The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-04-06
LOVER COURT REVERSED
SUPREME COURT FILES IMPORTANT
DECISION IN RE BANK OF
MINNESOTA
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Does Not Begin to Run Until "a De-
mand for Payment of Claim
Is Actually
Made.

! Five decisions were handed down by
| the supreme court yesterday afternoon,
! thus clearing up the October term cal
! endar. The case of most local interest
! is the one entitled In re ReceiVership
/ Bank of Minnesota, Hitler H. Horton as
| receiver of o. Walker ct al, appellant,
VS.. Frank A. Seymour and w. Fl.
Lightner, receivers of Bank of Minnesota,
! respondents"
! The bank of Minnesota became in
! solvent and the respondents were APP
! pointed receivers of its property Dec. %,
1896 The appellant, as the receiver of
Walker, Judd & Veazie, on March 20,
1897 made proof of and filed with the re-
| spondenrs claim against the Bank of
! Minnesota amounting to SIS, 1885, which
was disallowed by them Thereupon he
appealed to the district court of Ram
sey county. The appellant served a
! formal complaint, and the respondents
answered, putting in issue certain OF the
allegations of the complaint, and pleading
the statute of limitations and a counter
| claim arising from an alleged overdraft.
| The real point of the case hung on the
! question as to whether the statute of
limitations could be applied. The syllabus,
which explains the rest, follows:
In re Receivership Bank of Minnesota,
HIer II. Horton, as receiver OF o.
w dlkef ct al, appellant, VS.. Frank A.
seymour and w. II. Lightner, receivers
Bank OF Minnesota, respondents
WheTe 1t appears from contract that
1t was the Intention CT the parties there
TO that the money or claim which is the
S S.IJt matter therefor was to be paid
| upon a demand in fact, the statute of
limitations does not begin to run until
an actual demand for payment is made
Inc 1lndlng and decision of the trial
cou,t TO the effect that the plaintiffs
cialm is barred by the statute Of limita
Ilons are not sustained by the evidence.
Judgment reversed ana new trial granted.
stewart, Z. j.
Lucy a(,yo a, Blew, respondent, VS.. Fred Ritz,
Claims for mesne Profits are usually
consequential to and dependent mon q
recovery of the land lin eicctmentl vet
Wnere the dlsseizor has surrendered or
apandoned the premises before suit and
~ aa u owner is III possession, such
0ma a'7 may maintain trespass for the
wrongful entry and have damages for.
the same eN' 'oi
so Mhen a lessor has put party in pos
Sc9sloi1 Oh lsnd, and the complaint relies
enIlfely on his landlords right to suoh
ktopeFty as DIS defense to an action Of
i trftsrass' a Judgment to determine the
and cono IL Inc lessor therein is binding
GU cohcluSlVe upon the tenant and
conn eeent evidence i'll suit against tho
i&&tter, although he was nor par T1,v
~; "A trespasser upon land cannot CLAIM,
py reason o. his unlawful 0ccunatfon
ti (Ior less than the legal hmita-
t tIWm hherSin2 that the real owner, al
estoIped to sue for damages for +h 40
wrongful acts committed Order Of
hrmed. TEruS1 az
John McAlphne. RESPONDENT VS. N1+o,,
hardt, appellant '" Mill
;sS w nere IN an action triable to the court
issues OF fact are submitted to q 49, -
such issues will be considered here ;,]lo y,
review IN the light treated bv the cn1rt
ano jury at the trial without arbitrariiv
probation. u inter
Where by the course of the trial in such
49, q case, counsel concur with the court
tcns submitted, so as to impress the i11r,,
Win Their view they will be bound there
ny, although the expression of such
ii' 9Thnsas may, may not be legally accurate.
sMered by the jury in this case and held
mat In the way in which such ouestions
were submitted the answers of the Jury
clusIons of law by the trial court.
When a purchaser of land for a yalu-
anie consideration has notice of facts
and circumstances which would mi q
reasonably prudent man on INQUIRY of a.
! prior unrecorded conveyance to a third
party, he is not purchaser in good
| 1880 P"9e
Plaintiff purchased a tract of land en-
tered under chapter BIG, United Stats
statute at large, on which the full
amount of the purchase price had been
pald by the entryman, but before patent
| had been issued; held that the restric-
| ton in such act upon transfers of the
| entryman's rights before the issuance Of
| the patent did not benefit a SUBSEQUENT
! purchaser who procured a deed in fraud
! OF the rights Of the first grantee Order
| affirmed. Lovely. 7
Bertha Sunvold, appellant, VS.. H N. o.
Melby and B. a. Melby, respondents.
An order, made after this cause had
| been submitted to the court, but Def ore
decision had been made opening the
| case permitting the defendants to offer
! further evidence, construed and held that
! 1t was not an order setting aside stipu-
! lation of the parties, and further that it
! was not an appealable order. Appeal dis
! missed. Per curiam.
| In re appeal of the County of Cook from
| the allowance by the county commits
sioners of said county, Brown, Treacy
| q Co, respondents, vs.. The County Of
! Cook. Minnesota, appellant
! An appeal from a Judgment of the dis
! trfct court in proceedings on appeal from
! the action of the board Of county com
| missioners on a claim against the county
! pursuant to General Stuates OF 1894 page
! 645 must be taken within thirty DAYS
| after the entry thereof. Appeal els
! missed. Start e.
HTr7TTY NnTYrcTn 1ErY vrT hYYTzr-