The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-07-04

~ " "AGES Oh OamSs
The supreme court in a decision filed
yesterday, the opinion being written by
Judge CAVITY, decides that private eleva-
tors and grain warehouses must take out
licenses from the railroad and warehouse
commission. The question has been In
dispute ever since the passage of the law
in 1895. The particular case on which a.
test was made was that brought against
the w. w. Cargill company, operating
an elevator at Caledonia, where the COM
pany handled no grain save that pur,
chased outright at the elevator. The dis
trict court held that such elevators were
not required to take out licenses, but the
supreme court holds that this business is
OF such public character and sufficiently
affected with public interest to admit of
license being required. The court below
held that as applied to the case chapter
164 of the Laws of 1895 is unconstitutional.
The higher court holds that is correct
where 1t applies to a building used only
for storing. In this case grain is pur-
chased, weighed, graded and delivered.
The business is similar to other large
elevators. 1t is held to be important that
correct weights are given, that the grades
are uniform, that a proper dockage is al
lowed. So that all such separate eleva-
tors come under said law, and are sub
ject to law which necessitates their tax
ing out license. Following is the sylla-
bus in the case:
State of Minnesota, ex rel. railroad and
warehouse commission, appellant VS.
w. W. Cargill Company, a corporation.
respondent.
sylIabus-The defendant operates a
in which nog rain is stored but defend
ants own, which 1t purchases of the
farmers at the warehouse, where the
grain is so delivered and where it is
weighed and graded by defendant on his
own scales and with his own appliances.
Held, the business SO carried on Is Of
affected with public interest that the
legislature may require persons operating
such warehouse to take out license
therefor as provided In CHI 49, G. L. 1885
Judgment reversed and a new trial
granted. -Canty J.
Another decision was filed that win be
of interest to the owners of dams and of
lands which are flooded by the reservoirs
created by these Instructions in the
streams. The gist of the decision Is that
while mill owner may acquire, by long
usage, descriptive right TO maintain
dam, that right does not extend to others
who may have been reaping certain bene-
f1ts from its maintenance. The decision
comes down from Stearns county. Fol-
lowing is the syllabus:
Philip n. Kray, respondent VS. Anton
Mugge!f, defendant respondent; Chris
tan Weres ct al, appellants.
Syllabus-A mill dam was constructed
across small river in such a manner
as to create vast reservoir of water in
the river and in a chain of lakes through
which the river th6r6bV fOn6ino a
large area of low lands. After the dam
was maintained for forty-one years and
the mill owner had acquired q preScrip-
tive right to maintain IT, he sold to the
owners of certain of the flooded lands
the right to destroy the dam and reclaim
their flooded lands. In an action brought
by another riparian owner to enjoin the
removal of the dam or the lowering of
the stage of water thereby maintained
Held, the dam being of a perishabe
character and the mill owner being liza
BILE for negligence in maintaining it, if
not an insurer of its safety as to all per-
sons who may be injured by the burst
ing of the reservoir, the conditions con-
tinue always to be of an artificial charac-
ter, the reservoir does not become by
lapse of time analogous to a natural lake
or water course, and the riparian owners
have not acquired a reciprocal right to-
have the dam maintained for their bene-
fit after the mill owner has abandoned
1t for the purposes of water power.
Held further, even in such a case, the
riparian owners may, by equitable es-
toppel acquire the right to maintain the
| dam or have it maintained; but in such
a case their equities must be strong and
substantial. In this case their equities
are not of that character, and there are
strong counter equities in defendants
which defeat the claims of the plaintiff
Judgment reversed. -Canty, }.
w. G. Hoerr, respondent, vs.. Margaretha
Heihofer, appellant
Syllabus. A judgment entered and
docketed in the district court in one
county, was docketed in another two
days after the entry; execution di-
rected to the sheriff of the latter county,
was issued and dated on the day the
Judgment was entered, and such execu-
ton recited that the Judgment was dock
eted in the latter county two days later.
Held, the execution was irregular, but
not void.
q Plaintiff claiming judgment under a
Judgment creditor, brought this action to
Set aside as fraudulent as to creditors a
conveyance made by the Judgment debtor
prior TO the entry of the Judgment.
Held the judgment is not at least, as
against the grantee, evidence of the an
tecedent existence of the indebtedness for
which the judgment was rendered. Judg-
roant reversed and new trial granted