The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-07-18
CUT THEIR INCOME
SUPREME COURT MAKES A BAD
DECISION FOR THE EXPRESS
COMPANIES.
RIVER AND RAILROAD SUITS.
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
ALONG BOTH ARE DEFINED
BY JUDGE.
JUDGES ARE ABOUT THROUGH:
Only 81 Bakers Dozen Opinions Are
Yet to be Handed Down at
This Term.
RIVER AND RAILROAD SUITS.
JUDGES ARE ABOUT THROUGH:

bondholders in all parts of the country
was filed by the supreme court yester-
day in the suit brought by The United
States Express company against State
Treasurer A. T. Koerner The COM
pany sued for $117 for freight on con-
signment of $2S4000 of registered bonds,
which under the rules of the COM
pany, was subject to charge Of half
a mill on the dollar of value, the rate
for shipments of currency. Treasurer
Koerner, however, delivered the ship
ment to the company with the state
ment that it's value was $1,000, and paid
a charge of but rs cents for it's trans
mission. When the company ascertain
ed what was in the package it sued to
collect, insisting that if the shipment
had been lost, it would have been held
liable for the sum of $234,000. The
court, however, holds that it was IL
able only for the sum Of $1,000 which
was the value Of the package as certi-
fled to it by the shipper.
The result of the decision will no
doubt be a considerable diminution of
the receipts of the express companies
from the shipment of bonds. Treas
uIer Koerner, pending the adjudication
of the case, has been sending bonds by
registered mail, and states that he in
tends to continue this practice. The
syllabus of of the decision is as fol-
lows:
United States Express Co., appellant, VS..
August T. Koerner, respondent.
Standardization delivered to the plain
tiff, Express Co., at st. Paul, Mimi, to
be carried to Washington, d. c., a sealed
package containing twenty registered United
States government bonds of the value of
1924, 900, informed 1t that the value
81 900, concealed from it that they were of
Valna and Daid FL
IS cents, which was the usual price for SO
carrying such a package of the value of only
LOCO. In an action to recover additional
compensation.
Held, in case Of loss the limit of plain
tiff's liability for failure to deliver 81, 900
worth of such bonds, and it is not entitled
to recover on the theory that, in case of
loss, the limit of its liability for failure
to deliver the whole 1924, 600 worth Of goods.
Held, further, it is entitled to recover COM
pensation for any increase of risk within
So 600 limit, caused by the fact that it handled
and carried so valuable a package.
At the close of plaintiffs evidence the court
below, ON defendants motion, dismissed the
Held, this court will not grant new trial
merely because plaintiff may have been en-
titled to nominal damages.
Order affirmed.
-Canty, ].
Other decisions of yesterday relate to the
right Of people to erect and maintain grain
elevators on or near the right of way of rail-
roads, the riparian rights of property owners
along logging streams the liability of life
insurance companies, and other subjects OF
more or less general interest. The syllabi
are as follows:
In re application of S. Stewart respondent, VS..
Great Northern Ry. Co., appellant.
l. Held that CHI GA Laws, Secs. 7724-7729,
Genl. st. 1894, entitled "An act providing for
the erection of public grain warehouses and
grain elevators on or near the right of way
of railways and providing for condemnation
proceedings in connection Herewith, is con-
stitutional
@ Held further, that this statute author
ICES party, who has erected a public ele-
vator and is operating it, the site sought
to be condemned under license from the
railroad company which has been revoked to
take effect in the near future, to acquire the
right and easement, to continue for liked
term to maintain and operate public ee-
vator on such site.
g. Held. that there was competent evidence
in this case for the consideration OF jury
on the question of damages for the taking OF
such easement.
Judgment affirmed.
Start, c. J.
William Rasicott. respondent, VS.. Little Falls
Improvement & Navigation Co., appellant.
Held that under deed from plaintiff and
his wife whereby they granted to defendants
remote grantor certain boomage rights and
privileges in a driving stream bordering on
plaintiffs farm taking in consideration the
the circumstances of the transaction, the par
ticular situation of the parties and the con-
dition of the thing they granted, defendant
did not obtain the right to deprive plalntln
of the beneficial use of his farm by maintain
ing booms and asserting works at a point
two or three miles down the stream, whereby
log Jams were formed and the waters damned
and penned up so to flood the farm and
practically destroy its USE
Order affirmed.
Collins, ].
Jennette W. Hale respondent. VS.. The Life
Indemnity and Investment Company appel
liant.
/ This is an action life insurance
policy assigned by the assured to the plain
Tiff his creditor, as her interest might ap-
pear Held that the plaintiff had an In
eurable interest in his life and continued to
hold the policy as security for her debt, al
though she surrendered the original note
evidencing her debt and took other notes of
the assured and that the evidence suf-
ficient to sustain finding that the new
notes were taken in lieu and not in payment
of the original note and debt.
Q. Held further, that the plaintiff II en-
titled to recover on the policy. entitled
TO the full face value thereof, although a
portion of her debt was not due at the time
of the trial.
8. Where the issue is whether a person did
e certain act for example. committed sui
eide. his declarations. made at or about the
time he Is alleged to have done the act to
Che effect that he intended to do it. are adj