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


Company Gets a Black Eye.
Judge Mitchell. of the supreme court.
yesterday handed down nine decisions,
four Of which were reversals, one a mod
flying order. and four combinations of
the lower courts.
In a decision involving five Duluth COM
paEies holding franchises the supreme
court hclds that. under the provisions OF
section 1880 of Statutes of 1894, the fran
chiscs of those companies cannot be
taxed The court says the law is defec-
tive. as the method prescribed is by list
ing and assessing, and this the court
says would only apply to individuals. and
not 10 corporate concerns. The syllabus
Is as follows:
State of Minnesota. plaintiff, VS.. Duluth
Gas and Water Company, Hartman
ter and fsbt W nuuf hu MA
Electric Company, Duluth Street Rail-
way Company directors.
Syllabus-General Statutes 1894 section
1890 We're designed to constitute the ex-
method of listing and assessing, for tax
alton, the franchises and other intangible
property of corporation and associations
falling within its purview. The method
there provided for reaching such intangi-
bic property for taxation is by listing and
market or actual value less certain speci-
fled deductions
The personal property referred to in
item Is the tangible property specifically
listed and assessed and does not include
franchises.
Item Il. of section -524. providing for
listing franchises" as a separate and
distinct class of personal property. ap-
plies only to private persons or others
not falling within the provisions of sec
ton 1880. The provision in section 1880
of he
indebtedness of a corporation or asso-
citation from the value Of its stock is
equanty of taxation. But the invalidity
OF this provision does not render the re-
malnder OF the section invalid
certain irregularities of the county
board and county auditor in increasing
the assessed value of items Is and q Of
personal property and in extending 1t on
prejudiced the defendants in not appear
ing that as thus increased, either item
was overvalued. General Statutes 1894,
section 1869, providing for the taxation
of railroad companies by requiring them
TO pay percentage on their gross earn
ings does not apply to street railroads.
Held, that upon the facts the Duluth
Street Railway company Is not rail
road company" within the meaning OF
section 1869. Judgment modified.
Mitchell. J.
The supreme court does not encourage
damage suits against railroad companies
the case of L. w Gammons. an attor
ney. the court makes reversal of the
district court
Leonard W: Gammons. respondent, vs.
GUSTAV johnson. appellant.
Syllabus-The plaintiff, an attorney at
law, and one H. entered into an agree
canvass certain counties in the state to
hunt up claims Of land owners against
railroad companies for failing to fence
their road across the lands of such par
ties and to fnstigate suits on such claims
against the companies; that for the pur-
ppose OF working up and instigating such
contracts which he was to procure the
parties to execute by which they sever
ally authorized H. to employ an attor-
ney to bring a suit against the railway
company for damages, H to prosecute
the suit at his own expense, Indemnify
the party against the expenses of litiga-
ton, accept a share Of what he -recov-
cred for his compensation and not to
charge anything. for his services unless
We r9 tbn the party not to settle
consent. III. canvassed a number . of
counties and procured over seventy perr
sons. including plaintiff, to sign these
the agreement between plaintiff and TT
the former Instituted suits against the
landowners. Including the defendant
Both plaintiff and H. were strangers
10 these parties and to the claims which
were the subjects of these contracts and
had no interest in them or any object
In intermeddling with the matters ex-
cept the speculative one in the pecuniary
profit which they might derive from the
litigation which they instigated
In an action by plaintiff against the
defendant for services rendered and dis
bursements made by himself and H. in
prosecuting the suit in the name Of
plaintiff in pursuance of this contract
Held. That plaintiff cannot recover
even the reasonable value and amount
of these services and disbursements:
that this systematic scheme of working
up and instigating vexatious litigation in
which he and H. were not interested
and to which parties they were entire
strangers was champertous and barra-
tous and against public policy.
The rule that an attorney may, not
withstanding a champertous contract as
to his compensation, recover the reason-
able value of his services lawfully per
formed in litigation legitimately insti-
tuted is not applicable. The vice was
not merely in the contract for compen-
sation. but in the unlawful and vexa-
uous scheme by which the litigation
itself was worked up and instigated:
Distinguishing Gammons vs. Johnson
60 Mimi, 4SS Order reversed
Mitchell ].
Syllabi in other cases follow:
Foley Bean Lumber Company, respon-