St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-01-31


Court Opinions.
Five opinions were yesterday handed
down by Justice Dickinson, of the SUI
preme bench, in three of which the
lower courts finding was reversed, as
follows: slssg
Edwin c. Whitney. appellant VS.. National
Masonic Accident Association of DeS
Mones, Iowa, respondent. Judgment re-
verSed. DICKINSON j.
In contract, creating definite legal
obligation (e. e. to pay certain sum OF
money upon specified contingency an
agreement to the effect that the rights
and obligations of the parties shall be
determined by arbitration, and that no
action shall be maintained on the con-
tract. is not legally effectual to such an
action. Such clause is contract of
insurance construed.
j. r. Watkins, app ellant, vs. c. o. London
ct H., partners, as London Burchard, re-
spondents. Order ath rmed.
DICKINSON, j.
ANY persons lawfully acquiring a
knowledge of the composition of any
medicinal. preparation not patented has
the legal right to manufacture and sell
the same, it, by reason of the manner
in which such knowledge is acquired,
that would not constitute a breach OF
confidence or good faith.
He may also publish the fact that his
product is made in accordance with the
original formula therefor.
When such preparation has come to
be popularity known by the name of a
person (e. g. Wards Liniment'O an
other person engaging in the manufact-
ure has no right to appropriate that
name to his own exclusive use as pro-
pretary trade mark or trade name.
In an action to recover damages for
the wrongful use Of trade label re-
sembIing that of the plaintiff, the plain
tiff is not entitled, in the absence Of
proof of the measure of damages, to re-
cover the penalty prescribed in chap.
, 17S. Laws of 1885.
Refusal to allow new trial for alleged
newly discovered evidence sustained
Evidence held to Justify findings.
William c. ReSSer ct al, appellants, VS.. Pat.
I rick Ii. Carney, respondent Order reversed.
: DICKINSON, j.
A selection of ''indemnity'' lands by
the Northern Pacific Railroad company,
which was required TO be made under
the direction of the secretary of the
Interior" was not etfectual until in some
way approved or sanctioned by that Of
fcer.
A purchaser Of vacant real estate, re-
ceiying deed thereof with a covenant
of Selling from one VINO has no title, the
covenant being wholly broken, is not
compelled, at least after he has COM
menced an action for the breach of the
covenant, for The recovery Of the pur-
chase money paid, to accept title which
his grantor may then require.
Burke VS.. Beveridge, Is Mimi. 205. COM
mented upon.
Such a grantee, at the time of the con-
vevauce to him, having given back to his
grantor mortgage OF the same land,
with like covenant, to secure the pay
ment of part of the purchase price, is
not eStOpped by the covenant in the
mortgage from maintaining such action
for breach of the covenant i'll the deed.
A foreclosure of the purchase money
mortgage by the vendor, he purchasing
at the foreclosure sale, and nOn-redemp-
ton therefrOm. will not eXtlnguiSh the
right of action of the mortgagor for
breach of the covenant in the deed to
him.
AS between the parties the purchase
money mortgage Is not effectual to dis
charge the vendor from the obligation
created by the covenants in his deed,
Albert Peterson ct al, appellants, VS.. Alfred
Il. Baffiif. respondent. Order reversed.
DICKINSON, j.
The land of minors under guardian
ship having been sold and conveyed,
an action to recover the purchase price
is within the jurisdiction of the district
court but not of the probate court. The
general guardian refusing to collect the
purchase price, an action for its recov-
cry may be prosecuted by the minors
through guardian ad Item.
Walter E. Akers ct al, co-partner as Akers
d Lancaster, respondents, VS.. Joseph K.
Thwing ct al, appellants. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
Evidence held to justify the verdict
upon issues as to value of professional
services of attorneys at law and as to
whether there had been any special
agreement respecting the same. A
cross-examination upon immaterial
matters, whereby it was sought to lay
3the foundation for impeachment, held
harmless, the testimony not being pre-
/ judicial. So held of other immateral
evidence.