The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-07
MUST PAY
SUPREME COURT sUsTAINs YER
DICT In HAHN BREACH OF
PROMISE SUIT
NINE DECISIONS HANDED DOWN
Case Against kittson Estate Is Sent
Back for TriaI-SyIIabi
of All the De-
cisi0ns.

The supreme court yesterday handed
down nine decisions, in three of which
the decision of the lower court is re-
versed.
In the now famous breach Of promise
case of Mary Hahn against Anton Bet
tingen, tried twice 10 the district court,
the 81. coo verdict in favor of the plaintiff
is allowed to stand. The jury returned
verdict for $4,000, but the district court
reduced this to $4,000 with the alternative
Of a new trial. The supreme court, in
affirming the decision of the lower court,
holds that the effect to be given to the
testimony of the plaintiff is a question
for the jury, regardless of contradictions
in the testimony in the two trials in the
lower court. The court also approves the
introduction of testimony showing that
the defendant was married man when
he first met the plaintiff, and prior to
the proposal of marriage.
The supreme court Teverses the decis-
ion of the Ramsey county district court
in the case of the. st. Paul Trust COM
pany VS.. the heirs Of the Kittson estate.
The Trust company sued to recover $1S,-
250 fees for administering the estate and
disbursements in connection with the
settlement of the estate. The probate
court reduced the claim to $4,000. An
appeal was taken to the district court,
and was dismissed upon motion of the
defendants. The supreme court reverses
this decision, and the case is remanded
for trial upon it's merits
Another Ramsey county decision was
reversed in the case of Henry S. Fair
child VS.. Thomas H., George w. and
John W. Cunningham. The district court
awarded Fairchild commission fee on
a sale CT piece of property owned by the
CunninShams under the following cir
CumStanceS:
Fairchild had a contract with the
Cunninghams for the sale of a certain lot
in st. Paul, the value of which was fixed
at $4,000. He was unable to procure a
customer for it at that price, and pro-
posed subdivision of the property. Fair
child made the division and procured an
offer from one Yungbauer of $500 for
part of it. This was rejected by the
owners, as was a subsequent offer from
Yungbauer of $1,000. The owners subse-
quently Informed Fairchild that they had
placed the property in the hands of one
Lawton exclusively. Subsequently Yung-
bauer purchased half the property from
the owners direct for $4,000. Fairchild
brought suit to recover his commission.
The district court awarded him YER
Gict.
The decision in the case Of Lima Chris
Hanson VS. the Norwich Union Fire In
suranee society is of particular interest.
syIIibus of the Decisions.
Mary Hahn. respondent; VS.. Anton Bet
tingen, appellant.
In an action for a breach of promise
held:
The testimony of the prosecutrix was
not SO contradictory as to require its
rejection as an entirety, and her CREDIBLE
lty Was question for the jury.
The mere fact that a party to a suit
testified in former action between the
same parties, contradictory to his testi-
meny in later action, does not conclude
him ASA question of law, but the effect
to be given to his testimony is question
In re ROSS. estate. 81 MINI. 2s2
Appellant having been formerly mar
ried man, it was proper 10 show the ex-
tent and nature OF the acquaintance of
the parties Curing such time for the ef-
feet it may have upon their subsequent
conduct
Evidence examined and held that the
quire an order setting it aside upon the
ground that the jury was influenced by
passion and prejudice.
Held, that the trial judge exercised
sound legal discretion in reducing the
verdict from $4,000 to $4,000, conditional
upon the granting of a new trial. Or
der affirmed. Lewis, j.
Henry s. Fairchild, respondent, vs.
Thomas H. Cunningham, John w. Cum
ningham and George W. Cunningham,
appellants
/. A real estate broker is not entitled
to commission for the sale of land I'M
less he procures a purchaser who is
able ready and willing to complete
purchase on terms named by. or which
are, in the absence Of an express agree
ment as to terms, satisfactory and ac-
ceptable to the owner.
2. Where negotiations by the broker
with one who contemplates buying re-
suit in a definite proposition to the own
er, who rejects the same there being no
agreement by which .he is bound to ac-