The Minneapolis journal., 1905-11-24
SUPREME COURT
John c. sodini, appellant VS.. Clara sodini, re

John C. sodini. appellant, vs. Clara sodini, re-
Syllabus: decree Of absolute divorce was
properly granted upon proof of marriage and OF
of acts Of adultery subsequent in
time to the original answer by plaintiff as al
legged in a supplemental answer which was filed
by permission Of the court and to which plain
tiff replied. 1t was not necessary condition
to such decree that the defendant should first
have proved the substantive offense charged in
the original answer.
Where an absolute divorce is granted the wife
for adultery of the husband, the court may make
her just allowance out of his personal property
in addition to the dover interest in his lands
which, by virtue Of chapter 460S, G.. s. 1894, |
The allowance of personal property made by
the court in this instance was reasonable.
Judgment affirmed. -Jaggard, ].
David 'Rosenstein, respondent, vs. NJ. L., Cohen,
appellant
Syllabus First-It is sufficient ground for a
refusal on the part Of the lessee to accept the
premises when rendered, where material changes
have been made in the arrangement and condi-
ton Of the building between the time Of the
execution of the lease and the time Of deliver
not changed by the fact that the outgoing ten
ants caused the change in the condition of the
premises without the knowledge consent Of
the lessor.
Second-The lessor having expressly stipulated
in lease that he should not be liable for alter
ations, improvements and repairs, and the, prem
ises having become untenantable by reason of
the natural processes of decay and faulty
structton Of the building, eliminating either prior
to or after the execution of the lease, whether
the lessee may rescind the lease and avoid the
contract upon such ground Quaere.
Order affirmed. Lewis, ].
Christina Hanson. appellant, vs.. Ida R. Bailey,
as executrix Of the last will and testament
of Leslie II. Bailey, deceased respondent.
Syllabus: When the evidence in support of
the verdict is contradictory and not decisive,
new. trial may be granted upon the ground Of
newly y-discovered evidence altho cumulative, con-
Trajectory or impeaching, provided such evidence
may have the effect of changing the result on
a new trial 49, -
Order affirmed. Lewis, J.
Michael H. Jemming, appellant VS.. Great
Northern Railway company. respondent.
Syllabus: First-A crew of nine men, consist
ing Of engineer, crane man, a fireman, two
jackmen and four ptmen, were engaged in
operating a steam shovel in gravel pit. The
oaths consisted OF shovel, an engine house
which contained the engine which operated the
shovel. an old engine tender which contained
the coal and water and a caboose. 1t was all
located upon short track. which was made up
of sections six feet long. AS the work pro-
gressed and 1t became necessary to move the
shovel forward section of track was taken
up from the. rear and placed in front Of the
shovel. The track was in no way connected with
any other track About sixteen feet from the
shovel outfit there a temporary track upon
winch stood ballast cars, and this track was
wiz with which 1T connected at point about one
mile distant. The engineer employed and dis
charged the men and generally controlled the
crew. He personally had charge of the work of
moving the crane and controlled the speed and
course of the bucket attached thereto: Plain
TN one Of the pitmen, injured by the
negIgent manner in which the engineer caused
the bucket to swing from the ballast car into
the pit Held, first that the PLAINTIFF and his
. aelto" servants We're not at the time of the
4hot M engaged IN operating railway; second,
fhn r1o;p t;Np
1ected was not one of the hazards peculiar to the
operation OF railroad and therefore was NOT
WITHIN chapter POL G. S. 1894; third, that the
engineer was fellow servant of the plaintin
who was pitman and whose work it was. win
the assistance Of others, to take the six. foot
section Of track from the rear Of the outfit
! OF the steam shovel. 0AD
eeconu-Ihe rule that where the complaint in
an acIon TO recover damages for personal in.
rnoe al, aeges specific acts of negligence the
leged, applied. 'lus al
Order affirmed. r,1,o+.
Mary Meyer, appellant, vs.. Town Of Petersbnro
! ct al. respondents. e
:, syllabus: The trial court did not abuse n.
olscretlen IN dissolving temporary Injunction
pending the action from removing, fencas on+ -
tne locus in quo which they claimed to be 3
public highway. NC
| Order affirmed. Start n
William H. Wilson and William ,,ooL 49,
spondents, VS.. Philip D. Youngman ct all do
1endants, Philip D. Youngman ct al. an
Syllabus: Action for relief On acconnt =, a.,
legged fraud in connection with a contract fo
! tne purchase of land. Held that several canse
plant. eu IL Tue coin
Order affirmed s.ort n
onarles ID. Viebahn and William v. Puntenev
partners, trading under the commercial ma N,
/ na,ia ne mississippi TRANSFORMATION company ap
! peiaats, vs. the board of county commission
ers or Crow Wing county respondents.
.! iiaous: Flrst-A private action may b,
| maintained to redress injuries caused by a publi
nuisance where the complaining party has there
| by suffered some special damage not CONNIE,
10 the general public, but in such cases only.
! oecond-A common nuisance in public high
/ way or navigable stream Of water which OBJ
structs. interrupts or prevents the continuance
OF lawful business occupation eyistinp a,;,
pelng conducted at the time Of and before tb
creation OF the nuisance may be proceede,
ts' asainst py private action by the person who i
tnus 1Iterfered with in his vested rights
Third-Platntiffs had an established busines
ana were engaged in operating line of steam
Doats on the Mississippi river, navigabl
stream, carrying passengers and freight for hire
ana towing small craft from point to point O,
the river. Defendants wrongfully and wtthou
authority OF law constructed and insists on III
r,slit TO maintain bridge over the river thereb
opstrucuns and preventing plaintiffs from eonttr
u1ng In their said business; the bridge being 8
constructed as to prevent the passage of boat
OF the size of those operated BY plaintiffs II :
held that the bridge constitutes publc mi
sance, but that plaintiffs suffered an iniurv M
common to the public at large and NAV main
tain an action for such damage as thew sut
tered In consequence of the erection and ma,nte
nance of the bridge. - -
Fourth-The bridge complained of was cor
structed by the board Of county commission
ers OF Crow Wing county without authority o
law, In violation of an act of congress prohibit
ing such structures over navigable streams an
without express authority from the county; bu
1t Is held, following Schussler vs. board O
county commissioners, 67 Mnn., 412 that th
county, as an organized subdivision of the sta te
not having repudiated the ultra wires acts of it
commissioners Is liable for damages caused there
by to the same extent as tho originally author
lied by It. -
Order reversed. Brown 7
The Barton-Parker Manufacturing company ap
j pellant, vs. ]. A. Wilson. respondent
i Syllabus: In an action involving the liabilit
of the principal for the acts of his agent 1t
held that the facts disclosed by the record d
not bring the case within the principle lai
down in Columbia Mill company VS.. Bank 3
Mimi. 234, and that verdict for defendant wa
property directed by the trial court.
Order affirmed. Brown. ].
Carl A. Johnson, appellant VS.. Chicago, Milwau
6 kee s. st. Paul Railway company, respondent
Syllabus: First-Tbe farm crossing require
. by g. S. 1901 chapter 1886. intended 70
, the benefit of the owner OF the farm thru whic
the railroad extends. and the company is unde