The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-02-02
FROM THE SUPREME COURT
STATE VS.. RUSSELL
SAGE
The Lower Court Is Affirmed in a
Question Involving TaxatiOn-
New Trial Granted In the Case of
Knott VS.. Montgomery and Reed.

Knott vs. Montgomery and Reed.
A number of decisions were handed
down by the supreme court yesterday,
In which was that of the State VS.. Rus
sell Sage. The syllabus is as follows:
State Of Minnesota, plaintiff. Vs. Russell Sage.
defendant.
Syllabus-Under General Statutes 1894, sec
ton Lists, the county treasurer is required to
return to the county auditor on the first Mon
DAY IN January in each year the several tax
lists in the treasurers hands, showing the de-
lineuent taxes on each lot or tract of reH
estate.
| And under section 1,574 of said statute, and
on or before the goth day of January annually
the county auditor Is required to file in the
office of the clerk of the district court a veri-
he'd and correct list Of taxes delinquent. upon
real estate in his county, which filing is
deemed the institution OF an action.
Held, That the six years limitation of sec
tons upon liability created by statute"
does not commence to run against proceedings
! to enforce payment Of taxes until the expira-
list with the clerk of the district court.
An act Of congress. approved July l, 1885,
entitled, an act making an additional grant
of lands to the state of Minnesota in alternate
sections to aid in the construction of rail-
roads In said state, in part granted to the
Hastings & Dakota Railroad company certain
lands to the amount of five alternate sections
per mile, but in case of deficiency then the
secretary Of the interior was authorized to
select sufficient public land to make up the
deficiency. Such lands are usually designated
indemnity lands.
Held, That no title to such indemnity lands
was vested in the railroad company until a
selection was made by which. they were
pointed out and ascertained, and the selection
approved by the secretary of the interior, and
until such time the lands were not taxable by
the state.
Taxable real estate was omitted from the
assessment roll for the years 1890 and 1891,
but the county auditor entered the same upon
the assessment and tax books for 1896, and
extended against said property the taxes
which would have accrued against the same,
for the years 1890 and 1891. And said taxes
not having been paid the county auditor on
the goth day of January, 1898, filed with the
clerk of the district court list of delinquent
taxes, including theareal property SO omitted.
with the penalties accruing June l. 1897 and
Jan. 1, 1886, on the unpaid taxes.
Held, That these unpaid taxes were sub
affirmed. Buck, ].
Other cases decided were:
Minnesota Butter and Cheese Company. re.
spondent, VS.. St. Paul Cod Storage Ware
house Company. appellant.
Syllabus-The defendant, a warehouse COM
pany, received from plaintiff large amount
Of cheese for storage: in its warehouse for
hire, and Issued to plaintiff a receipt, the
conditions of which were. as follows: 'AI
any loss damage from riot, fire, water de-
terioration, defective cooperage, packing, rat
age, Vermln, leakage, IEoSt or from DelnS per-
ishab.e or otherwise inherently defective when
stored. - ssssaz.s
The overhead brine pipes used by defend
ant in keeping low temperature in its s.or-
age room were covered with ice, and tho
defendant negigentiy allowed the temperature
In said room to rise that. said ice melted
and the water therefrom. through defendant .
carelessnesS, drippedd down upon and greatly
damaged plaintiffs cheese therein stored.
Held that the defendant was not exempt
from liability for damage caused by its own
negligence. Order affirmed. Buck, ].
Francis Rogers, plaintiff, respondent, VS.. PEG,
pies Gas and Electric Company ct al. de-
PENDANTS; Thomas Bailey ct a].sldefendants.
respondents; p H. Gross, appellant
|. Syllabus-G. was the promoter. of a gas and
electric company. corporation, became its
president and controlled its business affairs.
The corporation contained a large number of
stockholders and prior to issuing certificates
of stock they, with one exception, mutually
agreed that for each certificate Of stock there
should be issued to each shareholder five
shares of such stock. which was done ac-
cording.y, although this agreement was never
acted on by the corporation. G., as president
and secretary issued to large number of
stockholders five shares each of this bonus
stock The corporation became insolvent and
the creditors brought suit against it and the
different stockholders to enforce their con-
stitutional liability. The trial court found
that G. prepared the stock subscription and
signed 1t for $2,e00, but held him liable for
$4,000. being liability also on his five shares
OIL tno bonus SCOck VI. HppealeQ TO tnlS court,
where the decision OF the trial court was re.
versed, and the liability of G. fixed at a
sum not exceeding $4,000, and the cause was
remanded. Certain other stockholders then
moved the trial court to reduce their liabil-
-ity to an amount not exceeding the original
shares issued bysthen instead of being he'd
on this bonus stock. The motion was grant
ed and G. appeals. Ruling held valid. Judg-
ment affirmed. Buck J..
Edward Knott ct al, appellants, vs. L.
Montgomery and Thomas Reid respondents
Syllabus-Held, that certain letters offered
In evidence by the plaintiff and excluded by
the court were admissible to show that the
plaintiffs, claim that the term of the parol
contract between the ma rites was more rea son.