The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-07-18
COURT SAYS LESSEE
MUST CLEAR DEBRIS
FROM SITE OF FIRE
Supreme Tribunal of the State
Hands Down Decision of
Great interest to Every Prop
erty Owner.

OF two cases decided by the supreme
court yesterday one has local applica-
ton. This is the action of Caroline T..
and Henry F. Boardman against Fred
erick Howard and Edward A. Crisham.
in which Judge Lewis. of the Ramsey
county district court. is upheld in his
judgment whereby the plaintiffs were
awarded $415.
The suit was consequence of the
fire of Nov. 10, 1901, which DESTROYED
the Sherman building, at the corner of
Ninth and Wabasha streets, which was
owned by the Boardmans and leased by
them to Howard and Crisham, who
used it as storage warehouse. After
the fire. the defendants vacated the
building. and the plaintiffs resumed
possession Dec. 1.
The defendants paid no rent after
Nov. l, and left the damaged contents
of the building as they were. Suit was
brought by the owners of the building
to compel the former occupants to pay
Tor the removal of the rubbish which
renamed after the fire. and also rent
OF the building for the month of No
vember The claim of the plaintiffs for
the removal of rubbish was 1910 which
the trial court allowed, adding rent
for November, and thus making the to-
tai amount of the judgment $415 Costs
and disbursements also were assessed
In affirming tibet Judgment OF Judge
Lewis the supreme court says
Under lease. by the terms of which
the tenant is required to return the
premises in as good condition as re-
celVed, except where damaged by fire
ETC., this condition which relates to the
building forbids the tenant to leave
thereon his own distinguishable prop
erty which had been Injured and made
worthless by fire where the tenancy
mad been terminated by agreement of
the parties.
Promise Does Not Revive Note.
The only other decision handed down
yesterday relates to a Minneapolis case
that of the International Harvester
Company of California against Frank
]. Lyman.
Lyman, it is shown by the evidence
IN the case. passed through bankrupt
cy in the early part of 1902, and at
that time owed the harvester company
$35O.S4. Later in the same year he
wrote to the company Offering to set
Tie this Indebtedness in installments of
500. but this proposition was refused.
me company insisted upon settlement
OF the full amount, and began suit
upon the original promissory note
given by Lyman, making his offer to
settle IN installments the basis of a
The case was tried in MINNEAPOLIS
before Judge Cray. and his Judgment
was that the action had been improp-
erly brought upon the promissory note,
which merely constituted the evidence
| or the original Indebtedness The new
promise, he decided, should have been
made the basis of action.
The supreme court decides against
tne plalntlH company upon the ground
that the debt was not revival and
says:
To revive debt which has been dis
charged in bankruptcy. a conditional
promise thereafter to pay the original
obligation in installments must be ac-
cepted by the creditor
Where. after such discharge, in re-
spouse to an offer by the debtor to pay
the original obligation in installme.Ns.
the creditor expressly declines to as
sent to the conditions and insists Ipon
payment of the whole amount. the
debt is not revived