The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-14
SUPREME COURT THROWS Ex-ou,
INSPECTOR HALVES OUT OF
COURT.
HIS TERM EXPIRED, 1T SAYS.
STRICT SENSE OF THE
WORD.
AS To ACTS OF AGENTS
Is Made In the Case of TruIl VS.
Hammond, Which Was De-
cided Yesterday.

State Oil Inspector Barrows and
through him, Of course, Gov. Clough,
nave won at least a temporary victory
In their contest with eX-Deputy State
Oil Inspector Halves, who was not re-
appointed when Mr.. Barfows went in.
Shortly before Mr.. Barrows let Halves
out he gave him notice that his term
would expire on a certain date and
that S. b. Scott had been appointed to
succeed him. Halves. who was a SOL
der In the late war, while Scott was
not, claimed .that the appointment of
Scott was in violation of the law which
gives honorably discharged Union SOL
dlefs and sailors a preference in the
making of selections for appointive Of
fee
On this assumption, Halves sued for
writ of mandamus to compel Bar
rows to reinstate him in the position
from which he had been removed
The supreme court, in passing on the
case, rules that 1t is true of the oil in
spector's office, as it is of sheriff's. that
the terms of deputies expire at the
same time with the terms Of their
chiefs, and hence, Hawes' term expired
by limitation, instead of his having
been removed
The court, therefore, rules that this
is not the proper remedy for Halves
case, If, indeed, there Is any but that
the proper course would have been TO
nave demanded a reappointment, Then
IL ne had not been reappointed. he
might nave cited the law in support of
his contention. The court does NOT
say that he has waived this right in
terms. but intimates that the course TO
nave pursued would have been to seelx
the enforcement of a reappointment
Inc syllabus of the decision is as fol
lows:
state OF Minnesota ex REL James C. Haves
aeid 1 respondent, VS.. Fred c. Barrows'
as Inspector OF Oils of Minnesota, appellant
49, onueI General Statutes 1894 section 447
u Inc term or Office Of the state inspector Of
Illuminating oils is two years. or until his
5 5v saSt Is appointed and qualified And
py section 449 of said statute he is autbnr
iZed 10 appoint deputy inspectors in tha Gif
dereht counties of the state but whose terms
are e not 10 f, designated by statute. '
~ Is further provided by General Statu+es
1884, section S041, that in every mat a.
partment and upon all public works Of the
sna oi Mlnnesota and counties, towns cities
soIdia rsiiasss tin1ereof honorably discharged
a. L.
leo, shall De preferred for appointment and
eiPloyment. The term of office of r VIII
n liHe oeen appointed inspector of illuminating
piis' expired, and B. was duly appointed in
ms place. H., who was an honorab1v die
charged "a I Union soldier, was the duly appoint
Gu deputy OF F.. and when B. was appointed
Term or office as such deputy had exnired
ana thereupon B. appointed S., who was NOT
al nia honorary ne discharged Union soldier, in the
piste VI n VINO then applied to B. for re-
lnstatement as such deputy. instead of an
ment. AZ" "pfoin'-
Held, that the term of ott,ce ., II -.
deputy insnector, expired with that of bis
principal, F.. and that the application Of n
ior d VIII or mandanus to compel B. to re-
lnstate him as such deputy should have been
Ne1--eu uef reversed ana case remanded
r. Buck, ].
In the accompanying opinion the
court states plainly that no question
was raised as to Halves competency.
but the sole reason given for the fail.
ure to reappoint him was that his re-
tention would be unsatisfactory to the
1r1ends OF the state senator from Good
hue county, who is o. j. Wing. of Aspe-
lund
Mr.. Wing, who was at the capitol
yesterday, was no less pleased with the
decision than were the governor and
oil inspector
The court yesterday affirmed the de-
cision of the lower court in the case of
Trull VS.. Hammond ct al. The follow
ing is the sylla bus:
Albert ]. Trul, respondent, VS.. Ellsworth A.
Hammond ct air Defendants; S. A. Steiner
son ct al, appellants.
1. Where a mortgager retaining in his own
possession the mortgage papers, forwards
from time to time, the coupon interest notes
to third party for collection, it does not
his grantee of the premises of the principal
sum to such person agent of the mort
gage, he not having the note and mortgage
in his possession.
g. The rule is elementary that an agent
authorized to collect or receive payment of
a debt in money cannot bind his principal
by collecting or receiving in payment the
note. mortgage or property Of the debtor
Evidence considered and held sufficient to
justify the finding Of the trial court. Judg-
ment affirmed. Buck, ].