The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-11-13
0|)NDSNEN MUST Pay Up
SUPREME COURTS DECISION ON A
PRESTON BANK WRECKING
CASE
FINDINGS IN OTHER SUITS
servant Cannot Recover tor Injury
Caused by Defect He Is Employed
to Repair-TVVO New Trials
Granted.

Several decisions were handed down by
the supreme court yesterday. The deci-
sion OF first Importance was the one III
the case OF The Board OF Education OIL
Preston, Independent School District NO:
10 vs. George w. Robinson, eX-clefk Oh
the board and his bondsmen, IN Whlch
the order OF the, lowCG court was anlrln-
cd This is one of the many cases that
arose out Of the Wrecking of the FIJI
more County bank Robinson paid out
4 check on the bank of $2,S9l to his sue
.essor, this being the total school 1uhus
in his hands. On account of the failure
$780, was lost. The court holos mat the
bondsmen are liable Following Is the
syllabus:
II is no defense to an action on an
official bond that the sureties signed ana
executed the same upon the express Cur
diton that other persons shou quo pc be pro tbe
bond was delivered without a conpl-
dnce Herewith, unless the obligee had no.
Jice of such condition.
district undertook to solicit and procure
persons to sign and execute as suretleS
The bond Of the treasurer thereoI' ana
in doing SO obtained Information con-
corning the conditions above mentioned.
Held that such officer was not then
acting in his official capacity, and plant
iff was not bound by his acts or by IN
formation coming to him While 50 act
ing.
A county treasurer having funds in
his hands belonging to plaintiff school
district. delivered bank check therefor
to the school district treasurer upon
bank which was at the time engaged
In the usual and ordinary banking bus
mess; the school district treasurer ac-
cepted the check, presented 1t to the
bank for deposit to his own credit and
received credit therefor on the books of
the bank. Held, equivalent to the deliV-
cry and receipt of the money by and from
the county treasurer.
Where person holds a public office
for two or more successive terms, and
executes new bond with new suretles
for each term, and defalc50on occurs
on the part Of the officer the sureties on
the bond given for the term during which
the defalcatiOn occurred are alone liable.
Prima facie the suret es on the last bond
are liable for such funds as are prop
crly chargeable to the officer, as shown
by the books of his office at the time of
his retirement, and the burden is upon
such suretles to show that the defalcation
in fact occurred during prior term
evidence held to sustain the findings
Of the trial court. Order affirmed
Brown, J.
The decision next in Importance was
that in the case of Albert D. Saxton, ap-
pellant. VS.. the Northwestern Telephone
exchange company, respondent, in which
the order was affirmed. Appellant was
working on a pole, which fell down and
he was injured. Following is the sylla-
bus:
.dBrodericl1 vs.. City Ry Co., "A MINI.
aoS, followed to the effect that servant
cannot recover damages for an injury
caused by a defect he was employed to
repair. Order Affirmed. Brown J.
Other decisions were:
L. |. Prendergast, respondent, vs. Olaf
.. Searle appellant
judgment in an action is final and
conclusive between the same parties as
10 all questions or issues presented bV
the pleadings therein.
readings in a former action between
the parties to this action examined and
held, to recover and include as issue
raced by the pleadingS in this action,
ana mat the parties are concluded there
ton.
The service Of a notice to terminate a
tenancy at WILL upon an agent having
charge ana management of his principles
business with reference to such tenancy,
Is sumclent service and as effectual as
though made on the principal.
Record examined and held to show err
rors In the exclusion of evidence tend
ing TO show such service. Order re-
yersed and new trial granted. Brown,
Dora Linde; respondent, VS.. August CAT
IKE, appellant.
A. farmer engaged in raising and mar
keting wheat is presumed to know the
value thereof and may testify thereto
without showing familiarity with the
Evidence examined and held to
sustain the verdict as to the
eged to have c Seen con Wegft f by
defendant. Order affirmed. Brown, j.
Hartman Miller and Ross. Miller. respond
ents, VS.. jeremiah Hogan, appellant
The right Of trial court to amend and
correct VerdictS is limited to such amend
ments and corrections as tend to make
them conform to the intention of the
jury. Such court cannot in any case by
an order amending a verdict substitute
It's conclusions upon questions Of fact for
these found by the jury
In this action, one to determine the
boundary line between adjoining tracts
of land, the jury returned a verdict fix
ing definite location of such line; the
trial court thereafter upon defendants
motion for a new trial ordered that the
motion be granted unless plaintiff stould
consent to a modification of the verdict
and Stlpulate to an amendment thereof
by striking therefrom the Inc found by
the jury and inserting in lieu thereof a
line designated by the court. Held, error;
the court had no power to make such
an order Order reversed and a new
trial granted. Brown, J.
Ned Cdvell, by H A. Covell, respondent
VS.. Nellie E. Porter, doing business as
the Minneapolis Fireworks Company,
appellant
pointed S mder s 1884, e Section 1el 1872 to
prosecute an action in justice court for
IL.
not ended or suspended by an appeal to
the district court. And it is not neces-
sary in such case, after appeal to the
district court, to procure the appointment
therein of a guardian under section 5160.
The latter section has reference only to
actions brought In the district court.
Judgment affirmed. Brown, j.
Senour Manufacturing Company, appel
liant, VS.. Church Paint and Manufac-
turing. Company ct al, defendants;
Manufacturers Investment Company
ct al, respondents.
In this action, which is one to enforce
the personal liability of stockholders for
the debts Of a corporation, it is held:
That the corporation in question was
organized, as appears by its articles Of
association, solely for manufacturing
are not liable for its debts.
The fact that the promoters and or
ganizers Of the corporation intended and
contemplated that the corporation should
carry on and conduct on-manufactur-
Ing business when completely organized
and Intentionally withheld a statement
business from its articles of association
and limited the purposes of the corpor-
alton solely to manufacturing for the
purpose Of avoiding the personal liability
of stockholders; and the further fact that
such non-manufacturing business was
subsequent to the organiza ton of the
company in fact engaged in, did not
change the character Of the corporation
nor subject the stockholders to personal
nabi1ty for corporate debts
If such conduct on the part If +hn orr
Sanizers and subsequent acts Of the cor
poration. In engaging in ultra wires
s Iahbsa os OF amounted to fraud, it was
Such as to the state only, Of which nri
tate individuals not inJuriously affected
cannot complain ecu
10 IN mn Proceedings to enforce the personal
the corpora ton, the articles of assocfol
tion are the sole criterion as to the
purpose for which the corporation was
formed, OT6or . ff7,roed --S-Sii az