The Minneapolis journal., 1902-07-25
MUST PAY THE TAX
The Supreme Court Decides Against,
Manchester College
ON WATER MAIN ASSESSMENTS.
The College Claimed Exemption, but
the Courts Have Denied
the Claim. .s 5ra-,.

The supreme court holds in a decision
handed down to-day by Judge Lovely that
educational institutions are not exempt
from taxes for special improvements. The
question was raised by the trustees Of
Macaleseter college, St. Paul, who OBJ
jected to the payment Of water main
assessment Of S505.S1. The syllabus says:
In re taxes Ramsey county, state OF Mlnne-
sofa, plaintiff, VS.. Trustees of Manchester
college, objectors.
First-Macalester college Is not entitled to
the benefit Of exemptions an educational
Institution from burdens imposed to pay for
water mains laid on three sides OF the college
grounds, authorized by chapter no. sections
1927, Special Laws of 1885, providing for
water frontage assessments by the municipal
authorities of st. Paul. .s,.. ... ,..'a, z
Second-Held, further. upon the hearing OF
objections to assessments to pay for the bene-
fits to the college for such water mains upon
the authority of the decided cases IN this
court and of the federal tribunal having ulti-
mate cognizance thereof. that the same are
. not in violation either Of the state or federal
constitution Following State VS.. Rotert P.
Lewis company, II Mimi, 81, and upon rear
gument State. vs. Robert P. Lewis company,
50 Mimi, S9O-4O4, and of Parsons vs. District
OF Columbia. 10 U. S., 451s, Sup. Ct. 521.
Oorder affirmed. Lovely, ].
Other decisions handed down to-day
were as follows:
Otter Tail County.
Iver Thoraldson, appellant, VS.. A. c. Hatch,
E. A. Evarts and Orris Albertson, respond
ents.
First-Where a deed is deposited with a
person other than the grantee upon an agree
ment to deliver it upon the performance OF
certain conditions, it Is an escrow and 1t is
not necessary that the terms authorizing its
delivery be expressed in writing, but may De
declared orally at the time of the deposit.
Second-When a deed is deposited In escrow
to be delivered upon the happening OF GER
tain event or the performance OF specihed
condition. the depositor is not at liberty to
withdraw the deed or forbid Its delivery with
out the consent of the other party.
Third-When there is, deposit OF deed tc
be delivered upon certain conditions, the
escrow is not defeated by the death OF the
grantor, but delivery may be enforced there
after.
Fourth-Conditions in the deposit of deed
In escrow for the sole benefit of one OF the
parties thereto may be waived by him and a
delivery enforced. notwithstanding such con-
ditions.
/. Judgment affirmed. Lovely, j.
St. Louis County.
Grace B. Dram, appellant, VS.. Thomas Thomp'
son, respondent.
An oral agreement was maze TOT lease VI
real property for a year, to take effect IN the
future The intended lessor requested GER
tain Improvements in the premises whicE
were assented to by tho intended lessee 'anc
money expended thereon by him. At the time
when the lease was, under the agreement, tt
be executed, the intended lessee refused tt
accept the same or carry out the oral agree
mert On his part, the owner Of the propert!
formally offered to comply with its terms, bu
upon the refusal Of the other party thel
leased portion thereof to third party ant
brought suit to recover damages for the fail
ure to execute the lease.
- Held that an action would not lie for dam
ages under these facts, upon the ground thai
the agreement was void under the statute o
frauds.
Order affirmed. Lovely, +.