St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-03-14

pany had been unloading coal. The
court SustainS the order OF the trial
court. The following are the deciS ions
and Syllabi:
John E. Waters respondent. VS.. Pioneer
Fuel Company, appellant Order affirmed.
NANDERBURGH, j.
Held under the evidence as appearing
upon the record, that an employee of the
defendant, fuel company, engaged in
delivering coal for the company at a
stipulated price per load, was servant
of the company, and not an independ-
ent contractor merely.
And where such employe delivered a
load of coal through an opening in a
sidewalk uncovered for the purpose. and
after the coal had been so delivered, re-
placed the cover over the opening so
imperfectly and insecurity as to render
the same dangerous to persons passing
along the sidewalk, held that the Jury
were Justified in finding that it was
part of the transfers business TO re-
place the cover, and that the submits
sion Of that question to the jury was not
ground of exception by the defendant.
George II. Miller, as receiver. ETC., plaintiff.
VS.. A. j. Coudit ct al defendants; John
y
al, defendants; Loring & Rees. as re-
ceiver, etc. plaintiff, VS. A j. CondIt ct al.
defendants; George II. Miller, as receiver,
etc, ct al. respondents; Anthony j.
Drexel, appellant Order affirmed.
NANDERBURGH, j.
The lien law of 1889 contemplates one
general action in which all the lien
claims against specified property shall
be consolidated and adjudicated.
The section providing that second
action shall not be brought where one is
already pending to toreclOSe liens on
the property affected by several lien
claims, but further providing that il
such action shall he brought it must be
consolidated with the first action, is a
mere regulation of practice and does
not make such second action a void
proceeding.
When all Insolvent debtor is entitled
to a lien for labor or materials, his as
signee in insolvency may prosecute and
enforce the same.
Where a mistake is made in the state
ment for lien filed, in respect to the
date of the first item of the materials
furnished, lien may in any event be
enforced for so much of the account as
is embraced between the dates of the
first and last items in the account as ap-
pearing in such statement. And where
such mistake was made in respect to
the first Item of an account, but the
statement, in fact, included all the
items of the account for materials fur
ushed by the lien claimant, and the ac-
count was in ali other respects correctly
stated, and no other parties were or
could be preiudiced by the error, held
that the mistake was immaterial and
the lien valid for the whole account.
Chief Justice Gilfllan disssnts from the
proposition that lien claimant may prove
for mis- first item date earlier than that
stated in his lien statement.
W. c. Beardsley. respondent, VS. George j.
Day Ell Al, defendants: Daniel ROhrer. APP
pellant. Judgment affirmed
VANDERBURG, j.
Where an instrument. which the law
requires to be sealed, is in all respects
correctly recorded, except that the rec
ord does not show copy of the seal or
any device representing it, the record
will, nevertheless, be valid and Sufh-
Gent as notice, provided the record rep
reSents on its face in any other way. as
by recitalS or otherwise, that the instru-
ment was sealed, and it was, in fact,
duly sealed.
Where a tax sale certificate was taken
by All agent in his own name i'll order to
protect the interest of his principal, a
mortgage of the land, and he after
wards delivered the same to the grantee
OF the mOrtgagOr with his blank indorse-
ment for the purpose of having the
same surrendered and cancelled, aud
for no other purpose, and afterwards,
without his knowledge or consent, an
assignment was written over his sigma
ture purpOrting to transfer the same to
a third party. held that the assignment
was void, and passed no interest.
Gaylord W. Beebe ct al, appellants, VS.
Thomas j. Carney ct al, respondents. Or
der affirmed. NANDERGURGH, j.
Justice Mitchell dissenting.
By the terms of an indemnity bond
signed by surety, the measure and
limit of his liability was the deficiency.
if any. after foreclosure and sale of
the mOrtgaged premises under second
mortgage. Held, under the facts alleged,
that such foreclosure sale was a cOndi-
tion precedent TO a right of recovery
against the surety, Notwithstanding the
fact of a subsequent sale under the
first mortgage for a sum equal to me
market value of the property.
Ann1s II. Kilgore, appellant VS.. Finley II.
Frisbee, respondent. Order affirmed
VANDERBURGH, j.
Evidence considered and held suffici-
ent to sustain the findings of the trial
court in respect to the ownership aud
location of the land IN controversy.
Edward D. Brown, appellant, VS. Chas j.
Burns ct al. defendants; Timothy Jones
ct al, respondents Order denying new
TRIAL affirmed. VANDERBURGH, j.
Action by plaintiff, vendor of real
estate, against the vendee and certain
lien claimants, to determine adverse
claims.
Lien claims which attach to the ven
dee's interest in real property will eX-
tend to the entire estate upon the COM
pletion of the contract and acquisition
thereof by him.
Held also, that the equitable rights of
the defendants lieDholders accruing
under building clause in the contract
of purchase could not be destroyed by
the subsequent acts or omissions of the
purchaser, Notwithstanding forfeiture
by him.
The vendee'S interest will be treated
as still outstanding for the purpose Of
enforcing the liens established against it..
An order for judgment directing the
partition and apportionment OF the prop
erty upon which liens are claimed, be
tween the plaintiff, a vendor holding the
legal title and certain lienffolders de-
PENDANTS, according to their respective
interests as found and estimated by the
court, upon equitable terms imposed by
such order, held unauthorized.
Rules OF practice to be followed in
such cases considered and applied.
Robert Henderson. an infant ETC., appellant
VS.. st. Paul d Duluth Railway Company
respondent. Order reversed.
NANDERBUR RICH, D..
The plaintiff was injured while at
tempting TO pass between railway cars
in train standing on street crossing.
Held upon the evidence in the case that
the jury was justified in finding that
the defendants engineer in charge of
the train saw the plaintiff. and negi-
gently backed up the train while he was
between the cars. aud without giving
him sufficient lime to pass through