The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-07

the prior claim and rights of the defendant
corporation in and to the corporate stock
in controversy before the creation OF the
debts for which it claimed lien upon the
corporate stock. Judgment affirmed
: Buck. ].
R. L. Polk & Co., respondent VS.. American
Mortgage and Loan Company, appellant.
Pleadings in justice court should be con-
strued literally and after Judgment therein
every reasonable intendment is in favor OIL
the regularity and validity of the proceedings.
Judgment affirmed. BUCK, De
Oluf Lundberg, appellant, VS.. Shevlin-Carpen-
ter Company, respondent
That portion of General Laws 1895, chapter
173, defining the duties of master ana EN-
ployer to employees in certain cases, whach
reads in part follows, viz: ITO use reason
able care to direct and supervise the per-
Torrance of the work in a reasonably safe ana
prudent Manner is merely declaratory OF the
common law.
Soutar vs. Minneapolis International Elec-
trio Company April term 1897, MINI. supreme
court.
Hess VS.. Adamant Manufacturing Company,
6S N. w. Rep. TIA, followed.
Evidence considered ard he'd that plaintiH
and certain other employees Of defendant were
fellow servants and that the trial court was
justified in dismssing the action. Order al
firmed. BUCK, j.
Bernard overman, respondent, vs. Henry
Loebertmann, appellant.
An allegation in the complaint is Sunclent
which alleges an Indebtedness and part pay
ments thereon at such times as would pre-
vent the statute from operating as par
dicating that the debtor acknowledged chat
more due and would be paid need not De
alleged. The rule that part payment OF
debt will not take the case out of the statute
r,J1-o fIa nay ant he m
cumstances, which Will warrant the jury
in inferrng therefrom a promise to pay the
residue is one of evidence and not of plead
ing. 1t is not necessary to piead lmp4eo
promises. BUCK, j.
Harold lThorson. appellant, Tvs. Ole 0. Sauby,
respondent ~ za4F,f7
? 9 P aint.tf, as indorsee Of a promissory note,
bSeIght suit thereon against the maker, who
admitted its execution but alleged usury as
defense. Upon the trial in justice court the
plaintiff produced the note and Endorsements
theron in evidence and rested and thereupon
the defendant also rested. The justice rem
dered judgment in favor OF the defendant.
He'd error under General Statutes 1894, Sec
ton 5751.
Plant fl then appealed to the district court
upon questions of law alone, where al the
evidence taken in justice court was returned:
The district court held that the justice OF
the peace erred In not rendering judgment
for the plaintiff, but that in view of the fact
that the issue rendered by the defendants
III
court it would not be proper for such court
to order judgment for plaintiff, and there
fore merely reversed the judgment rendered
in justice court
Held. error, and that the district court
should have ordered judgment thereon upon
the merits in favor of the plaintiff:
Eliza j. Phillips, appellant, VS.. Wade Baker
ct al respondents.
General Statutes 1894, section 1894, in part
husband and wife, the with the other
rela i've to the real estate of either or any in
terest therein shall be valid y
Held, that although B and her husband had
separated mortgage executed by him to her
on his real estate Invalid and constituted
no lien upon such estate. Order affirmed.
Buck, ].
al, petitioners, realtors, VS.. District Court
of St. Louis County, respondent.
Evidence considered and held that the trial
court had the power and it was it's duty to
determine whether the assessment in ques-
ton was excessive, and, II it was not, con-
firm it; but If 1T was, to reduce it accordingly
or order a new one. Order reversed.
Start, C. ].
Northern Trust Company. respondent. VS..
+ Albert Lea College ct al, defendants, R.
B. Abbott, appellant
l. The power of the court to grant relief
in judgment by default is limited to that
demand in the com paint
2. Where default judgment is not justi-
fed by the complaint and it's prayer for relief
the error may be reviewed and corrected by
an appeal from the judgment
8. Held, that the default judgment in this
case granted material relief to the Plaintiff in
excess of that prayed in the complaint.
Judgment modified Start, G. J.
Joseph L. Brady, appellant, VS.. Charles H.
Chadbourne, respondent e-s .,
Syllabus-Held, that draft for the whole of
a specified debt amounts to an assignment
ceptance; held further, that it was error for
the trial court in this case, which was an &C
ton upon q claim against the defendant so
assigned. to instruct the jury in effect that the
plaintiff could not recover unless the defend
ant accepted the draft for some amount. Or
der reversed Start, c. ].
spondent,. vs. Louise Deliver ct al, defend
ants; Louise Deliver and P. N. Peterson,
appellants.
Evidence considered and held that it sus-
tains the verdict herein to the effect that the
defendants were guilty of negligence. which
was the proximate cause of the death OF
plaintiffs intestate, in leaving a ditch, made
by them, in public alley unguarded and
unlighted, and that the deceased not
guilty of contributory negligence. Order af-
frmed. Start, Z. j.
Albert A. Root respondent, VS.. Clarence H.
Syllabus-1. Where the obligation Of
party to a contract is to pay only upon the
happening of a contingency it's occurrence
must be alleged in the complaint in an ac.
ton for the recovery Of the money. But II
payment is not to be made If certain con-
tingency happens it is not necessary to al
lege in the complaint the non-happening OF
the contingency.
q Held, that the complaint herein complies
with this rule, and that it states cause of
action Order affirmed. Start, c. ].
Ole A. Olson respondent, vs.. Great Northern
Railway Company, appellant.
l. Held that an allegation In the COM
plant herein to the effect that the defendant
neeligently ran certain cars against tender
with such force as to injure the plaintiff is
sustained by proof that 1T negligently
omitted to do an act from which such result
followed
q He'd, that request to instruct the jury
that they could not infer negligence from the
mere happening Of the accident In this case
was rightly refused as misleading, for the
reason that the accident was of such a. nature
as to raise. in connection with the other evil
dence. an inference of negligence.
g. Evidence considered, and held that 1t is
sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that
the award of damages is not so excessive as
to Justify the conclusion that it was induced
by passion or prejudice. Order affirmed.
Start, G. j.
In re assignment of the Jacoby- Nicholas
American Trust and Savings Bank, respond
ct vs. Frank P. Chuck, assignee, appel
LIANT