The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-30
N. p. RECEIVERS WIN.
Supreme Court Reverses the District
Court Decision,

Seven decisions were handed down
by the supreme court yesterday, JUS
tlce Collins writing the opinions. Two
OF the decisions of the lower court were
reversed, one being In the suit brought
by the receivers of the Northern Pa
cific against Henry F. Brown, the Min
neapolis lumberman, and another. The
receivers now win. The syllabi are as
follows:
Edwin J. McHenry ct al, appellants, vs. HI.
F. Brown ct al, respondents.
l. A certain contract between plaintiffs, as
receivers Of a railroad company, and Defend
ant B, guaranteed by Defendant N entered
into after enc t, contractor, upon whose
bond and N were suretie7. had defaulted in
the performance of the conditions of a build
ing contract Heretofore made with the com
pany, examined and construed. Held that it
was Independent Of the bond and was founded
upon sufficient consideration.
2. The rules of law laid down in Robinson
VS.. Hagenkamp, So, MINI. 1922 held applicable
to the facts in this case. Judgment reversed.
Collins, ].
White Sewing Machine Company, appellant,
VS.. j. d. Miller ct al, defendants, L. W.
Palmer ct al, respondents.
A bond of indemnity considered and con-
strued. Held that the obligations assumed
by the obligors were not restricted to the
performance of the terms of a certain con-
tract entered into, as part of the same
transaction, by and between the principal
obligor and obligee named in the bond.
press an intent therein as to what construc-
ton shall be placed on the language used, that
intent, however expressed, is binding upon
the courts, no question of good morals or
public policy or a violation OF law being in
volved. Order reversed. Collins J.
In the matter of the assignment of George
Vetter; Merrick & Merrick, petitioners, ap-
pellants, VS.. F. w. Bonness, assignee, etc.,
respondent.
/. On the findings of fact made by the
RI hnln iC ha1d fIo4
as attorneys for certain creditors of an in
solvent debtor, proceeded under the provisions
of General Statutes 1894, section 4249 and pro-
cured order allowing all creditors to share
in the distribution of the assigned estate
without filing releases, were not entitled to
an order of the court directing that they
be compensated for their services in pro-
curing such order out Of the trust funds In
the hands of the assignee.
2. Whether under any showing said ap-
pellants would be entitled to such an order
is not determined. Order affirmed.
Collins, j.
In the matter of the condemnation of lots 1e.
IL and 49, in the rearrangement of r.
ington Park; Charles E. Brame appeIla It
VS.. Horace A.. Towne respondent.
In proceedings had under the provisions
of S. L. 1889, chapter &c. section g. the dis
trict court, on findings of fact made an order
determining to whom certain deposited money
should be paid. And it was paid out and dis
tributed as determined. More than five
I y
moved the court to amend some of its findings
to strike out others, and ta set aside its or
/ der. Held, the orders Or the court was a
| final order in a special Proceeding and the
| court was without power or authority to
grant such a motion. Order affirmed.
Collins, ].
| Thomas Keough ct al, respondents, VS.. The
! City of st. Paul, appellant.
contract for the grading of a street in
| the city of St. Paul entered into between the
| city and a contractor is not ultra wires sim
| tablish gradient lines for the street prior
| to the passage by the council of an order
! directing that such street be graded. Nor is
| such contract ultra wires simply because
| condemnation proceedings, through which the
| city has attempted to acquire an easement
| for slopes along such street have not been
| fully consumated prior to the passage of
! such order. Order affirmed Collins, ].
Marcus F. Bates respondent. VS.. F. A. Bates,
| appellant.
Held, that the court below did not abuse
| its discretion when it denied defendants mo-
ton that stipulation for the entry of judg-
| ment against him. in an action then pend
| ing. signed by his attorney, but without
his knowledge or consent, aud Judgment en-
! tered thereon, be set aside and vacated
! Judgment and order affirmed. Collins, j.
Ole T. Ramsland, respondent, VS.. Ole G.
| Rosie, appellant.
/ merit. Judgment affirmed. Collins j.