St. Paul daily globe., 1894-05-15

Bowen ct. al, defendants R. =. Russell /.
appellant. judgment affirmed.
CAVITY j.
Where one of the makers of PROM
iSSory note signs it on its face and by
its terms he, i'll the singular form prom
ises to pay the amount of the note and
before delivery the other makers sign it
on the back OF it:
Held, the note is joint and several as
to all the defendants.
Held, further. the holder of such note
may treat it as several.
Where the paype of such note
brought suit on 1t against all the max
ers, and obtained personal service of the
summons on all of them, and after the
time to answer expired as to all of them.
and they were all In default for want of
an answer. he entered judgment by de-
fault against the maker, who signed the
note on its face, and one who signed it
on the back Of it. and seventeen months
afterwards. by leave Of court given ex
parte, he entered up judgment against
another who signed the note on the
back OF it, and the court afterward de-
nied his motion to set aside the second
Judgment against him: g.
Held, that if the plaintiff. did not
have all absolute right under sec. 81, eli.
66, q. S. 1878, to enter such separate
judgment against different defendants,
he had right to do SO by obtaining
leave of .he court as provided in sec.
265 of said chapter. and his failure to
obtain such leave before entering the
first Judgment was cured by the Subse-
quent 0fders of the court.
Where, between the time the defend
ant was in default for. want of an
answer and the entry of judment
81 h Lxy Il. e.,
payment on the note, but in the entry
of judgment no credit was allowed for
the same, but when execution was is
sued thereon the amount SO paid was
credited on the execution. and the
defendant afterWard made motion to
set the Judgment aside.
Held. the defendant not being de-
prlycd of any substantial right. the ir-
regularity in the entry of Judgment was
one which the court in its discretion
had a right to disregard, and it was not
error 10 deny the nation.
Bertha Schulz as administrative of the
estate of Julius c. Schulz, deceased, ap-
pellant. VS.. Chicago, Milwaukee u st. Paul
Railway Company. respondent. Order re-
versed. CAVITY, j.
Where section man working on or
dangerously near to the railroad track is
u,
by reason of peculiar or exceptional
circumstances is not likely to discover
il in time. to save himself from injury,
and this should be apparent to the per-
sons managing the train if they were
using reasonable care.
Held, i'll such case il is the duty of
such persons to give such section man
reasonable warning of the approach of
| the train.
Held, further, it was question for
| the jury whether in this case the facts
| and circumstances above recited were
established by the evidence. and it was
1 error to refuse to submit the case to the
jury.
Held, further, that under the evidence
in this case, assuming that the trains
were run at high or dangerous rate OF
speed. the section man assumed tina,
risk. but not the risk of the engineer
neglecting to give the signal or warn
ing that the exceptional circumstance:
required him to give.
| Leonard ". French, as receiver etc., Of
Samuel Rosenbaunl, insolvent respondent
VS. Jacob Ginsburg and Samuel Rosen-
| baum, defendants, .appeiiants. Judgmen
affirmed. CAVITY, j.
! In an action of replevin where the