St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-06
HIGH AUTHORITY
Voiced by Decisions on Litigation
Appealed From the Lower
Courts.
A Wide Range of Knotty Points
Ruled on by the Supreme
Court.

by the supreme court yesterday:
Carl II. Douglass, appellant, VS.. Ma
thanlel G. Leighton ct al, respondents.
Syllabus-Plaintiff contracted to sell to
defendants quantity of saw logs at
sDecihed price per thousand. He was
to cut and bank them on a certain
stream, where they were to be scaled by
the surveyor general, whose sealing was
to be conclusive as to the quantity. The
logs were banked in such manner by
the plaintiff, without necessity or eX-
cuse, so far as appears, that as to about
One-third of the logs the surveyor gen
only 'averaged," or estimated them,
and so indicated in his scale bill.
Held, that the plaintiff having con-
tracted to bank the logs with reference
to their being scaled, was required to do
so in such manner that they could be
scaled, and the averaging of the logs,
instead of scaling, being attributable
TO his own fault, he cannot insist upon
the conclusiveneSs of the averaged"
scale bill, nor rely upon custom i'll the
measurement of logs to estimate or ay-
erage logs which could not be seen. But
the defendants having received the logs
and the averaged" scale bill without
objection, the plaintiff may show that
the quantity banked was actually equal
to the amount set down in the scale
bill, and for which he seeks to recover
payment. Order refusing new trial
reversed. DICKINSON, j.
Vanderburgh, j., absent, owing to
sickness.
Caroline Anderson ct al, respondents,
VS.. Scandal Bank OF Minneapolis, APP
pellapts. Syllabus-A person having
no interest in the subject OF an &C
ton is not necessary party thereto.
Under the usury law of 1879 the Dor
rover who has voluntarily paid to the
lender any part Of the principal loaned,
exceeding the rate of 10 per cent year,
can not compel the repayment OF the
same.
In an action by a husband and wife to
avoid usurious securities given by them
upon loan made to the wife, it is i'm
proper to join cause of action by the
wife alone to recover back money paid
bG her upon the uSuriouS contract. Or
der oYerruling the demurrer reversed.
DICKINSON, j.
S. s. Armstrong. respondent, VS..
Chicago, Milwaukee & st. Paul Rail-
way, appellant. Syllabus-The plain
tiff shipped car load of goods, includ
ing some horses from Redding, ILL.,, to
Chicago, over the s. f. & G. railroad,
which terminated at Chicago. He in
tended to have the property transported
to Lakefield, in this state, and verbally
agreed with the S. T. & C.. Railroad
company as to what the charge would
be to that point. He, however, entered
into written contract with that COM
pany, merely for transportation to Chi
cago for specified price. and that
person in behalf of the plaintiff should
have passage with the car to take care
of the property. Plaintiff sent a man
with the car giving him money to pay
the freight. but gave him no express
authority to enter into any contract in
his behalf. At Chicago this agent, in
behalf of his principal, contracted with
the defendant for the further trans
portation from there to Lakefeld; in
which contract 1t was provided that no
loss or damage to the stock should be
valid, unless made in writing within
thirty days after the same should have
occurred. After the car reached its
destination the defendant retained pos.
session few days for a non-payment of
llCl&AGs LII OH QStAOu lOA ol1OSOo
ligence in the care of one of the horses
after the transportation had ceased,
held:
First-The above condition as to the
notice was applicable in respect to the
carriers conduct as a Warehouseman,
that relation being properly incident to
that of carrier; SecOnd-Such a con-
tract if made by the owner. or if author
lied by him, is reasonable and valid;
Thlrd-From the circumstances it must
be inferred that tine agent in charge of
the property was authorized to make
any necessary and reasonable contract,
as he did do, for its transportation from
Chicago to Lakefeld. For that purpose
he stood in place of the owner. Order
reversed. DICKINSON, j.
Frederick ]. Romer, respondent, VS..
John B. Confer, implicated with others,
appellant. Syllabus-The rule that
complaint need not anticipate and neg
alive matter of defense as payment
applied. An official certificate of &C
acknowledgement of the execution of an
indemnity bond constitutes prima facie
proof of its execution. Charge of the
court construed as having this meaning.
The rule that the order of proof may be
regulated by the discretion OF the court,
applied. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
Alice C. Grant. respondent, VS.. Samuel
Grant, appellant. Syllabus - Facts
which would entitle plaintiff to a lin
tied divorce may be joined in a COM
plant with those Justifying an absolute
divorce. and thereupon relief may be
sought in alternative form. Complaint
held sufficient as showing grounds for
limited divorce by reason of desertion
and of conduct rendering it unsafe and
improper for the wife to cohabit with