The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-07-20

with him for the sale Of the land on the terms
authorized,
Third Evidence Of conversation between the
broker and the purchaser in negotiating the
proposed sale, Il the result be communicated
to the principal, is admissible. Rutherford
vs. Selover, 81 Mimi, 1876, distinguished.
Fourth--The trial court correctly charged the
jury and the evidence is sufficient to sustain
the verdict in favor Of the plaintiff.
NJ. NJ. Williams, appellant, vs.. the Little Falls
Waterpower Company Of Minnesota, respon-
Syllabus: Evidence considered and held that
1t was sufficient to take the case to the jury
upon the issue whether the defendant promised
for his services as its president.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Per Curtain.
Ole Johnson, respondent, vs.. st. Paul Gaslight
company, appellant
Syllabus: Plaintiff. laborer, while laying
DEFENDANTS gas mains in trenches excavated for
that purpose was injured by horse falling into
the unguarded trench It is held that 1t was
for the jury to determine the following ques-
lions: ~ Whether the defendant was negli-
the foreman who directed plaintiff to lamp back
the earth In the trench was fellow servant or
Vice principal; 81 whether the plaintiff as
sumed the risk of the work which resulted in
OF the work, but to the operation OF cause
wholly disconnected with and independent of 1t;
| and ~ whether the plaintiff guilty of
contributory negligence in continuing to work
with knowledge that the boards, fencing and
red signal lanterns provided by the master for
guarding the excavation were not put in place
| to protect him, but without knowledge, as a
| matter of law, that no men were stationed
near to warn away people approaching.
The damages awarded by the jury, $780, altho
large. are not excessive.
| 0rdav ofFf ~ d
State Of Minnesota, plaintiff, VS.. Edwin N
Sager, defendant.
Syllabus: An indictment under $3.50. G. s
1894 charging the defendant with felonously
taking for the purpose Of marriage a named
| child of the age Of 15 years from the custod,
OF Its parents without their consent, is held t,
be valid, Notwithstanding the following OBJ
5ect1ons Tor the following reasons respectively
namely:
First-That this section is inappMcable t
! females who have the right to marry when the
attain the age Of Is years under 47s9, G. S
1894; because. the gist of the offense is tn
taking from the custody of the legal guardian
and not the marrying of the child.
second-That the Indictment did not show t
whom 1t was intended that the child should
married; because it was sufficient to alleg
the taking for the illegal purpose in the lar
guage Of the statute which was sufficiently clea
| and definite.
Third-That it did not charge defendants II
tent that the child should be married befor
arriving at the age of 1e years; because of til
same reasons. .r'-r---
Fourth-That 1t did not show that her pal
ents had legal charge Of her person; because til
inference OF legal custody follows as matte
of law from the fact of relationship, no
withstanding the presumption Of innocence.
Affirmed -Jaggard, ].
In re estate Of Jane Robbins, deceased. wi
liam o. Fryberger, as administrator appe
lant VS.. Charles A. Turner, respondent.
Per Curtain. Order affirmed.
Lars 0. Thorpe and Andrew Larson as trustees
respondents, vs.. Pennock Mercantile compan
ct al. appellants. - = --
Syllabus: A partnership being inso1vent, oil
tanned new capital from outside parties wit
the understanding that corporation would
,, organized and the business continued. A corpo
ate form and name were adopted, stock certii
= Gates were issued to the partners and partis
\ furnishing the new capital In proportion to the
business carried on under the form of
corporation Thereafter incorporation was /
gally effected and the stock already issued W,
| treated the stock Of the corporation II
property Of the partnership was transferred
; the corpora ton without compliance with chapt
. 1921, general laws 1899. The corporation pu
chased additional merchandise, incurred ne
4 debts and carried business until 1t BEGAN
= insolvent The assets were by agreement tran
= ferred to trustees, who reduced them to cas-
In an action to determine the respective RICH
: held: r -
= (a) That the creditors of the corporation a
e entitled to full payment of their claims b
s fore the creditors of the partnership are e
l., | titled to participate in the fund. -.
(b) The right to have partnership proper
! applied to the payment OF partnership debts
4 right which each partner has against t
other partners. It may be terminated by agre
+ ment or by good-faith sale and transfer
"a the partnership property.
y. (c) Partnership creditors have no lien up
\ the partnership property.
- (d) But partnership creditors may be ST
"a stituted to the rights of the partners to ha
the property Of the partnership applied to
payment Of partnership debts before 1t is us
to pay the individual debts Of the partners
otherwise improperly disposed of. This right
Is the creditors ceases. however when the rtgf
t Of the partners against each other are lost
S. the disposition Of the property.
icy The members of a partnership have
If right to dispose of the property of the partn
I'd ship and thus destroy this equity of credfto
!, But the rights of creditors cannot be defeat
,e by the sale Of partnership property which
ar made for the purpose Of defrauding the ere
& itors.
10 tf) Chapter 2s1, general, laws $780, entitl
Of hs
- made without compliance with its provisic
>, twill be presumed to be fraudulent and void
makes such sales presumptiyely fraudulent on
- The statute merely prescribes rule of e
as dence.
to 81 Chapter 2e1, general laws 1899, is cons
u tutional. u
in (h) When stock certificates are issued in 9,
Is temptation Of Incorporation the issue of ste
On may after Incorporation be adopted by the c
i'd poration and the holders. thereby become sto
to holders without the formal issue of new c
H. tifcates.
Order affirmed. Elliott, ]
&c
q 8 WOMAN SKY.SAIL0R