St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-08
GOOD CASES FIRST
SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR THE
STEENERSON-GREAT NORTH
ERN CASE TODAY.
ALSO BRAME D!SBARMENT.
APRIL TERM OPENED YESTER-
DAY WITH a DOCKET OF 3I7
CASES.
DATES OF IMPORTANT CASES
Continue the Work of the Judges
Clear to the Sd Day of
July.
ALSO BRAME D!SBARMENT.


The April term of the supreme court opened
yesterday, and, while the number of cases
this term is comparatively small there was
no perceptible diminution in the number of
attorneys who thronged the court chamber
awaiting the call of their cases.
The follwing shows the dates for which
the st. Paul and Minneapolis cases were
set, as we'll as those of wide interest out
side:
Rgsse Sage rTspgndent a vs. The St.
Company, appellant. Continued.
=. Jane c. Bennett appellant, VS.. The
City of Minneapolis. Continued.
5. Kate Davis, respondent, vs. The North
ern Pacific Railroad Company, appellant.
April "a.
I: Harlan P. Roberts, respondent, vs..
s. Charles c. Smith, respondent, VS.. John
r. Lewis, appellant. Continued.
10. In re assessment for opening Linwood
Place, etc, E. E. Putnam ct al. VS.. Dis
trict Court Ramsey County. April 21.
IA. Halleck w. Seaman, respondent, VS..
Charles II. Goodrich ct al, appellants. Con-
20. St. Paul Title Insurance and Trust
Company, respondent, VS.. Sverke C. John
son ct al, defendants; Benjamin F. Knauft,
21. H. c. Akeley, appellant, VS.. Missis-
spondent. April %.
%. T. *. Weike, appellant, VS.. Minneapo-
lis, St. Paul q Sault Ste. Marie Railway,
respondent April II.
20. Charles A. Smith, respondent, VS.. f.
". Backus Lumber Company, appellant.
80. James Slocum Jr. ct al. appellants,
vs.. Braey and Letcher, respondents. April
81. George W. Meeks, respondent, VS.. The
City. Of st. Paul, appellant. April 20 on
3S, Martha A. Pound, administrative, re-
April %.
"a. George T. Leitch, respondent, vs. The
GlIiette-Herzog Manufacturing Company, ap
pellant. April IS.
So. Hanna Cornfeld, respondent, VS.. The
Order Birth Abraham, appellant. April 20
&c. Marcus B. Hobart respondent vs.
Charles K. Sherburne, appellant. Continued.
MINNEAPOLIS Street Railway Company, re-
c;8s. 80. Reuben +. Little, appellant, vs.. The
hallway COMPANY, respondent. April q.
appellant, VS.. Francis Won Heyderstaedt re-
spondent. April q.
49,; John B. Wood, appellant, VS.. Chicago,
spondent. April %.
as. Pioneer Fuel Company and William R.
Merriam, Merriam respondents, vs. St. Peter Street
and Emerson w. Peet, appellant April %.
Al, Same vs. Same, and A. j. McA. Stark,
appellant, Joined with 46 and 60 and TO-
49, James Moody, appellant VS.. H. Alden
smith ct al, respondents. April 2S.
90. State Of Minnesota VS.. NJ. Grata, ap-
pellant May -.
81. City Of st. Paul respondent. VS. Chi
cago Milwaukee & st. Paul Railway anneI-
liant. June l. NPpN'
r2daEt7 b. State 7, Of Minnesota RESPONDENT
5S. State OF Minnesota, respondent vs.
Great Northern Railway Company, appellant.
May 1S
81. State of Minnesota respondent vs.
Farlbauit Water Works, appellant May 20.
80. State Of Minnesota, ex rel attorney gen
eral respondent VS.. American Savings and
Loan Association, appellant. April 20.
So. State of Minnesota, ex rel. H. G. Tracy,
May 90 ie'p0iuei''
5S. State of Minnesota VS.. w. z. Moffett
ct al, defendants. April IA.
60. State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs. N. P.
Clarke, defendant. May 20.
g.. known as the Cass-Crow Wing case,
writ of certiorari. May q.
62 State of Minnesota, ex rel. Henry Fisch-
er, VS.; Probate Court Of Hennepin, respond
ent April 10.
&c. State of Minnesota, respondent VS..
William Sheppard, appellant. April II.
6S. p NJ. Hillary, as administrator, re-
spondent vs. Great Northern Railway Com
r.. Firth and Kraus appellants, vs. D. D.
Brack ct al, defendants. S. c. Olmstead ct
al respondents. April TO-
Ill.
Iromanhauser ct al, appellants. May Is.
So st. Paul Trust Company, respondent,
VS.. Frederick Driscoll ct al, appellants.
81 Philip seibert ct al. respondents. vs..
Eleanor Quesnel ct al, appellants May 26.
92 st. Paul and Minneapolis Trust Com
appellant Continued
1O3. Joseph Petzenka, respondent, VS..
George A. baltimore, appellant. May s.
104 Hedyig A. Colby, respondent, VS.. Chris
Ilan NJ. Colby, appellant. Nav
lO5. Florence E. Adams, respondent vs. A.
H. Castle ct al; defendants, A. H. Castle, ap-
JOG. Trustees of Manchester College and AL
bert a. Page, respondents VS. George w. Mes
bit, appellant. May Is.
IOS' Samuel ID. Peterson, respondent, vs.
The Western Union Telegraph Company, ap
pellant May 2S. Np
1o9. James II. Mailer ct al VS.. Merchants
BANK OF Hartford, respondent. May II.
11O. Helen Gale. respondent. vs. Thomas F.
Bir9ingham II5 gaa ct al. appellants; May 27.
Garfield appellant. May Z.
116. James X: Van Doren, appellant. vs. J.
A: "a and & 5. H; [, Wright. respondents. May 2S
II! Dan E. O'COnnell, respondent VS. ST
Paul City Railway Company, appellant. Nav +
lis. Mary r. Minor respondent, VS.. Home
Savings Savings and Loan Association, appellant.
119: Henry Wagner, appellant, VS.. Andrew
j. Finnegan, respondent. May 1S.
l2o; George W. Ewing, appellant, vs. John
and Eliza f. Clark. respondents Nav 10
123 John e. Jensen. appellant, VS.. Cbicapo
May 10.
125; Mary D. Bean, respondent VS.. George
S. Heron, appellant. May q.
VIZ. l25; Ch9rles e j. Berryhll, appellant VS..
MllIiam C. Resser ct al defendants, William
G.. Resser, respondent. May T.
rs Louise Gillespie, respondent VS. James
". Gillespie ct al, defendants, James w Gil
lespie appellant. April 90 oti'
vdSIa ISL; d. S Erb, appellant, VS.. Anthony
Hoerg Jr.. assignee, respondent. Nav -
1873. Emily B. Elliott respondent vs. su-
san Roche ct al, appellants May H.
l54: Emil Malmgren ct al, plaintiffs, re-
spondents, William N. Shandrew ct al do
PENDANTS, respondents, VS.. Albert S. Phnnev
ct al defendants, Carl Hunsaker ct al, an
1877 Joseph Alt, respondent, vs. John Croft