St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-25
she Was As BAD As BROWN
CLEMEHT-5R0WN BREACH OF PROM
Use CASE REVERSED.
%KE STATE SUPREME COURT.

Il "A a..
Chief Justice Gillian Writes the
Opinion Evidence Showed
That Miss Clement Lived With
Brown, Hence She Is Not En-
titled to Damages-Ten De-
cisions Handed Down.
The supreme court handed down ten
decisions yesterday, all written by Chief
Justice Gllhllan.
One of the ten was reversal of the
order of the lower court in the breach
OF promise case of Lila }. Clement, re-
spondent, VS.. Seymour w. Brown, APP
peilant.
The court holds that the lower court
should not have allowed exemplary
damages. and the chief justice. in his
opinion, says that siuce the woman con-
Quoted herself as the evidence showed
before her marriage, she was not any
better than Brown himself.
The title and syllabus of the case is as
follows:
Lila j. Clement. respondent. vs.. Seymour
GIFILLAN, Z. j.
In an action for breach Of promise to
marry it was held not case for ex-
emplary damages because, as disclosed
by the record. the conduct of plaintiff
was throughout their entire connection
just as bad as that of defendant.
Justices Mitchell and Buck took no
part i'll the decision.
The Syllab in the other decisions are
as follows:
ieorge E. Young, administrator OF estate of
William Otto. deceased, respondent, VS..
Ernest Otto, appellant Order affirmed.
GLFILLAN. G. y.
Where misconduct of two jurors and
Of the party with those two was dscov-
cred and brought 10 the attention of the
court during The trial. and by consent
the TWO Jurors were excused and the
trial proceeded with the other ten, such
misconduct is not ground for granting a
new trial.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain
findings OF fact.
Error i'll excluding witness answer
to question held cured by subsequently
permitting the answer.
Where but one purpose is apparent
from question To a witness and for
that purpose the question is incOmpe-
to, and the objection sustained, the
party asking it cannot be permitted to
claim it was competent for soma other
purpose unless he stated that purpose
before the court called upon the objec-
ton.
Where q party in anticipation of
death and with Il view to that event
makes final disposition Of his property,
whether entirely by will Or entirely by
ante mortem transfers. or by both, the
sest o. mental capacity to do So is the
same. to wit: That applicable in case
of wills.
John Mel ennnn. respondent, VS.. Wynkoop
Lemem and Minneapolis q Northern Ele-
Yator Company, appellants.
GILFILLAN. c. j.
Certain error held to have been With
Out prejudice.
a farneris presumed to know SO that
he eau testify to the value of crops such
as he raises and sells.
In All action for conversion of per
sonal property. evidence of its value a
short time before, say week or ten
days, there being nothing to suggest Il
change in value meantime, is sufficient
The jury may find a conversion prior
to the tlme'of the demand and refusal
If the evidence indicates an earlier date
for the conversion in fact.
An agent for baiiee of property is
not liable for conversion by his prin-
clpal in which he does not actually par
ticipate.
Order reversed as to Defendant Mel
len. and affirmed as to the other defend
ant.
Newton r. Frost. respondent. VS.. St. Paul
Banking 4 Investment Company ct al. de-
PENDANTS; Daniel W. LAWYER Arthur b.
Ancker, appellants. Judgment affirmed.
GILFILLAN, G. j.
The adverse party on whom a notice
Of appeal is 10 he served, is the party,
whether plaintiff or defendant, whose
interests III the question sought to he
raised on The appeal are adverse to the
appellants.
So where there are several parties to
the action or proceeding some of whom
are not served with the notice of appeal,
the court will consider only those ques-
tons between appellant and the parties
served, i'll which the interests of those
not served are not adverse to the claims
OF the appellants.
a Judgment for the recovery of money
is as against everybody. evidence of a
debt from and after its rendition, from
the judgment debtor to the judgment
creditor.
~ judgment against corporation and
others Jointly for the recovery of
money is debt of the corporation for
the purpose of enforcing against stock
holders Liabilities for unpaid suEscrip-
tons and their statutory liability.
Ado!ph H. schiitz. res pondent, VS.. Pabs,
Brewing Company ct al. appellants Judg
ment a1nrmed. GILFlLLAN, G. j.
Where the dangerous condition of an
lnstrumentaiily furnished a servant tC
do his work is known to both the master
and servant, and the latter upon his Oh
Jeciing 10 continue its use, is induced to
% so for short time by the request of
Inc master, FOR his own convenience and
purposes, and his promise that at the
end of such time the use shall be dis.
continued, the servant does not during
such time assume the risk Incident t(
such dangerous condition unless it he Sc
imminentlY and Immediately danger
Gus that man of ordinary prudence
would have refused longer to use it.
a. W. Powers, as administer of estate of AL
bert 5. Powers, deceased, appellant, VS.
Chicago Milwaukee & st. Paul kailwa,
Company, respondent Judgment af
frmed GILFILLAN c. j.
Evidence considered and held to show
That bright, Intelligent boy OF thr.
teen, familiar with the running of rail
road trains, and warned not to get or
and OFT Them when i'll motion, RESPONSE
ble for the consequences of his owl
negligence in doing so.
l.. II. Hawkins, respondent, vs. Moses Man
sion, ct al, appellants. Judgment re
Versed. GI1FIJIAN q T
When challenge of juror for actua
bias is by consent tried by the court
lis finding is conclusive.
Evidence considered and held not t.
Justify the verdict.
Alien j. Miller respondent, vs. The Stat
Bank of Duluth, appellant. Order re-
versed GILFlLLAN G. 7
All agent depositing money of his
principal in his own name as agen
thus, "A. j. Miller. agent" canno
MAINTAIN all action for it in his owl
name AFTER his agency ceases.