The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-05-03

| termine adverse claims under the statute
when the land is vacant and unoccupied the
plaintiff must have title either legal or
| equitable; 1t is not enough that he has a
mere cause Of action for the reformation of
deed under which defendent claims title,
which cause he has set up in the reply.
Held further, such reply is a departure from
! the complaint which alleges that plaintiff is
the owner of the land.
Order affirmed. -Canty, ].
John Bergund, appellant, VS.. E. Grace
Graves. ct al. defendants; E. Grace Graves,
respondent.
/. After the state has at tax sale bid in
| the land for the taxes of one year, 1t is not
| obliged to obtain tax judgment and sell
| the land for the delinquent taxes of each sub
sequent year. Whether it may do so, quere.
| In any event Its lien for such subsequent
taxes does not lapse by reason Of the failure
| to do so.
| And several years after such subsequent
| taxes became delinquent, the state may by
| son its lien for the same together with Its
| claim under the tax sale at which 1t bid in
| the land.
g. Constituting together Sec 1900 and 1901,
| e. S. 1894, held, person obtaining a state
| assignment of lands bid in by the state at a
| tax sale must pay interest on subsequent de-
| linquent taxes from the time they became de-
| linquent and the owner who redeems there
| after must pay interest from the date Of the
| assignment, on this interest, as well as on all
| CURED to pay.
| 8. The notice of expiration of redemption
was issued to Graves Van Brunt," these
being the names of the persons to whom the
| land was assessed, appearing in the assess
ment book; the owners Of the land were E..
| Grace Graves and Mary A. Van Brunt; the
notice was served on Charles H. Graves and
| waiter Van Brunt, who had been partners
| under the name of &c. H. Graves & Co."
| Held, the service was void
| Judgment modified. -Canty J.
Emery H. Breault and c. C. Teare and ].
| B. Middecoff, co-partners, respondents, VS..
Merrill & Ring Lumber Company, a cor
Poration, and c; c. Prindle, appellants.
| l. Where pending an action to foreclose
a log lien, the logs were wrongfully taken
from the. sheriff, who had seized and held
them under the writ of attachment issued
Held. although the log lieu claimant was
not entitled to the possession of the logs,
mel ne may maintain against the persons who
| LOOK and sawed them up an action for dam.
ages for depriving him of his statutory lien.
z Conceding without deciding that the at
"a mn proceedings appear on their face
| Hen foreclosure action was merely an action
in rem the Judgment therein would be void
| on It's face.
Held, 1t is not merely an action in rem.
! the defendants herein were defendants In
that action, the court had personal jurisdic-
ton of them, entered Judgment Foreclosure
the lien on all the logs described in the com.
plant, and these defendants cannot impeach
that Judgment collaterally. 81
l evidence.
error held error without prejudice because
the same facts were conclusively proved by
| other competent evidence.
| , T. Evidence held to sustain the findings OF
! this court.
5. The defendants failed to object in any
manner In this court below to misjoinder
| of parties plaintiff.
Held, the objection is waived
| 3. Certain other rulings Of the court dis.
posed of. Judgment affirmed. -Canty, ].
Warren, Potter & Patrick Casey, co-part-
ners as W. Potter Co.. respondents, vs..
p. g. Holmes ct al. co-partners as Holmes
| Brown, appellants
whether the court erred In allowing
| an amended complaint, and whether 1t erred
in denying motion to set aside the order
| allowing the same, cannot be considered on
an appeal from an order overruling a de-
| murrer afterward interposed to such COM
| plant.
the county in which this action was brought;
| when the same was commenced, they duly
demanded that the place Of trial be changed
| to the county in which one of them resided,
and made q motion for that purpose on the
proper affidavit Before the hearing the &C.
ton was abandoned, they subsequently
verdict was rendered against them. On
| their subsequent appeal 1t was held that the
complaint did not state cause Of &C.
in the court below and they were given twenty
/ days in which to answer. Within the twenty
days, and three years after the action was
commenced, Iney demanded change or the
place of trial under chapter 49, Laws 1895,
which had been passed in the meantime.
| Held, the time for answering within
which demand for change Of the place OF
| trial must be made, had long since expired,
notwithstanding the fact that the original
| complaint did not state cause of action; and
the amendment of the complaint did not re-
| vive or extend the time to make the demand
8. Rule applied that though the arbitsr
agreed on by the parties in their contract re.
fuses to act when duly requested, party
| is not thereby preclude from recovering
4. Conceding without deciding that the con.
tract in question is void for want of mutual.
tty, 1t is valid and binding as far as 1t per-
formed.
8. The court below overruled the demurrer
to the complaint without giving defendants
leave to answer; held, the question of whether
the court abused its discretion in failing K
give such leave, cannot be raised in this
court until the defendants have applied fol
leave to answer. Order affirmed.
CAVITY ].