The Minneapolis journal., 1902-05-16

providing that no divorce shall be granted on
the sole confessions, admissions or testimony
OF the PARTIES either in or out of court. was
intended by the legislature to apply to divorce
actions the general rule In respect to corrobor-
ating evidence.
Second-The statute does not require, in
such actions, that the complaining party be
corroborated as to each item of testimony
gwen IN support of the complaint; it is suf-
hcient If the corroborating evidence tends in
scme degree to support and confirm the allc-5
cations relied upon for divorce.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
Brown, j. I
Samuel ]. Austin. respondent. VS.. Nelson D.
March and Charles N. March, co-partners
as March Bros, appellants.
First-Chapter 329 General Laws 1895, pro-i
Vldlng that when two or more persons make
claim, adverse to each other, to the whole or
part OF any money or property in the pos
session OF any other person as balee or GUS
todtan, or otherwise, the bailee or custodian,
Icing unable to determine to whom the same
| rtghtfully Belongs may, when action is
brought against him toirecover the same, pay
| the money or deliver the property to the clerk
or the court in which the action was brought,
and thereafter be relieved from any further
liability on account thereof, was designed and
intended to apply to bailee or custodian who
makes no personal claim to the money or
|
! that granted by courts of equity at common
law by the proceeding known as interpleader
| and the rules and principles of law applicable
thereto govern and control the statutory pro-
/ ceeding. 4V
! Second-Where Sthe bailee or custodian,
though having no claim or right to such prop
1 erty,- nevertheless asserts claim, or volun-
tarily contests the asserted right Of claim
ant thereto in an action brought to recover it,
ne valves the right to invoke the statute
and is bound by the Judgment against him.
Order affirmed.
eesst -. Brown, ].
G. =. Holden, respondent, VS.. Orlando B.
Turrell ct al, defendants; Howard N. Ron
ner, appellant. ~ (.
The statute of limitations prescribed In
the latter part of Section 1927, c.. S., 1894
is not set in motion in favor Of an heir, de-
visee or legatee by the allowance and estab-
lishment of a claim or account against a
guardian, upon whose bond their decedent
was a surety. Order affirmed.
Collins, J.
Lewis L. May, doing business as L.. l.. May
& Co., appellant, VS.. Charles D. Grawert
respondent. Id EI :
First-In an action tried to jury in jus.
, tce court it appeared from the docket en-.
tries that, the jury disagreed and was dis.
;, charged at 1890 p. M, March 49, The docket
failed to show any continuance or other dis
position OF the cause at that time or at an!
time subsequent to the discharge of the jury
and 1T contained no other entries until Apri
3, when, in response to a notice from de-
fendant's attorney that he would then appl!
"for new yenire for retrial," plaintiff
attorney appeared and objected to furthe
proceedings upon the ground that the cour
had lost jurisdiction Of the cause, which
objection was overruled, an exception taken
| or1 CT r1oin fnct fhorf frio
was had Held, that the justice lost juris
diction of the case by permitting period o
two weeks to elapse after diseharging tn
first jury before taking further action. y
Second-Before proceeding to trial, but afte
the objection, ruling and exception, counse
for plaintiff amended their complaint bu
not so as to change the cause of action. Held
that by this amendment plaintiff did no
waive or surrender his previously ASSERTED
objection and did not restore or confer juris
dction upon the court to further proceed
Judgment reversed. Collins, j.
]. G. Shaw Blank Book company, respondent
VS.. r.. J. Maybell, appellant.
First-A sale and transfer of book account
> as unpaid amounts to, warranty that the.
F. are unpaid, and such sale and transfe
81 amounts also to a warranty that they ar
, valid and existing, and are not fictitious.
they are, in fact, unpaid, or have never *
listed, breach aof the warranty arises OF
4, which'an action may be maintained.
Second-Where bill of sale is given to
vendee OF Book accounts, in which the onl,
description is. general, as follows: "All tn
I accounts and bills and notes receivable Il
favor of the vendor, the rule that paro
i contemporaneous evidence is inadmissble t
: contradict or vary the terms Of valid writ
:. ten instrument is not violated by parol proc
that certain purported ledger accounts ex
hibited by the vendor to the vendee at tn
: time Of the negotiations as genuine had pre-
D viously been paid in part and in part ha
I never existed
Third-No rule of evidence is infringed j
such case by parol proof introduced TO
! the purpose Of identifying the accounts sol
and that they were either paid or had neve
, existed Reversed and new trial granted.
Collins, ].