The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-29
Supreme Court

In addition to the Confirmation Of
the inheritance tax law, noted else
where, the supreme court today handed
down the following decisions:
Robertson Lumber company, respondent, VS.. Cam
Anderson ct AL. defendants; Cameron
Anderson, appellant.
Syllabus: partial payment made upon
partnership debt, after the dissolution of the
Of limitations as to other partners In favor of
the creditor receiving such payment, who has
had dealings with the partnership and had no
notice of its dissolution.
Notice to agent of a corporation to be
notice to such corporation must be to an agent
who is acting within the scope Of his authority,
and must concern some matter which it Is his
duty to communicate to his principal.
No particular kind of notice, whether actual
or constructive, is essential to charge the cred
itor with notice Of dissolution of partnership.
+ In this case payment partnership debt
was made by one partner to the travelling audi
tor Of the creditor hrm Two general managing
notice was disputed, had actual notice Of the
dissolution. Their books contained entries Of
sales to the firm and of sales to one partner
as an individual after the dissolution. It was
the admitted duty OF the travelling auditor to-
| and he did. examine these books Held, the.
question Of notice to the firm thru ain these
order reversed -Jaggard, j.
Alnira Cochran, respondent, w. James 2. Coch-
ran ct al, defendants; Carl Brock ct al, ap-
| syllabus: Action to set aside deed and
| mortgage as fraudulent as to the plaintiff and
to subject the land therein described to the
payment Of her judgment for alimony. Held,
that: e. a--
| First-The trial court properly exercised its
discretion in refusing to submit the issues Of
second-There were no reversible errors tn the
rulings, of the court as to the admission of
evidence.
Third-The right to challenge the validity Of
deed or other transfer of property on the
ground of fraud extends to others than creditors
in the strict sense Of that term. wife, after
decree dissolving her marriage and awarding
| her al1mony, may maintain action to set
| aside transfer Of property made by her hus-
band pending the divorce action with intent to
render Intellectual any recovery by her Of any
alimony which might be adjudged to her by the
decree. t.I>. \. LAX. ..
Fourth-The evidence is sufficient to sustain
| the effect that, the deed and mortgages were
fraudulent as alleged. ss .asJ- -
| Order affirmed. Start, O. J.
State of Minnesota, respondent, ". A. o. Bry-
| ant, appellant. rs
Syllabus: 1t is not competent by way OF
impeachment to ask witness on cross-examina-
| ton If he had ever been arrested for crime
or If he was in attendance on court in custody
Of a sheriff under arrest for a crime, without
any reference to whether or not witness had
! ever been convicted of a crime. -.
| While the testimony Of a detective or in
former should be closely scrutinized, evidence
az to bis bad reputation for truth and yerae
upon his reputation at the time Of testifying
/ Ia properly excluded.
4 number Of assignments Of error directed to
the charge Of the trial court In trial under
an Indictment for the crime Of selling intoxicat-
Ing liquor In a quantity less than five gallons,
without first obtaining license, are here ex-
amined and found to contain no substantial
error. IN j..
i Judgment affirmed. ~ -Jaggard, J.
i Syllabus: An Endorsement Of payment on 4 ne
gotiable instrument Is in the nature Of re-
ceipt, not of contract. 1t may be contradicted
In this case the evidence Is examined and
held sufficient to Justify finding OF fact that
the notes secured by a mortgage were not in
I ments thereon, and that the mortgage was not
kept alive for the purpose Of hindering or de-
laying or defraudtng any person, and in particu
lar creditor Of the mortgagor, the lien of
whose Judgment was subsequent to the lien OF
the mortgage. -. <'.:-.
Order affirmed. -,Jaggard, ].
Robert D. Berg, respondent, vs.. St. Paul Cit,
Railway company, appellant.
Syllabus: Action to recover damages for al
assault alleged to have been committed upo1
the plaintiff by the defendants employees wht
were IN charge or car on which he was pas
senger. Held:
F1rst-Where the act Of defendant, which il
the subject matter Of the action, is shown t
nave peen wanton or malicious or fraudulent O.
oppressive and Of such a character As to indicat
, that ne acted with reckless disregard of TIL
rights OF the plaintiff, the Jury in their discre
tlon may award to the plaintiff in addition +
his compensatory damages such further reason
able sum as exemplary damages as they ma,
deem just, but the plaintiff is not entitled f.
t such damages as matter Of legal right in an,
- case. - -
q Second-The evidence herein does not show
case for exemplary damages.
order reversed and new trial granted.
r Start 9. !.
Y Frank B: McCord, respondent, ". M,nneano,,s
st. Paul & sault Ste. Marie Railway COMPANY
appellant.
>. syllabus: In this an action to recover for No,
Il sonal injuries received BY the plaintiff in co
l. lsion between two railway trains Of the df
:. PENDANT. held, that the trial court did not er
It IN submitting to the jury the question of th
# pefmanency OF the plaintiffs INJURIES and this
the damages awarded are not so excessive al +
JUSTIFY any interference with the verdict.
ofoer a1nrmed' Start, @. J.
l. State Of Minnesota, plaintiff, Vs. q. Braun. d,
PENDANT. Wv
Syllabus: Chapter s4e Of the Genera, Law,
"a N. W. 100, followed. ~
/. An indictment under that law charging tn
r. solicitation OF a contract for the sale Of sni
>r 1tuous liquors for future delivery, in Les
ye quantity than five gallons, without a licens,
committed By the defendant at q time and Mac
10 mentioned, by soliciting person named. w1thor
st a license, but not stating whether the crime ws
90 committed by defendant in his own behalf {
as an agent Of another, sufficiently Specific
s. public onense.
ae Affirmed -Jasgard. J.
~ William n Ynnnr enA u.r,,.,.~r s1,.