The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-05
ON MRS. DORIS HOLDINGS.
THEY HAD NEVER BEEN PAID FOR,
so THE COURT
HOLDS.
CITY WON A BIG DAMAGE SUIT.
Frank Stanke's Action Fares No
Better There Than In the Dis
trict Court.

one decision suStainS the lower court
in the case of Julia C. Dorr against
the Life Insurance Clearing company,
and holds that the company has first
lien upon the shares claimed by Mrs
Dorr, because the company had never
been paid for them. The court lays
down the principle that:
First-The lien given by G. S. 1894, sec.
2l99, to a corporation upon the stock of a
stockhoider for all debts due from him is
valid and enforceable against all the world
unless it has been waived, surrendered or
lost In some sufficient manner. An assign
ment or sale of the stock to a person ig
norant of the lien will not discharge it.
Second-Held. that there was no waiver or
surrender or loss of this lien shown upon
the trial of this cause.
Mrs. Dorr claimed a lien upon some
shares of stock owned by her husband,
Russell r. Dorr, on the ground that
she had loaned him the money with
which they had been purchased when
issued. When the company was or
gained, it is claimed that Russell Dorr
borrowed $4,000 from his wife with
which to pay for twenty-nine shares
shares over to her as security. Instead
Of paying for the stock with this
money, he gave the company his per-
sonal notes secured by mortgages on
real estate. The directors, in order
to avoid the statute requiring that
stock shall be paid for in cash, voted
Dorr a nominal loan of the amount
required, and the court holds that this
is not to be considered as a loan in
70 oil cfn Of ho
company was reduced, Russell Dorr
was issued smaller number of shares,
in return for the surrender of the
twenty-nine shares he originally held.
These second shares were placed in
the hands of his brother, William R.
Dorr, who acted as the agent of Rus
sell and Julia. Russell Dorr defaulted
in the payment of the amount due on
this stock, and the company attempted
to sell the shares at auction. Then it
was that Mrs. Dorr put in a claim for
the shares, on account of the loan she
had made, but the court holds that the
claim of the company Will stand
against all the world, and Mrs. Dorr
cannot recover.
of Frank Stanke, appellant VS.. the City
of st. Paul, respondent, Judge Collins
holding:
When, by reason of negligence upon the
part of municipal authorities, a street gutter
or waterway becomes obstructed and filled
up SO that 1t will not carry off accumulated
waters, and such waters because of the OBJ
struction overflow upon the sidewalk and
tno
of ice a person who slips, falls and is in
jured upon said ice cannot recover for his
injuries in the absence of proof tending to
show that the municipality had notice, ac-
tual or constructive, that because of such
negligence ice usually formed at that place,
or, at least in the absence of notice that
ice might so form. Order affirmed.
The syllabi of other decisions filed yes
terday were follows
James De Blois, appellant VS.. Great North
ern Railway Co., respondent.
/. Whenever the owner occupant of real
property-in the absence of malice-has been
held liable because of the unsafe condition
of his premises, the gist of the liability has
consisted in the fact that the person injured
did not act merely for his own convenience
and pleasure, and from motives to which no
act of the owner or occupant contributed,
but that he entered upon the premises be-
cause he was led to believe that they were
intended to be used by visitors or passengers,
and that such use was not only acquiesced in
in accordance with the intention and design
with which the way or place was adopted
and prepared or allowed to be used.
g. Defendant had set apart at the north
end of its depot grounds and platforms
place connecting with public thoroughfare
for the use of persons who were about to
depart upon its trains, or had arrived there
on, or who had business at it's depot build
ing. It's platform extended south some dis
lance beyond the depot building, terminating
within few feet of water tank. between
its house" and main tracks, and in part
of it's grounds which were obviously de-
signed and used for it's own business. At the
end Of the platform were steps designed
for the of its trainmen and other en-
ployes. For their own convenience, and to
shorten the way, some of the patrons of the
defendant went over this part of the yard
and upon these steps when going to or re-
turning from the depot building. But there
was no invitation for them to do SO extended
by the defendant. Plaintiff in going upon
this part of the yard at night, after having
been at the depot building on business, fell
upon ice which had accumulated on the
ground near the steps and was injured
g. Held, that he had no cause of action
against defendant company.
On appeal from a judgment ordered by
the court notwithstanding a verdict. 1898
chap. 320-any action of the trial court when
admitting or rejecting evidence and assigned
as error by appellant may be reviewed. Judg-
ment affirmed. Collins, J.
Frank Wachuta. appellant vs.. John Holm
berg, defendant; D. Sache & Sons, inter-
yenors, respondents.
Held, that the findings of fact herein were
amply supported by the evidence. Judgment
affirmed. Collins, j.
George Oelschlegel. respondent, vs. Chicago
Great Western Railway company, appellant
An order denying motion made under the
provisions of Laws 1895, oh. 800, for the entry
of judgment in favor of the moving party
Notwithstanding the verdict against him is
not appealable. Appeal dismissed.
Collins. ].
Board of County Commissioners. Wright
County, Mimi, respondents.
l.. Filing copy of the notice of appeal
in the office of the town clerk of each town
in which the highway proposed to be laid
out altered or discontinued may be situated.
is a jurisdictional requisite of an effectuai
CHI. 81, and without such filing the court
acquires no jurisdiction Of the subject matter
of the controversy
2. The jurisdictional thing is the fact of
filing and not the proof of it, so that proof
of the fact may be made II the question
is raised on appeal.
must be filed in the office of the town clerk
for each Of the towns through which the par
ticular highway runs or simply in the town
or towns within which according to the petit
is not decided.
4. Held that the motion in district court
to dismiss the appeal from want of jurisdic-
ton was seasonable and properly made
Order affirmed. Collins, J.
Frank w. Parsons, appellant, VS.. c. E. Ly-
man ct al, respondents.
/. When preparing requests to charge 1t
is not necessary that counsel should word
the same so as to anticipate and guard
against every possible opportunity for mis-
apprehension on the part of the jury.
2. In personal injury case where it was
commended that plaintiff was guilty of con-