The Minneapolis journal., 1905-11-17

respondent VS.. Knife Falls Boom Corporation,
ct. al, appellants:
Syllabus First-The test in equitable ac-
tion, whether several causes of action i'm
properly united in the complaint, is whether
all the matters alleged therein could have been
included in bill in equity under the old prac-
tice without making it nulttfarious. If so
they may be properly united in one complaint
under our code practice
! :, Secord-An equity bill is not multifarious
where cne general right only is claimed by-it, |
altho the defendants have only separate inter
ests In distinct questions which arise out of |
or are connected with such right. All Of the |
defendants, however must be affected in some
respect by the action OF by sonae part thereof |
but 1T is not necessary that all should be !
equally affected. , ....-- . -"
Third. Complaint herein construed and held
| that several causes of action are not improp |
erly united therein.
Order affirmed. = Start, c. J.
State eS. rel. James II. Hoover, respondent.
| VS.. Henry c. Brase, county auditor, of
! the county of Wright, appellant: Il
Syllabus Under the provisions of chapter 2os.
| Laws 1893, amending paragraph 1905, General
Statutes 1894. the county auditor is required
| to issue to the holders thereof a county war
| rant on the county treasurer for the amount
of money paid in for the redemption of lands
| from a tax SALE upon the presentation to him
! of the certificate of tax sale, the assignment
I thereof and it is defense in mandamus
proceeding to compel the auditor to issue such
! warrant that preceding county auditor, with
I out authority, issued warrant for the same
amount to the original purchaser at The tax
sale but who had duly assigned the tax certif-
cate.
| Order affirmed Lewis J.
Michael C. Brady, appellant, VS.. Adam Gilman,
respondent:
Syllabus: First--The plaintiff filed a notice
Of his intention to redeem from Il mortgage
foreclosure sale as a Judgment creditor but his
Judgment not ,docketed until four hours
after his notice was filed. He ATTEMPTED to
redeem by virtue, of such notice. Held that
he not entitled to redeem and his at
tempt to do was void.
:, Second-The legal fiction that there are no
! frac tions of a day has application to eases
where the statute expressly requires that
, tice shall be taken Of the precise time an Off.
cial act is done and that record thereof be
!, made.
Judgment affirmed. Start, c. J.
= Herbert w Eggleston and George NJ Eggles-
e ton, copartners as Eggleston Bros, respond
" ents, VS.. Advance Thresher Company, appel
, liant:
d authority to sell it's machinery for cash, or Sc
Z cured promissory notes. sold "a threshlns ma
q chine outfit and accepted and received from the
purchasers (plantiffs), without express author1,
g ty, certain personal property in part payment
~ of the purchase price. The contract OF sale
n was subsequently rescinded by mutual consent
: of the parties, but the property delivered 70
the agent in part payment never returned
> and plaintiffs brought this action against de-
IL fendant the principal. to recover the value
thereof. It is held that the manner and course
of dealing between the agent and defendant, al
l. disclosed by the evidence, was, within the
. ! rule laid down in Columbia Mill Co. VS.. Bank
r. So Minn., 224, such to charge defendant
. with liability for the act of the agent IN tax
- ing property from plaintiffs In part pay ment 1o'
u the machine. .
= second-As between the immediate parties
Is to written contract <where one is induced
n by the false statements Of the other to sig1
y the same. he is not bound thereby ana ma! ae
r fend against the contract on the ground O.
"a fraud even though negligent in signing w1theu
. reading it. -
Is Third-Evidence considered and held sufi
u cient to sustain the verdict.
Is Order affirmed. Brown, J.
W Emma English. respondent, VS. Minneapolis & st
Paul Suburban Railway company, appeient: :
Syllabus First-In action to recover Dam
ages for personal injuries, alleged to have beer
caused by the negligence of the defendant, tht
complaint alleged that the defendant SO care
lessly and neglgently operated and controlled
the car as to cause the car to violently collide
with an iron gate extending across the tracks
r. thereby with great force throwing the plaintiff
- against the seats and other parts Of the car
- - At the trial evidence was received from which
y it might reasonably be inferred that the plain
~ tiff s. injuries were caused by the manner il
J. which the was handled by the motorman II
- attempting to make sudden stop: and no
y solely by the shock of the collision. Held, tina
the trial court did not abuse. its discretion II
i allowing the plaintiff to amend the complain
r. in order to make the allegations conform to tn
in evidence. 5.
ages awarded by jury in an action to receve
unliquidated damages such as an action TO
e tb or nq
So or prejudice, the motion must be made and tn
20 alleged error assigned in the trial court unde
II the fourth subdivision of chapter $3.50, genera
81 statutes 1894. .c~
7r Third-Ihe granting or refusal of new tria
upon the ground of excessive or inadequate dam
In harn hont, civ fhn In
fuence Of passion Or prejudice rests in th
sound judicial discretion of the trial court. sui
ject to review in this court under the rules al
re picable to other discretionary orders. 1t canno
10 be raised for the first time in this court.
ne Order affirmed. Elliott, J.
~ ~
20 Theodore r. Sorenson executor of the estat
y of Albert Olson, deceased, appellant, vs. Et
u ward Carey ct al, respondents. 81.
r Syllabus: First-By the last will and tests
,v ment of the husband, he devised life estat
In lands belonging to his wife to her. togethe
with certain personal property in value an
amount exceeding that which she would hav
e. been entitled to under the statute, and directe
e. that after the death Of his wife the land an
ue remaining personal property should be dispose
- of by his executor and the proceeds divide
81 equally between his brothers and sisters and til
brothers and sisters of his wife, There wer
no children. The wife expressly assented to tn
lie terms and provisions of the will by indorse
- following Brown VS.. Brown AZ Mnn. 27O. tha
ne ne upon the death of the husband the wife we
he the provisions of the will, and that if she elece
zee to abide thereby the will effective
no. transfer and disposal of her land; and, held fu
20 ther that her express assent to the terms of tt
Will at the time it made, coupled with tt
fact that after the deah of her husband ST
dy appropriated all his personal property to he
mt own use, amounted in contemplation of law
~, an election to abide by the will.
=. - Second-The will involved in this litisatic
r. r. purported to devise and dispose of .'my farm
he consisting of about ninety-tive in Fillmo
n county, and other property. Held respectir
,r the land embraced within the designation ''n
80 farm, that the description thereof Is not s
i'. indefinite to render the will void but al
ms biguous to the extent that eXtrinsic evidence
on admissible to identify the particular land i
tended to be disposed of.
oorder reversed. Brown, j.
- State ex. rel. F. T. Young. attorney genera
'ra appellant, VS.. The Village of Kent, et a
I'm respondents. ~
IS Syllabus: Where the attorney general Of +
bel state acting in his official capacity as 4 +
un chief law officer of the state, exhibits an
'he a,.n:4 -. ~ ~ , htule , VI quo Marranto 10 t
he Cd 10 . r,n,;oiroi ran+: w. s. issue u!le M
red show cause why i+s fr.noh; ,,s II
clared null and void, the court has no iursd
tion but must grant leave to file the inform
in tion as matter of course and direct the w
ne to issue. Upon the return it is the duty of I
NV court to try the issues of law and fact n
the tho mer;t. ,cooraing 10 ,,,Ias - - SAM ul
OF bic thereto. ... r. -
err Where an application in proceeding Of II
an character is made by the attorney general.
ed the supreme court instead of to the distr
rpurt will