The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-07-24
n. R. LOSES A CASE
Supreme Court Says It Must Re-es-
tablish a Station at Bluff
tom, MINI.
Interesting Decision in a stockhold-
er's liability Case Is Handed
{ Down.

II 60
] The Northern Paciac must re-establish
Its stationsat Buffton. just west of Wa
dena,s in Otter Tail county The supreme
Icourt to-day granted the writ of manda-
mus sued for by w. IL Donahower, assist
| ant attorney general on behalf Of the
railroad and warehouse commission. The
railroad company said that the station,
fhad not paid expenses from 1895 to 1901,
when 1t was discontinued. 1t also repre-
[sented that the station was at the foot
IOf a l per cent grade, which made 1t
expensive to stop trains there. However,
the supreme court decides that the COM
MISSIONS order should be obeyed Tho
the town has only 100 inhabitants, there
lis a large farming population more con-
fvenient to it than to the new station of
lDopelius, three miles east, and the roads
are laid out with reference to Rluffton.
Judge Lovely says in his opinion that
1.-The decisive question in such a case
should not be the convenience and benefit
Of railway companies alone They un-
doubtedly have a right to consider their
own profit and convenience largely, but
also owe duties.to the public"
The syllabus Of the decision says:
State of Minnesota, ex. rel. Railroad and Ware
Pacific. Railway Company appellant.
/ In. an application for mandaInus, upon the
Sion to re-establish "a station which had been
removed by defendant from a point on its line
OF road, which removal greatly dlm1n1shes the
facilities for public use and is not in compliance
maintenan ne Of q railway station. Held, !.
i First-That the. superior convenience of a
raaa IS Rae il the the ns
l1shment or change of station facilities.
secend-That the rights of the public which
tn Dy Of
interference Herewith would be disadvantage
hs heh 9 2oa the an
Thfrd-That the question solely of expense in
the operation Of station or the diminntion Of
removal Or change Of station If public rights
are affected thereby.
to Justify an order of the railroad and ware
house commission requiring the defendant to re.
having a population Of 100 inhabitants, gen
eral store, with other industries incident to a
fifteen years depended upon the station for
, railway facilities, with highways located with
Il sSs = 2 , : q SS zs"Eg% Lovely, j..
, Must Pay Assessment.
Another opinion by Judge Lovely re-
verses the district court of Ramsey coun-
ty and incidentally disagrees with de-
cision OF the supreme court OF the United
States. 1t is in an action to enforce the
stockholders liability against a mailing
company, which set up as a defense that
its articles did not authorize it to hold
, bank stock. A supreme court decision in
the case of the California National bank
VS.. Kennedy was relied on. The state
court does not follow it In this case, how
ever, holding that, as the corporation had
derived profit from Ethe stock for years
Is it was estopped from asserting its ultra
wires" acts. The syllabus says:
William F. Hunt, as receiver of the Allemania
Bank, appellant, vs. The Hauser Mating COM
pany respondent.
cisions of the United States supreme Icour1
as to the powers Of national banks the appliea
tion of such decisions to the powers Of such 8
5 bank a defense in "a case properly brought
, in the state courts is to be determined py state
decisions. .5t GE4Tfir3t& ~ Y 4 g.
or malt ats and
' buy and sell grain and brewing implements pur
8 chased bank stock and held the same mum
: in this respect were unlawful and beyond the
:, authority Of the power conferred upon 1t by 1T
I articles Of incorporation.
! Third-But after having received dividends 10
!, a number Of years upon its stock inyestmen
e with the knowledge of all the stockholders tn
: mailing company was estopped from asser II
b suit to recover stockholders liability unde
chapter 272 laws Of 1890, at the suit Of the re
e cciver Of bank Which had become 1nsovent.
: Order reversed. IT Lovely, J.
: Does Not Have to Pay.
A St. Paul commission firm which re
: fused to pay for some damaged banana
|, wins on the appeal. The syllabus of tn
n supreme court decision Is as follows:
i Fruit Dispatch company, appellant, vs. Willia1
y A. Murphy and Fred L. Graupman, copartner
. doing business as B. Presley & Co., RESPOND
: sents. 80 =
a Tirst-Whether bananas transported frol
southern points to st. Paul would decay dur1n
the journey and to what extent is matter Q
peculiar and special knowledge among person
engaged in the business of dealing In tropics
fruit and is proper subject Of expert or op1n1o
. evidence.
e second-Certain questions directed to perso
qualified to testify to the effect of the climat
on bananas in their transportation considered an
III held properly allowed, and the answers give
r. within the rules governing the subject of optnio
v evidence.
n Third-The charge of the court must be consit
10 cred on review not only in all its parts but as
~ whole and an omission to state the entire la
| in one Instruction is not error, If the omission
reasonably supplied elsewhere and the jury
not misled. - s--%. 5 .-s'a=. "sss
Fourth-Evidence considered and held reaso,
ably as tending to support the verdict rendere
for defendant and upon the counterclaim 81
IS forth in the answer.
Order affirmed Lovely, ).
:, WhItneys Get Property.
$50