St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-28

Held also that If the complaint was
sufficient the evidence was insufficient
he had expended upon the ground that
the defendant had repudiated the
verbal contract of sale or was unable
to perform.
Order reversed. Buck, j.
Charles Betcher, appellant, VS.. Henry
C. Hodgman and A. r. Anderson,
respondents.
The law for computing interest In
this state is that contained in the deci-
sion of Chancellor Kent, in the case
of the State of Connecticut VS.. jack
son, 1st Johns Chancery Is, and is as
follows:
''The rule for casting interest when
partial payments have been made is
to apply the payment in the first place
to the discharge of the interest then
due. If the payments exceed the in
tereSt the surplus goes towards dis
charging the principal, and the SubSe-
quent interest is to be computed on the
balance of the principal remaining
due. If the payment be less than the
interest the surplus of the interest
must not be taken to augment the
principal; but interest continues on
the former principal until the period
when payments taken together eX-
ceed the interest due, and then the
surplus Is to be applied towards dis
charging the principal and interest is
principal as aforesaid.
Judgment affirmed. Buck, ].
A. N. Nelson. County Treasurer,
Ramsey County, appellant, VS..
George L. Becker, Administrator of
the Estate of Mary Keogh, respond
ent.
On the first day of May, 1893, and
prior thereto and afterwards to
Dec. q, 1898, one 3 was the adminis-
traitor of the estate of K. The personal
property of the estate in the hands
of B was duly assessed May /, 1898.
On Dec. u, 1893, B. upon petition and
due notice given. filed his final account
in probate court, which account was
allowed, a final decree of distribution
of said estate entered, and pursuant
thereto the estate was distributed to
the persons entitled by law thereto,
and B was by said probate court duly
discharged as such administrator.
not having paid the taxes assessed
upon said personal property, the
county treasurer brought this action
against him personally to recover the
amount thereof. 1t did not appear
and could not be shown when the tax
claimed in this case was extended by
the county auditor on the tax list.
The auditor of said county completed
the tax lists for the year 1893, and turn
ed the same over to the treasurer of
said county. as required by section 1862
of the statutes of 1894, upon jan 2, 1894
Held. That B was not personally
liable for such taxes. that under the
the taxes We're not finally ascertained
and levied until he could ascertain
and know the amount thereof and to
whom he could legally pay the same
which in this case was on Jan. 2. 1894.
Buck, j.
John Weber, respondent, VS. The Wi
mona. & St Peter Railroad Company,
appellant.
The plaintiff brought this action to
railroad corporation, upon the ground
of its negligence, and in his complaint
alleges his cause of action as follows:
'"The defendant while operating said
line of railroad by it's agents and en-
ployes, and running over and along
the line of track thereof a locomotive
engine and train of cars thereto at
tached, wantonly, carelessly and negli-
gently permitted said engine to drop
and scatter Goals and sparks Of fire,
whereby plaintiffs property was dam
aged" Held. that this allegation in
the complaint was broad enough to ad-
init evidence of negligence as respects
the condition of the engine and the
manner of operating it. Order affirmed.
Buck, j.
Hiram G. Truesdale. appellant, VS..
Phfladelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and
Germania Life Insurance Company
ct al, respondents.
Syllabus-T was employed by the
trustee of certain bondholders to rem
der professional services as counsel,
which were useful and beneficial to the
trust estate.
The trustee did not stipulate' against
a personal liability, nor did such trus-
tee profess or undertake to create any
lien on the trust estate for such serv-
ices, and the trustee was not ;nsolvent
Held, that T must look to the trustee
for compensation for his services, and
not to the beneficiaries of the trust es-
tate. Order affirmed. Buck, J.
George D. Dayton, respondent. VS..
Minneapolis Radiator and Iron Com
pany, appellant
Evidence considered and held suffi-
cient to justify the finding of the trial
court. Order affirmed. Buck, J.
S. S.. Thomas, respondent, VS. w. B.
Craig, appellant.
Evidence considered and held suffi-
cient to justify the finding of the trial
court. Order affirmed. Buck, J.