The Saint Paul globe., 1897-08-13
Spalding Hotel Company, appellants, VS.. Ed
ward P. Emerson ct aI receivers, etc., re-

spondents.
1. The purpose for which property is leased
must be observed. To accept a lease of prem
ises for certain purpose amounts to a cove
nant on the part Of the lessee that he will
so use them.
2. Where a lease does not contain an ex-
press or formal covenant that the premises
shall be used for certain purpose. with for
feture clause in case of a breach but does
contain certain language and stipulations
equivalent to such covenant, the lessor may,
by injunction. prevent the lessee or those
/. claiming or holding under him. acting by
his authority, from converting the demfsed
premises or part thereof to uses incon-
sistent with the terms of the contract
8. Defendant entered into a lease with
plaintiff S, whereby E became tenant for
years Of certain hotel property. E, while
operating the hotel under this lease used and
family purposes. He then became insolvent,
and under the insolvency laws of the state
a receiver of his estate was duly appointed.
This receiver took possession of the hotel
property and by order of the court continued
to operate the same as hotel. In proceed
ings instituted to oust E from his so
sons Homestead, SO Mimi, 45G-that the
rooms constituted his homestead, and that,
against the receiver, he was entitled to
possession. Held, in an action brought by the
lessor to restrain E from continuing to oecu-
py and use the rooms as his private residence,
and also to restrain the receiver from permit
there was no express or formal covenant in
the lease with respect to the purposes for
which the premises were demised certain
language and stipulations therein contained
amounted and were equivalent, when consid-
ering the lessons rights in This action, to an
express and formal covenant that the prem
ises should be used for hotel purposes ex-
clusively.
. f. Held, that the complaint herein states a
cause of action as against and the receiver
of his estate for an injunction as therein de-
manded. Order reversed Collins J.
Gillett- -Herzog Manufacturing Company, re-
spondent, VS.. Board of County Commission
ers of Aitkin County, appellant
1. B, as an agent of and in behalf of
plaintiff herein, corporation, entered into
a written contract with defendant board for
the construction of an iron bridge with ap-
proaches on a county road. supervised the
work and defendant board accepted it from
him as agent when completed. He was the
only person with whom the board dealt and
was. in fact shareholder in the corporation
and its agent. Held, in view of all of these
circumstances 1t was not necessary for B to
state IN his verification of plaintiffs claim or
account, presented to the board under G. s.
1894 section SGT, that he was PLAINTIFFS agent.
g. It Is not required by statute, when let
ting a contract of the character before men
toned, that the board Of county commits
sioners advertise for bids or that the con-
tract be let to the lowest bidder G.. S. 1894,
sections 1894 to 1902 have no application to
such a ease
8. Where a bridge is built across stream
upon public road more than three feet
above the level Of the bank upon either side