The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-02

In mandamus proceedings brought by
the city of Duluth against the Northern
Pacific, st. Paul & Duluth and the Du-
luth Transfer railway companies to COM
pei the three corporations to construct a
viaduct over Garfield avenue the supreme
court yesterday gave a decision in favor
Of the city.
The case comes up for the second time
on demurrer to the order of the lower
court apportioning the amount Of work
to be paid for by each company. The
Transfer railway company pleads that the
district court required them to construct
more than their share of the bridge and
that the apportionment was not made by
the court in accordance with the rules
laid down by the supreme court.
State, ex rel. City of Duluth, respond
ent, VS. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad
Company ct al, defendants Duluth
Transfer Railway Company and j. Eliot
Bowles, receiver thereof. appellants.
Syllabus-Order appealed from consid-
cred and held to be in accordance with
the mandate of this court on a former
appeal, and is therefore sustained;
Other decisions handed down yester-
day were as follows:
Roscoe N. Jackson, respondent, VS. Mu-
tual Benefit Life Insurance Company,
appellant.
Syllabus. Notice to an agent to con-
Stitute constructive or implied notice to
scope of the agency. or of or concerning
business engaged in by the agent by the
authority of the principal.
q A principal cannot be held to have
permitted or acquiesced in a course of
dealing on the part of his agent beyond
his authority, unless he had notice Of
such course of dealing. or the circum-
stances surrounding it were such as to
make it the duty of the principal to in
quire
g. Declarations and statements of an
agency, but of and concerning past trans
actions in the principals business, are
hearsay and incompetent. Order revers-
ed. Brown. j.
Eugene Schiller and Gustave Schiller,
partners as Schiller Brothers, appel
lants. vs., T. M. McCord Company ct
a syl afasS' Wh e @o0' the 1es Holder
der the statutes Of another
state can, after the property COW
cred thereby has been sold by the owner
to third person and by him removed
into this state, lawfully seize the prop
erty and effect a foreclosure of his lien
within this state quaere.
2. Where. however. such owner brings
an action in this state against such third
person to recover the purchase price Of
such property, such lienholder may be
interpleaded under General Statutes 1894,
section 5273, or he may intervene in the
action, and assert his rights as fixed by
the laws of the state where the lien
exists, as fully and to the same extent
as though the action was pending there
in. Order affirmed. Brown, j.
In re estate of Henry T. Welles, Joseph
p Wilson ct al, respondents, VS.. Cath
crime ]. Welles and Francis S. Welles,
as executives, ETC., appellants.
Syllabus. Express trusts are created
by contracts and agreements which d.,
rectly and expressly point out the per-
sons, property and purposes of the trust.
Implied trusts are those which the law
implies from the language Of the con-
tract and the evident intent and purpose
of the parties. Within this definition it
is held that the transaction set out in
the opinion created an express trust be-
tween the parties,
O. The rights of a cestui qui trust in
cases of express trusts are not barred
by lapse Of time so long as there is no
breach, dtsavowal or population of the
trust by the trustees Time runs against
such trusts only from the date of no
tice to the cestui qui trust of a breach,
or reputation thereof by the trustee.
8. A trustee Is entitled to repayment
of all money advanced or paid out by him
in furtherance Of the trust relations.
BROWN j.