The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-22
1T is A HOMESTEAD.
supreme Court Decides the Ban
hOIZer Case.

supreme Court Decides the Ban
hOIzer Case.
A decision Of considerable inheritance
to the interests involved. although it's
public interest has been somewhat de-
preclated by the fact that the legis-
ldlule at It's last session modified the
law on Which the present decision hing
ed, was filed in the supreme court YES
terday IN the case Of the National Rank
OF the Republic of New York. against
William Banolzer. 1t involved the oues-
ton whether the Banholzer propertv
winch was five acres in extent. con1pris-
ing beside the residence and actual
homestead brewery and other valu-
aple property, should be exempt from
execution. The supreme court holds
tt'at the property is exempt, although
under the new law it would not be. Thu
syllabus Of the decision is as follows:
National Bank of the Republic of New York
aappellaht' W. William Banholzer, respon-
The judgment debtor claims as his homo
stead, exempt from execution, the whole of
the nVe-acre tract on when he resides: it is
WlInIh the laid out and Plated portion of
81. Paul, city of over 5000 inhabitants, but
mas never been, itself, plated.
Held. whether or not the whole is exempt
as his homestead depends on whether II is
Wltnn the rural or urban portion of the
city. "a W
Held, 1t does not conclusively appear that
IL is within the urban portion of the city.
ana the order of the court below holding
the whole exempt is affirmed. -Canty. ],
The syEab of the other decisions were:
II; j; Partridge, as assignee of Newton &
Parks, appellant, VS. G. H. Jessup and w
d. Musser, respondents.
III an action by an assignee in insolvency
TO set aside payment to a creditor or an
attachment Indebtedness as an unlawful
preference, and to recover back the amount
paid, 1'
Held, the finding of the court that at the
time time OF such payment the creditor did not
nave reasonable cause to believe the as
slgnors 1nsolvent, is sustained by the evil
dence Judgment affirmed. -Canty, J.
Melville E. Bryant, respondent. vs.. American
surety Company Of New York appellant
oecuon 5l5S, q. s. 1894, subsection l. as
AMENDED anne ts by L. 1885, chapter 80, providing
within two years: Libel, Islander, assault,
battery, false imprisonment or other tort
resulting in personal injury" includes an
action FOR malicious prosecution. Order re-
VerSed. -Cantv
Security Bank of FariDault, respondent,
Isaac Waite, appellant.
r Section 1886, G. s.. 1894, construed, and held.
that promissory note payable to the order
VI the udheF is, Wn6n negotiated bV him
without Endorsement, the legal equivalent Of
note payable to bearer Judgment affirm
ed. Start q
H. Rosenbaum, appellant vs. E. c. Howard
and Howard & Haynie, respondents
L. Parties will be held prima facie to be
partners as to creditors upon slighter proof
imam Is necessary to establish that relation
among themselves. In such cases. represen
tations, conduct and circumstances naturally
calculated or likely to beget the belief that
ortiz Nor@1
hcient to make the question one for the Jury
z A member of copartnership may testify
who constitute the firm.
3. Entries in the account books of firm
are not evidence against a defendant to show
that he was a member of the firm unless ac-
companied by other evidence fairly tending
to show that he had knowledge of such en-
tries and assented expressly or implicitly
thereto.
4. Evidence considered and held that the
trial court erred in instruct,ng the jury
could find that the defendant was in fact
partner with his co-defendants herein.
Order reversed. Start c., J.
Lucas Kells as assignee of N. P. Clarke etc.,
respondents, Clarendon P. Mcclure, ap-
pellant.
/. In action by an assignee in insolvency
to set aside a transfer by his assignor on
the ground that it was in fact made to him
der, delay and defraud creditors, it is COM
petent, for the purpose Of showing the in
sOIN0HCy OI the aSSlSQOr, TO put In evidence
the books of account and records, duly veri-
fed pertaining not only to the individual
business OF the assignor but also that of a
co2partnership of which he was a member
2. Evidence considered and held that 1t
supports the findings of the trial court to
th2 effect that the plaintiffs assignor made a
bi!l OF sale of quantity Of logs to the de-
fendant. with the intent to delay and de-
frSud his creditors and that the defendant
then had notice Of such intent.
D.. Held that the assignee did not ra fly
ndfn
TACT that some Of the notes given for the
purchase price camo into his hands as such
assignee and were retained by him until the
trial Of this action.
4. Held that the trial court did not err N
refusing to modify it's conclusions of law so
as to permit the defendant to pay the value
of the logs instead of surrendering the legs
and lumber manufactured therefrom, nor in
refusing to provide for an accounting as to
the cost of manufacturing such lumber Or
der affirmed. Start c. J.
Gustave Banse, respondent, VS.. Town of Clark
and Basil Smcut, Fred Willie and John
Niebuhr, appellants.
1. Oral evidence is corlpetent in aid of a
petition and order for the laying out of
highway, to show that the petition was signed
by the necessary number Of qualified petit
TONERS.
2. The fact that a petition for highway
includes more than proposed road does
not affect the jurisdiction of the town SUI
pervisors to act upon the petition and lay
cut one Of the proposed highways.
3. misrecital, in the order laying out
the road, of the description of the proposed
road, as contained In the petition, does not
affect the validity Of the order where the
road, az actually laid is correctly described
therein.
4. The failure CT the town clerk to record
tie surveyors plat of the road with tie
road order, and its loss and reproduction in
eTidenes on the trial OF this case, did not