St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-06
DISTRICT JUDGES HAVE .JURfS-
DICTION, EVEN WHERE A
CITY FAILS
TO COMPLY WITH CHARTER
DECISION OF GREAT INTEREST
: TOUCHING QUESTIONS OF
ASSESSMENT
RENDERED. IN A DULUTH CASE
Power of Probate Courts Defined
in Denial of n Writ of Ger
tiOrari.

A decision of Importance to cities
was handed down yesterday in the
supreme court. It's scope will be
fully understood from perusal of the
syllabus hereto appended:
In re application of city COMPTROLLER
OF city OF Duluth, ETC., City of Du-
Iuth, respondent, VS.. Henry Dibblee,
appellant. Order affirmed. Mitchell, j.
| Held, that there was no abuse of dis
cretlon on part of the trial court in
denying appellants motion to vacate
the Judgment and for leave to inter-
pose objection to the assessment for
Wnlch the Judgment was rendered
Under the provisions of the cha rter.
of the city of Duluth the failure of the
board OF public works to establish a
street grade or a sewer system before
constructing sewer or the failure to
give the required notices of the meet
ing to make an assessment to 1efray
the expenses of its construction and OF
application for its confirma ton by the
district court do not affect the juris.
diction of the district court to render
hnal Judgment against the property for
the amount Of the assessment; follow
n. w. Rep. 1941.
The provisions of the charter relat-
ing to the confirmation of the assess
ment and to the rendition of Judgment
against the property by the district
court are not unconstitutional on the
ground that they do not constitute due
process of law" No seizure of the
property by the court is necessary
other than is involved in the institu-
ton OF the proceedings in accordance
with the requirements Of the statute.
PROBATE COURT POWERS.
State of Minnesota ex rel. Frederick
w; Blakeman, executor of the last
Will and testament of William
Blakeman, deceased, relator, petit
toner, VS.. Probate Court of Hem
nepin County, Mimi, Hon. John II.
Steele, judge of said court, and Kate
Brakeman, widow of William Blake
man, deceased, respondents.
Inc probate court made an ex parte
order making the widow an allowance
out OF the estate of her deceased hus-
band for her maintenance during the
settlement Of the estate, and directing
the executor to pay such allowance
out OF the personal estate. The eX-
ecutor moved the court to vacate or
modify the order on the ground that
there was no personal estate out of
which to pay it. The probate court
denied the motion and on the appeal
OF the executor the district court af-
hrmed the action of the probate court
Ihereupon the probate court made an
order requiring the executor to pay the
terms of the original order.
Held that certiorari will not lie to
review this last order; that the ex-
ecutor's remedy was by appeal from
the order refusing to vacate or modify
the order making the allowance. Writ
denied. MITCHELL. J,
TRIO OF SHORT ONES.
John S. Anderson, respondent, VS..
Chelsea j. lockwood, appellant.
Evidence held sufficient to justify
the verdict.
The plaintiff purchased a judgment
and took an assignment of it in the
name of the defendant under an agree
ment between himself and the defend
ant that the defendant should hold it
as trustee for plaintiff and pay over
the proceeds to him.
Assuming without deciding, that the
fact that plaintiff object in taking tho
assignment in defendants name was
to defraud his creditors would consti-
tute defense to an action to recover
from defendant the proceeds of the
judgment, it should have been spe-
cially pleaded. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, J.