St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-29
THERE ARE MORE.
The Judges Put in a Very Busy Day
of 1T,


Other decisions handed down by the
supreme court yesterday were as fol-
lows:
Mary Lucy, respondent, vs.. Chicago Great
Western Railway Company, appellant.
l. in an action by passenger against a
exercise proper police powers to protect her
and by reason Of which a drunken and dis
orderly fellow passenger used toward her
vile and abusive language;
2 Held, the verdict is sustained by the
evidence, and not so excessive that this court
ought to set it aside after the court below
had held it not excessive Order affirmed
-Canty, ].
Brown and Haywood Company, respondent.
vs. The Pennsylvania Company, appellant.
A common carrier received a shipment of
goods to be carried to a point beyond it's own
line, with directions to deliver them to GER
tam connecting carriers to be carried to their
destination; at the same time the simmer
made an agreement with the last connecting
carrier to have the car containing the goods
stopped at two intermediate points on its
line, and certain portions of the goods de-
l1Vered at each point, the balance to be car
ried to the point Of destination to which the
goods were billed by the initial carrier; the
Initial carrier had no knowledge of this
agreement and wrongfully sent the goods by
different connecting carrier whose line did
not reach the place Of destination but did
reach one of said intermediate points to
which 1t brought the goods and was pro-
ceeding to forward the whole of them to the
place to which they were so billed when
plaintiff disclosed to 1t his contract to have
the goods distributed to the three points and
demanded that 1t be complied with: before
complying with the same this carrier COM
PEELED him then and there to pay the whole
freight for the whole route, and thereupon
delivered him the goods destined to that
point, and undertook at its cost to carry
to each of the other points the portion of the
goods destined to, such point; in doing so,
one package of the goods was broken and
destroyed; in a suit by the shipper against
the initial carrier for the loss,
Held. the initial carrier became by it's
wrongful act Of diverting the goods from the
designated route an insurer of their safe de-
livery at the three places of destination,
though two Of those places were never dis
closed to It,
Held, further, the transaction between the
shipper and the carrier to whom the goods
were wrongfully delivered did not amount
to a delivery then and there to the shipper
so as. to relieve the initial carrier from his
liability.
Other unimportant points disposed Of Or
der affirmed. -Canty, ].
Minnie l. Stevens appellant vs. Samuel c.
Staples, respondent.
Held, the question of whether or not the
agreement by the borrower to pay the lender
certain sum to indemnify him for his loss
in discounting securities to obtain the money
lent Is a mere device to evade the usury
laws, cannot be determined on the demurrer
to the answer herein, but must be deter
mined on the trial. where the intent and
tives of the parties can be inquired into and
ascertained. Order affirmed. CAVITY ].
P. S. White, respondent VS.. William c.
Flamme ct al, appellants
l. The character of an action brought in
the municipal court of the city Of Minneapo-
lis to recover possession of personal proper
ty is to be determined by the complaint and
not by the plaintiff claiming or emitting to
claim Immediate delivery under the provis-
ions of S. L. 1889, chapter "a, section II. If
he valves his right to immediate delivery the
action is not thereby changed to one for con-
version merely. Order and Judgment affirmed
Collins, j.
Lofgren ct al, defendants; c. F. Lofgren,
appellant
1. In dealing with each other partners &C.
cupy positions of trust and are required to
exercise the most scrupuous good faith
towards each other. Nor is this requirement
confined to persons who are actually co-part-
ners, but it extends to those negotiating for a
partnership not yet formed.
2. Held, that all of the findings Of fact were
supported by the evidence. Order affirmed.
Collins, ].
Joseph Greengard, appellant vs. H A. Fretz
ct al respondents
1. The obligators upon bond given to pro-
cure the discharge of a garnishee as provid-
ed in G. S. 1894, section 5342 in which it was
admitted that the plaintiff had garnshed the
money property and effects of the defendant
in the hands of the garnishee are estopped
In an action upon the bond and cannot be per-
mitted to assert that the admission was false.
2 On the trial OF such action the bur-
den is upon the defendants to identify the in
debtedness due, or the property, or effects in
the hands of the garnishee, impounded by the
proceeding which they have dissolved Order
reversed. Collins, ].
Elwood S. Hand, respondent VS.. RYAN Drug
Company, appellant.
W., AZ