St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-07-11

ranty, were fraudulentlY mHue, ana
proves the warranty and its breach, bnt
fails to prove the fraud. he may recover
for the breach of the warranty.
The Security Bank of Minnesota, respond
ent, VS.. Northwestern Fuel Company. APP
pellaut. Order affirmed MITCHELL, j.
Upon a deposit being made 10y a Gus
toner of bank in the ordinary course
of business of checks, drafts or other
negotiable paper received and credited
on his account as money, the title TO the
checks, drafts or other paper Immediate
ly becomes the property of the bank,
unless different understanding at1irlu-
atively appears.
An Endorsement by the customer of a
check, payable to his own order. 'for
deposit In the (name of the bank) 10 the
credit of (the name OF the depository
is sufficient to pass the title to the
check 10 the bank, and is not restrict.
i've or qualified Endorsement.
John II. West. appellant, VS.. Patrick II. Hen
Messy ct al, respondents Judgment re-
yersed. MITCHELL, D.
legeS the date when cause OF action
accrued, showing that 1t was within the
time within which, under the statute OF
limitations, an action may be brought.
and the answer alleges that the cause oil
action did not accrue within that time,
a reply is not necessary. The com
plants in this and in former action
between the same parties compared,
and held that although both may refer
to the same transaction, and the rellef
sought may be the same, yet the causes
of action are not the same, and hence
that judgment III former acton Is
not bar to recovery In the present
one.
Lewis Irwin. respondent. VS.. A McKechnie.
defendant; Thomas F. Oakes ct al, gar
nishees, appellants. Order affirmed
Miro HELL, j.
An Indebtedness incurred bv the re-
ceiverS of railway company,appolnted
by the federal court, while operating
the road under the authority OF the
court, may be garnished in state
court.
But no executory process can be is
sued against the receivers Oil the Judg-
ment rendered therein. 1t can only be
satisfied, as other demands are satisfied,
by all application to the court in which
the receivership proceedings are pend
ing for an order directing its payment.
Minneapolis Western Railway Company, re-
spondent, VS.. Minneapolis 4 st. Louis Rail
way Company. ". II. Truesdale, as receiver
of The Minneapolis IL ST. Louis Railway
Company. and The Railway Transfer Com
pany appellants. Judgment affirmed.
MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus-A finding that the defend
ant, "by permission and with the con-
sent" OF the owner of the premises,
entered and constructed its railway
tracks thereon, construed as meaning
that it entered under license, and not
a grant.
Where railway company enters and
constructs railway tracks on land under
mere license from the owner, it &C.
quires no easement in the land. The
landowner may revoke the license and
bring eJectment, which the rail way
company may, under the statute, con-
vert into condemnation proceedings.
L. r. Hall respondent VS.. Gallo Mauflin and
L. G. Cooley, appellants. Order reversed.
MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus-Where money lender in
trusts the entire management of his
business to general agent with un-
limited authority to conduct it accord
ing to his own discretion. and with the
understanding that he shall obtain the
compensation for his services as agent
from the borrowers in the folm of
"bonuS" or commission" if the agent
eXacts from borrower "bonus" or
"commission' which, together with the
interest received in the contract,
amounts to more than the maximum
rate of interest allowed by law, the
transaction is uSuriouS.
Edward B. Smith, John j. Parker, Victor G.
Gilman, partners as Smith. Parker l. Gil
man, Respondents, VS.. Lathrop Mussetter,
appellant. Order reversed.
MITCHELL j.
Syllabus-An answer construed as
alleging that the delivery to the payee
of the note sued on was only condi-
tional, to take effect as contract only
on the happening of future contingent
event.
Westman VS.. Krumweide, 80 Mimi,
314. followed to the effect that parol
evidence is admissible to prove such
agreement.
The First National Bank of Minneapolis, re-
spondeut, VS.. Edward H. Steele, appellant.
order affirmed. BUCK, J.
Syllabus-Held. that upon the evil
dence it was a question for the jury
whether a certain agreement was a COM
position agreement between the credit
orS themselves as we'll as between them
and the debtor, so as to bring the case
within the rule of Newell VS.. Higgins,
SO y. w. Rep. SIT, or whether it was an
agreement between plaintiff and de-