The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-05-25
SUPREME COURT

+ 4 n h e l
George II. Selover, respondent, vs.. Henry W.
Williams, appellant.
Syllabus: To require the municipal court of
the city of st. Paul to certify cause to the
district court upon the ground that an equitable
Defense or equitable relief, is interposed (sec-
ton o. chapter 351, special laws 1882, the
answer must set forth facts sufficient to con-
stitute a defense.
Judgment affirmed. Lewis, J.
Michael McAlpine as administrators. of the estate
of James H. Caldwell, deceased, appellant, vs.
Frank II. Kratka ct al, defendants; Chase II:
Dobner ct al, respondents. /
Syllabus A former administrator received
funds Of the estate which he failed to account |
the probate court and which, upon due demand,
he refused to pay over to his successor as ad-
ministrator de bonis non. In an action by the
administrator de bonis non against the FORMER
administrator and the sureties upon MS poha,
held. that such failure to account to the probate
court within the time limited and to pay inc
sum received by him as administrator 10 ms
successor amounted to a default IN the pono'
which conditioned that he should administer
the estate according to law, render just ana
true account of his administration when required
by the court, and perform all orders ana ae-
crees of the court The district court has
bond to enforce the liability. and prima facle
the amount of the liability of the sureties Is
the amount received by the principal not to
exceed the face Of the bond.
The complaint states facts sufficient to con-
stitute cause of action. 2 49,. -
Order reversed. ri. T.. Lewis, j.
Stella sokclowskt. respondent VS.. Albert L.
Ward and E. E. Ward as sheriff of Martin
county, appellants.
Syllabus: A creditor of the party selected as
the medium thru whom a conveyance of land
is made by husband to his wife, acquires no
right, title or interest in the land by virtue
of q Judgment existing against such medium,
and it is immaterial that such conveyance was
do 70
defraud his creditors Jorgenson vs. Minneapo-
lis Threshing Machine company Ga MINI: 4s9.
Judgment affirmed. Lewis j.
Steve Gomulak, appellant, VS.. G. A. Smith LuIn-
Der company, respondent
Syllabus: In this, a personal injury action
to recover damages sustained by the pla1n1h
while working in the defendants sawm1LI as "a
carriage rider, by the breaking OF roo Dy
which the movements Of the carriage were con-
trolled, it is held that the evidence was sur
| ncient to take the case to the jury on the
question of the defendants alleged negligence,
| and that the trial court erred in directing a
| verdict for the defendant at the close of the
plaintiffs evidence.
| Start, c. j.
Frank c. Berger, respondent, VS.. Swan ]. Turn
| blad ct al, appellants.
Syllabus: The defendant was erecting a
house his lots and made an agreement with
a contractor to furnish all the materials ana
labor for the plain and ornamental plastering
therein The contractor employed the plaintlft
to do a certain part of the work on the orna-
mental pastering, the major portion of which
| was done at the shop of the contractor, IL
making necessary designs, medals and casts
which We're exclusively intended for and adapted
| to the construction of the ornamental plasterine
and of no value except for such purpose. me
defendant and his contractor adopted the snoI
as the place for the doing OF such preilnlnars
work of constructing the ornamental plasterins
for the house instead of the premises whert
the house was being erected. After the plaintiff
had completed his work controversy aros'
between the defendant and his contractor as Il
their respective rights under the contract There
upon the contractor refused to permit any
such product of the plaintiffs labor to be place.
in the house, and it never was actually delivered
upon the defendants lots or became a part o
his house Held following Howes VS.. Relianc
Wire company, 40 MINI. a. and Burns VS.
sewell, 4s MINI. A25, that the plaintiff is Ell
titled to lien on the house and lots for tn
| value of all of his labor
Judgment affirmed. Start, {. J.
J John A. Todd, appellant, VS.. William J. Bet
tingen, respondent.
SYLLABUS: An agreement was made by on
person to transfer certain stock in one elevate
company to another in consideration of the trans
fer by that other to him of certain stock In
different elevator company. and also of ceI
J tain elevator on a railroad right of way i
North Dakota together with its site, under tn
agreement with the railroad company. by virtu
ated. There was mutual delivery of stoc
in accordance with this agreement The secon
! party to the agreement failed to transfer til
elevator and its site In an action brought o
this state of facts. it is held: ~ That the PR
ceeding was in fact one at law, for damages II
breach Of contract, in which no equitable relic
should have been granted; ~ that the agre
ment with the railway company concerned
= interest in land and lease for more than or
\ year, and was void under the statute of frauds
: 81 that the contract was entire and indivisibl
and being void in part was void in whole; ar
| a. that no action for damages lay for 1
breach,
Il Order affirmed. -Jasgaru, j.
: o. Ecker. appellant VS.. Louis n 1saaes' r
Syllabus Plaintiff assigned error the ord'
, of the court granting new trial of the action
the ground that the evidence in that action W;
a manfestly in favor of the verdict Of the Inr
e This assignment of error was sufficient. W1lcC
a vs. Mutual Insurance company. 81 Mimi. Al
Cent. NJ NJ. Co. Fireman's NJ. Co., 90 MINI
223. 226 followed.
/ and the evidence introduced in support mu
T substantially correspond. Proof of an EXPIRE
q contract necessarily excludes cotemporaneo'
h implied one IN relation to the same matter
r plaintiff who has declared on an express agre
> ment cannot recover on proof of an implied co
=, tract.
Y Order affirmed -Jaggard, J..
e William A. Pinney. respondent, VS.. George
King ct al, defendants, George R. Kin
appellant.
y Syllabus: First--The dangerous character
, dynamite, when used for blasting or other Ii
= purposes, imposes upon the person so employi
u it the duty to provide reasonably safe and su
% able methods for its use. and the duty to
t. sruct and warn his inexperienced servants of
character and the manenr in which it may
handled and used with safety eE-
Second-Eyidence considered and held sui
= cient to support the verdict of the jury that
PENDANT chargeabe with negligence in
respects stated in the opinion. and that it is l
. conclusive that plaintiff assumed the risks.
Order affirmed. .- Brown, J.
W. H. Summers and Mabel NJ. Summers
spondents, Pratt's Express company,
pel1ant.