The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-04-19
Document wassNot Certified.

collins, j.
Document WassNot Certified.
William G.. Merz, appellant, VS.. The. Chi
cago q North Western Railway Com
paly, respondent.
1. Where property is in the hands Of
common carrier and possession thereof is
demanded by stranger to the bill Of
1ading, prior to actual shipment and under
claim of ownership the carrier, having
reasonable doubt as to which party is en-
tltled to possession and acting in good
which to investigate the claims of the
respective parties, and for this purpose
may delay immediate shipment.
= what is reasonable time for inyesti-
gaUon is ordinarily a question for the
jury and depends upon the circumstances
Inc question of good faith on the part
OF the carrier is also one for the jury,
ordinarily.
q 1t is a sufficient defense in an action
for conversion brought against a COM
mon carrier. to prove that there has been
a seizure of the property under legal
process, but the burden of proof is upon
SUCH carrier to show that the process was
regular and valid upon its face. 1t is the
duty also of the carrier, in case of a seiz-
ufe UNDER process, to notify the shipper
promptly OF the tendency of the legal
proceedings in order to enable him TO
make proper defense. If this notice is
promptly and properly given, an action
Tor conversion will not lie, for the carrier
mas a night to presume that the party no.
tlned will attend to his property and pro-
tect it in the suit.
T. At the trial of this action defendant
o1ered in evidence, and there was re-
ceiVed, over the objection of the plant
III s counsel, an alleged CORY of a iudg-
ment roll from a court of general ilIris
dlctlon in the state of Iowa. Held. that
thls copy was not certified to rs required
py GeneraI Statutes, 1884, section 5725, and
lhdt It's ADMISSION in evidence constituted
reversible error.
order reversed; new trial granted.
Collins, J.
Defense Not Available.
Avory Planter Company. a corporation.-
respondent, VS.. Elmer L. Peck, appel
1. The evidence was conclusive that
tneie was no rescission of the contract
VIII reference to return of the ma
chlne claimed defective under the war
Ianty.
The exclusive remedy for a breach
od tne warranty was that provided in the
contract of purchase, and upon failure to
comply herewith the defense of failure
OF consideration was not available to the
purchaser IN an action upon the notes.
OAueA ahlAneo. Lewis, ].
Errors Must BE Certified.
]. I. Case Threshing Machine Comnanv.
appellant, VS.. Charles Hoffman and
Robert Wilson, respondents
Flrst-No error cap be assigned for tina
1aiiure to instruct jury as to the suf-
nclency of evidence, in the absence of a
request to that effect 5--f
+,;oI =; = " NY Lie AhOtIOn Tor new
o[ldl is based upon more than one ground
assignments of error must specify the
particular error. relied upon
Ihlrd-Where the motion for a new
triai IS made and determined upon the
minutes OF the court, the court is not re-
CURED to entertain and determine tha
motion de novo, upon a settled case. Or
der affirmed. lewis
Complaint Was Sufficient.
Feter peterson and Bred Brodersen. re.
Spondents, VS.. Henning Landau appel
IN an action brought by the vendees to
rescind a written contract for the1esoio
OF land, upon the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation as to boundary lines. it
IS q, held that the complaint stated facts
9rdnn 70 constitute cause of action.
9ioei dlilr1nea Collins, j.