The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-13
DECISION INVOLVING CITY LOTS
HANDED DOWNQIN THE SU-
PREME COURT.
LAND TAKEN FOR STREETS
BELONGS TO THE CITY. BUT III
MAY NOT ASSESS AUDITING
OWNERS.
HEIRS FIGHT FOR INSURANCE
rs Also the Subject of Decision
Filled Yesterday-Other News of
the Courts.

pour decisions We're handed down by the
supreme court yesterday in one of which q
'toupies0ile question as to assessments for
street vacations and improvements on abut-
'ins property owners, is settled. The sylabi
Oh the opinions which are written by JUS
tice CAVITY are:
Josephine M. Smith, respondent, VS.. City Of
appellants.
IN an action Of ejectment brought by H
against the city to recover possession of a
strip OF land, occupied by the city as a part
III III spuD.lc street, judgment was entered in
ms FAVOR e1ecting the city; thereupon it
commenced condemnation proceedings to con-
uel1n such strip for such street. an award
u damages was made to the owners of such
sup ana q special assessment made there
lore against the lots abutting on the street.
out such assessment has not been paid and
no TAX judgment has been entered therefore,
dne Guy having failed to pay the award Of
uduases Withln six months after the confir-
Hatlon OF the award the owners of the strip
SO condemned were by the provisions of
tne charter, entitled to recover the amount of
such award out of the public funds in the
city treasury, and thereupon the assignee of
H. Drought this action to recover the same;
IN truth and in fact, H had no title to such
stllP ana ought not to have prevailed in the
eJec,lnent action, but such title was in the
aDutung owners; two of these owners whose
rlgnt OF access would be cut off by the va
cauon or the street over said strip, interviewed
in the action.
Held, neither such abutting owner nor the
city was estopped as against the other to
assert that said strip Always was a part of
the public street therefore, the city took
nothlng from such owners by such condemna-
tlon and they are not entitled to any part
Of the award.
Held further, such abutting owners have
a good defense to such special assessments
against their lots, and if plaintiff RECEIVERS
out OF the general funds the city cannot be
reimbursed by such special assessments; but
as against plaintiff such abutting owners
nave a right Independent of the city, to
assert that said strip always was a part of
the street and by reason thereof, and of such
owners being general tax payers, they have
right to object to the recovery by plaintiff
of the amount of said award out of the
-Canty, ].
Amelia Maceman. respondent, VS.. Equitable
Life Assurance Society of the United States,
defendant; Gunei Spee!man, intervenor, ap-
pei
A life insurance policy made the insurance
money payable to the insured, his execu-
tors, administrators. or assigns; plaintiff a
daughter of the insured. claims that he as
signed the policy to her and then Joined
her in a written request to the insurer that
the policy be surrendered and a new one
issued to her; new one was issued to her
in lieu of the old one, and this action was
| brought on the new one: the intervenor, the
widow of the insured. claims under the old
| policy through his will; the jury by a spe-
cal verdict found that the insured assigned
the cid policy to plaintiff, but that he never
made or signed any request that the same be
surrendered and new one issued to her, as
she claims, and they aiset found a general
verdict for the intervenor. 7 re ~7e ~s~,
Held further, the erroneous instruction OF
eral verdict and the court did not err in
| ordering judgment for plaintiff on such find
| ing notwithSt anding the general verdict.
| Held further, the erroneous instruction of
| the court, not excepted to, that If the jury
| found that the insured did not make sign
| such request, they should find for the inter-
| venor, did not become the law of the case
| so as to prevent Plaintiff from having judg-
| ment on such special finding.
| Rule applied that where the jury have made
| a special finding a separate and distinct
| issue, which conclusively disposes of the case
it is immaterial that the judge may have
erred in his instructions in submitting tt
the jury other separate and distinct issues
| Judgement affirmed. -Canty, j.
Lucas Kells, as assignee of N. P. Clarke
appellant, VS.. NJ. M. Williams ct al, re-
spondents.
Evidence considered and held sufficient t.
Justify the verdict of the jury. Order at
| firmed. BUCK, j.
John Branley, appellant, VS.. Barney Dandy
ct al, respondents.
| The setting aside of a judgment, regular
| upon it's face, had in court of competent
! jurisdiction and not affecting the title OF
| estate in real estate does not avoid Judicial
| sale of real estate, under an execution issued
| thereon, made to a stranger, who had pur.
! chased in good faith for valuable considr
| Grafton. Order affirmed. Buck, ].