The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-08
COURT FILES
u DECISIONS
SOME IMPORTANT RULINGS ARE
MADE BY SUPREME BENCH.
Produce Refrigerator Company Gets
Judgment Against Insurance Com
panies-Vendor of a Piece of Land
! Gets Verdict Against the Purchaser.


the supreme court to-day. Judge
Brooks is sustained in his award of
damages to the Produce Refrigerator
company. The arbitrators fixed the
loss to be paid by the insurance COM
panies at $5,426.S2, but the owners
refused to accept it, claiming that H.
N. Leighton, one of the arbitrators,
the same view, and raised the award
to $4,000. The syllabus filed is as
follows:
Produce Refrigerator Company, Respon-
dent, VS.. Norwich Union Fire Insurance
Society ct AL, Appellants.
In an action to set aside the award of
arbitrator appointed to assess damages
caused by fire, as provided by the Min
nesota standard policy held:
First-The evidence supports the find
ing of the court to the effect that one of
the arbitrator was not impartial and dis
! interested.
Second-That the insured did not have
such knowledge of the arbitrator's dis
ratification as would prevent it from OBJ
jecting to the award
Third-That the insured did not accept
the award or recognize its validity and
did not unreasonably delay it's reputation
upon the ground that the arbitrator was
not disinterested and unprecedented.
| Fourth-The finding of the court as to
| damages is supported by the evidence.
! Fifth-The complaint having stated the
ground upon which the award was
claimed to be invalid, appellants had the
option, of submitting to new apprais-
ment or standing upon the validity Of the
| award, and having elected to stand upon
the award they are bound by the judg-
| nent.
| Order affirmed Lewis, J.
Malpractice Opinion.
] to- 81 y,
sued DR.. Wheaton for damages for
injuries from an X-ray machine, wins
| his appeal, and the court holds that
| it was proper to produce an cleo
trlcian as an expert witness, the X-ray
| machine being a mechanical contri-
vance. Henlin sues for $22,5O0. The
| syllabus:
William Henlin, Appellant, VS.. Charles A.
Wheaton ct al, Co-partners as Whea-
ton, Rogers & Dennis, Respondent.
Flrst-In an action against a physician
and surgeon for negligence and unskill-
fulness in applying to PLAINTIFFS body the
device known as Roentgen,s X-rays for
the purpose of locating a foreign sub
| stance thought to be in his lungs, it i.
held that the rule of liability is the same
as that applied in other actions for NAL
practice, and one of ordinary care and
| prudence.
Second-A physician who applies the x
rays, not for medical purposes, but to To-
cate a foreign substance in the body OF
his patient, is not entitled to have the
question Of his care and skill in applying
it determined by the opinions Of physi-
! clans of his own school.
Martin VS.. Courtney, IS Minnesota 255
distinguished.
Reversed. Brown, j.
| Seller Gets a Verdict.
| In a case. coming from Blue Earth
/ county, the vendor of piece of land
gets a $6,SOO verdict from the pur-
i Glaser,s who made false representa-
tions, as to its value, the owner not
being acquainted with it. The sylla-
! bus: a,s'>..s '.
David W. Mountain, Respondent, VS.
! = James B. Day, Appellant Syllabus:
i First-An action will lie for fraudulCn1
representations made by the prospective
/ purchaser of land as to it's value and con.
dition, the, land being at a distance from
the place Of purchase and the vendor be-
ing ignorant as to its condition and value
and relying upon the truthfulness O.
such representations.
| Second-The court instructed the Jury
that the measure of damages was thu
difference, if any, between the value O.
the land as it was represented to be, ant
it's actual value at that time. Held while
the instruction is technically incorrect
difference between the actual value an(
the purchase price. no prejudice resulted
therefrom, and If it was considered
prejudicial attention should have beer
called to the inaccuracy.
Third-The verdict was not excessive.
Order affirmed Lewis, J.
Mayor Brandt Wins.
The city council Of East GRAND
Forks has no authority to inapeach OF
remove Mayor Brandt, who secures 6
writ OF prohibition against such &C.
ton. The syllabus:
State ex rel j. F. Brandt, mayor of Eas
Grand Forks, Mimi, relator VS.. Hugl
Thompson, James Jarvis ct al, respond
ents:
First-The subject of the removal O
public officers from office, either electiv
or appointive. is within legislative control
and the manner or method prescribed b,
statutory enactments therefor is exclu
sive.
Second-The city council of East Gran,
Forks, a city incorporated under the pro
visions of chapter 6. G. S.. 1895, has n
power to hear charges against and remov
the mayor of that city from his office.
Writ of prohibition granted.
Brown, J.