St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-02-10
CITY WATER BOARD Wins.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL COMPANY AcsW
DEFEATED.
WE HAVE A RIGHTTo WATER,
Hennepin County District Court
'St
Sustained in It's Decision inI
Favor of the st. Paul Water
s77T-t ,.
apolis Water Power Corporas,
tiOnS. q

| Favor of the st. Paul Water
Board and Against the Mime!
apolis Water Power Corpora.
tions. &
The supreme court handed down
| eight decisions yesterday, all written by
Judge Collins Tue most important of
the bunch is the decision sustaining the
district court of Hepnepin county in the
case in which the Minneapolis Mill COM
pany and the st. Anthony Falls Water
| Power sought to restrain the board OF
water commissioners of this city from
| diverting streams of water, otherwise
tributary to the Mississippi river, above
| the plants OF the applicants, into the
water system of St. Paul. The lower
| court decided in favor of the board of
| water commissioners, and the supreme
court has sustained the decision. The
| title and syllabus of the case are as fol-
| lows:
Minneapolis Mill Company, appellant. VS..
Board of Water Commissioners of the City
of st. Paul, respondent ST. Anthony Falls
Water Power Company. appellant VS..
b ard of Water Commissioners of the City
OF ST. Paul, respondent. Order affirmed.
COLLINS. j.
l. The rights of riparian owners on
navigable or public streams of water are
subordinate to public uses of such water.
and the rights of these appellants under
| their charters are equally subordinate
to such public uses.
2. Tue public have the right to apply
the waters of navigable stream to pub
| lie uses without making compensation
| to riparian owners.
3. The navigation of the stream is not
the only public use to which these pub
lie waters may be applied. The right
to draw from them supply OF water for
the ordinary use OF cities in their vicin-
ity is such public use, and this right is
not affected by the fact that commits.
siOners are charged for water used as
means of paying the costs of maintains
ing the plant.
4. In thus taking water from the
navigable streams or lakes for ordinary
public use the state is not controlled by
the rules which obtain between riparian
owners as to the diversion from and re-
turn of water TO Its natural channels.
8. Certain provisions in respondents
charter relating to compensation for
damages arising out of the taking and
diversion Of waters construed. Held
that those provisions were not intended
to provide Tor compensation to Riparian
owners on navigable or public streams.
he syllabi OF the other cases read as
follows:
Winnebago Paper Mills, appellant VS. John
f. Travis, respondent. Order affirmed.
COLLINS j.
First-To charge guarantOr upon
letter of guaranty addressed to partic-
ular person or to persons generally for.
future credit to be given the party in
yUhnSa n and a. yUhnSn thQ
letter was drawn aud to whom it was
delivered by the guarantor, notice must
be given Within reasonable time to
the latter, that the person giving the
credit has accepted or acted upon the
guaranty and has given credit on the
faith of it. Such notice need not be in
any particular form, and may be in
ferred from facts and circumstances.
Second-The- rule laid down in Her.
sey VS.. Bennett, % Mimi, Sc. as to the
application of payments upon an OPEN
continuous account consisting of many
items. no appropriation being made by
either party, followed and applied.
Hans K Carlson. ct al, partners as Carlson
Bye, respondents, VS.. Albert S. Phlnuey
ct al, defendants. respondents; William
G. Resser ct al, appellants. Order affirmed,
j. COLLINS
1. Where the parties to an action are
before court of competent jurisdiction
il may order Judgment against defend
ant no matter how stale or absurd the
claim may be. Such an order or a judy.
ment entered thereon is within the ju.
risdiction of the court, although erro-
nously made or entered, and can only
be reviewed on appeal.
2. One OF the appellants was nom
resident defendant in an action to FORE
close mechanics lien, on whom SUBJ
StItuted service only of the summons
was made. He omitted to answer
within the time prescribed by law, and
afterwards applied to the court for time
to answer and defend.
Held, that he had failed to make out
proper case for relief, either under the
provisions found in G. L., 1891. ch 200.
Sec. 10. or in e. s. 1878. Oh. &c, Sec. 66,
or in Sec. 125. The Same is held as to
the other appellant.
Nancy Heisler, respondent VS.. c. Aultman
q Co., appellants. Order affirmed
COLLINS, j.
1. Where money due upon mort
gage is paid by one who is not an inter
meddier or volunteer such payment
operates in the nature Of an assign
ment of the mortgage if the purposes
of justice and the just intent of the
parties SO require.
9. When such a person has caused
mortgage to be satisfied and discharged
under circumstances authorizing an in
ference of a mistake of fact, equity will
presume such mistake, and give the
party who made it the benefit of the
equitable right of suirogation-in case
no superior intervening equities are in
terfeTed with.
3. The rules of subrogation applied
IN, O xUhQrQ q 70
secured by mortgage on real property
has paid the note, taken deed of the
land in indemnification, and the mort
gage has been satisfied and discharged
in ignorance of the fact that judgment
against the maker of the note and
mortgage and subor dinate to the judg-
ment lien has thereby been promoted
and advanced so as to render her inter
est in the property of no value.
Minneapolis Stockyards and Packing Com
pauy, appellant VS.. John Halonen ell al
defendants Ulrika Halonen. respondent
Judgment reversed. COLLINS J.
Where the Judgment is upon claim
which accrued prior to conveyance to
his wife of property belonging to the
debtor husband, which property the
creditors are trying to reach. the burden
OF proof is upon the wife to show the
purchase ny cIear ana Satisfactory EVIL
dence, and that it was for q valuable
consideration paid by her or by some
one In her behalf She cannot TEST her
case solely upon production of deed in
which there was an expressed consider
alton.
A. c. Atkinson, appellant VS.. NJ. W. Nash,
respondent Order affirmed. COLLINS, j.
A deposition within this state can
only be taken when one of the causes
or reasons exists specified In sec. I6,
ch. 70, q. S. 1878. If taken in accord
ance with the provisions of section SO
of the same chapter. as amended g. l..
1885, CHI. SO, the certificate must be in
the form laid down in section 81, and
then it is incumbent upon the party
who wishes to use it to show to the
court that cause or reason existed for
the taking and that it still exists.