The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-26
SCALED DOWN 4 VERDICT
SUPREME COURT CUTS DOWN DIS
TRICT COURTS ALLOWANCE
TO PAUL STILLER.
EXPO DIRECTORS
DEEDS
They VIII Be jealousy Inquired
Into by the Courts as
to Their Good
Faith.

The supreme court handed down seven
decisions yesterday of more or less i'm
portance in which the trial court suffered
reversal in one case.
The verdict secured by Paul Stiller, Jr.,
against the Bohn manufacturing COM
pany for injuries to his left hand by
one of the company's cut saws, is re-
duced, for the second time, by the su-
preme court. The jury awarded a YER
dict of $4,500, the supreme court reduced
1t to $500, and the supreme court yester-
day further reduced the amount Judges
Lewis and Collins file . dissenting opin-
ion, holding that new trial should be
granted. The case involves construc
ton of the employers liability law. The
syllabus is as follows:
Paul Stiller Sr., for Paul Stiller Jr., re-
spondent, VS.. The Bohn Manufacturing
Company, appellant.
Syllabus-ThIs is an action brought to
recover damages for personal injuries
the negligence of the defendant in not fur
nishing reasonably safe machinery for
his use as it's servant. Held:
l. That the verdict herein, to the effect
that the defendant was negligent in the
premises, that the plaintiffs S son was not,
and that he did not assume the risks in
cident to the use of the defective ma
chinery, is sustained by the evidence.
2. That an employer is not bound to
furnish for his Workmen the safest and
best appliances and machiery in general
use. 1t is sufficient if his own be reason
ably safe
8. That the trial court did not err in
charging the jury to the effect that the
master was not bound to use the latest
and best machinery, but II his own IN fact
was not reasonably safe, and there was
safer machinery in general use and he
did not provide it, the jury would be JUS
titled in finding that he did not use ord1-
nary care under the circumstances.
4. That the award Of damages was eX-
cessive. Order modified. Start, G. J.
The supreme court in the litigation in
Volving the Minneapolis Exposition build
ing property holds that the directors had
g. right to bid In the property at an as
signee's sale and then sue the stock
holders to enforce their liability for the
payment Of its debts. The opinion is writ
labuS is as follows:
T. B. Janney ct al, respondents, VS.. Min
neapolis Industrial Exposition ct al, de-
PENDANTS, E. c. Barnaby & Co., ct al.
appellants; T. B. Janney ct al, respond
ents, VS.. Minneapolis Industrial EXposi-
ton ct al, defendants, l. c. Seeley, ap-
pellaanti y 3 Janney ct al, FesPon- ION
position ct al, defendants, F. A Cham
berlain ct al, appellants.
Syllabus. Creditors Of a corporation,
WHO are also OlISClOIS, dEG IlOI OSDdIIGO
from enforcing the constitutional liability
of its stockholders for the payment of
their debts. But they must in such cases
be held to strict proof of their debts and
of their own good faith in the premises,
for if their debts were the result of their
own wrong or negligence they cannot be
permitted to impose a liability therefor
upon innocent stockholders.
2. The relation of directors to their cor
poration is essentially a fiduciary one, and
upon sound principles of public policy
they are as a general rule inhibited from
purchasing for their own benefit the prop
erty of the corporation, very much as d
trustee is disqualified from purchasing for
his own advantage the property of his
cestui que trust But where the title, pos
session and control of all of the property
of the corporation is in an assignee or
receiver, who, by order of the court and
subject to its approval, offers the property
at public sale, director who has inter
ests to protect may is good faith purchase
at such sale the property for his sole ben
et1t. The transaction, however will be
jealousy scrutinized by the court
8. The facts found by the trial court
considered, and held that they sustain it's
conclusion to- the effect that the plaintiffs
did not violate their duties as directors
of the defendant corporation in purchas-
ing its property at public sale by it's
| assignee in insolvency, subject to the ap-
proVal of the court. Order affirmed.