St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-10-28
BLETHEH'S ASSIGNMENT
SHOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED AP-
P0iNTMENT or A RECEIVER.
DISTRICT COURT REVERSED.

Showing of the New England
Bank in This Case Was Not a
Legal Ono-.4egal Victory for
n Druggist in an Important
Case-Rights of a Mortgagee-
SylIabi of Decisions.
The supreme court yesterday handed
Town ten decisions, in five of which the
court below is reversed. in four the
court below is affirmed, and one is a
dismissal of the appeal.
In the proceedings of the state of
Minnesota for the appointment of re-
ceiver for the Bank of New England
(Blethen's bank, the district court of
Hennepin county is reversed, Chief
Justice Gilfilan writing the opinion.
The action was brought by the attorney
general for the state, which was a
creditor of the bank, under chapter IS
of the General Statutes of 1878, for the
appointment of receiver for the bank.
On the complaint of the state and the
necessary affidavit for the appointment
of receiver, and for an injunction, an
order was granted by the district court
requiring the defendant to show cause
why a receiver should not be appointed
and an injunction issued.
After the commencement of the action
the defendant made all assignment
under the inSOlvent law of 1881 of all its
property for the benefit OF its creditors.
When the order to SHOW cause came up
Tor hearing, the defendant set forth as
rause why receiver should not be ap-
pointed and an Injunction issued the
:act that it had made the assignment
mentioned. Upon this showing the
district court dismissed the order to
chow cause and allowed the assignee to
remain III charge of the properties of
lne bank. 1t is this action of the dis
trict court that is reversed by the su-
preme court, which holds that the state
IN its complaint and affidavit made a
ease, and that the showing of the de-
PENDANT was not legal one. In the
opinion rendered the chief justice uses
this language:
STICK TO THE LAW.
at IS the duty of the court to make
the action etfectual and 10 exercise for
that purpose the powers vested in it.
Thus the court must appoint receiver
when it has been determined that case
exists under the chapter for the CONVEX
sion and distribution among creditors of
the property of the corporation, for it is
only by means OF receiver that the
property can be collected and preserved
and Its conversion and distribution eff
fected. To say that in such case the
court may in Its discretion appoint a
receiver is to say that it may in Its dis
erection grant or refuse the remedy
given by the statute"
The defendant, by making no other
showing as cause why receiver should
not be appointed and all Injunction
should not issue than that it has made
an assignment, made no legal showing
OF cause, hence left legal admission of
the truth of the facts set forth in the
states showing for the appointment of
receiver and the issuance of an in
junction. The syllabus in the case is
here given:
STATE OF Minnesota, appellant, vs. Bank of
England, respondent Order reversed.
GILFILLAN, {. j.
SyllabuS-ln an action uHd er General
Statutes 1878, chapter rs. while, before
the formal determination OF any issue
upon the plaintiffs ALLEGATIONS essen
tial to maintain the action or upon facts
sAltN SSb III NlCltiSN. IL 10 dISCItllOlIdIN
with the court to appoint a receiver. or
hot, yet before such formal determine
tlon.lf 1t IS admitted that the facts which
give the right OF action exist and there
Is no defense, II Will be an abuS of dis
cretiOn to refuse to appoint receiver.
ii IS the same with regard To issuing
an Injunction. When a creditor has
commenced all action under that chapter
and assignment by the corporation under
the insOlveHt law of 1881 will not defeat
nor impair the creditors right to the
remedy by his action commenced.
VICTORY FOR A DRUGGIST.
In the case of the state against Clar-
ence a. Robinson, druggist charged
with violating the pharmacist law by
permitting an unlicensed employe TO
sell drugs, the finding of guilty by the
court below is reversed. The finding OF
fact of the district court was that Robin
SOIL had IN his employ one Fremstad,
who was not registered pharmacist, to
clean up the store, sell cigars. soda
water, patent medicines and notions,
but that Fremstad was under special
instructions from his employer to not
sell drugs and poisons. nor prepare
iiCSNI ptlOlS' IIS COull lOuIlU
that FremStad sold The articles COM
planned of during brief absences of Rob
insOn from the store. The court did not
find that Robinson actually or directly
authorized the sale; yet found him
guilty.
The supreme court holds that in the
absence of showing of actual knowl-
edge OH the part of the druggist or
direct authority from him to make the
sales, he cannot be found guilty.
State of Minnesota. respondent. VS.. Clarence
A Robinson, appellant Order reversed.
GILFILLAN. c. j.
Syllabus owner OF drug store
is not liable under Laws 1855, chapter
147, section Il. regulating the practice
OF pharmacy, as amended by Laws 1891,
chapter l04, for sale by one in his
employ, not registered pharmacist or