The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-22
SUPREME COURTI
EDITOR MUST
PAY THE NOTE
COURT AFFIRMS THE
POWERS-BLETHEN VERDICT.
A Judge in Yellow Medicine County
Talked Too Much and His Decision
Is Reversed nd Russell Sage Wins
Decision in Swift County Land

The supreme court has decided the
suit of the Powers Mercantile COM
pany against A. j. Blethen in favor Of
the plaintiff, and the company gets
apolitan for $996.66 advanced him in
1896, with interest at per cent, and
for a note for $685.. 81, issued the same
year, and bearing 8 per cent. The
court holds that the suit was properly
brought under state laws in the state
courts, altho the defendant is now a
resident of Seattle. The syllabus
says:
Powers Mercantile Company, respondent,
vs. Alden J. Blethen, appellant.
First-The plaintiff at the request Of the
defendant paid for him seven promissory
notes held by third parties: Held, that
the PLAINTIFFS remedy was not an action on
the notes but one for money paid for the
defendants use and benefit.
Second-Sections 6145 and 6I46 G. S.
1894, relating to limitations Of actions
construed and held that the first applies to
actions the subject matter of which arises
or originates in this state and the debtor
| is out of the state when the cause of ac-
ton accrues, or afterwards departs there
from; and that the second applies to
causes of action not covered by the first,
that is to actions the subject matter of
which arises out of the state. Order af-
hrmed. Start, G. J.
Judge Talked Too Freely.
In a case coming up from Yellow
Medicine county, a verdict for $879.6S
against the Northwestern Elevator
company is set aside and a new trial
| granted, because Judge Gorham
trial which insinuated that the appel
liant was trying to steal the grain in
volved in the case. The syllabus says:
Henry Kramer, respondent, VS.. North
western Elevator company, appellant.
First-Complaint construed, and held to
state a cause of action in conversion and
not an action for damages growing out of
| a breach of contract Of bailment.
Second-If a warehouseman receives
grain for storage and issues memorandum
slips, or tickets, not in accordance with
the statute, sections 7716-7717, G.. S. 1894.
and the bailor in good faith deposits
wheat and accepts such tickets, he is not
| deprived of his right to the property or
| the value thereof. Such memorandum
slips are properly admitted in evidence in
connection with evidence to identify and
make them certain to prove the fact that
the wheat was actually delivered. But if
the ballor had knowledge of the fact that
the agent in authority was limited to the
issuance. only Of such certificates as are
prescribed by statute, and accepted a
form of ticket which does not provide for
! storage charges, for the purpose of avoid
| ing them, then such transaction was not
| necessarily Of such fraudulent character
as to deprive the bailor from recovering
| the wheat, or it's value, altho he may be
| chargeable with storage charges to the
same extent as he would have been under
the terms of the regular receipt.
| : Third-To warrant the court in refusing
| to receive any evidence in support of the
complaint upon the ground that respond
ent had not complied with the order Of the
| court to serve a bill of particulars, it
should clearly appear that respondents at
| torney had notice of such order or had
waived notice thereof.
| Fourth-While ruling against appellants
| objection to certain evidence offered on
the part of respondent, the trial Judge
made the remark: II prefer, counsel, that
i if there is to be any stealing done on tech
nicalities that the supreme court say so.
Held error for the reason that it in
| structed appellant was not engaged in q
| legitimate defense but was intending to
/ commit larceny of the wheat in question.
The effect produced upon the minds of the
jurors must have been such that the sub
simulated appellant was not engaged in q
charge to the jury was powerless to re-
| move the impression and leave the Jurors
| unprejudiced to determine the main ques-
ton at isse: Whether respondent had de-
livered the wheat, and if so, had it been
paid for? Order reversed.
| Lewis, J..
Sage Wins Case.
The court decides one of the Rus
sell Sage land cases from Swift coun-
| ty in favor of the millionaire, but
! Judges Lovely and Brown dissent from
the decision, holding that the case is a
different proposition from the Olson
case, under which the majority opin-
ion decides it. The syllabus says:
Russell Sage, as assignee in trust of the
| Hastings & Dakota Railway Company,
respondent, VS.. Michael Rudnick, appel
liant:
Held Following st. Paul, Minneapolis
| Railway Company VS.. Olson, 81 Mimi,
1T, that the time during which the right
of the plaintiffs grantor to the land here
in question under the land grant was in
| litigation in the land department of the
federal government cannot be counted
against him in determining whether his
! right to recover the land is barred by adj
occin (.