The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1896-01-09

z CO.: s::;: 4: e.: !: *::;;':: ,:: S;;;;:: !:
adjourned term of which convened.
with Judge Brow n presiding, on Mon
day and is still in session as we go to
press, but which will, in all proba7
bility, adjourn to-day or tomorrow
No jury cases have been heard or con-
.eidered, the entire work of the Court
having been the heo ring of arguments
motions, ETC., in cases which were on
the calendar of the November term.
The first case taken up was taat Of
Amos E. 'Tuttle VS.. c., St. P, NJ. & O..
Ry. Co., Daniel Rohrer appearing for
plaintiff and Lorin Cray, Of Mankato,
representing the defendant. The
questions at issue in this case were
the same as in the case of Fanny A.
sTuttle as plaintiff against the same
company. This case has once been
heard and determined, and on appeal
to Supreme Court, decision was re-
versed and case remanded for new
trial. It appears that the defendant
claimed right of way by virtue of Il
land grant, the location of which is
one of the questions to be determined.
The plaintiff was the homestead entry
man and he made entry on the lands
at the time they were occupied in
part by the right of way of defend
ant, which occupancy, the defendant
claims, was notice to plaintiff and he
made his entry viii that aotice The
plaintiff obtained patent from the o..
IS. which contained therein no reser-
walton as to right of way for railroad.
This patent being the bottom title,
action was brought under the pecu-
liar statute of this state to oust de-
fendant and to recover damages for
the use and occupancy of this land.
Defendant sets up the defense of
long usage and notice such as to rem
der the plaintiff rot holder of the
bottom title, and also the fact that by
general act of congress, or of the
state, all right Of way of railroads
over public property were generally
reserved to such occupants and that
entrymen made entry on such lands
with knowled ge of this law. Theease
is one of vast importance and it's out
come will be awaited with great inter
est. The Court has the case under
consideration.
The appeal case of Gee. NJ. Gordon
VS.. Elizabeth .Kissner ct. al. came on
to be tried and determined: A. G.
Clausen appeared on behalf of res
pondent and G.. w. Wilson appeared
for appellant. This was an appeal
from Justice court, from a Judgment
given to plaintiff. which was reversed
by Judge Brown, giving judgment to
defendant. One question involved in
this case is the first of the kind that
has come up within the state and re-
lates to Chapter IS of the 1896 laws,
which provides that summons must
state the amount sued for or other
wise be void. The law reads to the
effect that any summons placed in
the hands of an officer
for service shall state
amount demanded and, while it
does not refer directly to substituted
service of summons by publication,
the Court felt compelled to rule that
in cases of publication of summons in
Justice court the summons must set
forth the amount demanded of the
defendant, as the: new law. by impli-
cation. SO intended.
In the case Of VIM. Yahn W. Chas.
q. Lester, G. NJ. Crandall appeared
for the appellant. The respondent
not appearing by attorney, the judg-
ment for the plaintiff. IN the lower
court was reversed in all things and
judgment given appellant. The main
grounds for the reversal were lack of
jurisdiction by Justice court and a
failure of evidence.
In the matter of the assignment OIL