The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-09
AGAINST PRODUCE EXCHANGE.
Supreme Court Says 1t Was Trying
to Damage Conrad Ertz.


to Damage Conrad Ertz.
The state supreme court holds that a
man can recover damages from parties
who with intent and maliciously injure
his business. In a decision written by
Chief Justice Start yesterday the court
affirms the verdict awarded Conrad Ertz
in his suit against the Minneapolis Prod
uce Exchange company, Of Minneapolis
ErtZ was in the commission business,
and claims that he was making $4,000 a
year, when the Minneapolis Produce ex-
change, composed of nearly all the COM
mission men in Minneapolis, refused to do
business with him, and in every way tried
to ruin his trade.
The defense set up that the comp amt
did not state cause of action, and cited
the case of the Bohn Manufacturing COM
pany, of St Paul. VS.. the Retail Lumber
mems association, In which the Bohn
company was denied relief and damages,
and the combination of lumbermen, which
had boycotted the company, was held to
be lawful, as a parallel case.
The supreme court denies that the Min
neapois case is parallel
In the Bohn case it was held that the
lumbermen, through the medium of their
association, were endeavoring merely to
protect their own legitimate business in
terests from injury at the hands Of
wholesalers. . t4e .@-s
Conrad A. Ertz, respondent, VS.. Produce
Exchange Company Of Minneapolis ct
al, appellants.
The Syllabus is as follows: A COM
plant, which alleges that the plain,
tiff, a dealer in farm produce, had
a profitable business, that the defendants
had conspired together to. refuse to deal
with him and to induce others to do like
wise it not appearing that their inter-
ference with his business was to serve
any legitimate interests of their own,
but that it was done maliciously. to injure
him and that the conspiracy had been
carried into execution whereby his bust
ness was ruined, states cause of action.
Order affirmed. Start, c. j..
The De Kalb National Bank, appellant,
vs.. John Thompson ct al, respondents;
Syllabus-The verdict in this case to the
effect that the plaintiff was not bona
fide purchaser of the note which Is the sub
ject matter of the action, Is sustained by
the evidence. Order affirmed
Edward W. Backus, appellant, VS. Della
A. Ames, as executrix, respondent.
damages on account Of the alleged negli
gence Of the defendants testator, as an
Insurance broker in failing to replace
two policies of insurance upon the plain
tiffs lumber before 1t was destroyed by
fire. Held
l. The trial court did not err in in
structing the jury to the effect that the
law presumes that the broker did his
duty and that the defendant was not
obliged to offer any evidence to show
that he exercised ordinary care In the
premises until the plaintiff had shown
that he was negligent.
2. When a broker undertakes to place
insurance for another 1t is his duty in
case he is unable to do so to reasonably
such notice does not begin until he has
had reasonable time in which to find
out by the exercise of ordinary dill
gence whether or not he can place the
insurance.
8. The question Of the competency Of
a witness to give expert evidence is large
its decision thereon will not be reversed,
| if there is any evidence fairly tending to
support it.
4. AS bearing on the question of
the deceased brokers' negligence, evil
dence tending to show the hazardous ma
ture of the risk to be insured against and
the difficulty of securing insurance on the
property in question was competent end
5. The verdict for the defendant is
sustained by the evidence. Order af-
frmed. Start, Z. j.
c. w Abrahamson, respondent vs.. L.
Lamberson and c. C. Winchester, ap-
pellants.
of contract for the conveyance Of land
to compel its specific performance it ap
peared that the vendee, the plaintiffs as
signor, had been wrongfully deprived Of
the possession of the land for specified
time by the vendor. The assignment not
only assigned the contract, but also the
vendee interest therein and in and to the
| land therein described with all the rights,
privileges, powers and liabilities under
| the contract Held:
/: That the vendee's right to effect his
damages for the wrongful act of the
vendor against the amount due on the
contract passed by the assignment.
q That in such an. action where it ap-
pears that the vendee has been wrong
fully excluded from the possession e the
premises by the vendor the latter will. as
a general rule, be regarded as a trustee
of the land for the benefit Of the former
aad profits which he received ss we'd Or might
there arc nc rents and profits or they are
less than the actual value Of the use Of
| with the value of such use during the
the tbe vendee Is kept out Of posses
| SIGN.
| B. Rule applied and held that the trial
court cared in assessing the damage In
| 4l,;- Ind ont ,Qtyorcad