The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-12

JuStlce Buck also handed down q
nunaper OF decisions, the syllabi being
as follows:
STATE ex rel Prince Investment Company, APP
peilant vs. G. E. Weld, as County Audi
Tor OF Murray County, respondent.
w nere a deed is executed, purporting to con-
pes lne Title to or affecting an interest legal
OF equitable in several parcels of real prop
erty and the taxes are paid upon one parcel
pue are delinquent and unpaid upon the
olHer parcels. mandamus will not lie to COM
deed ev county ny auditor e endorse upon such
affirmed. Op,,ol, OTo'
Edward C. Bauman. respondent VS. Granits
pellant. ~
l.. Courts Of this state may take judicial
| notice that the city Of Duluth is situate in
the county of st. Louis and state of Min
nesota.
z. An advertisement giving notice of a
Hor gage sale under a power contained in
the mortgage is sufficient, although the mort
gagged premises sold are described in it no
1aore particularly than as being the premises
to VII 81 IA ana covered by said mortgage,
W VII; Lot ntnety-eight 9S) and the west
G GnSr lnfty-nve (35) feet of lot one hundred
NV, On East Fifth street, in Duluth Proper
t riaso 9slVlslon according to the recorded plat
1nereof, and fractional lot number three "a,
aliu tne wesley ten Q0) feet of fractional
loI NUMBER 1oCf "a, in block one hundred
nnq edgnt GiO0) in Portland division of Du-
reversed. iTei
raul Sharvey, respondent, vs. Daniel q
Cash and G. G.. Hartley. aDpel,ants
:. me plaintiff, as sheriff levied an execu-
uon IN favor of P & Co. upon certain rnar
taanurse winch was worth at least six times
the amount of the judgment, as the nron
erty OF the Judgment debtors Tt in fact he
Iongeo 10 third party. Several DAYS there
aIter ne levied upon the whole Of the same
n0Pf
Iavor OF two other parties against tha same
ueotoFs. There was at no time anw concert
OF actlon IN the premises between the sew
eral execution creditors The third nsrtv
afterwards made affidavit of his ownarSbin
u re property and demand for the same
Ihereupon the first execution creditors with
Hy AnoWledge that the levy under their
eAecutIon was excessive or of the other ex-
ecutlons and levies, gave the plaintiff q stat
utory indemnity bond in the penal sun of
SioUoo entltied in their own action only The
plalhtlH sold the property in bulk for Tho
amount of the three executions and costs Of
SAFE, ana paid each of the execution cred
ators me full amount of his Judgment. The
owner OF the property recovered q iudqmnnf
against the plaintiff for the vaIue of az
properly in the sum of S. 400 and the f1rst
GHecuteon creditors paid to the plaintiff 50 651
Which MI NIL pro rata snare of such judgment,
w whlc On was at least three times the amount
OF their execution. They never authorized
such excessive levy or sale Of the entire
Ri ,,9ana% IN nuIk.t The plaintiff took no
creditors. execution
A., Held, IN an action by the plaintiff against
the suretes on the bond to recover the hal
a ainn+ Of the $500 paid by him on the tudg
ment against him that the lew on tba AZ
execution was grossly excessive, that the
p paag ma was tsoa Wrong-doer to such ex
cess, ana that the sureties are not IahIa
to him for any further sum on the bond 'i' Or
ie'eiseu Buck, ].
George Pfefferkorn and Otto Pfefferkorn
partners as Pfefferkorn Bros, appellants
vs. c. j. Seefeld respondent
Under Gen. st. 1894, sec. 1853, party to the
record CT any civil action or proceeding
called at the instance of the adverse party
and examined as witness as if under cross
examination may be compelled to testify as
1ully upon all matters material to the issue
as any other witness.
e Where parties holding intimate domes-
tic relations are charged in the peadjngs with
a conspiracy to defraud, great latitude should
pc allowed in their cross-examination under
the statute.
Held, also that the evidence made case
for the jury and the trial court erred in
directing verdict for the defendant. Order
reversed Buck, J.