The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-11-09

reason that the grantor was: not party
to5the same. and the avowed pur-
pose thereof was to secure a deed from
an incompetent person.
8. When competent evidence is includ-'
ed in a general offer of proof that in
cludes immaterial tiers. the trial court
is justified in refusing to permit the same
to- be shown and may exclude the entire
Offer Order affirmed. Lovely, j.
Louis e. MoClymond. respondent, VS..
David p. Noble ct al, defendants:
Aaron I. Noble. appellant.
Louis E. McClyn0nd, respondent, VS..
David p. Noble ct al, defendants; VIM.
e. Harrington, appellant.
In an action against unknown persons
and parties to determine adverse claims
to real estate under General Statutes
1894, section 5561S, held:
/. No order of the court for the serv-
| ice of the summons by publication is
necessary.
q The fact that the named defendant,
who appeared of record to have some
| interest in the land was dead when the
action was commenced, did not prevent
the court from acquiring jurisdiction. nor
| did the fact that one of the unknown par
ties was at the time resident OF the
state, affect the Jurisdiction OF the court
to adjudicate the state OF the title to
the land.
8. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion OF the
grantee of such unknown party to va
sWer. Orders affirmed. Start, Z. j.
Hamm Realty company, corporation,
| respondent. VS.. New Hampshire Fire
insurance company, or Manchester,
N. H., appellant. so
i. The rule ADOPTED on the former
appeal, 90 Mimi, I59, that a general in
surance. agency representing several al
waving notice of cancellation ana
thereupon at once issued renewal pol
icy in another company carried by such
agency Followed and approved.
2. Evidence of business usage and
conduct between such agency and the
insured considered and held sufnclent TO
require a submission to the jury OF the
question whether athorlty TO waive no
| tice of cancellation and to renew the in
surance in another company by the
agency had been established.
3. Where the manager of such gem
eral insurance agency directs a clerk to
| cancel a policy and write it in another
| company and the clerk acts immediate
! ly upon such direction, as ander the
| facts in this case. the jury were au-
| thorized to find that the act of such
! clerk was the act of the agency in that
respect.
| 4. Where an insurance agent has the
right to waive notice of cancellation
| and to select the company In which the
renewal is to be made and renews the
same subject only to the rejection OF
1 the insured the renewal policy consti-
| tuteS a valid contract OIL insurance IN
| til the same is so rejected.
s. Where it as sought to prove an I'M
| piled authority on the part of an agent
| to waive notice of cancellation for the
! insured and renew policies by custom
| through usage and business conduct
solely, neither the insured nor insurer or
| their agents are authorized on the trial
] to give their conclusions or understand
| inc as evidence of the effect of the
facts to establish such. authority. Order
| affirmed. Lovely, j.
| Jonas Levine respondent, vs.. Barrett
& Barrett, a corporation, appellant.
! l. Evidence considered and held suffi-
! cient to support the complaint and to
require submission OF the issues In an
! action for personal injuries sustained by
plaintiff in falling into an excavation
| adjoining defendants building to the
| jury.
g. Held, that the order of the trial
court refusing to grant judgment LOT
| plaintiff s favor, was properly denied.
g. Held. also, that there was no abuse
! of discretion by the trial court in direct
| ing a new trial. Order affirmed.
Lovely, j.
William ]. Teal. by Thomas ]. Ryan,
his guardian ad Item, respondent, VS..
the American Mining company ct al,
Company of Minnesota, appellant.
A railway carrier transferring car
! of its own to a connecting carrier for
| use upon its line owes. to the servants
| of the latter the duty of exercising due
| care in inspecting and putting the car
! in a reasonably safe condition for the
| proposed se.-The negligence of the
! latter in receiving and using the car
! cannot relieve the former from liability
| for an injury to such servants caused
| by a defective car neghgently tray
| ferred by it. Rule applied and held that
| the complaint herein states a cause of
| action as to each of the defendants.
| Order affirmed. starr, y. j.
Joseph Laschinger. respondent, VS.. st.
| Paul City Railway company, appel
| liant: Patrick O Brien, respondent, vs.
| ST. Paul City Railway company, app
| pellant; Thomas y mara. respondent,
| appellant.
| Evidence considered in a personal in
| i1iry action and held that it sustains
| the verdict Order affirmed.
Cora ". Terryll. respondent, VS.. the City
/. former decision In this case Go
Mimi. 529). with respect to the suffi-
| cheney of the notice of a claim for dam
ages given pursuant to chapter 24S, Laws
| 1897, followed.
g. In an action against city or VII
lage for damages for injuries caused by
! a defective street, the injured party is
not limited IN his recovery to the
amount claimed in his notice given pur-
suant to chapter 24S, Laws 1897. While
| that statute requires the notice to con-
tain specification of the compensation
/ claimed, the injured party is not con-
/ Guided by the amount stated therein but
may recover his actual damages Order
/ affirmed Brown, j.