The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-31
To-days
Supreme Court
Decisions
Hennepin County.

appellant.
The beneficiary is a certificate of mem
bership in a mutual benefit association, has
no vested interest therein. but mere ex
pectancy. liable to be terminated any time
at the will of the member.
The certificate of membership, and the con-
StltutiOn and bylaws, constitute the contract
between the member and the association and:
not with the beneficiary. The regulations
governing a revocation or change of benef-
ciary are made for the protection of the asso-
citation, and to carry into effect the will and
intention Of the member, and may be waived
varied by the association in order to &C
complish that result. -
The constitution Of the association under
consideration provided: 'Any member de-
string to make new direction as to the pay.
ment Of his beneficiary certificate may do
so by authorizing such change in writing upon
the back thereof in the form prescribed, at
tested by the recorder, seal OF lodge attached,
and delivery of his certificate and payment
of so cents to the recorder, whereupon the
change shall at once take effect. The re-
} corder shall, thereupon, make a record there
OF and report the same to the grand recorder,
forwarding the 80 cents and certificate. The
grand recorder shall thereupon Issue new
certificate as directed, having the same num-
! Der and conditions as the old"
| Just prior to his death. the member signed
a document changing the beneficiary, which
was 2LLeSleQ Dy the recOfuel anu Sedlsu Nilu
J the seal OF the lodge. This instrument was
| on: a form furnished by the recorder, and was
| not the one usually filled out on the back Of
/ the certificate. After execution 1t was delv-
cred to the recorder and the fee paid Held:
1t was substantially required by the pro-
visions OF the constitution, and If not in strict
| conformity Herewith, the association waived
| the variance and the beneficiary cannot ques-
! ton it. .-'
! Order affirmed Lewis, j.
| Adelia c. Byard, appellant, The Palace
| Clothing House Company, corporation, re-
| spondent..
| In an action for damages alleged to have
| been caused by basket falling from the wire
| of cash and bundle carrier system by rea-
| son Of it's defective and dangerous condition.
! Held:
| First-It was error to sustain an objection
! to question which was intended to show that
| other baskets Of the same system had fallen
on prior occasions. Appellant was not, in the
! first instance, required to prove that sucn
| baskets fell because of a defective system or
| imperfect construction f.. 49,.
| Second-It was not error to refuse motion
! to amend the complaint by adding that the
| injury occurred through improper operation
| Of the system.
! Thrd-Other rulings OF the court exam
| ined and sustained.
Lewis, ].
! Ramsey County.
| Adam RebeSk, by Charles Reberk, his guar
dian ad Item, appellant, VS.. Norne & DAM
| company, corporation, respondent
! First-The obligation of an employer in a
| complicated business where a large number
| of servants mutually engaged to formd
! late and enforce proper rules for their Goa
| duct will not authorize a claim for damages
l euDlOyeS KNOWLEDGE
| of repeated violations Of such rule continues
! thereafter in the service until Injured from
! such attractions of duty without notice to the
master Of such violation of duty by his fell
| low servants. ..I =. -..,s. e. ;
| Second-Upon the allegations Of the COM
! plant showing that manufacturer Of tin
| ware had failed to enforce rules prohibiting
the throwing OF dangerous substances around
| the room when plaintiff was at work, whereby
| such servant was injured, and that such
servant with full knowledge of the violations
| of duty in thi= respect, it will be held that
! he assumed the risks of the situation and
1 could not, recover. Order affirmed.
! as Lovely, J..
| Eva Herbert, respondent, VS.. st. Paul City
Railway Company, appellant.
| First-A street car company is required to
| exercise the highest degree Of care to keep
! it's platforms and steps~in safe condition for
|
practically can do SO, in consideration of the
| climate, temperature, condition Of the air,
| with respect to snow, moisture and frost.
! Second-Evidence considered and held tc
sufficiently support verdict for plaintiff upon
the claim that she was passenger on a
street car and when alighting therefron
slipped and fell from the same by reason
of ice and snow negligently permitted by the
carrier to be and remain upon its steps an(
platforms.
Third-Held. that under the evidence in thi:
case the verdict of the jury cannot be held t
be excessive. Order affirmed. =.
Lovely, J.
Nellie Burton, doing business as N. Burton
& Co., appellant VS. Charles Gage and Alex
Kerr copartners as Gage & Kerr. c. A
Smith Lumber company, corporation ant
Edward c. Rogers, as clerk Of said court
respondents.
First-A logging contract between lum
Der company and the contractee who ha,
agreed to perform services hereunder wa
verbally transferred by the latter to- a ,thirt
party as security for supplies, portion o
which were delivered at the time of sucl
transfer held not void under the terms o
section 42l0, General Statutes 1894.
Second-Chapter 268, General Laws 1899
held not applicable to the facts as found BY
| the trial court in this case, for the reason
tractee Of the lumber company and the fur
nisher of the supplies, the parties We're acting
in perfect good faith.
| Thrd-EVidence considered and held ampl
to support the findings of fact which ais,
justify the conclusion of law based thereon
Order affirmed. Lovely, ].
Charles McCord, as executor of the last vii
and testament Of w. j. McCord, deceased
appellant, VS.. Thomas c.. Sullivan, re
spondent y.
Frst-General Statutes 1884, section 1881
, requiring notice of tax sale to be given b.
the county auditor, as therein directed, i
mandatory and must be strictly compile
with. proper posting and publication o
such notice is an indispensable prerequisit
I to the authority of the auditor to make tn
| sale, without which he has no jurisdiction t
| proceed. ....... -....... . .t..........
Second-The! legislature may cure irregu
larfties in tax proceedings which do not 60 t
the jurisdiction of the officers conducting th
proceedings, or affect the substantial right
of the taxpayer. Irregularities and defect
| of this latter character are beyond the aid Q
curative legislation.
! Third-Chapter los, laws 1901, attempting t
| vandate tax sales made prior to it's passag
where there was a failure to give the motto
| of sale required by the general statutes
such notice being judicitional and a conditio
precedent to the authority to make the salt
is unconstitutional and void. Judgment re
! versed. Brown j.
| Thomas M. Mathews, appellant VS.. Williaf
IL N. Lghtner, receiver of the Bank c
II Minnesota, respondent.
II First-A title is not unmarketabIe wher
no question of fact is involved and it is goo