St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-30
HAVE A LITTLE CARE,
Due Caution Must Be Had by
Pedestrians for Bad Side
walks.
The Supreme Court So Holds
in One Of Yesterdays
Decisions.
Criminal Causes Occupy the
Attention Of the Federal
Court.
~
Suits and Disputes Galore
Pour Through State
Courts.

! cipaI corporation. The plaintiff sued
| the city of ST. Cloud to recover damages
for personal injuries caused by the al
| legged negligence OF the city in permit
| ting snow and ice to accumulate and
remain upon public sidewalk so as to
render it unsafe for travel, and she re-
| ceived verdict in the court below,
| from which an appeal was taken.
The following syllabus, in connection
with reversal of the Judgment, is ex-
| plicit:
If a person with full and present
knowledge of the defective condition of
a sidewalk and of the risks incident to
| its use voluntarily attempts to travel
upon it when the defect could, easily
| and without appreciable inconvenience,
have been avoided by going around 1t,
| he is not in the exercise OF reasonable
| care, but must be presumed to have
| taken his chances, and if injury results
he cannot recover from the city.
Charles D. Baker. repondent vs.. James
Taylor, appellant. Order reversed.
MITCHELL. j.
Certain evidence held admissible as
the declarations against interest OF
person since deceased.
The mere fact that the owner OF
property has intrusted the possession
of it to another will not stop him from
asserting his ownership against one
who purchases from the bailee in the
belief that such bailee was the owner.
August Johnson, respondent. vs.. North
western Telephone Exchange Compa ny,
appellant. order affirmed.
mitchell L. j.
Held that the evidence was not such
| as to require a finding that the falling
of telephone pole was caused by the
| manner in which certain guy wires were
removed.
Also that all other questions In the
| case are res adjudicata under the de-
cision in former appeal.
| Cityrof Wabasha. respondent, vs. Asshel D.
| SouthwOrth, appellant. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
| Where a cellar way, trap door, scuttle
| or the like is put in public sidewalk
| for the convenience of the AUDITING
| property, as between the owner and the
| city, the duty of maintaining it in safe
| condition devolves upon the former, and
| he cannot release himself of this duty
| by merely abandoning the use of the
structure. He can only do SO by remov-
! ing it and restoring the sidewalk to Its
| original condition.
| If through the negligence Of the
| property owner the structure becomes
| unsafe, aud injury results, for which
thegcity is liable. because of neglect of
| its duty to keep its streets in a safe con-
] dition for travel, it may, upon payment
of damages to the person injured. re-
| cover over from the owner by whose
! fault las between him and it) the injury
| was Occasioned.
The mode of procedure provided by
! the charter of the city of Wabasha
| Especial Laws 1899, oh. 13, sub-sec. z,
sec. 16) is not exclusive, but the city
| may pay the damages, without suit, and
| then recover over in an action against
| the property owner.
| Evidence held sufficient to justify
| finding that the defendant negllgently
suffered and permitted trap door over
| a hatchway in sidewalk to become de-
cayed and insecurity supported so as to
| become unsafe for travel.
Lydia A. Tilleny. appellant VS.. Jacob A.
Wolverton ct al, respondents. Judgment
affirmed MITCHELL j.
| Where upon an appeal from an order
denying new trial the order Is af-
tirined, all questions that might have
| been raised on that appeal are res adj
| judicata, and will not be considered on
an appeal from the Judgment entered
on the verdict or finding.
The objection that the conclusions OF
law are not justified by the findings of
fact may be raised ON motion for
new trial; following former decisions.
Ernest n. Smith, as administrator of the es-
tate of Lafayette III. Smith, deceased, re-
spondent VS.. William II. Barclay ct al, de-
PENDANTS. Retta Barclay ct al, appellants.
Judgment affirmed. MITCHELL, D.
Where the money or property in the
hands of garnishee is claimed by
person not a party to the action. the
mode of procedure is governed by Gen.
| st. 1878, CHI. 66, sec. ia, and not by sec
ton 175.
The affirmative in maintaining his
right to the property is on the claimant
who must serve the first pleading, i'll
the nature of a complaint, setting up
his claim, to which the plaintiff may
answer.
I Under simple issue of ownership
| the plaintiff may prove any facts tend
| Ing to impeach the validity, as TO him as
| creditor, of any transfer of the property
| from the defendant to the claimant; and
| 1t is not necessary i'll such a case for
the plaintiff. in his answer to the claim
/ ants complaint to allege. what has been
| already alleged or appears in the ac-
| ton, that he is a creditor of the defend
ant and has attached the property by
garnishment.
The conduct of the claimant on the
| trial of this action held to have
amounted to waiver of the right to
jury trial if any such right existed.
| Frank Soukup, appellant VS.. Thomas Topk d
respondent. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
A deed conveyed two adjoining tracts
| of land, aud Immediately following the
description of the last tract contained
| the words. For road to and from said
premises first above described"
Held that these words, of themselves,
were not sufficient either to limit the
grant of the second tract to an ease
| ment or to create condition SUISSE
quent.
| Lizzie Bowers. appellant, VS.. Sarah Schiller
ct al, respondents. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL, J.
| The term party to the action as
used in General Statutes 1873, chap
ter 70, section S, means party to
the issue to which the testimony relates,
| and not merely party to the record.
| The interest in the event of the action
which disqualifies person as witness
under this section must be direct and
| immediate pecuniary interest adverse
| to that of the party against whom his
! testimony is offered.
Motion to require pleading to be
made more definite and certain held to
have been properly denied.
| Anders Nelson, respondent VS.. Peter A.
Carlson appellant Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, ].
In an action for the rescisson of
contract of exchange Of real property
| OH the ground that the defendant falsely
| and fraudulently pointed out to plain
| tiff one lot as the land that was to be
| conveyed to him, while the lot in fact
conveyed vas an entirely different one,
| the right of plaintiff to rescission
| depends, not upon whether the lot
| pointed out was worth more than the
one actually conveyed, but upon the
fact that he did not get the properly
which was represented. that he was get
| Ting.