The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-16
HISTORIC STAR FIRE
SUPREME COURT REVERSES THE
DECISION IN THE ELEVATOR
CASE.
PROCEDURE OF THE COURT,
WITHDRAWING QUESTIONS FROM
THE JURY AFTER SUBMISSION,
UNUSUAL AND ERRAT1C.
AS TO LANDLORD AND TENANT
Learned DisGuisitiOn by the
Court.

In two decisions of three filed yester-
day by the supreme court, the order
of the lower court is reversed. One of
these bears upon the Well-knOWn and
lcng-contested Star elevator insurance
case the proceedings in which form
paper book three inches in thickness.
! The case is one of a series against
various insurance companies, whereby
it was sought to recover upon insur-
ance policies on the Star elevator at
First street and Sixth avenue north,
Minneapolis. In August, 1891, portion
of the north wall of the elevator fell
away, crushing beneath it a smaller
building, which adjoined 1T and was
then occupied as a feed mill by the
Thompson Milling company. After the
accident, it was found that the huge
heap of debris was on fire and it con-
tinued to burn for some hours. The
plaintiffs in this suit based their action
upon the claim that the fire originated
in the Thompson feed mill, and that
the falling Of the wall was due to the
fact that it was weakened by the
action of the heat, while the defendants
cCEtended that the fire did not start
until after the falling of the wall and
was then ignited by the Goals in the
furnaces of the feed mill which were
crushed under the debris, and that the
wall fell because it was improperly con-
structed Upon this point Of contention
! the case impinged as the insurance
policy contained a clause which pro-
vided that should the insured building,
| or any part thereof, fall, except as the
result Of fire, all insurance by that
policy should Immediately cease. In
the first trial the court in charging the
jury, called attention to this clause,
| and at the request of the attorneys,
presented two questions upon which
the verdict should be based. The first
Of these questions was: Was there
any fire in Thompson's feed mill before
the wall felI?" and the other, to be
considered only in case of an affirma-
tive answer to the first was: Did such
! fire cause said elevator to fall?"
After the jury had considered these
questions for a day and a half, the
| court on his own motion and in the
absence of the attorney for the defense,
withdrew the special questions and
permitted the jury to bring in gen.
eral verdict Following are the syllabi
! in all of the cases:
! Charles H. Ermentraut and Charles H. Max
cey, respondents. vs. Providence Washing
ton Insurance Company, of Providence, R.
l.. appellant.
| Jury was directed in addition to returning
! a general verdict TO answer certain specific
| questions submitted to them. An affirm
| ative answer to both of these questions was
| absolutely necessary in order to sustain a
general verdict in PLAINTIFFS favor After
| being out sc hours without reaching an agree
! ment as to the answers to the specific ques-
tons, the court, of its own motion and in the
absence Of defendants attorneys, withdrew
these specific questions from further consid-
Grafton by the jury and then received gen.
eraI verdict against the defendant.
Held that the court erred In withdrawing
Collins, j.
- ..
| P. n. Peterson, appellant, Emil Kreuger
ct al, respondents.
That landlord has violated covenant
in his lease to keep the demised premises in
good repair and that thereby damages have
| resulted to the tenant, is no defense in an
action brought by the former under the
forcible entry and detainer act G. S. 1894
section 6118, to have restitution of the premises
for non-payment of rent Order reversed
| Collins, J.
Hiram c. Truesdale. plaintiff E. C. Langford
ct al. respondents, VS.. Farmers Loan and
Trust Company ct al, defendants, Germania
Life Insurance Company ct al, appellants
| and appealable, made in determining mo-
ton, after full hearing has been had a
controverted question Of fact, and deciding a
| point actually Irrigated, is an adjudication
| binding upon the parties and conclusive upon
| the point passed upon.
2. In proceedings to foreclose a trust deed
| covering certain railway property a trustee
named in another deed-a prior lien-was
made a party defendant. It appeared by
counsel who attended to its rights and pro-
| tected its interests to the end of this litiga-
ton. Upon a petition made by its counsel
which set cut in detail the nature and value
of all services rendered by them in connection
| with the litigation, the court when render
ing its final decree in the foreclosure pro-
| ceedings made an allowance out of the trust
funds for the services rendered by counsel,
| said allowance being made, after full hear
| ing upon its merits. at less than the amount
! claimed. Later counsel procured an order di-
recting the receiver to pay over the amount
so allowed to the petitioner or its counsel
| The money was then paid to the plaintiff in
this action, one of the counsel.
| The court then set apart out of the trust
funds a sum Of money sufficient to pay GER
tain interest due upon bond coupons held
by the parties whose interests counsel had
represented in the litigation, and also di-
tody of defendant Minneapolis Trust COM
Tany. The plaintiff then commenced this
action in equity to recover judgment for a
balance alleged to be due for legal services
| and for money expended in aud about the
| litigation, and to impress lien for the
amount of said judgment upon money still
| in the custody of the trust company. ~ "a
Held, that this money is a part of the trust
fund, and applying, by analogy, the rule as
| to motions. before stated, to the order Of
the court allowing fees in the original liti-
cation, that the present action cannot be
maintained.
Held, further that the present actiun does
! not come within the exception proviso in
the order, directing the receiver to pay over
| the amount Of the allowance, to the effect
| that such payment shall not preclude the Pc
titioner its counsel from recovering com
| pensation for services from the parties or
persons represented by them.