The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-07-09
pellant, vs.. Old Pittsburg Coal Company Ia

pellant, VS.. Old P1ttsburg Coal Company Ia
corporation), respondent.
1. The court below charged the jury as
to the law of custom usage as applicable
to the facts in evidence. The only excep-
law Of custom and the application thereof
as. applied to the facts in this case" Held
too general and of no avail.
2. Held, further, that the trial court did
not err when 1T declined to instruct the
jury on the law of custom and usage in the
language found in one of plaintiffs requests,
because, although in different FORM 1t was
repetition of part of the general charge.
8. The law does not impose upon party
who produces an article for sale the duty of
exercising diligence and prudence that he
may reasonably discover that an agent or
clerk specially employed by him to sell his
wares and clothed with no other authority
apparent or real, is so far exceeding his au-
thority to sell as to engage in purchasing
|. from rival concerns on his EMPLOYERS ac-
count the very article the latter is produe-
ing and selling.
Order affirmed Collins j.
Gaar, Scott Co., appellant, VS.. William J.
Patterson ct al, respondents.
l. Several specifications of error relating
to the rulings made on the trial of this ac-
ton, which was brought upon promissory
upon warranty of threshing machine for
which the notes were given, and a breach
thereof, considered and disposed of.
z. HELD, that the evidence was sufficient
question was sold to defendants on a verbal
warranty, and that it sufficient to sup
port the verdict in defendants favor for
damages, growing out Of a breach of said
warranty. Collins, ].
In the matter of the assignment of Edison r.
Smith ct al, John R. S. Cosgrove ct al re-
spondents, VS.. John McKassay, as assignee,
appellant.
j. R. s. c. and j. A. c. were two of the
five sureties upon Joint and several bond to
executed hot tho
cipals IN the bond, co-partners doing a bank
ing business, might be designated a deposit
Tory for county funds under the provisions of
G. S. 1894, Secs. 729 ct seq. They were also in
debted to said principals upon a promissory
note, but in fact j. R. S. G. was the principal
upon the note, while ]. A. G. was mere
surety.
While having county funds in their hands.
the principals in the bond made an assignment
under the laws of this state for the benefit
or all of their creditors The makers of the
note then filed a petition with the district
court in which 1t was alleged that they had
paid to the county q certain sum of money
which was one-half of the amount of county
FUNDS on deposit when the assignment was
made, and petitioned that the amount of said
payment might be Offset as against the note
In the hands of the assignee in insolvency.
l. HELD, upon the allegations in the petit
ton and the fact that ]. A. c. was a mere
surety upon the note, that he was not en-
titled to have any part of the amount SO paid
note.
2. Held, further, under the allegation in the
petition and the rule that when two or more
sureties stand In the same relation to a prin-
cipal they must bear the burdens of this posi-
tlon equally, that ]. r. S. c. was not entitled
TO have more than one-1fth Of the amount
que to the county on the bond offset as against
the sum due on the note
.. The rule Of equitable set off in such cases
as announced in North. Trust Co. VS.. Leck.
81 MINI. 81. held applicable as to this one
MIN. Collins j.
George Pfefferkorn ct al, respondents VS..
Ru1us Z. Haywood ct al, defendants; Rufus
/ c. Haywood, appellant.
When cause Of action is stated in the COM
plant as upon joint debt or obligation and a
Judgment for want of answer has been entered
against one of the defendants, the district
court upon due application and in the proper
exercise OF its discretion. has the right or
power to allow as against another defendant
an amendment to the complaint whereby the
cause OF action is alleged to be upon a joint
ana several debt or obligation. Order af-