The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-27

mitted, for the purpose Of testing his skill
and accuracy, to ask him hypothetical ques-
lions, pertinent to the inquiry, assuming facts
having no foundation in the evidence. Order
reversed Mitchell, ].
A. f. Huber. appellant, VS.. Gustaf Johnson,
respondent.
The defendant having a claim for unliqui-
dated damages against railway company, he
ana plalnfln entered into contract by which
sne palhuH, VINO was stranger to both the
defendant and the claim was to employ an
attorney and institute a suit in the name
OF the defendant for the collection Of the
CAIN but wholly at his own cost AS com
pensation for his services nlaintiff was to
nave an amount equal to one-half of what
was collected, but if nothing was collected he
D nas no. 70 charge anything for his services.
FidlhllH might cancel and annul the contract
whenever ne became satisfied that the claim
was not valid for sufficient sum to war
rant MS proceeding further. The contract
Iurther provides that the defendant should
not settle the claim without plaintiffs written
o rIa;sti ana II he did he was to pay the
Defendant did sett,e Tho claim without ,1oir
dHs consent. P
,,i Held in an action to recover the SIS stip-
i uiated Tor, that the contract was against pub
III p0iicy ana void Order affirmed.
Mitchell, ].
G. A; Smith Lumber Company ct al. appeI-
,aiCS, VS.. Inc Central Manufacturers Nut
respondents - 0Aio'
New New trial for the reason that the court
Instructed the jury incorrectly as to the effect
ol the evidence. Order reversed
, Mitchell, ].
On R9i,Ie NJ Hausman appellant VS.. Peter
Idu4heran respondent
In an action by landlord against tenant
t ~ decoNer rent there is no inconsistency be-
tween Sen an admission in the answer that the
defendant is indebted for rent and a counter
NV ri dafa
winch the plaintiff agreed TO pay him.
CoiAPlaint held good as against objec-
Il0m raised for the first time on the trial
Inc reasonable value or the repairs being
IN issue 1t was not error to permit the de-
fendant to testify what he paid for them and
mat the prices paid were fair and reasonable
Oiuei AMI Med' Mitchell, j.
Matthew Czech. respondent, VS. Great North
eTh halfway Company, appellant.
Inc statute requiring the locomotive bell
to be rung or the whistle sounded eighty rods
from the place where a railway crosses a
travelled road or street does not apply to pri-
Vate farm crossings.
But it does not follow that a railway com
pany never under any circumstances owes to
the adjacent land owner the duty of giving
warning sigma that a train is approaching
MS crossing. The question is to be deter
mined on general legal principles whether.
under all the circumstances reasonable care
required the giving of such a signal
Whlle as general rule and under ordi-
nary circumstances, a railway company owes
no such duty; yet the crossing may be so
peculiarly dangerous and the speed of the
train SO great that reasonable care would
require the giving of such signal.
He'd, that under the facts of this case in
We" OF the peculiarly dangerous nature of
the crossing and the unusually high speed of
Ine tram, 1t was a question for the Jury
whether it was negligent on the part of the
defendant not to give a signal Of the APP
proach Of the train. Order affirmed.
Mitchell, ].
Algot Peterson, respondent, VS. Emma Peter
son, appellant
In action for divorce on the ground of de-
sert1on the defendant. by way of counter
CAIN, asked for a divorce on the ground of
plaintiffs cruel and .inhuman treatment al
leg1ng, among other things that she had
brought a prior action against him for a
divorce on the same ground which was de-
termined against her solely on The ground
that she had condoned his conduct, but that
subsequent to- such conformation and the de-
termination of that action plaintiff repeated
and continued his cruel and inhuman treat
ment. After defendant had introduced evil
dence tending to prove cruel and inhuman
treatment subsequent to the d7term nation
OF the other action she offered evidence of the
alleged prior cruel and inhuman treatment,
which had been litgated in the first action,
the soc ground upon which it was offered
being that plaintiffs breach of the implied
condition of the conformation revived the or
lginal right of acton for divorce; but no
evidence offered to show that condona-
ton was an issue in the former action or
that its determination against the defendant
was on that ground.
Held that the exclusion of the offered evil
dence was not error. Order affirmed.
Mitchell, ].
Jacob Pfenninger, appellant, Joseph Ko-
kesch. respondent. 5g4be51z5g at---l
In order to prevent the running of the stat
ute Of limitations a partial payment must
have been made by the debtor himself or for
him by his authority or subsequently, ratified
If made in his name without his authority.
Where one of two joint and several debtors
makes a payment in his own behalf the
mere fact that the other debtor, after knowl-
edge Of such payments verbally promises to
Ray the balance will not constitute a ratifca-
ton of the payments as having been made
for him or in his behalf. Order affirmed.
Mitchell T.