St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-01-19

prosecution, it was competent for sthe
plaintiff to prove TINT at the time the
writ was issued he was indebted to no
one but the defendant.
8. Held. 1T was not error to permit
the plaintiff to prove that the sheriff
after the levy turned the property over
to the attaching creditor. and to prove
the conduct OF such creditor in connec-
ton Herewith.
4. Held, it was not error to permit
the plaintiff to prove that Immediately
after the attachment was dissolved, the
attaching creditor brought replevin for
the property thereby released. as tend
ing with other circumstances to show
malice and want of probable cause.
5. Held, the verdict is sustained by
the evidence, and not so excessive that
an appellate court would be justified in
granting a new trial on that ground.
Order affirmed CAVITY, j.
Order Is Modified.
Paul Kraniger, respondent. VS.. The
Peoples Building Society, appellant.
Syllabus-Held, that within the rule of
Bank VS.. Boardman. 46 Mimi. 293. eX-
trihsic evidence was admissible to show
that the parties who signed the note III
suit executed it in their official capacity
as the contract OF the defendant cOrpo-
ration.
Also that the evidence as to the course
of business permitted by the board of
! directors without objection justified the
! jury in finding that the secretary had
authority to borrow money for the cor
| pOratlon and execute notes therefor in
its name
! A party dealing with a corporation is
! chargeaUle with notice of the nature
| and extent of its powers as disclosed by
| its chatter or articles Of association.
Defendants articles of association
provided that the highest amount of in
i debtednesS or liability which it should
at any time incur was $1,000. Its secre-
| tary. with authority to borrow money
in its behalf. borrowed from plaintiff
81, 800 and executed therefor its note for
, that amount. The secretary embeZZied
the money by appropriating it to his
! own use and the corporation never re-
ceived the benefit or it.
Held, that the plaintiff could not re-
cover the whole 81, 800 because it was in
! excess of the corporate powers to incur
! an Indebtedness to that amount, of
which fact the plaintiff wa chargeable
with notice. But as there was no bad
aitil on the part Of the plaintiff, and as
| he contract was not in violation of any
positive law and did not involve any
/ moral turptude or any consideration of
! public policy, the transaction was valid
up to the limit and void merely as 10
| the excess. and the plaintiff might re-
! cover 10 the amount of 81 900. as for
! money loaned. Order modified.
MITCHELL, J.
Foreign Executor
In re Estate of CLANCY Hardin, A. P.
| Hardin ct al, respondents: in re Es-
! state of CLANCY Hardin, A. i. JamiSon
i ct al, appellants, VS.. d. S. Hardin ct
| AL, respondents. SylIabus-Sec. 80. 3333,
81 and 80 OF the Probate Code con-
! strued. and held, that said Sec. so
applies only 10 domestic wills, and not
| to the case of a foreign executor named
in foreign will and appointed as such
by the court of the domiciIe where such
| foreign executor is seeking appoint
ment by the court of this state on al
| lowance of the eXemplitication of the
will by it, and there are resident lega-
; tees opposing his appointment. but the
court may refuse to appoint him though
he is illegally competent" as provided
! by that section.
| Held, under said Sec. 81 such foreign
| executor is entitled to appointment in
| this state in such a case, unless the
| court III the exercise of a sound dis
erection finds that there is some good
reason why he should not be appointed,
j and that adverse interest and acts of
! bad faith on the part of such foreign
executor in regard to the estate may
/ constitute such good reason. Order re
| Yersed. CAVITY, j.
General Creditors.
Daniel r. Noyes, G. P. Noyes and
Edward Fl. Cutler, co-partners as
i Chapman-Drake Company, appellant.
Syllabus-Where the plaintiffs held
! both q secured claim and an unsecured
! claim against the defendant. and joined
/ with other creditors of the defendant in
a composition agreement in which they
all designated themselves as general
/ creditors. and agreed to take from the
defendant a certain consideration for
| their respective claims, the amount of
| each of which claims was stated. the
| plaintiffs stating only the amount of
| their unsecured claim.
i Held, the term general creditors"
| meant unsecured creditors, and by exc
cutting the agreement the plaintiffs did
not release their secured claim. judy
| ment affirmed. CAVITY, j.
Probation of Will.
Phoenix Babcock ct al, appellants,
VS.. Martin T. Collins ct al, defendants;
Minneapolis Improvement Company,
/ Northeast. respondent. Syllabus-After
a will was probated at the domicile of
the testator III another state and the
executors. there qualified, and before
| the will was prObated in this state, the
! executors conveyed land in this state
under the power of sale in the will.
l. Held, the foreign probate cOnclu-
sively established the validity of the
WILL and after the passage Of CHI. 66, g..
l.. 1870. and before its repeal by the
Probate Code, the foreign executors
there appointed had conclusive right
to appointment here on giving the bond
therein provided, If required, and after
the will was SO conelusively established
and the executors had duly qualified at
the foreign domicile, they could, in the
absence of any demand for ancillary
administration, so exercise the power
of sale, subject to the rights of local
| creditors; that the authority to act
under such power is contractual. not
statutory, and such power is regulated
as much or more by CHI. A, q. S. 1878,
relating to powers. as by CHI. ~, relat-
ing to wills, or CHI. So relating to eX-
ecutors; that the last two chapters did
not apply SO as to prevent such foreign
| executors from so exercising such
power; that when the will is so conclu-
sively established the probate of it in
| this state is mostly a matter of form,