The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-07-02
HOLDS COMBINATION
is NOT ILLEGAL
Supreme Court Decides Gas
CompanyCa SeIlBy-Prod.
uctsto Only One Concern


to sell its entire output of coke to the
Youghiogheny & Lehigh Coal corr.
pany, to the exclusion of all other
would-be purchasers.
The case came before the supreme
court on the appeal of Charles J. Ber-
ryhill, from the decision Of the Ram
sey county district court in his ac-
ton against the gas company and the
coal company already mentioned. The
ruling of the district court is affirmed.
The supreme court decided that by,
products of any concern are not sub
ject to the unlawful combination
laws of Minnesota that might apply to
the principal products of the same
concern. The decision was written by
Justice Brown and the syllabus is as
follows
Defendant gas light company is cor
poration engaged in the business of manu-
featuring gas for use by the citizens of
st. Paul. The gas is manufactured from
soft coal, and one of the residual pro-
ducts thereof is coke. which the company
engaged in buying, selling or dealing in
coke or other like fuel. 1t entered into
a contract with defendant coal company
by which it agreed to sell and deliver
to that company all it's accommodations of
coke. and specially agreed not to sell or
dispose of the same. or any part of it.
~ duy OlIeT person. OT company. II is
held that as the coke accumulated by
the gas light company is mere Incl
dent. a by-product. resulting from the
conduct of its principal business, the
agreement to sell its entire output to
defendant coal company was not an I'M
lawful combination nor a violation of
any law of the state.
Order affirmed.
Widows Claim Not Allowed
That the directors of a mutual in
surance company have a right to limit
the payment of dividends to such pol
Icy holders as have paid their annual
premiums was decided yesterday by
the Minnesota supreme court. This
decison written by Justice Lewis, af-
firmed the order of the Hennepin
county. district court denying new
trial to the plaintiff.
The question came up through an
endeavor on the part of Mary j. Petrie,
of Minneapolis, to recover from the
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Com
pany of New Jersey $4,000 as the
amount Of a policy which her husband
had been carrying since 1881 March
Is, 1901, he failed to pay the annual
premium of $65 due that day. Five
months later he died, before the pre-
MUM had been paid.
His widow contended that his policy
should haYe been credited with a divf :
~
ors in January, 1901, and that such
credit would have carried the policy
+ beyond the date of his death. ; Etg
Both courts held, however, that this
dividend was payable only to policy,
holders that had paid their annual pre- :.
miumS; that this Hmita ii on was wi thin
the authority Of the directors, and that.
lacking cash surrender value Sof suf )
fcient amount, the Petrie policy had
already lapsed when Mr.. Petrie died.
Eight other decisions were announce
ed, as follows:
Amy M. Brookhouse, appellant, VS..
Frances j. Pray ct al, respondents
Judgment affirmed. Douglas, j.
Another Widow Loses
The appellant sued to recover $1,000
willed to her husband by his uncle,
Samuel F. Pray, of Minneapolis, i'll
| August, 1896, with the provision that,
in case any of the devisees under the
will died before payment was made
to them, and did not leave children or
grandchildren, the bequest should be
paid to the testator's wife, Frances J..
Pray.
Mr.. Brookhouse was dead when the
will was made, although Mr.. Pray was
not aware of the fact. The two chill
dren of Mr.. Brookhouse died later
without leaving heirs.
HE'D that, III dCCOIudIlcG Will Tic
evident intent of the teStator to leave
his estate either to his wife or to his
| blood relatives, the bequest should be
paid, not to his nephews wife, the ap-
| pellant, but to Mrs. Pray.
The Judgment of the lower court in
favor of Mrs. Pray was therefore af-
| firmed.
Must Try This Case Again
Bertha Steindorff, as administrative Of
the estate Of Albert p. Steindorffi de. de-
Co. RESPONDENT. Order reversed and new
trial granted. Start, e. j.
Steindorff was killed by shock from
an insulated electric wire strung by
| the gas company close to the roof
where he was working. The trial court.
which directed a verdict for the de-
PENDANT, held to have erred, inasmuch
as the questions SO decided by the
court were questions of fact-contribu-
tory negligence, etc.-and should have
been decided by the jury.
Louis Ellington, as administrator of
| the estate of Fred Niernan, deceased, VS..
the Great Northern Railway Co., appel
| liant Order affirmed. Start, Z. j.
Action to recover damages for death
of Nieman, fireman, killed by fall
| ing from a Great Northern engine in
Polk county. Locomotive held to be
defective and contributory negligence
not shown.
The City of Winona. respondent. VS..
| NJ S. Jackson ct al, defendants, Fidelity
| and Deposit Co., of Maryland. appellant.
| The City of Winona, appellant. VS.. NJ S.
Jackson ct al, defendants, Fidelity and
| Deposit Co., of Maryland, respondent.
! Judgment affirmed in both cases.
Brown, J.
Stephen Bull ct al. respondents, VS..
| Horace S. Rich, appellant. and Stephen
Bull ct al, respondents, VS.. Sias B. Foot,
| appellant. Order affirmed.
Stephen Bull, Henrietta c. Fuller ct al,
appellants, VS.. Horace s. Rich, respond
emf and Stephen Bull. Henrietta c. Fuller
ct al. appellants, VS.. Silas B. Foot. re-
| spondent. Order affirmed. Lewis, ].
| Mary Ann Hughes, appellant. VS.. Ed
| ward F. Mullaney and Mary Mullaney,
| his wife, respondents. Judgment modi-
| fed. Lewis, j.
| SAINTS ARE INSHAPE