The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-10
REAL ESTATE AGENTS.
Decision of Importance to Them in
Supreme Curt.

Among the decisions handed down
by the supreme court yesterday, the
opinions in which were demanded writ
ten by Chief Justice Start, is one which
| will be Of interest to those who have
real estate transactions. The decl-
sion is the only reversal of the local
lower court in yesterdays lot, and the
parties thereto are prominent Minneap-
| CHS men. Hobart is a real estate agent
and G. K. Sherburne was formerl.y
proprietor of the Windsor hotel The
decision tends to the protection of real
estate owners and purchasers against
the operations of VoraciouS middlemen
The syllabi Of yesterdays decisions are
as follows
Marcus B. Hobart, respondent, vs. Charles
K. Sherburne, appellant sae2 ~ ~. 49,.
All agreements between a real estate agent
or broker and a proposed purchaser touching
the subject matter Of his employment which
are not disclosed 10 the principal, should be
scrutinized closely, and If not found COM
pat1ble with entire integrity and good faith
toward the principal they will defeat the
agents claim for commission from his prin-
cipal. Evidence considered in the light of this
rule and held that the verdict in this case is
not sustained by the evidence. Order re-
versed. Start g. T
Matte Miller, respondent, VS.. ST. Paul City
Railway Company, appellant
Evidence as to the defendants negligence
in suddenly starting it's street car before the
she was injured, considered and held TO sus-
tain verdict for her.
Held, further, that the damages awarded are
| not excessive Order affirmed
Start, C. ].
| In re assignment of Lambert Bros Ezra F.
Lambert ct al, appellant, VS.. Scandinavian
American Bank of st. Paul ct AL respond
entS.
l. Laws 1895, chapter 81, providing for the
! absolute discharge of insolvent debtors from
| hnld hat
| creditor, who appeared in this case in obedi-
| ence to the citation, issued and served as pro-
| vided IN such act and answered, first, that
| his debt was contracted before the passage of
| the law, and, second, that the insolvent had
! within six years prior to his assignment
| disposed OF his property to defraud his cred
ltors, did not thereby waive his right to insist
| on rs first defense, that his debt was ex-
Guided by the constitution from the effect of
| the law.
2. Held, further, that where a promissorv
note was given before the passage of the
| act, but the time of payment was extended
| after 1t took effect, the original contract to
| pay the debt, represented by the note was
| not superseded by the contract of extension
and that the act is not operative as to such
| debt.
8. Notice of appeal must be served on each
adverse party, as to whom it is sought to re-
| view in this court any order or judgment
although he did not appear in the action or
| proceeding in the district court. Order af-
| frmed. Start G. r
| saltwater e st. Paul Railroad COMPANY an
| pellant, VS.. City of Saltwater, respondent.
The charter of the defendant provides that
| Wnere land is taken by the city for public
purposes by condemnation PROCEEDINGS if
the owner thereof fails to furnish an abstract
| of title showing himself to be entitled to the
damages awarded the amount thereof shall
| be apportioned and set apart in the CITY
treasury for the party showing himself enti-
| tied thereto.
| Land belonging to the plaintiff was so taken
and the money awarded for it's damages so
| appropriated and set apart and more than
WE'VE s years thereafter the plaintiff, for the
| hrst time furnished such abstract and upon
refusal of its demand for the payment of
the money, brought this action.
Held, that the action is not one to enforce
trust within the meaning of General Statutes
1894, section 5,136, subsection z and that it is
barred by the statute of limitations. Judg-
ment affirmed. Start C. I
Jenny Cain, respondent. VS.. c. w. Mead, ap-
1. Held, that the verdict is sustained by
the evidence.
2. The plaintiff testified that she paid
third party certain sum of money for
! speclhed purpose and took his receipt there
for, which she produced and identified and it
was then received in evidence in connection
with her testimony as to the fact of such
payment. Held its admission was not an
error.
8. Certain requests to charge the Jury
held to have beenfproperly refused for the rea-
| son that they would have been, if given
| AAooIC " lHlS1Sdu Lie jury DIS u Tie law
applicable to thescase. Order affirmed.
Start, c. j.
| Board Of Trustees of Ripon College, respond
ent, VS.. Charles w. Brown. appellant
| l. When the trial court orders a verdict in
| view of and based upon the entire evidence
| or the evidence ON some particular ISSUE the
| whole of such evidence must be incorporated
| in a settled case orr bill of exceptions if a
review of the order is sought in this court.
2. Appellate courts will give to a bill of ex-
| coDtlOQS a eatf1ad Including he
| judges certificate thereto a reasonably lib
| eral construction, but they will not by con-
| struction supply material defects therein:
| hence where it is necessary to have the entire
| evidence or the evidence on particular issue
| included in the record, 1t must clearly and
1 affrmatively appear from the, face of the
| bill or case that such is the fact. Held that
| the bill Of exceptions in this case does not
comply with this rule and that the question
IF correctness of the trial courts direction TO
| the jury to return verdict for the plaintiff
| cannot be reviewed
| 8. Held that the trial court did not err in
| receiving parol evidence in aid of the con-
| structien of the defendants alleged contract,
i contained in the deed to him, to pay the