The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-04-27


ton of one of the jurors because of his
non-residence In the county In which the
action was tried. Order affirmed.
Mitchell. J.
cago. st. Paul. Minneapolis & Omaha
Railway Company. appellant.
Syllabus-When a railroad company ac-
quires land for any railroad purpose. by
condemnation proceedings under the pro-
visions of the general statute: the neces-
sity for taking the land for such public
use Is settled and determined by the order
of the court appointing commissioners to
ascertain the amount of the land owners
compensation
exclusive possession of the land thus ac-
CURED unless the court in its order limits
the easement to be acquired by reserving
certain rights and privileges to the land
owner. Order affirmed. Mitchell, ].
Marshall & Illsley Bank. appellant. VS..
Frank M. Cady ct al, defendants. Frank
M. Cady. respondent.
Syllabus--In this state when a mort
eager holds the legal title Of the mort
gagged premises and. under the statute Is
entitled to the possession. and conse-
quently to the rents and profits, until
foreclosure and the expiration of the time
for redemption. the rents and profits of
the land are no part of the security; and
at the foreclosure sale. Is entitled to the
appointment of a receiver of the rents
and profits except upon the equitable
ground that 1t is necessary in order to
prevent waste or to protect and preserve
the mortgage security; and in such case
the rents and profits can only be used for
that purpose. The mere fact that the
premises are Inadequate security and
that the mortgagor Is insolvent will not
of itself authorize the appointment of a
receiver.
The purchaser at the mortgage sale.
whether the mortgage or a third person.
is not entitled to have the rents and pro-
fits remaining in the hands of the receiv-
er applied to the payment of taxes which
were delinquent and lien on the pre-
misses at the time of the sale. The pur-
chase was subject to all existing para
mount membranes.
The plaintiff cannot assign as error the
action of the court in disallowing the
claims Of the receiver for fees and dis
bursements as this Is a matter personal
to the receiver and cannot prejudice the
party. Order affirmed. Mitchell, J.
The Theopold Mercantile Company. re-
spOndent, VS.. William c. Deike appel
liant.
Syllabus-A memorandum Of a partial
payment, endorsed by the holder on q
promissory note, is no part of the note or
written evidence Of the contract of the
holder, although fraudulently made. Is
not an alteration of the note and will not
avoid it. Judgment affirmed.
B. RoDpitz, appellant, VS.. Ole Keynes, re-
spondent.
Syllabus-The appointment of a receiver
in proceedings supplementary to execu-
ton is a matter resting in the sound dis
erection of the court, and somewhat de-
pendent upon the particular circum-
stances of the case. The fact that upon
the debtors examination it is disclosed
that he has some property which may be
subjected to the payment of the judg
ment does not necessarily entitle the
creditor as a matter of right to the APP
general policy of the law to appoint a re-
ceiver where the creditor has other ade-
quate remedies for the collection of his
judgment.
Held. that upon the facts of this case
there was no abuse Of discretion in the
courts refusing; to appoint a receiver.
Order affirmed Mitchell, ).