The Minneapolis journal., 1906-07-13

| judgment affirmed. .-EEdott, J.
John Hagerty, father Of John Hagerty, a
minor, respondent VS.. st. Paul Brick company,
| appellant. f, - ..t. =, ~
Syllabus: In an action to recover damages
upon the ground that the master did not prop
erly instruct Its employee, a minor, how to op-
crate a brick-pressing machine, nor properly
warn warn him OF the danger connected Herewith.
held, the evidence was sufficient to justify the
jury IN finding that the master was guilty of
the charge, and in holding that the employee
was not guilty Of contributory negligence
! Order affirmed r. 49,. ~ Lewis T.
Merritt Goodspeed, respondent vs.. J. N. Miller
| appellant. 5-.-.'
Syllabus: The evidence in this case is con-
elusive that the contract by which appellant
agreed to pay respondent a commission of 81
per acre for procuring contemplated exchanges
OF real estate for other property was not an en-
TIRE but separable contact. The respondent
was entitled to his commission upon efrectinp
one or the contemplated trades, and the court
alo not err In SO 1nstructing the jury
oroer afnrmed. Lewis, J.
John korby, respondent, vs. John Chesser ap-
Syllabus: First-A verdict of 81 500 for the
ahenat1on OF the affection of respondents wife
dence. ~ Wv
second-It was not error for the trial court
| preliminary to the charge to the jury, to state
certain tmmaterial matters contained in the
plead1ngs, the court having subsequently fully
and clearly charged the jury upon the real is
| sue Of the trial
| Ihird-The court having sustained an objec-
| ton 10 certain evidence upon the specific ground
| that no foundation had been laid for impeach-
| ment, the party offering the evidence will not
be heard, upon an application for a new trial
to urge that the evidence was admissible upon
the ground that it was part of the res gestae.
judgment a1nrmeo. Elliott, J.
| Owen Grattan as administrator of tho es+.+.
Of owen A. Grattan, deceased. appellant, VS..
| the Prudential Insurance company Of America,
| respondent.
J Syllabus: policy Of life insurance provided
| that the premiums should be paid annually on
the list day Of June; it also provided that one
months grace would be allowed the insured
within which to make the same, and that the
policy would be continued in force during that
! time; and, further, that Notwithstanding a fail
| ure on the part Of the Insured to pay the
premium when due, the insurance would be
| tinued for the period of sixty days from the
| ''due date Of the premium specified on the
first page of the policy; the due date there
specified was June !. Held, that the sixty
day period commenced to run from that date,
| not from the expiration Of the thirty days
| grace allowed on each payment.
Order affirmed Brown J.
Charles Bennett ct al, copartners as Bennett
| & Co., respondents, VS.. VIII Thuett and Frank
Thuett, copartners Thuett Brothers, ap-
pellants.
Syllabus: Action to recover the purchase
price Of cattle. The complaint alleged that
they were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs
| to third party at his request in consideration
| of promise Of the defendants to pay for them.
! The answer pleaded the statute Of frauds and
further that the alleged sale Of the cattle was
| made subject to United States inspection and
| that they failed to pass such inspection and
thereupon the purchaser refused to accept them.
Held:
First-The complaint alleged an original prom
| Use by the defendant to pay for the cattle and
not collateral one, and, that the evidence is
| sufficient to sustain finding that there was
| such delivery and acceptance Of the cattle
! as to take the sale out of the statute of
| frauds.
Second-The evidence was sufficient to sus-
| tain the finding Of the jury by their verdict
to the effect that the defendants by their agent
| promised to pay for the cattle and that they
were not sold subject to inspection. ..
Third-There were no reversible errors in the
| rulings Of the trial court as to the admission
Of evidence nor in its instructions to the jury.
Order affirmed. Start, G. J.
Anna welsund, appellant, VS.. Adolph schueller
Syllabus: Except where there are confidential
relations or peculiar circumstances, no right of
| action exists in this state by a woman for Sc
duction against the offender.
| The facts pleaded do not come within the
| exception and the complaint does not state
cause Of action
Order affirmed. Lewis J.
Opal P. G. Frazier, respondent, vs.. Lloyd Manu-
featuring company, appellant.
Syllabus: Evidence sufficient to sustain the
charge OF negligence on the part of the master
IN not warning an inexperienced employee of
the danger, or instructing him with reference
to the adjustment of the table gauge condition
Of the revolving knives and the use of a guard
Tor the knives of jointng machine
EV1oence also tends to show that the machine
was not properly adjusted nor in good working
orQer when the employee was set to work
1t does not appear conclusively that respon
cent was an experienced workman, understood
me me condition OF the machine and assumed the
risk OF operating it..
Order affirmed. -re1Is =
George E. De Maries, respondent vs. Wesley T
Jameson ct a., appellants.
Syuabus Action to recover for iniuries srs
tanned by the plaintiff while In the emnlov of
me defendants as teamster, by the breaking
OF a guiderope which was a part of a bIocS
and tackle which he was using by direction
OF the defendants in unloading hay at the ham
or 9, customer. Held: ~
Instructions, his employee to deliver goods nnon
the premises OF another he is not responsihle |
M tor the safety Of the premises or appliances Of
Second-Ownership or control Of an ann,,ance |
py me master is not in all cases the test Of
ms naoility for injury resulting to his servant
oy Its use. AS between them all apnliancas
owned or IN possession of another of sncb
character and use as to impose the duty of in
sPeetion which the master directs or authorizes
MS servant to use In the business of the mastar
stand upon the same footing as those actnaIiv
belonging to him. '
Third-If the master Is not in position n
safeguard his servants by an inspection of sucb
appliances he must refrain from giving his
servants orders to use them whereby their safety
will be imperiled. S1Ae''
Fourth-The evidence sustains the verdict n
the effect that the defendant was guilty of neg.
iigence. and that the plaintiff did not assume
she risks nor was he guilty of contributory neg
lgence. The damages awarded are ~ ess
cessive. - 3 ..-0 ---..-~ ' "a
order affirmed. Start, G. J..
Clara spahr, respondent vs. the Mutual Life
insurance Company of New York, appellant.
Syllabus First--A rebuttable presumption OF
death arises In the Of a person who has
been absent from his home and from whom no
tldings have been received for seven years
Second--The presumption, however only i'm
Plies that the person is dead for there is no
presumption that he died at any particular
time during the seven years. The time Of his
death, whenever 1t is material must be proven
like any other material issue by the party allee
Ing 1t. The date Of death in such cases "a a
question Of fact. -. -, -
Third-Where one. steady in his habits. sue
cessrul In his profession or business, contented
ana respected having fxed residence and
peasant domestic relations, suddenly disappears
ana no tidings Of him are received such cir
cumstances, II satisfactory to the jury NAV
warrant them in finding his death at or about
tne time OF his disappearance
Fourth Evidence considered and held that IL
Is not sufficient to warrant fpd;oo 49, ~