The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-07
DRAINAGELAW TEST
Validity of the Grindeland Measure
Is Upheld by the Supreme g.:
Z Court. 80 -. y
The Decision Handed Down in the
Case Carried Up From
Polk County ...s

Polk County,
the legislature In 1901, is held valid in
a decision handed down by the supreme
court to-day. Its ,constitutionality was
questioned by some Polk county farmers.
who We're assessed to pay the costs of a
ditch ordered by the county commission
ers. Attorneys believed that the law was
defective. but the court, according to rule,
strains point to make it valid. The
opinion Is written by Judge Brown. The
syllabus Is as follows:
State rel John Utick ct al. petitioners, VS..
Board of County Commissioners. Polk county
Ftrst--In Of mperfectly drawn statutes,
the court. rather than pronounce them unconsti-
tutionnl and void. will draw differences from the
evident Intent Of the legislature as gathered
from the whole statute supplying by implica-
ton technical inaccuracies In expression and OBJ
vionsly unintentional omissions, from the neces-
sity of making them operative and enectual as
to specific things which are included in the
broad and comprehensive terms and purposes
thereof; and such differences and implicattO are
os much n part Of the statute as what Is distinct
ly expressed therein.
Second-Chapter 25s. General Laws 1901 an
act prov idng for the drainage Of wet and over
flowed lands In certain cases. construed and held
q valid constitutional Legislative enactment.
IhlrdEA petition IN proper FORM hIed as re-
prerequisite to the authority OF the county
missioners to entertain a proceeding thereunder
hui the description Of proposed ditch need not
be stated with precise accuracy. 1t is sufficient
that the starting point. course and terminus be
stated with approximate accuracy: the board, in
ordering the const ruction Of a ditch under such
statute. being finally guided by the description
rs contained in the surveyors report.
Writ quashed. Brown J.
Other decisions handed down to-day
were follows:
Redwood County.
A verdict Of $3.50 for breach Of promise
Is affirmed in the following:
Mary NJ. Birum, respondent, Isaac johnson.
appellant: :,
First-where an engagement Of marriage is
entered into to take place on the happening of
future event. the law implies that the promise
shall be fulfilled within reasonable time there
after. which may depend. where specific date
is named, upon the character of such event.
Second-Where party has promised another
to fulfill marriage contract return from
trip nnoac. lapse Of time and conduct Of such
party after his return which show that he does
not intend to fulfill his promise, under the
facts Of this case. may be regarded the
equivalent OF refusal to do 30 and to dispense
with request to perform marriage by the other
party.
Third-In actions of this nature it is adj
missible to establish the pecuniary ability of
stantial injury which plaintiff has sustained.
Fourth--In such cases evidence OF the fnan-
al ssnding OF the be shown
Order affirmed. Lovely, ].
Ramsey County
Sarah G. Halves, appellant. vs.. Jacob Fliegler,
respondent. Syllabus:
First-Section SO, chapter 7. special laws 1887.
which was amended by section q chapter ~. spe
ciul laws 1891. whereby two Publications Of ap-
plication for Judgment by the city treasurer for
street sprinkling assessments are required, has
not been changed. 80 as to reduce the number
of publications TO one, by section 7, chapter I,
special laws 1901.
second-Cpon the facts in this case, held. that
sale Of real property, on Judgment for street
srrinking assessments. under the st. Paul city
charter, invalid for failure to give sufficient
notice by publication Of the application for such
Judgment by the city treasurer.
Judgment affirmed. Lovely. J.
St. Louis County.
Township of Canosia respondent. vs.. Township
Of Grand Lake ct al. defendants, and tow nship
Of Grand Lake. appellant. syllabus:.
On former appeal In this the Judgment
appealed from reversed by this court, and
the remanded for further proceedings;
held. npon the facts stated in the opinion that a
new trial was properly granted by the court be-
Order affirmed. Brown, J.
Minneapolis Municipal Court.
James F.. Thomas appellant. A. Murphy, re-
spondent
First-1f party conceals fact material to
knowledge, knowing that the other party acts
the presumption that such fact exists 1t is
mich Of fraud II the existence Of such a
expressly stated.
second-Rule applied and held that the findings
of fact herein are sustained by the evidence and
that they sustain the conclusion of law to the
effect that the check which is the subject matter
Of this action was obtained from the defendant
by fraud
Order affirmed. Start. ].
Freeborn County.
verdict Of $1,000 Is affirmed in the
following:
Emma Guthier. respondent, vs. Minneapolis s
st. Louis Railroad company, appellants
Held, in this. personal injury action, tina,
the damages awarded are not excessive.
Order affirmed. Start, J.
Blue Earth County.
Margaret Funk, respondent, vs.. Gaylord Lamb
A transcript of Judgment Of the municipal
court of the city Of Mankuto showing the name,
of the judgment debtor and creditor that 1udr
ment was in fact rendered and the date ant
amount thereof. and certified to be transcript
of the Judgment instead OF the docket entrie
thereof IL compliance with section 10 Of tn
act creating such court Special laws 1885, chap
ter JIG.
Order reversed. Start ].
HennepIn County.
Nichols Ganser. respondent vs. Anna Ganser
administratrix ct al. defandents, and JOSEPH
lngerhutt ct AL, appellants.
hattie Miller respondent VS.. Anna Ganser,
administratriS, ct al, defendants, and JOSEPH
lngerhutt ct al, appellants.
Complaint construed and held to state a caus
OF action against administrators for her fan
ure to pay distributee her share of the estate
Judgment affirmed -Brown +
Stevens County.
Cornelius Hanlon. respondent, vs.. Dennis Hen
nessey ct al. defendants, and Dennis Hennes
sey, appellant
In constituting a Judgment with respect to it
form and suffeiency. recourse must be had to tn
pleadings IN the action to ascertin whether tn
relief awarded Is within the issue there made
and any matter appearing in the Judgment no
pertinent to such issues may be rejected n
surplusage, If what remains grants a defnit
and specific relief within the issues. The ey,
dence may not be referred to on this subject az
cept perhaps, where it is made a part Of tn
record and then only for the purpose of asce,
tanning whether a matter covered by the iudp
ment was within an issue litigated on the trie
by consent OF parties.
Judgment affirmed. brown r
AN INGENIOUS MESSAGE.