St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-22
BANK SHOULD KNOW
WHAT KIND OF NOTES 1T BUS
BEFORE 1T -AYS FOR
THEM.
JUDGE CANTY'S FINDINGS
IN THE CASE OF A GRAND FORKS
GAMBLING DEBT PROM
ISE.
DGE cANTY'S FINDINGS
Is Also Among the Decisions Handed
Down in the Supreme Court
Yesterday.

Judge Canty, of the supreme court,
yesterday handed down six decisions
in cases which have recently been
before that august tribunal. Per
haps the most interesting of the de-
cisions is one involving the liability
of a bank to protect itself when it
bought note which was subsequently
found to resemble a gambling debt
and was as a result invalid. There is
also decision in one of the many
New England bank cases from Henne-
pin county, and the soda water fount-
ain case, which aroused considerable
comment at the time it was begun.
The following are the syllabi:
Merchants National Bank of Grand Forks
appellant, VS.. James E. Sullivan, respond
ent
Plaintiff bank is indorsed before muturity
of the negotiable promissory notes in suit
Held, conceding that they received by
1t in the due course of business for a valu-
able consideration, still, on the evidence the
trial court was justified in finding that plain
TN had notice that they were given for
gambling debt; that it's failure to inquire as
to the consideration of the notes amounted
to bad faith, and that it not an innocent
purchaser.
Held, the evidence sustains the Judgment
judgment affirmed -Canty l.
oecher Investment Agency, appellant,
John F. Rea, as receiver Of the Bank of
New England, respondent.
Where for debt actually due tic him,
held the note of the debtor which he dis
counted, Endorsed and delivered to B at
rate of discount greater than the rate of
interest allowed by law;
Held, the transaction is not necessarily
loan IN which the note was delivered as col
lateral security; but whether or net II is
such loan is a question of fact to be de-
termined from all the facts and crcum-
stances in the case.
Held further, the transfer of the note NAV
De a Yand sale thereof, but whether or not
as question of law the obligation of the
lndorser is usurious or not inforcibIe nv tho
1ndorser, is not decided
Heid, the findings and order for Judgment
firmed. MCantv a.
James l w; Tufts, appellant. VS.. L. S. Hunter,
lied Held it con9clusiveIy appears from the evil
Gence mat the personal property delivered
execut hUs OF inc character ordered an
defendant was for this reason justified in
resembling the contract -
!, Wlthln reasonable time after receiving
the property the vendee notified tho vnndnr
OF the defects in it, and that he would re-
Iuse to accept it unless these defects were
Held, he did not thereby deprive himself
OIL ot the ne, right to rescnd if the defects were
after 0 'hoie
Held. the written order for the purchase
81 me goods was too indefinite as to the
identity Of the property sold to constitute in
that respect a complete written contract f.
Wnicn could not be varied by parol. Order
ITI.itteu' MIL, -Canty, ].
Spicer, respondent. 0-i-- W.
i: The vendor agreed to convey land to the
vendee by good and sufficient deed Of con-,
Held, this called for deed with the usual
covenants. '--0 usual
q. An action of eiectment was hroupbt bv
for ~,
covely of possession of the land and for
1 damages for detention of the same. The
Nehuee notified the vendor Of the tendency
OF such action, and he undertook the de-
Tense of the same.
Held, in subsequent action against him
by the vendee, he was bound by the result
OF the ejectment suit,
8. After the purchase the vendee entered
on the land made improvements Maid taves
and installments OF the purchase mcnev was
subsequently, evicted in such ejectment action
by paramount title and removed the
ments, and the holder of the paramount
tile recovered damages against him for the
detention of the land.
In an action against the vendor for dam
ages fer breach of the contract of sale
Held, the vendee is entitled to recover for
the loss of his bargain and compensation for
MS improvements, which loss and compensa-
ton are to be measured by deducting the sum
OF the purchase price OF the land and all I'M
PAID interest thereon accruing I'D to the
tlme OF the eviction from the value of the
land at that time, and in addition to this
olnerence between the two sums he is en-
titled to recover the taxes and instailments
of the purchase money so paid by him and
the costs and damages awarded against him
N the ejectment suit. but from these amounts
must be deducted the value for the purpose
Of removal of the buildings removed.
Held further, the vendee is entitled also
to interest on the purchase money and taxes
SO paid only from the time of eviction
4. flalntlm alleged that she indu- I'd
TO make the contract of purchase by reason
OF certain false and fraudulent representa-
defendant. IN
such fraud.
Held. it is not material variance to per
nit a recovery of the same damages for
breach of the contract.
.. No writ was issued on the Judgment in
eJectment, but the vendee did not abandon
possession or move off her buildings until
after the judgment entered and the ven
dor had apparently abandoned any further
defense in that action.
Held, there was a constructive eviction.
+. Held, 1t was error to reject evidence of
the value of the land at the time of the
eviction.
Z. Damages for loss On machinery pur-
chased by plaintiff to carry on farming on the
land held too remote as element Of dam
ages
8. A certificate of the town clerk of the
payment Of road tax, held no evidence that
such tax had ever been assessed. Order re-
versed. CAVITY J.
Charles c. Scheible, appellant, vs. George H.
Shickler ct al, defendants; George Benz,
respondent.
Plaintiff made a contract to furnish and
place in defendants houses furnaces of a
certain kind, number and size. together with
the proper connections therefor. He fully
performed this contract except that the fur
naces did not heat the houses SO as to full
fill warranty made part of the CON
tract. He subsequently made new agree
ment whereby in satisfaction of all damages
for breach of the warranty, he agreed tc
substitute other furnaces in place CT these
already furnished, and this he did,
He filed no lien statement until within nine
ty days thereafter.
In an action to foreclose mechanics lien
for the contract price,
Held such lien statement was fled in time
Held, the variance between the proof and
findings of fact is great that the order