The Saint Paul globe., 1897-06-30
ARMY IS DEFEATED
SALVATION ARMY LOSES THE
EATON REQUEST IN THE SU-
PREME COURT.
TAXATION OF ELEVATORS.
THEIR LOCATION ON RAILROAD
LAND HELD NOT TO EXEMPT
THEM.
In the Minneapolis Case of Mar
garet Perry Against the Street
Railway.

By one Of a number Of important
decisions handed down yesterday by
the supreme court the Central Park
Nj r. church is richer and the Saliva
ton Army poorer to the amount OF
the bequest left it by the late Charles
Eaton, the fact that the Army is not
Incorporated preventing it from taking
the bequest under the laws of this
state When Nh Eaton died his will
devoted certain of his property to the
use Of the Salvation Army; the rest
to the church named, which now gets
it all under the Interpretation of the
law made by the court yesterday, the
syllabus Of its decision being:
John W. Lane ct al, appellants, VS.. Charles
Eaton ct al, respondents; John w. Lane
ct al, respondents, VS. Charles Eaton ct al
appellants.
l. The testator devised a certain part of his
property consisting mostly Of real estate)
TO certain named trustees in trust TO be dis
posed OF for the use of the branch OF the
Salvation Army, located in st. Paul, Minn.,
said proceeds Ito be permanently invested
and in the purchase of lot and the erecting
thereon OF place OF worship where said
Salvation Army may hold meetings." and if
said branch should become legally organized
so 1t may take and hold the title to property, -
the trustees were directed 10 transfer To II
all the property or the proceeds thereof. The
Salvation Army is unincorporated relig-
iOus society, having its headquarters in Eng
land, and While its officers have military
titles, their duties correspond to those of the
bishops, elders and pastors of other churches
Said st. Paul branch then in existence
Held, under the provisions of chapter 43
General Statutes 1894, the beneficiary of the
trust must be certain capable of being
rendered certain and no such unfncorporated
voluntary association or branch thereof whose
1uptuatiQg uncertain,
be such beneficiary.
But, he'd, under the provisions of title
{, chapter a. such branch may incorporate,
and If. it does so within a reasonable time,
the devise will under the provisions of sec
ton 1927 and S04S vest in such corporation.
Held, further, section S04O has abrogated the
rule against perpetuities and the rule which
prohibits restrain of alienation so far as such
rules apply to such meeting house.
Whether or not the policy of the Salvation
Army is such that it will permit the ST.
Paul branch TO incorporate as a separate en-
tity is not for the courts to determine
2. The will further provides: "Of all the
bequeath to the Central Park Methodist Epis
eOpal church of st. Paul, Mimi, absolutely,
to be used by said church in aiding the cause
Of home and foreign missions equally" The
church was incorporated and authorized
by statute to acquire property by gift for
mission purposes and to accept any gift in
trust for the purposes for which given.
He'd, the devise is an absolute gift to
the church and not a devise in trust and is
valid. -Canty J.
The supreme court also reversed a lower
court decision in holding that private eleya-
tors, even though located on railroad right of
way, are still taxable as personal property.
The syllabus of this decision Is as follows:
State of Minnesota, respondent vs. Red River
Valley Elevator Company ct al; NJ. J. Forbes,
petitioner.
Elevators owned by other parties, situated
on the right of way Of a railroad company are,
for purposes of taxation personal property
overruHng Mimi. & North Elevator Company
sInro np Nlnr
60 Mimi. 522.
Where a receiver of the assets of a corpora
tion has been appointed under section 8,
chapter 76 Of the General Statutes, the per-
SOnal property of the corporation continues
assessable at the same place at which is was
aSSessabe before the receiver appointed,
without reference to the residence Of such re-
ceiver.
A personal tax assessed against the cor
poratiOn cannot be collected in an action or
proceeding again the receiver personally insti-
tuted under General Statutes 1894, section 1869.
Judgment reversed. Mitchell, J.
Othtr decisions handed down yesterday in
clude one that involves the struck jury law.
The syllabi are:
Margaret A. Perry, appellant, VS.. Minneapo-
lis Street Railway Company, respondent.
The defendant demanded a struck jury
pursuant TO General Laws 1895. chapter 32S.
When the cause was called for trial the
court on motion of the plaintiff set aside
the struck jury list and required the de-
fendant to go to trial with common jury of
the regular panel
Subsequently the legislature repealed the
struck jury law; General Laws 1897, chapter
After the repeal of the struck jury act the
court on motion Of the defendant, granted
new trial solely on the ground that it had
erred in setting aside the struck jury list
Held, that, assuming that the court had
erred in setting aside the struck jury list,
this furnished no ground for granting a new
trial, inaSmuch this would merely result
IN trial before another common jury, thus
doing over again what had been already
done. Order reversed Mitchell L
Louis Laramee, respondent, VS.. w. A. Tanner.
appellant
l. A certain subscription by which in sub
stance, each signer agrees to pay the sum set
opposite his name to defray any loss or
excess Of expenses above receipts of GER
tain public enterprise about to be undertaken
helG, from Its language to- require a pro-
rata apportionment of such loss amongst all
the subscribers, and in an action to recover
on such subscription, a complaint which does
ROT snow the amount of such loss and the
total amount subscribed, and merely alleges
that an assessment was duly made does NOT
state a cause of action
Held further, the signers of the instrument
are not Joint promissors, but can be sued sep
erately. w
2. Complaint construed: An instrument
signed "R. F. Jones, secretary Held, under
the circumstances, to be prima facie the in
'Avldual act Of Jones. Certain words of de-
scriptfon in an order rejected as false and
surplusage.
B.. Held the liability of the subscribers on
situ instrument, is not secondary to the la
blIity or some one else, but the intention
IS to make the subscribers to the extent of
the amount subscribed by each uItimateI1
and solely liable for such loss and the sub
hCquent carrying out Of the undertaking and
the mourning of the risk of such loss by the
promlsee, Is sufficient consideration for such
nfh