St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-16

wv
ground to entftle the insured, II living.
to have his policy relnstated, or, II dead.
20 entstle the beneficiary 70 recover on
II upon payment Of all premium dues.
Certata ssaeenents of al agent Of the
oefendant held inadmIsSibIe because
not within the scope of his agency.
An instruction to The jury that ii the
aSsessinenr were Illegal this would bs
sufficient excuse for the non-payment of
premiums held erroneous. because it
omitted other facts essential to valid
excuse.
Katherine Schultz. respondent, W.. John 8
Power. appellant: Order reversed.
MITCHELL. j.
SyIlaUus-The charge OF the court
construed as instruCtIng the Jury that
they might use as evidence in the ease
what they saw or learned upon a view
OF tina promises. aud for that reason
held erroneous.
The right Of lateral support of fand
from the adjacent soil is an absolute
right OF property, aud the right to re-
cover for Injuries to the land Ivy reason
depend upon negligence but upon the
violation Of the right Of property.
The actionabfe Wr0ng ia causing the
soil TO fail by removing its lateral sup
port. and the measure Of damages is the
dtmlnutioh OF tire value Of the land by
reasUn Of such fall.
John Bouck, respondent. vs. Elizabeth D.
Boyek and s. Bouck, appellants Judgment
modified. MITCHELL. j..
Syllabus-Where all the orders of an
award In arbitration are to be performed
by the same party. some of which are
bad and others we'll awarded, the fact
that some of the orders are bad fur
Dislies NO good reason for holding the
party discharged as to those which are
we'll awarded.
It IS only where the good and bad
parts relate to different parties, the void
part being the consideration for the
thing awarded Oh the other side. that
the wll0Ie award must fail.
The Judgment should conform to the
Hence. Iwhere the arbitrator awarded
party a sum of money payable in sew
eraf annual instaIlnentS, it is error to
order Judgment for the whole payable
immediately.
Jacob Barge. appellant. VS.. John Van Der
Aorck respondent. Order reversed
MITCHELL. J.
Syflabus-B and NJ being co-sureties
for w On his note. ana b and Y CO.
sureties for him OIL another note, w
assigned to B and N certain ceIlaterals
to secure them for their liabilities as
sureties on these notes. B having been
compelled to pay one-half Of the first
note aud B and V having besn each
compelled 10 pay one-haff Of the other
note. they divided che proceeds of the
collaterafs between themselves pro
rata. supposing they were held exclu-
sively for their own benefit and net
understanding that NJ. as co-surety with
b. might have right to demand
share of the fund. Subsequently Ms
estate, having paid his half Of the first
note, brought suit against aud come
PEELED him to pay its pee rata share Of
the proceeds of the col1aterafs.
Held that B had right to compel Y
to contribute his share OF the amount
thus recovered by Ms estate: that tile
rule that money Voluntarily paid under
mistake OF law can not be recovered
back does not apply.
Elgin City Banking Company. respondent,
VS.. John Zefch, appellant. 0ruer affirmed
MITCHELL.
Syllabus-The payee of a negotiable
promiSSeFy note transferred it with the
following Endorsements:
PAY to A. b.
Signed &c. D."
Payment guaranteed"
Signed &C. D.''
Held that this was an endorsement"
in the commercial seIrse, aud that tile
transfers. vas an ''indersee1 under the
law merchant.
James r. Hand, respondent, vs. National
Live St0cE IuSnra
Order affirmed. MIrCHELL j.
Syllabus-The complaint alleged per-
f0rmsuce Of the conditions of the pol
icy 0f insurance. The evidence was
that Que of the conditions had been
waived. Held. that ulIder- the facts of
this case the Variance was waived by
permitting substantially all OF the evil
dence to be introduced without objec-
ton.
Where it is apparent from the plead
ings anu the proceedings OIL tie trial
that both parties assumed taat tine pol
icy was a valued one, and that there
was no issue as to the value OF the sub-
Ject OF the Insurance, the appellant can
not raise in this court the point that
there was no evidence Of value.
An absolute denial of all liability on a
policy Of insurance and a refusal to pay
Is waiver OF the right of the insurer to
have stipulated time after proofs of
loss in which to pay.
A. P. Linn Cochran. appellant, VS. Levi NJ.
Stewart and Warren Z. Curtis, respondent
ORDER affirmed. MITCHELL, j.
SyIIabus-Evidence held to Justify
the findings.
Where thing is sold for cash, but
check is accepted for the purchase
money, and the property Is delivered Oil
the implied c0ndiLiUH that the cheek will
be paid OH presentation, but the vendor
gives to the veadee All absolute bill of
sale or assignment OF the property, he
will be essopped from asserting that the
delivery was conditional as against a
subvendee III good faith for value, who
purchased III reliance Oh the velitee's
munrtHents OF title.
The word "seaF affixed to an instru-
Ment is sufficient device by way Of
seal to entitfe an instrument to record.
SUPREME COURT,