The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-08-02
BY COMBINATION OF cIRCUM-
STANCES DEADLOCK ARISES IN
STATE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE LOVELY COULD
NOT SIT ON THE CASE
He Resides in Freeborn County in
Which the Village of Emmons Is
Situated - A Deadlock Saves the
Lower Courts Decision From Any
Further Interference.

By a peculiar combination of cir
cumstances the supreme court has been
| constrained to give it's decision to the
village of Emmons in the action of
that corporation to compel the Mime
apolis & st. Louis road to erect and
maintain a passenger depot at that
point on it's line.
Owing to the fact that Justice Love-
| ly is a resident of Freedom county
and in the proceedings in the lower
court took an active interest as counsel
on behalf of the town of Emmons, he
| was disqualified from sitting upon this
| case a member of the supreme bench,
| and upon the decision of the court the
other four members were equally di-
Vided, Chief Justice Start and Justice
Brown being convinced that the town
of EmmonS has grown to sufficient
size and Importance to justify it's de-
mand for a station and therefore up
| holding the order of the district court
of Freeborn county. Justices Collins
and Lewis were not convinced that
the town was entitled to station and
were therefore inclined to reverse the
decision. However, as the court was
equally divided, the judgment of the
lower court could not be disturbed
The ground taken by the railroad
company in this contention was that
as there was a station just across the
Iowa line, less than a mile distant
from Emmons, there was no need for
one at that point.
The syllabi in this and other cases
decided yesterday are as follows:
Emmons Gets a Depot.
State of Minnesota eX rel, Railroad
and Warehouse Commissioners, respon-
dent, vs.. The Minneapolis & st. Louis
Railroad Company, appellant.
Judgment of the district court in man
damus proceedings requiring and com
pelling defendant railway company to
the Incorporated village of Emmons
Laws 1901, chapter 27O, affirmed by a
divided court, one member being disquali-
fed from taking part. Order affirmed.
Per Curtain.
Verdict Of Jury Stands.
Annie Jacobson, as administrative of the
estate of Mons w. Jacobson, deceased,
respondent, VS.. John R. Johnson, appel
liant
1. The rule laid down by this and other
courts that it is the absolute duty of
the master to furnish reasonably safe
appliances for the use and protection of
employees in his service recognized and
applied to the facts Of this case.
2. Where an employee is required to
work upon and about dangerous instru-
mentalities, the master cannot shield
himself from liability for injury caused
from neglect of this duty by reliance
upon the opinion of an expert as to the
safety of an appliance provided by him
when 1t does not appear that his eXamin-
alton of such expert was thorough and eff
fic1ent which is question of fact for the
jury.
8. Evidence considered and held suf-
ficient to sustain the finding Of the jury
that an employer failed to provide rea-
COT y%ny
a heavy iron crane by reason of which
neglect the stays broke, whereby the
crane fell upon an employe while engaged
in the masters service at his proper
place in the line of his duty; Order af-
tlrmed. Lovely, j.
Real Estate Decision.
Farnsworth Loan and Realty Company
appellant, VS.. Commonwealth Title In
surance and Trust Company, respondent
1. Several parcels of real property
upon each of which was apportioned a
specific lien as security for the payment
of designated sum were embraced in
that each lien should be treated separ-
ately. Held that the owner of such
mortgage might upon default enforce his
rights through foreclosure of each distinct
tract by advertisement under power of
sale and in such case would be entitled
to the same costs, disbursements and at
torneyS fees authorized by statute as if
each were covered by a separate mort
gage.
e Wnere several tracts or parcels Of
land upon each of which distinct lien
is applied thereto are embraced in a sin
gle mortgage. instrument as in this case
it is optional with the owner Of the Sc
curity, upon default to enforce his rights
in one proceeding for each separate lien
or to include all the liens covered by one
mortgage in one foreclosure by advertise
ment, although If he pursues the latter
course he may not have costs and dis
bursements for but one foreclosure. Judg-
ment reversed
Lovely, J.
Surety on Indemnity Bond.
The United States Fidelity and Guaranty
Company, appellant, VS.. August Sieg-
mann, respondent.
1. In an action to recover from an al
legged surety upon an indemnity bond, the
sought to be charged as such surety in
tended to sign the same as a Witness
but inadvertently placed his signature
| instead of in the proper place for a Wit
ness to sign. Held, between the original
parties to the transaction in a suit to
estopped from claiming that he did not
| execute the instrument as surety, al
though no facts were pleaded or proved
| to show that any fraud had been perpe-
trated to induce him to sign the bond in
the apparent capacity in which his name
appeared therein.
2. Evidence considered and held suffi-
| Gent to sustain the finding of the jury,
that the signature of a party to an in
! demn;ty bond as surety or co-obligor, was
| in fact placed there as a witness without
any intention to assume the obligation
| which the apparent purpose of the sigma
/ ture indicated upon the instrument. Or
! der affirmed. Lovely. J.
Liability of a Legatee.
| William M. Hunt, as receiver of the Al
| lemannia Bank, respondent vs.sElla L.
| Grant, appellant.
In an action by a creditor of a 'teStator
| against a legatee no greater amount can
be recovered than the legatee's proper
tionate share of the debt as defined in
| section 1921: General Statutes 1894. Or
der reversed. Lovely, J.
| ANOTAER RIISN nav AT