St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-11
INCONTEsTABLE POLICY.

ants were not entitled to new trial
on account of it. Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, J.
INCONTESTABLE POLICY.
The executor wins his suit for life
insurance money due the estate of NJ.
]. Bofferding, a Minneapolis bank
cashier, who committed suicide at the
time Phil Sheig ran away. Syllabus:
Titus Mareck ct al, respondent, VS..
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Associa-
ton, appellant.
The defendant issued to B life in
surance policy for $1,000 payable at his
death to his personal representatives.
One clause on the printed policy pro-
vided that death of the member by
his own hand, whether voluntary or
involuntary, sane or insane, is not a
risk assumed by the association in
this contract, but in every such case
there shall be payable, subject to all
. the conditions of this contract, a sum
equal to the amount of the assess
ments paid by said member with 6
per cent interest; but the board of di-
rectorS on the executive committee
may in writing waive the conditions"
Written in ink across the face of the
policy and forming a part of it was
the following:
After five years from the date of
this certificate it is inconteStable for
any cause, except non-payment of
dues or mortuary assessments the
age of the appellant being correctly
stated in the application for the GER
tificate.''
The age of the insured was cor
rectly stated in his application and all
dues and mortuary assessments We're
duly paid up to the time of his death.
More than five years after the date
of the certificate the insured came to
his death by his own hand
Held, that the incontestable clause"
applied and that the company was LA
bic for the full sum of $1,000. Judg-
ment affirmed. MITCHELL. J.
INVOLVED NOTE CASE.
Leslie ]. Robinson. respondent, VS..
John T. Smith and Jennie Smith, ap-
pellants.
Leslie ]. Robinson, respondent, VS..
John T. Smith ct al, appellants
l. Possession of a negotiable pro-
missory note, payable to bearer, is
prima facie evidence of ownership
thereof, and such is the rule, whether
it is transferred before or after ma
turity.
2. The term, innocent purchaser"
as used in the provision to section 2214,
General Statutes 1894, means a bona
fide indorsee or bearer within the
law, merchant.
3. One Morgan was such bona fide
bearer of certain usurious notes, which
he had purchased before maturity. for
full value, in good faith, without any
notice of any rights or equities of the
makers, and with no intent to evade
the usury laws of the state, and after
the maturity of the notes he sold
them to the plaintiff for a valuable con-
Sideration.
Held, that the plaintiff took the
notes freed from the vice of uSury and
with the same right to enforce payment
of them that his transferer had.
T. Held, that the findings of fact of
the trial court, also its finding that a
certain stipulation had not been COM
piled with by the defendants, are sus-
tanned by the evidence Order and
Judgment affirmed. START, C. J.
LIABILITY OF OWNERS.
Francis P. Ryder appellant, VS..
Plummer P. Kinsey respondent.
!. The owner of a building is not an
insurer against accident from it's con-
dition, but, so far as the exercise of
ordinary care will enable him to do so.
he. is bound to keep it in such condition
that it will not by any insecurity or
msufhclency, for the purpose to which
IL is put, lnJure any person rightfully
IN, around, or passing it.
e Where building falls without
nv
explanatory circumstances, negligence
will be presumed, and the burden is
upon the owner of showing that he ex-
ercised ordinary care to keep it in a
safe condition; but where it appears
from such explanatory circumstances
that the cause of the fall of the build
ing was a latent defect in its construc-
ton, and there is no evidence tending
to connect such cause with the own
er's negligence, the burden rests upon
the party asserting such negligence, to
snow that such cause might have been
discovered and removed before the ac-
cldent by the exercise of ordinary care
on the part of the owner.
). Evidence considered and held that
the jury We're properly instructed to
return a verdict for the defendant.
Order affirmed. START. C. J.
BINDS ALL THE WORLD"
Henry E. Ladd. appellant, vs. Rosa
Welskopf ct al, respondents.
A decree of distribution by the pro-
bate court constructed as assigning the
entire estate in the property of the de-
ceased to the persons therein named. to
wit, life estate to the widow and a
vested remainder to seven others. share
and share alike.
A decree of probate court, having
jurisdiction, assigning the residue of
the estate of the deceased person is
conclusive upon all persons interested
in the estate, whether then in being or
not 1t is in the nature of a judgment
i'll rem which binds all the world.
Where the contract between vendor
and vendee calls for good title, the
vendee is entitled to a title that is
marketable as we'll as good in fact.
He is not bound to accept a title which
is so doubtful as to be unmarketable
and the rule is the same whether the
action is one brought by the vendee to
compel specific performance or by the
vendor to recover back his earnest
money.
But title is not unmarketable WITH
in the meaning of this rule where no
question of fact is involved, but only
one of law arising exclusively upon the
construction Of a record imminent of
title and all the parties in interest are
before the court so that it's decision
will be a final determination of the
matter. Hence a doubt as to the con-
struction of the decree of distribution
by probate court which is conclusive
upon all parties interested in the
estate, will not render a title unmar-
ketable within the meaning of the rule.
order affirmed. MITCHELL. ].
DAMAGED MAN WINS.
Cassius NJ. Howe, respondent. VS..
Minneapolis, st. Paul & Sault Ste.
Marie Railway Company, appellant.
The rule that it is negligence per Sc
for one driving a team on a highway
not to look and listen for trains
when approaching a railway crossing
is not, as general rule, applicable to
mere passenger in a vehicle who has
no control over the driver or his man
agenent of the team.
The plaintiff was, at the invitation of