St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-19
AMOUNT OF SKILL NEEDED
AN EMPLOYER GOVERNED BY A DIFF
FEREHT RULE
FROM A CommoN CARRIER.

FROM A C0MRsGN CARRIER.
Lanpher. Finch 6 Skinner, Sued
by an Empleye Injured in Eie-
vator, Held Not Bound by
Rule of Carrier Toward Pas
senser-Supremc Court Decis-
ions.
The supreme court yesterday handed
down decisions in seven cases. The
first, that of Bridget McDonough. by
Anthony McDonough, her guardian ad
Item, respondent, VS.. Ovid L. Lanpher
ct AL, copartners as Lanpher, Finch "
Skinner. appellants. This action was
to recover for a personal injury. On
the trial plaintiff received verdict, and
the appeal is from an order denying
new trial. The court charged the jury
to see that the company exercised the
highest degree of human skill
in making the elevator safe
for the purpose of transporting
human beings from one part of the
building 10 the other. This is the de-
gree of care required of common car
rier of passengers towards the pasSen-
gers he carries. 1t is higher degree
than is required of master towards his
servant. The court says that there is
considerable weight or authority in sup
port of the proposition that in such
cases the person is carried as an em-
ploye, and not as passenger. and, in
case like this, reason would seem to
point to the same result.
In the opinion of the supreme court
the plaintiff, from the time she entered
the building for the purpose of going TO
work, was there as employe, whether
she walked up the stairs or rode up in
the elevator. The syllabus is as fol-
lows:
Bridget McDonough, by Anthony McDon-
ougn. her guardian ad Item, respondent,
VS.. ovid p. Lanpher ct al, copartners as
Lanpher, Finch d Skinner, appellants.
Order reversed. GILF1LLAN, {. j.
Defendants carried on their business
in FIVE story building, using the whole
of il. In the building was an elevator
highest story. used for freight. but in
which the employees in the business
were permitted. but not required, to
ride i'll going uD to. and down from, the
stories in which they respectively
worked.
Held. that while so riding they were
employees and not passengers, and the
degree of care required of defendants
was that required on the part of mas
ter toward his servant, and not that I'M
posed on a common carrier of passengers
In respect to those carried by him.
The other opinions OF the court are
epitomiZed in the following Syllabi:
Henry Nelson. respondent VS.. Village of
West Duluth, appellant. Order reversed.
GILFILLAN, &. j.
In an action for treSpasS in casting
ard imposing earth on plaintiffs lott
measure of damages is. in general. the
difference between the value of the lot
in its former state and the value after
the earth is so imposed upon it. If there
he building OIL the LOT. not alleged to
have been injured. evidence of its sep
arate value is inadmSSlble.
Where there is a street constructed
along the lot affecting its value, evil
dence of the amount of assessment the
owner paid on account of the improve
ment is inadmiSsible OH the question OF
the value OF the lot.
In such an action evidence of what it
would cost to remove the earth and 10
build retaining wall 10 keep it off is
not admissible to increase the damage
beyond the diminution Ill value of the
lot
In an action in tort, the objection that
the damages recovered are excessive or
inadequate and insufficient as ground
of motion for new trial. comes under
subdivision 4, ana not subdivision ),
section 253, chapter AZ, General Statutes
1873 as amended. Laws 1891, chapter so.
In such case it is not enough that the
damages are, in the opinion of the
court. too large or too small. They must
appear to have been given under the
influence of passion or prejudice.
When the case comes under section
the doctrine of Wicks VS.. Stone does not
apply.
In re assignment of Ludwig Kahn, insolvent,
Eau Claire National Bank, appellant VS..
Morris l.. Bischbein, assignee, respondent.
Judgment affirmed. GILFILLAN, c. j.
Where an insoIvent debtor residing
and doing business and having his prop
erty in this state makes i'll this state an
agreement with creditor residing in
another state to make a preference to
him in payment by sending to him at
4Ilo pldSO VI SOOOo W OC
piled in payment, and the debtor sends
him the goods consigned to him at his
place of residence, it is Minnesota
transaction, the legality of which is to
be determined by the laws of this state.
The court III which an Insolvency pro-
ceeding in pending may refuse 10 al
low the claim of creditor who has re-
ceived q preference such as is pro-
hibited by the insOlvent law, except on
condition that he restore the assignee
what he so received.
And this is SO whether the unlawful
preference was upon the claim he pre-
sents for allowance or upon some other
Such creditor cannot by transferring
his claim put his transferee i'll any bet
ter position in this respect that himself
Harriet Macauley, responded, VS.. Dennis
Ryan. appellant, Appeal dismissed.
GILFILLAN, c. J.
daaiciOr, Or rn1inO of fin oo,,t