The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-24

with the use Of the buildings and a pasture
for his cows, and would deed one of the other
brothers eighty acres which they mad pur-
chased together. Benjamin claims to have
agreed and to have decided the other brother
his interest in the eighty acres, but took in
return a note for $780, the value of the land
being $780, This note was to be paid in case
BENJAMIN did not get the homestead.
The old gentleman fatty denies having
made the agreement with Benjamin.
The other children by the second wife stood
up for Benjamin, and testified that they had
heard the agreement made.
The lower court rendered Judgment in favor
of the son, but the supreme court reverses
this and holds that the evidence was not
sufficient to support the findings of the trial
court. The son had cultivated the land right
along, but he had done the same thing ever
since his father had presented him with
$4,000 farm of his own and he had made no
permanent improvements of nature to 1nd1-
cate that he was cultivating the land with
view to carrying out such a contract as he
claims to have had with his father. Besides,
there is the testimony of the father that his
reason for deciding the homestead to Mrs.
Mccarthy was that her mother had furnished
the money with which it was purchased,
new trial is granted, the syllabus being as
follows:
Benjamin Bresnahan Jr, respondent, VS..
Benjamin Bresnahan ST.. and Kate Nc
Carthy ct al, appellants.
l. Possession of land in order to take
verbal contract for its purchase out of the
statute must be taken with the specific in
tent of carrying out the contract Such in
tent cannot be shown by the oral contract.
If the possession is not a new fact, but is
a continuation Of former similar condition,
the intent must be proved by some further act
which shows, without any equivocation or I'M
certainty, that the position cannot be &C
counted for except by the verbal contract
of purchase. Possession of a son, raises no
presumption that it was taken pursuant to
any contract for the purchase Of the land;
2. Evidence held insufficient to support the
findings of the trial court to the making
of verbal contract for the purchase of land
and a part performance thereof. Order re-
versed. Start, G. j.
Other decisions yesterday were as follows:
Mart T. Carpenter, appellant VS.. Sarah c.
Iamphere ct al, respondents.
Evidence held to support the finding and
decision Of the trial court to the effect that
the note and mortgage herein are usurious
and should be cancelled. Order affirmed.
Start. c. j.
Darlington Phelps, respondent Northern
Trust Company ct AL, appellants.
tain finding and decision to the effect that
the land here in question is the homestead
of the plaintiff.
g. The mere fact that the owner of a
into lots without dedicating the streets shown
on the plat to the public does not affect his
homestead rights in any part thereof. Nor
does the sale Of a part of such lots affect
such rights in any part of the original tract
remaining unsold provided the contiguity Of
what remains is preserved Order affirmed.
Start. G.. j.
Kate Irving as Administrative. etc., Vs. Min
neapolis & st. Louis Railroad Company, re-
spondent; and John Irving, appellant, vs..
Minneapolis & st. Louis Railroad Company,
respondent
Held, that the evidence herein conclusive
ly established the contributory negligence Of
Start. C. J.