The Saint Paul globe., 1905-03-11
!. NEWS OF THE CITY

at the time they were assessed were en-
gagged in and were mere instruments OF
interstate commerce and were in the ac-
tual transit and only temporarily within
this state and were not detained longer
than was necessary for unloading and
transferring them.
Held: The findings of fact are sustained
by the evidence and upon the facts found
that the cars We're not taxable in this
state.
Judgment affirmed. Start. c. j.
Ludwig L. Nerlien, appellant. vs..
Village of Brooten, municipal corpor-
alton ct al, respondents.
1. The use of a municipal building as
village hall for private commercial pur-
poses is unauthorized, and when oplec1ed s
to by a taxpayer or person injuriousiy az
fected by the business transacted, may be
restrained by injunction.
=. Where the village marshal Is per-
mitted by the municipality TO spend a
portion Of his time in selling the vendabie
articles of merchant therein and is TO
the municipality may be restrained By in
junction from continuing such diversion of
the public funds.
Order reversed. Lovely, J.
w S. McCurdy, respondent, VS.. Wall
blom Furniture and Carpet Company.
appellant.
Where goods are stored in a warehouse
specifically agreed upon and are removed
therefrom to another place by the bailee
without notice to or knowledge by the
iDeSe ROOOS are lnSlG de-
stroyed by fire the bailor is responsible
to the bailee for their market value in an
action OF conversion or in the nature of
conversion.
That parties to an agreement intend
storage at stated place and contract
with reference to storage there. and that
the. goods are there delivered by the
bailOr and stored by the bailee. amounts
In law TO an agreement to store at such
place.
In this case held that conventional
inf
lar repository was not the contract, and
that the actual prior parol agreement i'm
connection with the dealings of the par
ties, shows contract TO store at a par
ticular place.
Order affirmed. -Jaggard, j.
zimmerman, petitioners. VS.. District
Court of the State of Minnesota in
and for the County of Pine, the Honor
abie abIe y ih Wilst9n 9i,aa and 1t the ,,a Honor
and III. j. Rath, the clerk of said court,
respondents.
sale of land on the ground of fraud, and
for the recovery of the purchase price paid
by the vendee before the discovery OF
fraud, In which il does not appear that
the Vendee had title TO the land, and in
which no relief as to any real estate rec
ord is involved, is transitory not local
action. 4
Prayer of the petitioners is granted. =,
-Jaggard, ].
Peter Stefens. respondent VS.. Mamie II.
Nelson ct al, defendants. respondents;
Mamie E; Nelson and George w. Hell
son, appellants. s-.s... 2,
An itemized bill, marked as paid. is a
receipt for the items contained in that
bill
The substance of estoppel is the induce
ment to another to act 10 his prejudice;
the substance of ratification is confirma-
ton after conduct.
hlnCl Cla.a1a n flaa not Of lat xrrtfx.
i'm signing receipt in his name without
authority, the ratification extends TO the
natural use of that receipt including its
production to the debtor as evidence of
payment, although the check given in pay
ment of the debt, indorsed by the principal
after such use of the receipt, is not in
fact paid.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed,
except as TO the plaintiff. Steffens, and the
defendants, Delamater & Son.
l. L. Corse & Company, respondent, VS..
Minnesota Grain Company ct al, de-
PENDANTS; Minnesota Grain Company, ap-
pellantS.
Action to recover the consideration paid
by the plaintiff to the defendant on a
contract which it was induced TO make
by reason of the alleged false representa-
tionS of the defendant.
/. A party who has been Induced to
enter into contract by the false repre-
sentations of another may affirm the con-
O.
or sue in equity for a rescission of the
contract by the court, or rescind by his
own act and sue for what he parted with
by reason of the fraud.
,. When he seeks to rescind by his
own act he must restore or offer to restore
10 the other party whatever of value he
received from him by virtue of the con-
tract In such case II is sufficient for the
defrauded party to make a fair offer to
return what he received and demand what
he parted with, and if his offer and de-
mand be refused a strict and technical
tender is not essential, but il is sufficient
II proof of such offer and demand be made
on the trial with restoration in such. prac-
ticable way as the court may direct.
g. Rule applied and evidence held suf-
f1cient TO sustain a finding of the jury to
the effect that the alleged representations
We're made and relied upon that the plain
tiff offered TO restore to the defendant
what 1t had received by the contract and
to place the defendant in statu quo and
further that the plaintiff did not affirm the
contract, but rescinded ii.
4. The qualification of a witness to
TESTIFY as an expert is a question largely
within the discretion of the trial court
The discretion was not abused in this
case.
5. The instructions of the trial court
to the jury. taken as whole were free
from reversible error.
3. Where party receives the money of
another by mistake without fraud inter-
est does not run upon il until he is put
IN default by a demand, but if he obtains
thc liOicy Dy fliS OWN fraud he Is
chargeable with interest from the time
of obtaining it.
Order affirmed. Start q l.
Peter Miller and Michael Miller. CO.
partners as Miller Bros, respondents
VS.. j. G. Dayton and n. III. Nepstad,
copartners as Dayton & Nepstad APP
pellants
Appellants gratuitously acted as Gus
todiaps of funds for respondents and dis
pursed the same upon the order their
representative who had charge of the
business in that locality. After the bust
ness had been carried on for about two
years plaintiffs served the following no.
tice on appellants: ITO Dayton & Nep-
stad: Don't pay any money out except
for stock. Miller Bros. Dated 1-15."
Held: Under the circumstances de-
veloped by the evidence, appellant did
not, as a matter of law. violate the
terms of the notice in cashing certain
checks issued by respondents representa-
tive to reimburse himself, and another
for money advanced and borrowed for
use in carrying on the business The
question should have been submitted to
the jury, and it was error to direct a
verdict for respondents.
Order reversed. Lewis, J.