St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-10-28
assistant. made without his knowledge
or assent.
MORTGAGEE'S RIGHTS.

assistant. made without his knowledge
| or assent.
MoRTGAGEE's RIGHTS.
W. W. Wetmore, respondent VS.. David
Royal ct a.. defendants. Pioneer Savings
and Loan Company. appellants. Order re-
verSed. BUCK, j.
Syllabus - Where contractor
makes an itemized and verified
statement of materials furnished
and labor performed by him in
the erection of a dwelling house. and
files the same in the office of the regis ter
of deeds, where the same was duly
recorded March II, 1891. in which
statement he inserts an erroneous
date of Sept. 80, 1871, as the
time when the first item of
such material was furnished and
such labor performed, he is not entitled
to have such erroneous statement cor
Iected SO as to show that such material
was furnished and labor performed as
of the Goth day of August, 1890, as
against the rights of a mortgagee nav
ing mortgage lien on S1lu premises,
dated and recorded Sept. 3. 1890, and
where said contractor allowed said er-
rOneouS statement 10 remain OF record
llOll INC tldG'' vi liS ulllS
and recording until April %. 1892. and
where said mortgagee mad i'll the mean
time proceeded tn foreclose his mortgage
and bid off the premises for the full
amount thereof on the Goth day of June,
1891, relying upon the correctness o. tie
date of Sept. 80, 1890. in said contractors
lien statement SO filed ana recorded.
The court below allowed the plaintiff
on the trial, April Is, lSJ2,ito amend his
complaint and thereby 10 correct said
erroneous date of Sept. 80, 1890, and to
insert therein as the true date of fur
niShlng the first item of material and
performing such labor the 18th day of
August, 1890, and by its decision made
the mechanics lien of said contractor
superior and paramount to that of the
mortgage lien OF the mortgage. Held
that, as against this defeudaut, this was
error, and that the burden of proof was
upon the plaintiff to show that the
rights of the mortgage were not iu-
paired by such amendment.
A party may be estopped by his acts
or conduct which mislead party to his
injury, although not guilty of any
fraudulent design to miSlead. if a party
has performed any voluntary act cal
culated TO mislead, and which act does
III fact mslead another party acting in
S-pOu Ao4'h3 SHuAil nlii plOISNb lHS pahIy
SO misled.
TWO POINTS RULED ON.
Aultman, Miller u Co.. respondents. VS..
Michael Clifford, appellant. Order re-
versed. BUCK, J.
Syl abus-Where a written instru.
ment or order is incomplete and not
purporting on its face TO express the
Whole of the mutual agreement of the
parties, parOl evidence is admissible 10
whom it is given which constituted a
condition on which the maker OF the
order gave it. and Oh when performance
on his part was to depend. as that the
article ordered should be of certain
quality.
Where a written order contained the
words Mote for Sl1O; three fail pay
ments," the time of payment is nmcer-
tain and ambiguous and the order in
complete on its face. A delivery of
property, so as TO pass the title to it and
make the transaction all executed COLI
tract, should De delivery OF the prop
erty corresponding with the order or
contract which is a condition precedent
to the yeSting of the title in the vendee.
APPEALS FROM JUSTICE COURT.
James f. Foster, appellant VS.. Joseph Haus-
man. respondent. Judgment affirmed.
GILFILLAN, Z. j.
Syllabus-The defendant, who appeals
from the Judgment OF a Justice to the
district court, and who, although he
does not reduce the recovery against
him one-half, succeeds upon the only
matter litigated i'll the action and APP
peal, is entitled to costs.
Common Council of the City of St Cloud. re-
spondent,vs, Peter Karels, defendant, Mary
kares, appellant Appeal dismissed.
SyllabuS--An order denying Il motion
Tor new trial made by the district
court upon ali appeal from the judg-
ment Of justice court upon questions
OF law alone is rot an appealaDle order
under General Statutes 1873, chapter Sc,
section s.
SHORT AND POINTED.
I. A. Dennis, respondent. VS.. John ]. Nell
son ct al, appellants. Order affirmed
GILFILLAN, C. J.
SyllaUns-On an application by de-
fendant for stay of proceedings after
verdict against him, the court may re-
quire him as a condition of the STAY to
renew the security for final judgment.
Where for such purpose the court re-
Quire an undertaking it is when exc
cuted voluntary and good as a common
law undertaking. ali answer setting
forth only conclusions Of law may be
treated as sham and Irrelevant, and may
be struck out Oh motion.
Charles Clifford, appellant VS.. Northern Pa
clfc Railroad Company, respondent Judg-
ment reversed. GILFILLAN c. j.
SyilabuS-Th costs allowed upon the
recovery of the price or value of labor
or services, by General Laws 1861. CHI.
Al, may be recovered by an assignee of
the person rendering the labor or serv-
ices.
David a. Duncan ct al, copartners as Dun
can, Brewer IL Co. respondents vs. Nellie
NJ. Everett ct al, defendants respondents:
John Sellness and Matthias Slordahl and
Archibald j. Boyd. appellants. David A.
Duncan ct al, copartners as Duncan,
Brewer Il Co., RESPONDENTS, VS.. Nellie NJ
Everett ct al, defendants, respondents;
John Owens Lumber Company ct al, ap-
peiiants. Judgment affirmed. BUCK, j.
Syllabus-Wheret the appellant omits
to make Il bill of exceptions, or state
ment of the case prepared and settled as
required by law, the order or Judgment
appealed from should be affirmed.
r. L. Wilkins, appellant VS.. William c. Sher-
wood respondent. Order affirmed.
Syllabus-The decision of this court
i'll Haas VS.. Billings, AZ Mimi, 63, fol-
lowed.
THE ROUTINE.
The following cases were considered