The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-05-15

is mail on receipt Of 81. ri
n~~@~~~~~1~
/ and IS a bar to further proceedings upon the
facts set forth in the pleadings
,nurrer TO the complaint after due submission Of
the; issues therein, plaintiff sought to dismiss
order ae, therefor om the held that
order was unauthorized; but n Judgment entered
Fourth--Where a judgment was enormously
entered which would not be bar to new &C
1.-the court against objections SO as to make 1t
dismissal upon the merits I
! Reversed. Lovely, }.
! Other Decisions.
| y Two per curtain decisions affirm the or
ders of the lower court. One Is the case
| of Lindahl against the Minnesota & North
WISCONSIN Railroad company and the other
Frank w. Forman and M. Louise Parker
against Henry j. Saunders.
Other opinions filed to-day were as fol-
I lows:
st. Louis County.
Edward G. Iiedel, as administrator. respondent,
vs. Northern Pacific Railway COMPANY appel app
Certain property owners executed = deed to
branch road across their property.
Contract construed and held:
contract was not priv ate line for the benefit Of
the property owners only; but public nne s,h
part of the cOmpany,s railroad system ana SUD
! 5ect to the general state laws governing rail
roads.
ssecond-The grade at which the road should
be built was not fxed by the contract and IT
was contemplatsd by the parties that should os
Third deriSns title 10 from tSe
ton Of the road 70 buff warehouses; upon his
property. contiguous to the track and right OF
I way has claim for damages on account or
the expense necessary 70 RAISE me waren1uses 10
conform to new grade established ~ me ran H.
way company subsequent TO the con5truet1on OF
tnE evidence is conclusive that such
to Of Rer Of e
ers ~ ,h;c Necessity 70 more enectualiy
, handle freight and to conform to the grade Of
nc order ynr reyersed Dan INC = ~ Lewis. ].
ramsey Sounty'
State of Minaesota, respondent, vs.. Charles Bo-
' The finder Of lost property is not guilty OF
larceny thereof unless ne appropriates the same ~
every reasonable effort t. find the owner and re.
instruct the jury. fss ~
, The presumption arising from possession of re.
Gently stolen property is one Of fact and not Of
such possession and whether under the cirep I'M
guilt is question Of fact for the jury. Held,
len property, under the circumstances, was prima
iaele sv,aehee OF gul nniess accounted ior oy
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Lewis ).
: Selma p. olson respondent Us. Brooks: scanlon
Lumber Company ct al dsfendan rs Minnesota
! RRsLants; :. e.
the sale Of land that the yenaee is to pay inter,
est upon the deferred al taxes upon
null and void and s al Which
msnts upon the land become the absolute ;e1 prop
erty OF the vendor, the vendee is entitled to I'M
mediate possession Of the property by
y trespass. quare clausum BY one not holding the
se to nd thus in ~
a self at the time the alleged trespass was com
m 'TSi1d-Held in the case at bar that the
plaintiff vendee failed to show sufficient posses
3 vendor, to recover in an action Of trespass quare
S clausum, but that taking into consideration the
in Which the tried in the
e laid down in Crukshank VS. Railway Co. IS
Justified Sspf oG
Z nrders afsrned t'ia a. c,o1,;rs s.
n n lie sueur County pun
u a FPrpstmsect,on b4a4 camera, sta,tes 1904
II tnorlzng an actlon 70 SCI ASIDE Judgment OBJ
provide Tor the Of cause Whch
= been fully determined upon Its merits where
pleadings in the former suit clearly apprised the
psrtes OF the Issues therein and Of the nature
required to meet and contest the cause Of action
a on which such Judgment was obtained.
III secopd-Geisberg vs.. o'Laughlin, SO N W.
$40. considered and distinguished from the case
~ at bar T7E. ~ =. 2 =
II Order reversed Lovely, j.
IsgEfs.s9 ss .l y. 80 q, 4
Nor Graz ont ITorr
respondent 81 q :. - 2
= Of a deceased person who died intestate isap
Piled for either By the next Of KIN or creditors
a within the period fixed BY general statutes 1894
Is fsectton ASIA for the presenta ton Of Claims
against the estate and no claims are fled or pre-
sented within that time or aiministration had
.. dispense with the. appointment Of an admias
traitor and formal administrator by anaicable
rahqs and ts acorn 20 dhGr tie
e. to such property ~ 800
ID Second complaint in this action allsge
No that the note In suit vas given by Defendant t
Of M lis