St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-25
TWO ARE REVERSED
SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE TWO
RULINGS OF THE LOWER
COURTS.
ONE FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY
GIVES THE COURT CHANCE TO
OVERTURN THE OLD
ORDER.
SOME INTEREST TO SHIPPERS
Is Involved in the 0ther-The Case
of Ratzer VS.. the. b., G..
r.. & N. R,y.

In the supreme court yesterday a motion to
dismiss the suit of James Farmer, appellant,
vs. The City of ST. Paul ct al, respondents,
was denied.
Two more reversals were in the batch of
decisions which Judge Canty handed down.
one of them having a general interest as it
bears on insolvency proceedings, and is a Hen
nepin county case.
The cases and syllabi are as follows:
In reassignment of Joseph Skoll. The Swed-
ish National Bank of Minneapolis, respond
ent, vs. Joseph NJ. Davis, appellant.
Under our insolvency law, the creditor
before he has exhausted his security or sur
rendered it to the assignee, is entitled to
hle his secured claim and have the amount
and validity of the same determined by the
assignee or the court on appeal, but he is
not entitled to share in the distribution of
the insolvent estate until he has so exhaust
ed or surrendered his security.
The creditor held as collateral security ne
gotiable notes made by one third party and
Endorsed by another, obtained judgment
thereon against the maker at his place of
residence in another state, issued execution,
which was returned no property found, then
sold the judgment at public auction, but
never had any power of sale from the in
solvent Pledge.
Held, the sale was unauthorized and not
proper way to realize on the security.
Held, further, if it appeared that the col
and yet of some considerable prospective
value, the court in the insolvency proceed
ing might, conditions on which it would
allow the creditor to share in the distribu-
tion on the balance of his claim, allow him
under proper restrictions to sell the col
lateral judgment instead of surrendering the
security to the assignee. The court might
also on proper showing after the sale ratify
it and allow the creditor so to share in the
distribution.
But held, in this case, no such showing
was made and the order allowing the credit
or so to share in the distribution is for that
reason reversed. -Canty, j.
John Ratzer, appellant, VS.. Burlington Ce-
dar Rapids & Northern Railway Company
respondent
The shipper of goods consigned them to
himself and received bill of lading from
the railway company accordingly; the rail-
way company delivered them with a proper
way bill to the next connecting railway
company, who at the shippers request deliv-
cred the goods to him in transit at an in
termediate point, without the surrender or
cancellation of the bill of lading which he
thereafter and before the goods would have
arrived at their original destination, If the
transit had continued pledged in the usual
course OF business to an innocent PLEDGE for
value.
Held, the latter railway company is liable
to the PLEDGE for failure to deliver the
goods at the place of destination, and is
estopped from showing such intermediate
delivery to the shipper. Judgment reversed.
.-Canty, j.
Stanley c. Olmstead ct al, respondents, VS..
Oliver j. Firth ct al, appellants.
After the commencement of this action the
defendants and their attorneys removed from
this state.
Held, under the provisions of section 5217,
G. S. 1894, notice of trial served on the
attorney at his place of residence in another
state was properly served.
Held, the awarding of costs on motion to
set aside a judgment is in the discretion
of the court Order affirmed -Canty, ].
Firth & Kraus, appellants, VS.. D. D. Brack
ct al, defendants, Stanley G.. Olmstead ct
al respondents.
Order appealed from affirmed for failure
to make it appear that all the records and
proceedings considered on the motion have
been returned to this court. -Canty, ].
Ella j. Warren, respondent VS.. Great North
ern Railway Company, appellant.
1. Held, the verdict is sustained by the
evidence.
2. Defendant stipulated on the trial that
If plaintiff was entitled to recover she was
entitled to recover a certain amount; by
subsequent stipulation of the parties also
made on trial. it appeared that her damages
were much less amount, but defendant never
asked to be relieved from it's first stipulation
or attempted to show that it was induced to
enter into the same by fraud mistake, or
that it was in any manner misled when it
entered into the same.
Held defendant is not in a position to
assail its own stipulation in this court. Or
der affirmed. -Canty J.
Samuel Grant, appellant, VS.. Alice C. Grant,
respondent.
Evidence considered and held that it sus-
talns hndlng OF the trial court that the
defendant was not guilty of deserting the
plaintiff. Order affirmed. -Canty ].