The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-01-09
LEGACY TO A BISHOP
A Will Bequeathing $4,000 to Bish-
op Cotter Declared to Be
Void.
Contest Between Minneapolis Bust
ness Schools for Use Of Name
Is Settled.

In addition to the King case, the SUI
preme court to-day handed down eigh-
teen decisions besides several per curiam
poinions
A will leaving an estate in trust to
Bishop Cotter Of Winona is held void In
a case appealed from Houston county
The balance willed to Bishop Cotter was
about $4,000. The syllabus says:
In re estate of Phil Slnnnlau, deceased; Williein
Sh;tnahan and bridget Walsh. Respondents. vs..
james. g, kaltr g, ~ ,pne.lan.s .roo
masses to be distributed by his executor. 81 900
to the bishop of Little Rock. naming him. or to
his successors for the education Of priests for his
diDcese. and the residue Of his estate to- the
bishop of Winona, naming him. or to his success
ors for the educutton of priests for his diocese.
First-That the requests were not direct and
absolute gifts to the several legatees, but gifts
second-That all express trusts. including
charitable trusts, In both real and personal prop
srty are abolished BY our statute relating to
that under the statute the beneficiary OF trust
must be certain or capable OF being rendered
Third-All of the trusts attempted to be Gre
atcd by the will here in question are forbidden
Order affirmed. Start, G. J.
Restraints Business College. - -.
A controversy between two Mime
apolis business colleges is settled in IA
vor of Rickard & Gruman, proprietors of
the Minnesota School of Business, and
the Cation College company is restrained
from using the subtitle ''Minnesota's
School of Business The syllabus says:
Charles E. Richard and Grove a. Gruman, CO.
partners Richard s. Gruman, respondents,
vs. the Cation College company ct al, appell-
Where a private educational institution has
been established and designated by name under
which it has acquired valuable reputation ana
business character an imitation OF Its established
| ,,>@ I1o {vr t,afp
will be enioined as unfair business competition,
although the name initiated Is not the subject
Order affirmed. Lovely, j.
Disability Was Sufficient.
An important ruling is made in fra
ternal insurance case coming up from
Hennepin county, in which the Order of
Columbian knights is required to pay a
disability benefit The syllabus says:
! John Montgomery Monahan respondent. vs. the
Supreme Lodge of the Order of Columbian
First~Certain assignments Of error considered
| and disposed of. .rs 49,
second-~Defendant was a fraternal and bene
| fetal order with bylaw, which provided that
totally and permanently disabled by reason
| patton Whatever he might be paid a certain
sum of money out Of the funds of the order
| Held, that in order to recover under this sec
tion it is not necessary that a member shall be
| disabled to the extent that he has not sufficient
| physical power to follow some easy occupatlOI
| and to perform some slight service. although
under great disadvantage and while suffering
| great bodily pain.
| Order affirmed. collins, j.
Can't Collect Claim. :..'
Former Senator Reeves Of Glenwood
loses his claim for $217 for services rem
dered Burt J. Sawyer before 1894, be-
cause they are barred by the statute OF
Limitations. The syllabus: y
| In the matter Of the estate of Burt J. Sawyer
| deceased; Charles p. Reeves, appellant, vs.
Franklin J. Sawyer and Albert 6. Chambers
| as administrators of the estate Of Burt j
! Sawyer. deceased respondents. ~rs5
| First--Where an attorney makes collections
for his client and applies the amount collected u
! payment Of previous services due him. an entr!
Of such credits on his account books will not sus
| pend the operations of the statute of limitation
as to portions Of the account previously barred
! Second-The surviving party to- an action. 0
one interested In the event thereof, is prohtbte,
from giving conversations directly carried o.
with a deceased party, or to testify to results o
differences that might be derived from such
conversation - e.. = RI.
Third-Where evidence has been improperl
admitted the trial of an action and the cour
finds against such evidence, it must be- treate
as having been disregarded and cannot be con
sidered on review here.
Order affirmed. Lovely, j.