St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-07-01

fact proper were all in plaintiffs favor.
but on finding that proof of service CT
notice to the city had not been made,
judgment was ordered against the
plaintiffs. They then notified the city
in form, waited until more than twenty
days had expired, and, upon proof of
such notification and proof that the
city had not interviewed or appeared i'll
the action. moved the court to strike
out the finding last referred to and its
conclusion of law, and to insert in lieu
of the latter an order for Judgment in
plaiutiffS' favor. This notion was de-
MED. Held, that it should have been
granted.
Stephen PaWlak, respondent, VS.. Michael
Granowski, appellant. Order affirmed.
VANDERBURGH. j.
Syllabus-Findings of fact held juSti-
fed by the evidence.
Where the consideration in a contract
for the safe of land, which appeared
to be sale for cash, is paid at the time
of the sale, the yendee is entitled to his
deed presently upon demand.
No formal demand is necessary where
it is waived or the contract is repudi-
ated by the vendor.
To take the case OF a parole contract
for the sale of land out of the statute,
OH the ground OF the possession of the
vendee, such possession must he with
the consent. express or implied, of the
vendor, and in pursuance Of the con-
tract.
Probate Jurisdiction.
State of Minnesota eX rel CLYDE ". Rea, re-
spondent, VS.. Sanford Kinmore ct al. APP
pellants. Affirmed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus. Wherein a petition or
application to the probate court signed
nv the " m c Si
under the provisions of g. l.. 1889, en-
167, Sec. II, the act relating to a state
publlcsschOol, the only ayerment in re-
iation to the situation or condition of
the child mentioned is that he belongs
ITO one of the classes enumerated by
the statutes of the state as admissible"
to such school, the probate court does
not acquire jurisdiction to proceed
against the child or its natural or legal
guardians.
2. Notwithstanding the terms of q.
l.. 1873 CHI. so. Sec. %. the Jurisdiction
Of the tribunal whose Judgment is in
volved over the person detained and
the subject matter may be inquired
into at all times on habeas corpus, but
cannot have the force or operation of a
writ of error or certioraIi or appeal,
nor is 1t designed as substitute for
either.
stBeer'' Is Beer.
State of Minnesota. respondent, vs. Harry
Tisdale, appellant. Affirmed.
VANDERBURGH. J.
Syllabus-Upon an indictment for
the sale of intoxicating liquors without
a license, the prosecution is not obliged
TO prove the quantity of liquor sold pre-
cisely as laid in The Indictment Where
an indictment charged the defendant
with selling a specified quantity of
brandy and beer. alleged to be intoXica-
ting, an instruction TO the jury. that
California brandy was presumptively
spirituous and Intoxicating liquor, and
that the sale of an article purporting to
be beer at place where Intoxicating
liquors were sold Will be presumed TO be
such ''beer" as is usually kept for sale
at such places, held not erroneous.
Following State VS.. Dick. AZ Mime
sofa, 3D.
Minor Rulings.
j. II. Kedzie. appellant vs. Town of Ewing
ton, respondent. Order affirmed,
COLLINS. J.
Syllabus-The act of the legislature
now known as Oh. 80. S. l.. 1887, is I'M
constitutional ami void because the sub
Ject of the attempted legislation was
not expressed in the title OF the sam9.
john Farson ct. al, copar,ners as Farson.
Leach d Co., appellants, vs.. Town of
South Brook, respondent. Order affirmed.
BY THE COURT.
This case is controlled by that of
KedZie VS. Ewingt0n.
Amt B. Moe, respondent, VS. Frank s. Ches-
rcwn, appellant Judgment affirmed.
NANDgRBURGH, j.
Syllabus-Where. in an action Of tres
pass, the title to real estate is directly in
issue. it can not be established by parole
evidence. Possession Of the real estate
in controversy here, held sufficient to
justify recovery OF nominal damages.
Paul Boyer. respondent, VS.. st. Paul City
Railway Company ct al appellants. Order
affirmed. VANDEREURGH, J.
Evidence in this case held sufficient
to warrant the submission of the Ques-
ton of the negligence Of the respective
parties to the jury.