The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-07-25
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Former Surveyor General Brown
Wins an Important Logging Case.

Former Surveyor General Brown
Wins an Important Logging Case.
Seba S. Brown, former surveyor ean-
eraI OF logs and lumber for the Minneap-
/. oii9l usuIct, won an important point In
i Ia6 supreme ot court Yesterday. The syI-
Seba S. Brown, appellant, VS., Warren
Potter and Patrick Casey, partners as
". Potter q Co, respondents.
Sy1labus-In an action by a surveyor
OF logs for fees defendants counter claim
Ior damages alleged to have been caused
oy EI Ia1lnre to complete the scaling.
! clent TO support the verdict Order re-
Versed and new trial granted
Lewis, ].
j. N; Bolland, respondent, VS.. Eugene
] - Neal and James ONeal, copartncrs
I as ONg ia Bros, ct al, appellants.
right to enter upon premises at anv time
within live years and to cut and remove
tlerelroIn al the standing pine, is a con-
Eeyahce of an interest in the land and
not license revokable at will
| Parties who entered into possession
! OF such premises under such a convex
a s;ce for the purpose of removing the
tlHlper, ana constructed logging camps
| ana were engaged in the operation ~
cutting timber therefrom, were in s11c6
t open and adverse occupancy as to con
purchases of the land.
.. IL Is lmmaterial that such camps
/ we ~clT more extensive than were required
LOT the removal OF the timber on the land
IN QueSuon, ana that the parties were
engaged IN general logging operations in
me VIclnlty. Order reversed and a new
| trial granted Lewis . T
Frederick H. Kahle ct al. appellants VIC
evangelical Lutheran Joint SYNOD Of
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and
! 0tner states respondent.
SyllaDuS-A deed of Oraroieoe
rorin gIdnteeS contained the following
provision; Provided, however, that
mnfGreas 1t IS the intention to build and
MAINTAIN ma an orphan asylum and home for
| the aged; and whereas. the Camera
EVahgeHcal Lutheran Synod of Wiscon-
s SIN Minnesota, Michigan and other
| states mas not been fully Incorporated
as YET, 1t IS understood and agreed thar
| tlie tltle to. the above property shall vest
IN IN the proper officers of said synod IN.
| I'll said synod is Incorporates so &c
| TO mold title to property. and that ae Soor
| as SAID, synod is so Incorporated the
a aaiI named SECOND. parties are to deed
sold P}6 - na 70 SAID synod or if sooner
| 10 SAD synod, and in case of a faiiIIre
SO 10 40 then this deed to become mil
The association became tncornoratad
tne grantees conveyed the premises to #
ana 1T, IT took possession. i
+ia o. 1 uhlS provision considered in connec-
olo 5 WIN other allegations in the answer.
ana .held: Not void for uncertainty and
because the beneficiary was a mere f ytciN
untary associa ton. WI
2. The answer states canse of a.
ton. Order affirmed -TeU,ie
M M,yt,l 3; Baxter; appellant. VS. Covenant
nGI udl Lie Association respondent
eSyllabus-In an action by the bene-
Lciiafry to recover upon a life Insurance
P oSilsz evidence as to the death of the
Insured examined and held: That the
Irlal court was justified in granting de-
Ieenaant motion for judgment notwith-
standlng the verdict. Order affirmed
Lewis, j.
p W. Olson, respondent, vs. The AuIt-
man Company. appellant
SylIabus-Plaintiff signed and delivered
to defendants agents orders for the mr.
chase of threshing outfit which con
Ialned warranty and stipulations of
payment. The orders were rejected nv
defendant the terms not being satisfac
tory. Thereupon plaintiff and the local
agehts made a verbal contract of war;
outfit upon different terms
| Held: The fact that the original or
ger ger as signed by the plaintiff gave notice
make sales or contracts except in pre-
scrlbed FORMS was not of itself sufficient
to charge plaintiff with knowledge of the
agents incapacity to contract
2 1t was a question of fact to be de-
termlned in the case whether the pur-
chase was under the old orders or under
new contract
8. 1T was not error to exclude the tes-
timony of the general state agents that
they had no knowledge of such new con-
tract Judgment affirmed. Lewis, J.
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. an
pellant, VS. o. H Olson & N N John
son, partners as o. H. Olson & Co., re-
SpOndentS.
Syllabus Defendants and the CITY o. lie
Sueur entered into a written contract for
the construction of a water works system
and an electric light plant. Defendants
Sublet to- plaintiff the building of the
stand pipe connected with the water
works. The original contract contained
forfeiture clause of $40 per day for the
time of delay in completing the entire
work. Held:
1. That the plaintiffs and defendants
contemplated in their agreement that the
forfeiture clause should apply to plain
t1ffs If their delay should be the cause
of Its enforcement, and that If both plain
tiffs and defendants were the cause of
such delay. then each should bear their
sulting therefrom.
q That there is no evidence tending to
prove that the forfeiture enforced by the
city was in any manner caused by the
delay of plaintiffs in completing the stand
pipe on time.
g. Under the pleadings, defendants as
sumed the burden of proving that they
were damaged by reason of defendants
delay in completing the stand pipe.
A. 1t was not error to reject an offer
to prove that the city council passed the
delay In completing the stand pipe. Or
der reversed, with directions to enter
judgment for plaintiffs for the amount of
the verdict with interest. Lewis 7