The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-06-22
THE MINNEAPOLIS JOURNAL.
Court

syllabus: 10 take parol gift OF land out of
the statute Of frauds, the donee must not only
enter into possession of the premises but also
make improvements thereon, or perform such
other acts with reference thereto as would make
1t inequitable not to enforce the Sgife. Mere re-
manning in possession and exercising ownership
of the premises under prior parol gift is not
sufficient
Order reversed. Lewis, j.
Clara Raasch. by August Raasch, her guardian
ad Ntem respondent, VS.. Elite Laundry COM
pany and George NJ. Carter, appellants.
Syllabus: An employee while operating an
ironing mangle in u laundry had her fingers
caught between the rollers. and the master, hav-
ing been notified OF the situation, started the
machine, thereby drawing her hand further III
and greatly increasing the injury.
Held, the master after notice Of the situation,
was required to exercise ordinary care to release
the employee and alleviate her suffering, a-anH
whether he did so under the circumstances was
q question for the jury.
The fact that the employee contributed to the
injury by her own negligence in assuming the
risks of operating the machine, and that the
master was not responsible for the injury occa-
stoned in the first instance, does not change the
application of the rule.
Order affirmed. Lewis, J..
Addie NJ. Libby, appellant, vs. Edward 7. Perry,
respondent, F4
Syllabus: A certain instrument construed and
held to be, In its original FORM an option for
the purchase of real estate, but as afterwards
modified it became contract of purchase.
The contract not having been terminated by
giving the notice required by chapter 223 laws
of 1897. and time not having been made the
essence Of the contract, the purchaser enti
tied to maintain action for specific perform
ance, altho payments had not been made within
the time limited. Evidence was introduced at
the trial tending to show that appellant had
!, not, prior to the commencement of the action,
abandoned the contract, but had made prepara-
| ton to perform. the same.
The contract was not indefinite in Its terms
upon the question Of deferred payments and Sc
| curity, and by pleading and making proper
| tender OF the money due and Of mortgage upon
| the premises for the deferred payments, ap-
pellant preserved her rights under the contract
altho the time stated for such payment had ex-
| pired. .,$ .l a., .f.@is + s5jssSt $50 81.
| It was error to dismiss the action at the close
of appellants case, the evidence being sufficient
to make out a prima facie cause of action.
Order reversed. Lewis, ],
Cecilia Anderson, respondent, VS.. James G.
Young, appellant.
wages per week were received at the time of
| an accident, it will not be inferred that the
| amount Of the wage for the time an injured
| party Is incapacitated is the measure of dam
| ages for the loss Of time.
Order reversed New trial. Lewis j: =,
August Lindquist, respondent, VS.. Ella NJ. Dick
son. appellant. Les
| Syllabus: Action to recover from the defend.
ant, as an undiscovered principal, upon con-
4 tract made by her husband for decorating and
4 repairing her house. Held:
! F1rSt-lf person contracts with another who
Is In fact an agent Of an undiscovered principal
| and after learning all the facts, brings an
| action on the contract and RECEIVERS judgment
against the agent, such judgment win be a
bar to an action against the principal. But an
unsattshed judgment against the agent lis not a
bar to an action against the undiscovered prin-
cipal when discovered If the plaintiff was ignor-
ant of the facts to the agency when he
prosecuted his action against the agent
Second-It is not necessary to establish an
| alleged agency by direct evidence. It may be
established by circumstances such as the rela.
ton of the parties to each other and their con-
duet with reference to the subject matter Of
| the contract. 2-s.a}#%
Third-A fact may be established by incom-
petent evidence If it is material when it is re-
| ceived without objection. ~
Fourth-A party who has called witness
and Is surprised by his adverse testimony, may,
in the direction Of the trial court, be allowed
to cross-examtne him, and, after laying the
proper foundation. to show that be had pre-
viously made statements contrary to his testi.
mony. The discretion was properly exercised in
Fifth-The evidence sustains the verdict.
Order affirmed. Start c. J.
Caspar Machren, respondent, vs. Great Northern
hallway company, appellant
Syllabus: Action to recover for personal In
juries sustained by a locomotive engineer by a
rear-end collision between two freight trains OF
the defendant. Defense that the plaintiff was
guilty Of contributory negligence In not comply
Ing with rule requiring all trains to approach
all stations and water tanks under control. Held
Ffrst-If compliance by the servant with a
general rule is rendered impossible by other
and inconsistent orders and duties imposed by
the master. negligence cannot be imputed to the
servant for not following the general rule
second-If the plaintiff had his train under
control as he approached the station, or if be
did not, If he used due care and under the cir.
cumstances Of the case did all that It was
reasonably possible for him to do consistent
with other rules and duties. If, any, imposed
upon him by the defendant, to comply with
the rule as to having his train under control
he would not be guilty of contributory negli
gence, otherwise he would be. as1
Third-It was error TOR the trial court to in
struct the jury to the effect that If the plain
tiff exercised the care and diligence to keep hi
train under control ordinarily exercised by engi
neers under like circumstances he was not guilty
Of contributory negligence 4&.t.,
Fourth-The evidence in this case was SUI
fcient to take the, case to the Jury upon til,
question Of the alleged contributory negligenc,
of the plaintiff in not complying with the rule
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Start. @. ].
William P. Allen appellant, vs.. the board 0
county commissioners Of Ramsey county, Min
nesota, respondent
Syllabus Section 1910, G. s. 1894, to TIL
4 effect that taxes refunded upon void tax judg
: tax sale, Is directory, not mandatory, and sue
delinquent taxes may be enforced by the stat
at any time within six years from the tim
of refundment.
Order affirmed. Lewis, ].
l State Of Minnesota respondent, vs.. v. A. Tetu
e appellant.
4 | Syllabus: The defendant was convicted of
violation of section 8, chapter 1856, laws Q
. 1903, forbidding the sale of any cream tina
, contains less than 20 per cent Of fat. Held: E
a First-That the statute violates neither th
constitution Of this state nor the fourteent
, amendment Of the constitution Of the Unite
\ States. State VS.. Crescent Creamery company
SO MINI. 2s4, followed
Second-The fact that q manufacturer of col
: densed milk adopted as trade name, befor
, the enactment Of the statute, the term "Eval
not give him the right to sell such product a
cream, evaporated or otherwise.
= Third-The conviction Of the defendant is SUI
. tanned by the evidence
a Order affirmed. Start, O. j.
. Edward Savage and Charles E.Purdy, o-partnel
, as Savage g. Purdy, appellants, VS.. Madeli
Farmers Warehouse company ct al, <defent
ants; w. D. Tanning ct al, respondents.
3 Syllabus: Ffrst-Directors and officers of
: corporation are not forbidden by law from Ell
. tering into contracts with the corporation the
3 represent and Of which they are members
= Second--In such contracts the officers are he
= to those rules of fairness and good faith whiC
q courts of equity impose upon trustees.
Third-If contracts SO entered into are fai
3 free from fraud and in the interests and fl
"a the benefit of the corporation they are valid.
Fourth-Findings Of the trial court to Il
, effect that respondents, directors of the co
;. poratfon whose affairs are here involved In i
. solvency proceedings became obligated to al
"a paid certain valid existing debts of the corpor