St. Paul daily globe., 1892-12-30
DISAGREED ON DEALS,
And the Supreme Court Is Called
Upon TO Settle
Them.
Questions OF Liens and Laws
Passed Upon FL
nally.

Andrew Nilsson ct al. respondents Order
affirmed. COLLINS, j.
First-M. sold to & certain build
ing. agreeing at the same time TO re-
move and completely rebuild it upon a
| lot belonging to the latter. NJ. then
contracted with one n. to furnish all
materials needed and to perform the
necessary labor i'll accordance with the
terms of his agreement with X. NJ.
failed to complete the reconstruction of
the building as agreed upon, and also
allowed lien claims to be filed against
the property for materials furnished to
him for use in rebuilding. Held in an
action to foreclOSe the liens that a mort
gage given by K. to secure the payment
of hissnote to Nj. for the amount agreed
upon as the price of the completed
building was secondary to the liens of
the material men, and that as between
NJ and *. the former was liable to the
latter for the failure of n. to complete
his contract.
Second-In an action to foreclose a
mechanics lien enincumbrancers should g
made parties, and all equities which may
exist in favor OF a mortgagOr should be
determined and the rights of mortgages
fully adjudicated.
Third-ln one of the lien statements
the premises on which lien was
claimed was described as slot in
block 81, st. Louis Park addition to
Minneapolis, Mimi, according to a plat
thereof OH file and of record in the Office
of the register Of deeds of said Henne-
pin county"
Held sufficient Identification and de-
scription of ''lot in block 81. ST.
Louis Park center, Hennepin county,
according to plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office OF the register OF
deeds of said county," belonging to de-
F. fendant K..on which the materials were
used, there being no other plat Oh file or
of record in said Office, to which the de
Scription found in the statement could
be applied.
Hattie W. Backus ct al, appellants, VS.. Frank
- Burke Jr ct al, respondents Judgment
reversed. COLLINS. j.
l., Where Judgment is reversed in this
court upon the ground that the findings
of fact on winch such Judgment is based
Tbe they one or more-are not justified
by the evidence, new trial must in-
.eyitably follow.
tatharine Walker respondent. VS.. st. Paul
City Railway Company, appellant. Order
affirmed. COLLINS, j.
- The amendment found in G. l.. 1880,
Ext. SeSS., ch. 26, sec. i, to q. S. 1878,
ch. 66, sec. 262, relating to voluntary dis
nissais of action by plaintiffs, is simply
prohibitory. and a dismissal forbidden
thereby does hot i'll itself operate as a
determination of the action on the
merits.
E q. II. Austin, respondent, VS.. George G. Bar.
mum, appellant. Order affirmed
COLLINS, J.
Although, upon the face of the record,
the right to foreclose all unsatisfied
mortgage appearing in venlre claim OF
title may have been barred by the
statute of limitations, a purchaser OF
real property will not obtain market
able title, one free from reasonable
doubt. The statutory period within
which foreclosure may be made may
have been prolonged by some act of the
parties, which has operated to prevent
the running or the statute against the
debt itself.
Robert Tulloch ct al, copartners as Tulloch
Bros, appellants. VS.. W. *. Rogers ct al :.
defendants, Highland improvement Com
pany, respondent. Order reversed and
case remanded for further proceedings
COLLINS, j.
LII Il llEl SLdIclllCub IiCu uiiuCI IuC
provisions of q. l.. 1889, ch. 200, it was
ayerred that the amount claimed to be
due was owing for labor performed and
for skill and material furnished Ill the
erection and construction of the base
ment of a certain school building known
and to be known as the Hardy hail,
situate on the northwest quarter OF the
southwest quarter of certain section,
township and range. The description
was true i'll every particular, except
that the basement in question was Sltu-
ated on the northeast instead of the
northwest quarter of said southwest
quarter. In the city where situate and
at the time of its construction said
basement was generally known and
called the Hardy halP' and the Hardy
hall Site" Held, as between the lien
claimants and the owner of both tt acts
of land, that the above description was
sufficiently certain to identify the prop
erty and to sustain the lien.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. F. w.
Pratt, appellant. Order affirmed
COLLINS, j.
First-Held, that the complaint herein
stated facts sufficient to constitute all
otfense under the provisions of section
IL of an ordinance authorizing and reg
ulating street railways in the city OF
Minneapolis.
Second Held. that the evidence was
sufficient to sustain conviction OF the
otfense charged.
Third-Certain assignments of error
| as to rulings of the court admitting Oh
excluding testimony considered and
disposed of.
AnEronical Decision.
The divorce cause of ohm Peterson
against Hannah Peterson having been
| dismissed by the plaintiff, Judge Kelly
| has dismissed the application to allow
! suit money and alimOnv i'll this case.
r In another action for divorce brought
| by John Peterson against Hannah,
Judge Kelly refers to the above case.
| and decides that the woman is entitled
to alimony and suit money, and fixes
| the sums at $40 for attorney fees and s. a
/ week for aIimony. The $40 is to be paid
| in a stated time, and the alimony is pay
| able every Saturday. In making this
| latter order, Judge Kelly makes an OBJ
/ servation in an ironical vein to the eff
| feet that. the plaintiff having shown
| such haste to have this mar
| riage adjudged a nullity that
! after serving and filing this
complaint N 9. j, 1892, he caused
another action to be brought by other
| attorneys Dee. 10, 1892, his industry has
1 been rewarded by making the allow
| ance for counsel fees somewhat larger
than ordinary. The action for divorce
is based OH the claim that the marriage
was nullity. John complains that
| Hannah had INN arrested on warrant
for bastardy in November last. He was
! then taken before Thomas Z. Conroy. a
| justice of the peace, and married to
| Hannah John asserts that he was in
toxicated at the time to slch an extent
that he did not realize that he was being
married. He now asserts that he has
never been taken before the court to
answer the charge Of baStar,iy; more
over, he asserts that Hannah swore
falsely in tie matter and that She had
not given birth 10 an illegitimaIe child
and was not even pregnant.