The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-16

Third-Defendant is Michigan corporation,
engaged in the manufacture and sale of farm
for the northwest, with headquarters at Mime
lapolis, this state, and Nichols was it's general
agent for the state of North Dakota, and resided
at Fargo, in that state. Defendant furnished its
agent at Fargo an automobile to facilitate in
the performance Of the duties of his agency,
which he used whenever necessary. After bust
ness hours on the day Of the injury complained
Of in this section. the two agents, Gregory
and Nichols, took the automobile SO furnished
Nichols by the defendant and started for Moor
head this state. Just the river from
Fargo on mission purely personal to them
selves and wholly independent from the affairs
and business Of defendant. While so engaged
a team of horses belonging to plaintiff became
frightened by the alleged negligent manner in
which the agents operated the automobile, and
this action brought against the defendant
to recover damages occasioned thereby, on the
| theory. that it was liable for the negligence of
it's agents. Held, that, on the principle of the
law above stated, defendant Is not liable for
| the wrongful acts of the agents, the same not
| having been committed in the course Of their
employment.
| Order reversed. Brown, J.
Mary e. Lloyd ct al, respondents VS.. Anna l.
simons ct al, defendants: Anna L. simons
| ct al. appellants. Mary E. Lloyd ct al.
| respondents, vs.. Anna T.. Simons ct al, defend
ants; M. g. Holder, appellant
Syllabus: This is an equitable action to es
tablish an unrecorded lost deed Of land and t.
| u.
| Tristan objection to complaint in equity
that the plaintiff has adequate remedy a
law must be taken by demurrer or it is waived
! The complaint herein does not show upon IT.
| face as a matter oftelaw that the plaintiffs, o.
| those thru whom they claim, were guilty O.
such laches as to disentitle them to any relief.
f. second-The question Of laches is to be de
cided upon the circumstances of each particuIa
case. It is one addressed to the sound discre
ton Of the trial Judge in cases where the evi
dence is conflicting, or If the facts be undis
| - fa3u 49,
different conclusions. Such the question o
laches In this case, and there was no abuse O
discretion by the trial Judge.
Third-one who relies uron a lost deed t
sustain his title must establish it's execution
loss and the material parts thereof by clear
4 satisfactory and convincing evidence The fine
, ings of the trial Judge to the effect that tn
deed here in question was executed but wa
lost before 1t was recorded, and that neithe
the defendants nor any person thru whom the
respectively claim were subsequent purchaser
Of the land or mortgages in good faith ar
sustained by the evidence.
Fourth-There were no reversible errors in tn
rulings of the trial court as to the admissio
of evidence. ~. IL
< Judgment affirmed: Start, 6. J.
,; Carlton Graves respondent. vs. Frederick v
Bonness appellant.
Syllabus: When an objection to the admissic
z of evidence is SO general as not to indicate II
" specific grounds upon which it is made If
unavailing on appeal unless it be of such
character that it could not have been obviated.
Whenever the objection that no sufficient fou
e dation is laid clearly results in the reasonab
and natural misdirection of the attention of II
trial court and Of opposing counsel to on
: certain of larger number of possible phas
of preliminary proof, and in correct ruli1
> thereon. an appellate court will not reverse
cause because Of failure of preliminary pro
I upon different phases in the absence of q,
reason why that proof might not have be-
supplied.
y In this case the objection of no foundati
), laid, to the admission of a letter, was reaso
h ably understood by the court and opposing cou
), sci to refer to lack of the authority Of