The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-05-13
IN OTHER CASES.
Interesting Ruling in Breach of
Promise CuSe.

Promise CnSe.
Judge Collins also filed the following de-
csions yesterday:
Chas Fl. Berryhill, as substituted assignee
of the estate of Henry M. Bristol ct al,
respondents vs. Alexander NJ. Peabody
ct al, defendants; Charles E. Clarke ct
al, appellants.
l. contingent claim arising on con-
tract against the estate of a decedent which
does not become absolute and capable OF
liquidation before the time limited for cred
itors to present their claims to the probate
court for. allowance, Is not barred by that
part of General Statutes 1894, section 4514,
which provides that mo claim against
decedent shall be a charge against or lien
upon his estate unless presented to the
probate court as herein provided within five
years after the death of such decedent..
2. General Statutes supra, section 4oz1'
which provides that where two or more per,
sons are indebted on any joint contract ana
either of them die, his estate is liable there
for, is applicable to an action brought IN
district court against the. legal representa-.
tives of such estate, to recover an amount
alleged to be due on "a contingeHtn3oint
obligation for the payment OF money not
absolute and capable of liquidation when the
time expires for the presentation OF claims
to the probate court Order afiirmea.,
Adam Reiter. respondent. VS.. the Minoha
e St. Peter Railroad Company. appellant
Under the rule recently stated in swan
son VS.. G. N Ry. Co., 70 n. w: Rep; Sls,
that servants while performing thelr aulies
are bound to take notice OF the opera'ioSn , %
familiar natural laws and to govern them-
selves accordingly. it is held that the com.
plant herein failed to state cause Oh
ac.:cr. c,,;,
Order reversed. -Soliihs' ..
Ole O. Galde, respondent, VS.. George w.
Forsyth appellant.
/ From the findings 1t appeared thal
whom leyying an execution on the right ara
Of no
gagged goods and chattels, g. 5: lS54, section
545S, the officer did not seize all OIL the prop
ertv covered by the mortgage.
Held, in the absence OF any nnoins wnas .a
Indicates that the mortgages interests were
ieoncrdized or her rights invaded by Ia /
ure to seize all of the mortgasea properly;
that the levy upon part theFeoi was vain
and effec;ual. .,, nv
Iust cause based upon the actual ex-
,stence of facts constituting reasonaoie
ground for mortgages OF gooos anu chatteis
to believe himself insecure, ooss no. GNis.
n levy ON the mortgagors right ana interest
in such property has removed 1t from me
town in which 1t was when mortgaseu "
another town, the county seat. oou,,
Judgment reversed Eohi"s' -
NJ Brooks Henderson, as asst snee OF FREQ
erick W. Faber, respondent, VS.. fayeI-e
D. Kendrick, appellant . o.
the knowledge OF X, the latter loaned r.
sIso and r. Secure the payment the eof took
from him a chattel mortgage on certain
store fixtures, and which mortgage eoo ais1 Sc
cured the payment to one S. OF $500 back
rent due from F. to S. The assignee or +.
brought this action against X. to nave the
lien of the mortgage removed from tne
fixtures and the trial court found as fact
that F., in executing tie chattel mortgage,
intended to give s. a preference over ms
other creditors, and adjudged said chattei
mortgage invalid. There was no such mo
ing as to K, or that his taking the mort
gage was in any respect tainted with fraud,
as to other creditors OF F.
as to the $500, back rent due. as being an
attempt on the part OF f. to give ). q
preference over other creditors, it was valid
as security for the loan OF the $3.50 made
by X. to F.
Judgment reversed and cause remand d.
Andrew E:legaard, j. j. strom, copartners
as Elegaard & strom, appellants, vs..
/. Where in court OF inferior or Limited
jurisdiction, the record shows that juris
diction has once attached, silence in re-
spect to subsequent jurisdictional steps is
2. In judicial proceedings before a JUS
tice Of the peace. the presumption is that
he has done his duty, and this presumption
exists in favor Of the regularity CT his pre-
-ceedings where he has jurisdiction as in
courts of record.
Judgment reversed and case remanded
Security Investment company respondent,
VS.. William Fl. Buckler appellant
Under General Statutes Of 1894. sec. 1856,
Judgment to enforce the payment of de-
linQuent taxes on real estate which Is not
dated is invalid. The provisions of G. s.
1G7S ch II, sec. SO, &c. S. 1894 1894 to the
effect that an action in which tine validity
Ct tax sale is called in question must be
brought within three years from the date
Of the sale was repealed by G. L. 1887. ch
6O, and G. L. 1887, oh. 127, at least in so far
as 1T applied to actions to set aside and
cancel tax sale or to test the validity of
tax sale and tax Judgment and such
action may be brought at any time. judy
ment affirmed.
Commonwealth lite, Insurance and Trust
Company, of Philadelphia. Pa, Trus.ee
respondent, VS.. Enge5ert X. Dokke. appel.
liant. rf
In an action of ejectment where the COM
ownership in fee in the plaintiff, of e
premises described and that he Is emitted
to the possession and that the defendant M
lawfully wthholds the same evidence NJ
usury in the consideration Of a mortgage by
virtue OF which the plaintiff claimed II /,
Is admissible as a defense under the general
ISSUE Order reversed.
Anna Tamke respondent vs. Aufn 7
Vangsness, appellant
l. On the trial OF an action for Breach
OF promise to marry, in which an issue wa
made by the evidence IS to the making OF
the promise, witness testified that de
PENDANT had told Elm that he was soon 10
marry Plaintiff. The court instructed tie
jury that II there was actua promise
Of marriage plaintiff was entitled to recoye
thn.n 1,r sn,,$