St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-02-02
Evidence examined and held sufficient
to sustain the finding CT the jury.

10 sustain the nlulng CT the Jury.
Sandwich Manufacturing Company, respond
ent, VS.. Jasper W. Earl. appellant. Judg-
ment affirmed. BUCK, j.
Syllabus-Ihe tendency OF an action
in the state of North Dakota between
the same parties and for the same cause
Of action does not abate another action
pending i'll this state.
A judgment of the United States cir
cult court for the district of Minnesota
stands on the same footing as domestic
Judgment of a court of record in this
state, and cannot be iInpeached III Il
collateral proceeding unless want of
jurisdiction appears atiirmatiVely on the
record.
Where ali action is commenced upon
a judgment within ten years from the
time OF its rendition, it may be main
tanned and completed after the eXprd-
ton of such ten years.
Where the true name of defendant
is Jasper w. Earl. and as such is in
serted in the summons. complaint and
Judgment. but the marShafS return of
service on the back of the summons
states that he served it upon the within
named Joseph W.. Earl, the error will
be deemed Il clerical one, and will not
invalldate the Judgment record.
A. j. Barton and jeremiah Howe. partners
as j. j. Howe d Co., respondents, VS.
Hannah A. Loyejoy ct al, DEFENDANTS
Frank Lovejoy et al, appellants. Judg
ment affirmed. BUCK. j.
Syllabus Where in case of the death
OF partner there is not enough per-
sonal property to pay the firm debts,
then the surviving partner has right
TO sell sufficient real property for such
purpose, aud If he does SO in good faith
and for valuable consideration, but
with without first obtaining an order
from the court, such sale passes the
equitable title of the premises to the
purchaser, and the deyiSseS or heirs can
be compelled to convey the legal title.
In the matter OF the assignm ent of George
E. Burt. ins0lrent: George 4; Burt.appal-
lant,vS minneapolis Stock Yards and Pack
ing Company ct al, petitioners, respond
ents. Order OF Ju Ign ent affirm ed.
BUCK, j,
Syllabus-Where the assignor in in
SoiYency proceedings is. upon due
hearing, examination and disclosure.
| found To be the OWner and in possession
| OF $1,000 which lie neglects and refuses
! to turn over to the assignee in COZ
, forrnily with the order of the court,
! whereby ne is by the court adjudged
| guilty OF contempt, the court has power
and authority to punish him 10y imDIis-
OEment i'll the county Jail for such con-
! tempt, and this does not constitute i'm
| prisonmeat for debt nor cOntravene
| section y, article /, constitution of this
sta tie, providing that mo person shall
| be imprisoned for debt i'll this state"
| Martin C. job nson, respondent, VS.. North
western Mulu al Life Insurance Comuany
appellant. Order ffirmed. BUCK, j.
| SyllabuS-Where an infant seventeen
! years old obtains policy of insurance,
! upon which he pays the premium and
makes several semi annual payments
! during his minority, but diSaffirmS the
/ contract Immediately upon his becom-
! ing OF full age, and offers to surrender
the policy to the insurance company,
and demands the return of the money
! so paid. he can. i'll case of refusal,
| maintain all action for its recovery.
John G. Ball, spondent. VS.. Northwestern
| Mutual Accident Association, appellant.
| order ahcmed. Buck. j.
Syllabus -Forfeitures are not favored
in law, and he who claims one must
show fairly clear right to insist upon
it. Held, that the plaintiff had not Dv
his acts forfeited his right to recover
indemnity money of defendant on its
accidental insurance certificates ISIS ued
| to him.
Otto K. sauer;, respondent, vs., William
Traeger, appellant. BUCK, j.
Sy!labus-Eyidence held to justify
the verdict OF the jury, except as to
value.
Chicago, ST. Paul & Kansas City Railway
Company, respondents vs. Chicago, Mil
waukee Il st. Paul Railway Company, ap-
pellant Order affirmed. Buck, J.
yllabus-Evdence in this case held
sufficient TO sustain the verdict of the
jury.
Sarah Taylor. appellant, vs.. Hugh NJ Whit
ney, respondent Judgment affirmed.
BUCK, j.
Syilabus-Where a party has slept
upon his claim or cause of action for a
period of more tnan thirty-three years,
without any reasonable explanation OF
The cause OF delay, the claim should be
deemed stale, anu his laches constitute
a bar to his maintaining all action