St. Paul daily globe., 1895-07-03
JUDGE CAVITY LANDS EFEEcT-
IVEi-Y ON A ST. PAUL DE-
CISION.
r. M. LAYTON, OR ANY MAN.
HAS A RIGHT TO GATHER GAR
BAGE WITHOUT SECURING
A LICENSE.
because the Legislature Sought
to Affect Decisions Already
Rendered.

Among the eleven decisions handed
down by the supreme court yester-
day is the case of the City of st.
Paul against r. NJ. Lawton, in which
the decision of the lower court is re-
versed. The lower court held that
Lawton was violating a city ordin-
ance by doing scavenger work with
out a permit, but it was shown that
he was not licensed person as re-
ferred to in the ordinance; and con-
I Sequently the supreme court holds
that he would not come under the
ordinance. In his opinion, Justice
Canty states that it does not ap-
pear from the ordinance that a Ii
cense is required, nor does it pre-
scribe how one shall be obtained.
AS to the claim made by the city
attorney that the council had ex-
pected to grant the privilege of re-
moving the garbage to one person,
Justice Canty holds further that the
council has not any authority to
grant monopoly of that kind. Dr.
Stone, the health inspector, eX-
Pi SooSO DIS very nuCn
pleased with the decision, as he is
opposed to the idea of this work be-
ing monopolized by any one COM
pany or individual. The syllabus of
the case follows:
City of st. Paul, respondent VS.. RAN
som NJ. Lawton, appellant.
A regulation of the health depart
ment of the city of st. Paul prohibited
1irota
scavenger work without a permit
first obtained from the health officer"
1t nowhere appeared what license was
required. Or that any person was pro-
hibited from doing such work without
such license. The defendant was
charged with having violated such reg
ulation by doing such work without
such permit. 1t was not alleged or
proved that he was licensed person.
Held, conviction cannot be sus-
tanned. Judgment reversed.
4 CAVITY, J.
p NEW LAW KNOCKED OUT.
Another important case in which
decision was rendered yesterday is that
Of the state ex rel. George ]. Flint, re-
lator, against Ellen Flint, respondent,
in which the court holds that in so far
as s. F. 652, an act passed by the last
, legislature, applies to decisions rem
dered prior to its paSsa ge, it is uncon-
Stitutional. The. ease is. one in which
dispute arose between father and
mother. who had been .sefarated for.
some time, as to who should have the.
care of their little four-year-old child
.Tae father had had possession of it, but
the mother instituted habeas corpus
proceedings to regain possession of it,
and on March 16 the court awarded the
custody of the child to her On April
% s: F. 652 the act referred to, above,
was passed and, became "a law. This
'4aW. provides that a. case of this kind
may be--hcougnt to trial at anytime on
from five to fifteen days notice, and,
must be tried as an original habeas
corpus case. In his opinion Justice
Canty states that before the passage
of this act neither party was entitled
to new trial as a matter of right
either in these proceedings or neW1ones..
or before the district or the sus3erme >
court. He says that the legislature has,
no more right to decide a case by pass
make the original decision.
The motion to dismiss the notice of
trial is granted and a trial de novo is
denied. but the appeal may stand and
be brought on for hearing in the same
manner as other appeals to this court
If appellant sees fit so to proceed. The
syllabus follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel George T.
Flint. relatoIs VS.. Ellen Flint, re-
SpOndent.
When an action.or other judicial pro-
ceeding has been tried and a decision
rendered, the legislature cannot by an
act subsequently passed grant a new
trial or trial de novo.
& So far as S. T. No. 652 passed at the
los Of
to decisions rendered prior to its pass
age, in habeas corpus proceed ings
brought by one parent against the 9TH
er to recover the custody of child it
is uncons stitutional and void.
CAVITY, ].
PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.
Nichols & Shepard Company Ga corp
oration), respondent, VS.. William Ded-
rick, appellant.
action against the defendant on his
separate promiSSory note.
Held, proof on the trial of the joint
and several promissory note of de-
fendant and third party is not a ma
terial variance, at least when it ap-
pears that the defendant is not sur
priSed or rniSled thereby.
z. An agreement to extend the time
of payment of debt is sufficient con-
sideration fer the execution by third
party Oh his nole 10 the Cfeultor as col
lateral security for the payment of
such debt.
3. A negotiable pronnissory note i'm
ports consideration, and when made as
such collateral security, sufficiently eX-
presses the considera ton, so as to COM
ply with the statute of frauds.
4. Held. in this case the court below
did not abuse its discretion in refusing
defendant a new trial and leave to
amend his answer. Order affirmed
CAVITY, J.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE LAW,
The Plano Manufacturing Company,
appellant, VS.. Betsey HaIlberg ct al,
respondents.
In an action of replevin brought by
the mortgage to recover possession of
the mortgaged property. held. the COM
plant states cause of action.