St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-07


committed no error as against the defend
ant. Order affirmed. Start, G. j.
First National Bank Of DEVILS Lake, re-
spondent, VS.. The Manchester Fire Assur-
ance Company, appellant.
/. After loss a fire insurance policy,
which was subject to forfeiture for breach
of a condition therein against incumbering
the property, the defendant, by its adjuster,
without knowledge of such breach, took pos
session of and sold the salvage, by virtue Of
a claim under the policy, but after learning
On the next day after the sale, of the breach,
it took steps at any time to rescind the
sale, or to provide for the payment of the
purchase price to the assured or to do any
act to restore to him what it took from him
under the policy.
Held, that, it thereby waived it's right to
treat the policy as forfeited.
2. Evidence considered and held that the
defendants adjuster had authority to waive
the breach in the condition of the policy by
his action and conduct in reference to the
salvage.
Order affirmed. Start, c. J.
Catherine Schultz, respondent, VS.. John S.
Bower, appellant.
1. The defendant made an excavation on
his land, which caused the soil of the adjoin-
ing land OF the plaintiff to fall into it.
Held, following Schultz V. Bower, SO N. w.
r., 631, that the measure of the plaintiffs
damages is not the depreciation of her land
by reason of the existence of the excavation
on the defendants land but the dimnution of
the value of the plaintiffs land by reason of
the falling, caving or washing of the soil Of
her land as the natural result of removing
its lateral support.
2 Held further, that the trial court in this
case correctly applied this rule in it's ruling
upon the admission of evidence and in its
charge to the jury.
g. Held, following Davidson V. Railway
Company, 81 Mimi, 81, that it is not error to
refuse to give instructions Though correcD
at the request of party when they have
he OH
ana that for this reason the special requests
OF the defendant in this case were properly
refused or modified.
4. Evidence considered and held TO sustain
the verdict
Order affirmed. Start. C. 7.
Margaret Coles, appellant, VS.. City of Still
water, respondent.
Syllabus-The charter of the defendant re-
lating to the condemnation of land for public
purposes provides that before payment of the
award to the land owner he shall furnish an
ABSTRACT of title showing his right thereto
ana on his failure so to do the city council
shall pay the award to the city treasurer for
the owner, or, in case the city attorney shall
certify that the title is doubtful the award
shall be paid to the clerk of the district
court Tor such persons show themselves
entitled to it. Held that these provisions
are wand, and that in an action against the
ueiendant to recover the amount of the award
the complaint does not state a cause Of ac-
ton II 1t fails to show compliance with
them on the part of the plaintiff or any sea-
son for not so doing.
Order affirmed. Start q 7
Nils J. Veline, appellant, VS.. Andrew Dahl
quist, respondent.
A former judgment against the defendant
ana IN favor of the plaintiff considered and
heId to be a bar tc this action
Order affirmed. Start r.
Ruel L. Hall, appellant, VS.. Charles F. Lee
= Ta1o
Evidence held to justify the findings of fact
General Laws 1885, chapter SO, entitled IAN
act 70 amend section &c. chapter 49, of che
me,rerai statutes OF 1873, relating to the testi-
I non OF witnesses, is not repugnant to Sec
tlGn Y, article a, of the constitution.
where an act purports to amend any part
1878 me es compilation called General Statutes
1910, us title will be sufficient if if would be
SO If such compilation was an original enact.
ment. ei eiiacC-
Judgment affirmed. -Mitcbe1,
JACOB Leqye, as assignee, appellant. VS.. George
Steppel Sr. ct al, respondents. %
Action Dy a receiver, under an assignment
tor lhe benefit of creditors, to set aside as
naving Deen executed with intent to defraud
creditors conveyance by s. one IF the IN
Solvent asslgnors, of certain land TO his sen
". also conveyance of other real estate bv
son G. ~ " w. "iIe OF SIS
me partnership of which S. was a member
was IN TACT lnsolvent when he executed these
or
half afterwards q" 'e"i anu d
=, Held; that the evidence justified a finding
.laas tne conveyance of F. was executed in
performance OF an oral agreement between
MIN and his father, made seven years previ-
ously, that If he would remain at home for
SIX years after he came of age and work and
assume the charge and management of his
iathers farm, the father would convey TO him
the land in question, and that c. received
the conveyance In good faith and without
1aTt into
father. VA p"i' vi LIS
Where conveyance Is partly voluntary
courts VIII, in favor of creditors often set it
aside SO far as it is without consideration
but let 1T stand as security for the considera
ton actually paid
But although in this case the contract be-
tween the father and was more fayora
BILE to the latter than the former would have
made with a stranger, the facts do not make
a q, case for the application. of this rule of par
tial interference, especially as there was M
gross disparity between the value of the land
conveyed and the value of the services rem
dered ~ ~
the me et property conveyed by S. to X and by
the latter TO u. was subject to mortgage ex-
ecuted by S. before the conveyances.
After the property was conveyed to O. she
paid off this mortgage with her own money.
Held, that while the evidence of fraudu
lent intent on the part of X. to O. was NOT at
all clear or strong, yet the suspicious circum-
stances connected with the transactions were
sufhclent to Justify the finding of the court
that the conveyances were made and received
with knowledge OF the insolvency of s. and
TO secure the property for the benefit of s.
and his family free from the claims of cred
itors. VI N
-, But held also that under the circumstances
the conveyances should have been allowed
70 stand as security to o. for the amount
sne mad expended in paying off the mortgage
Wnlie the general rule is that if transfer
is tainted with actual fraud it will not be al
lowed TO stand for any purpose either of re-
iil IN OF indemnity this rule is not
lnheXible Courts of equity will look aft the
iacts, giving to each it's due weight and deal
with the transaction before it according to its
IDEAS OF right and justice. If it appears that
the grantor and grantee have combined to
commit meditated positive fraud and the
evidence Is clear the court will not allow the
conveyance to stand for any purpose of reim
bursement' or indemnity But where the cir
cumstances are so suspicious that the court
does not feel warranted in allowing the con-
veyance to stand but the evidence of fraud is
by no means clear conclusive, they will
under some circumstances allow the convey
ance to stand for the reimbursement of tho
grantee, at least for money expended nv him
Tor the benefit of the property, as by paving
off membranes. F'e
Distiction noted between such case and one
where the money has been paid by the grantee
to the fraudulent grantor
Amrmed on the appeal Of the plaintiff.
Modified on appeal of the defendants.
Mitchell, ].
A. N. Nelson, County Treasurer. Ramesv
County, plaintiff, VS.. st. Paul Title. In
surance and Trust Company, defendant.
If a title insurance COMPANY organized nm
der Gen. Laws 1887 Oh. 1856 ayails itself nf
the provisions of Gen. Laws 1885, CHI 227 and
engages in the annuity safe deposit and trust
business authorized by Gen. Laws 1889 Oh
lO7, all its property is subject to assessment