The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-25
SUPREME COURT REVERsES THE
LOWER COURT IN THE DAM
1AGE SUIT
WON BY MISS JENNIE C0NLIN
OF ACTION NOT STRONG
ENOUGH.
In Each Case, With One Exception,
the Orders are Affirmed-The
SyIIabi.

The verdict Of the trial court in favor
of Jennie Conlin for damages for in
juries received by falling on the cross
walk on Fourth street, between Robert
and Jackson streets, was reversed yes
terday by the supreme court. The
plaintiff slipped on the sloping side OF
the cross walk and broke her leg. She
claimed that the cross walk was de-
fective in that the slope was so great
as to be dangerous. The supreme court
rules that she did not prove cause Of
action against the city. The decision
was written by Judge CAVITY, and the
following is the syllabus:
In an action for personal injury to a root
passenger on a sidewalk, resulting from what
is alleged to be dangerous condltlon or the
walk caused by constructing it on a defective
or improper plan.
Held If reasonable minds might differ as
to whether the plan adopted or some otner
plan is the better the decision OF the city
authorities On the question is conclusive ana
cannot be reviewed by the courts.
But If in adopting the plan there Is sucn
gross error of judgment as to snow that IN
fact no intelligent judgment at all was ever
exercised, as where there were no obstacles
to be overcome which would turnlsn any
reason or excuse for the dangerous Gonuit nI9
structing and maintaining the sidewalk on
such defective plan.
In this case, held there was such reason
and the city is not liable.
Order reversed.
The syllabi in other decisions yesterday are
follows:
Byron A. Cole, appellant, VS.. waiter u AL
drews, respondent.
In an action for malicious prosecution, held,
First-There was sufficient evidence Oh want
OF probable cause.
c,,Ai evidence
defendant instigated the commencement or
the prosecutions for the particular crime for
which plaintiff was indicted.
Third-Whether or not defendant IN goou
faith relied on the advice of the county at
torney is a question for the jury, and 1t was
error to dismiss the action at the close OF
the evidence introduced by plaintiff. order
reversed -Cahly' D.
Martha E. Godfrey, respondent vs.. New YORK
Life Insurance Company, appellant.
First-On the evidence and admlsslGn, heiu
that, notwithstanding written Instructions 10
the contrary, an agent of the insurer to solicit
insurance had authority to take proInlssoLy
notes, payable to himself, for the first preml-
ums to be paid on the insurance pollcy, OF
that the insurer subsequently ratified his acts
in taking the notes.
Held the evidence is not conclusive that
plaintiff by her delay and acqulescence ratlnea
a settlement made for her by her husband,
which he was not authorized to make, or that
she had such knowledge of the material lacts
that if she ratified it she would be bound by
ThirdNother unimportant rulings disposed
Of Order affirmed. -Canty' D.
In re petition of Foot, Schulze & Co. for ap-
pointment of receiver, ETC.; Foot, SchulZe'
E Co petitioner respondent, VS.. John &.
In order to prevent the running of the sixty ,dI,
day limitation provided for in section ISL
within With the sixty days file with the clerk of
the district court their petition for the o aP-
pointment of receiver of the insolvent oeoot
the order to show cause on the creditor about
to oe be- ei preferred within that time; or if sec,
ton s144 General Statutes 1894 applies place ace
such order in the hands, OF the sherIn IL, ior
the the latter section applies in such case is
NOT decided. Order reversed. -Canty, j.