The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-07-20
LOSER NEED NOT LOSE i.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES A Pc
CULIAR QUESTION AS TO
ELECTION BETS
STAKEHOLDER Is LIABLE
If, After Reputation by the Loser,
He Pays the Stakes to the
Winner Under Terms
of the Bet.

w inner OhOeF 1crmS
of the Bet.
The April term of the supreme court
is over, and, with the exception of decis-
ions in about a score of cases argued
during the term, the calendar is clear.
Chief Justice Start and Judge Collins
handed down eleven decisions yesterday.
In q garnishee case the supreme court
holds that wager on election is subject
to reputation by the loser at any time.
The syllabus in the case raising this point
is as follows:
Pabst Brewing Company, respondent, VS..
Pet Liston, defendant; l.. w. Rolleston,
garnishee, appellant; Frank E. Murray,
lnterVenor
Syllabus. 1t is the universal rule in
this country that stakeholder who pays
over money bet upon ali election after
notification not to do SO, pays at his peril,
and an action against him for the money
can be maintained by the party giving
such notice.
2. In the case at bar it is held that the
notice given by one of the parties the
day after the election, but before the
money was paid over, was sufficient to
arrest 1t in the hands of the stakeholder
and amounted to a reputation Of the
wager.
8. After the amount in controversy
was paid over to the winner an action
as for money had and received would lie
against the stakeholder at the Instance
of the party giving the notice, without
prior demand for repayment.
Held, that proceedings in garnishmenr
could be maintained against such stake
holder after he had parted with the
money in disregard of the notice not to
pay. Order affirmed. Collins, ].
Edmund Durose, respondent, VS.. st; Paul
City Railway Company, appellant:
! Thos. DuroSe, a minor, by Edmund Du-
rose, his guardian ad Item, respondent.
VS.. st. Paul City Railway Company, sp-
pellant.
Geo Durose, minor, by Edmund Du-
rose, ETC., respondent, VS.. st. Paul City
These are personal injury actions:
Held, in each case:
effect that the defendant was guilty OF
negligence and the plaintiff was not
chargeable with contributory negligence
is sustained by the evidence.
z. That the amount OF damages IN one
Of the cases is excessive. Order modified.
Start, {. j.
John Madison, respondent, VS.. Erick Mad
son, as administrator, ETC., ct al, APP
pellants.
Syllabus-In an action to determine ad.
verse claims to land, held, that the ques
ton as to the PLAINTIFFS adverse posses
sion thereof was litigated without obNc>
ton, and that the finding of the trial
court thereon in favor of the plaintiff is
sustained by the evidence. Order affirm
ed Start, {. j.
Benjamin c. Taylor, as receiver of the
Madelia Farmers Warehouse Compa-
ny, respondent, VS.. T. j. Mitchell ct
al, appellants.
cei7er. of corporation Under the
provisions Of ,o chapter 76, Gen,
mortgage on the corporate property made
by the directors who were creditors, to
themselves as individuals, to secure their
debt. Held:
/ That the evidence supports the
courts finding that the corporation was
insolvent when the mortgage was made.
e When a corporation is insolVent its
directors, who are it's creditors, cannot
by taking advantage Of their fiduciary re-
lation, secure to themselves preference
over other creditors.
3. That the mortgage here in question
was fraudulent as to creditors, that the
receiver as their representative could
maintain this action and that the trial
court did not err in directing that the
mortgage and the foreclosure thereof be
Cancelled.
f. On the issue of insolvency the cor
porate books, reports and accounts in
Guiding the bank book, were competent
evidence against the directors. Order af-
firmed Start c. ].
M. J. Rooney, appellant, vs. John Koe-
mig and Elizabeth Koenig, respondents.
Syllabus. Where land is conveyed
by deed of general warranty any supe-
rior outstanding title subsequently ac-
CURED by the grantor VIII Inure to the
! benefit of the grantee and his assigns
z. Where the only reference in a war
ranty deed to mortgage on the land is
| 10 except 1t from the covenant against
membranes, the exception does not ex-
| tend to or affect the covenant of war
ranty and any title thereafter acquired
| by the grantor by the foreclosure of the
mortgage will inure to the benefit of the
grantee and his assigns. Sandwich Man
ufacturing Company vs.. Zehmer, 48 Min
neSota 4U8, followed
| 3. In such a case parol evidence of an
agreement by the grantee to assume and
| pay the mortgage as a part of the pur-
chase price Is not competent to modify
the covenant OF warranty or restrict its
legal operation. Judgment affirmed.
Start, c. J.
| William Harding. respondent, vs. Rail-
way Transfer Company, of MINNEAPOLIS.
appellant.
syilabus-The defendant operated a
| the purpose. of switching cars to and
| from the mill. There were steps leading
from the platform of the mill to a point
near the track. The track and stems
were owned and controlled by the mil
company. 1t was the duty or the plain
tiff as defendants foreman to s1pern-
tend the placing Of the cars at the min
and in order to do as it was necessary
for him to stand on the steps, and such
was the custom Of himself and other en-
! ployes of the defendant. Ice formed and
| was allowed to remain on the steps
whereby the plaintiff was thrown down
and injured while in the discharge of his
duty Held:
l. That the track and steps were a part
of the instrumentalities of the defend
ants business and between it and its en-
| ployes, who were required to use them
In its business, the latter had the right
TO treat them as belonging to it and it
! was bound to use due care to keen the
track and steps in safe condition with
! out reference to the question of their ac-
tuaf ownership and the primary right to
| control Them
| 2. That the verdict and special findings
! OF the jury, in favor of the plaintiff as
to the negligence of the respective par
! ties and the assumption of the. risk of
the particular accident by the plaintiff
are sustained by the evidence Order az
| hrmed. Start G. T :.
Ralph Jones, appellant, vs. Chicago. ST.
Paul, Minneapolis Sc Omaha Railway
Company, respondent.
| Syllabus. The law of evidence is The
| lex Teri. Whether a witness is competent
| or not whether certain matters REQUIRE
to be proven by writing or not whether
certain evidence proves a certain fact or
| not, is to be determined by the law of
the country where the question arises
and where the remedy is sought to be
| enforced, and where the court sits to -, .
4 L g.