orders
andjudgment affirmed. COLLINS j.
Sylabus-Held that a former adjudi-
cation mot pleaded) caunot be set up by
motion after trial and verdict. Also.
that motion to set aside the verdict
and for leave to interpOSe a supple
mental pleading alleging the former
adjudication was properly denied. -
E. G. Holmes, respondent VS.. Austin Corbin,
IL. PER CURIAM.
Syllabus-Under the circumstances
disclosed by the records in this case
held that there was no abuse of discre-
ton by the trial court in denying de-
fendant's application for continuance.
William W Cargill and Samuel d. Cargill,
partners as w. w. Cargill IL Bro. respond
ents vs. Edward Thompson ct nj. appel
lants. Order affirmed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus-The complaint in this ac-
tion, which was DrOughtlo recover for
damages said to have resulted from a
failure on the part of the lessons to OH
serve and keep the conditions and cove
nants in two leases of water power, con-
sidered, and held to state facts sufficient
to constitute cause of action against
each of several defendants.
Thomas A. Buckley, appellant, VS.. Emma A.
Humason ct al, respondents Order at
frmed. VANDERBURGH j.
syllabus - i 1ranS2clOllS Ill NlUldtloI
of law cannot be made the foundation
of valid contract. Where statute or
an ordinance duly authorized and enact
ed makes particular business unlawful
for unlicensed persons, any contract
made in such business by one not au-
thorized is void. Where, by valid city
ordinance, it was made unlawful for
any person to exercise within the city
the business of real estate broker
without license. held that a person so
engaged in negotiating the sale or ex-
change of real property in violation OF
such ordinance could recover no conf
missions for his services.
The following cases were considered ey
| the supreme court yesterday: John L.. Gould
| ct al, respondents, vs. Northern Pacific Rail
way Company. appellant; submitted on
| brief. C. S. Dobbin, respondent VS.. North
| ern Pacific Railway Company: appellant; sub
mitted on brief John G. Nelson ct al, re-
| spondents VS.. A. T.Jenks, appellant; argued
| and submitted. j. Lonsdale, respondent,