The Saint Paul globe., 1896-12-08

corresponding benefit either to the in
surance companies who pay the tax
in the first place, or the general public
from which the fund comes in the end.
LAS the appellant board had no right
to any Of this fund, it follows that the
board had no ground Of complaint
when it was awarded only half
The decision strikes at all boards
working under compact manager.
and virtually declares that they are
not legally organized within the mean
ing Of the salvage act. The decision
holds that all underwriters in the town
where the board is formed must be al
lowed vote in its proceedings, and
it is well known in towns where a
compact office exists, only those un-
derwriters who sign the agreement
and live up to the rules made by the
compact or trust at Chicago are al
lowed to participate in the proceedings
of the board. This was demonstrated
a short time ago, when the ST. Paul
agents, composing the board of under
writers, had the hardihood to adopt
few rules for their own guidance. The
rules were thrown out by the Chicago
combine, which sent up a set Of rules
to the compact office, and had the
manager send out notice that every
agent must sign them if he would re-
main a member. Not more than half
the agents signed the agreement, it is
said, and shortly after, all who had
not signed it were excluded from the
compact office, as non members with
whom the faithful who surrendered
their liberty must not associate.
Now the question will arise as to
whether, under this decision, the st.
Paul board of underwriters is not an
Illegal organization, and good lawyers
in plenty have been found who de-
eide the question in the affirmative
The syllabi of the decisions handed
down by the supreme court yesterday
are as follows:
H. w. Childs as attorney general of the
state of Minnesota, ex rel. G. H. Smith, in
surance commissioner; Merchants Board of
Fire Underwriters, respondents, VS.. Mime
apols Board of Fire Underwriters, appel
liant.
not having defined the term Board of Fire
Underwriters, refernece must be had to the
prior history of such organizations in order
to ascertain the legislative sense in which the
term Is used.
From such reference it appears that all
corporations of that name were composed ex-
clusively of those who for the time being
were engaged in the business of fire insurance
in the city where the board was organized
that all who were engaged in that business
in such city were entitled to become mem
bers of it or to have a vote in the transac-
ton of its business, and that the incorpora-
ton of only one such board in the same
city was authorized or contemplated.
The Minneapolis Board of Fire Underwrit-
ers" and 'The Merchants Board of Fire I'm
derwriters" were organized under General
Statutes, chapter "a, title 2. Neither their
articles of association nor the statute under
which they are organized provide that their
members shall be composed of those engaged
in the business of fire insurance, or that
others engaged in that business in the same
city shall be entitled to become members or
have any voice in the transaction of the busi-
ness OF the associations.
Held-That neither of them are boards of
fire underwriters within the meaning of the
statutes referred to. Order affirmed.
Mitchell, ].
George Engler, appellant, vs. Martin schnei-
der, respondent.
Evidence held to justify the verdict under
the theory of the law upon which the case
was submitted to the jury. Where a party
tries his case upon a certain theory of the
law and consents to it's being submitted to
the jury on that theory he cannot after
wards claim new trial, at least a matter
OF right, ON the ground that such theory of
the law was erroneous Order affirmed.
Mitchell, ].
Myron I. McKusick, plaintiff, Windham
County Savings Bank of Danielsonyille an
pellant, vs. j. G. O'Gorman receiver of
Seymour. Sabin & Co., respondent
Held that the finding and decision of the
trial court, to the effect that the appellant
bank converted certain stock held by it as
security for the payment Of it's claim against
the principal defendant is not sustained by
the evidence. Order reversed and new trial
granted. Start c. J.
Charles Erickson, appellant, VS.. Charles Pom
crank, respondent.
This was an action to recover damages for
lowering natural water course whereby
the plaintiff claims that his land was in
jured.. Held that the undisputed evidence did
not show that the defendant did the act
complained Of. and that the rulings of the
trial court in overruling plaintiffs objections
to the admission Of evidence and it's refusal
to give certain requested instructions to the
jury, which assumed that the evidence was
undiSputed were correct.
Held further, that the verdict is sustained
by the evidence. Order affirmed. s4
Start c. j.
John NJ Nester, appellant, vs. Philip II.
Gross ct al, respondents.
l. If one party obtains the legal title to
| land by fraud or by violation of fiduciary
relation or in any other unconscientious man
ner SO that he may not equitably retain it,
! equity will impress constructive trust upon
! the property in favor of one who is in good
conscience entitled to It.
! 2. The principal defendant herein was one
of the promoters and incorporates of cor
| poration of which he became its first presi-
dent. Before the actual organization of the
! corporation it was agreed between him and
MS associate lncorporators that he should
! purchase site for the plant of the corpora
ton, ana the sum paid therefor was to be
treated as payment on his subscription to
was
organized he paid, pursuant to previous
negotiations with the owner the purchase
price for the site, taking the deed in his own
name. Concealing this last fact from the
corporation, he entered upon the site as its
general manager, and by its authority. and
with its money erected a plant thereon for
manufacturing illuminating gas, the business
of the corporation.
Held, that he holds the legal title of the
| site in trust for the corporation or its as
| signs. Judgment reversed. Start, c. ].
Mary O'Boyle appellant, VS.. Margaret Nc
Hugh ct al, respondents.
l. AS between parties sustaining parental
and hlial relations, the possession of the land
OF the one by. the other is presumed to be
| permissive and not adverse. To make such
possessions adverse there must be some open
assertion of hostile title other than mere
possession, and knowledge thereof brought
home to the owner of the land.
2. Evidence considered and held that II
justified and required a finding that the
possession by the plaintiff Of the land of the
defendants, who are her children was per-
| missive and not adverse. Order affirmed.
Start, G. ].
Mccormick Harvesting Machine COMPANY.
appellant vs. P. T. McNichoIas, respondent.
l. Evidence considered and held that the
| trial court did not in refusing to direct
a verdict for the plaintiff.
rors considered and held to be without