The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-07-27
Supreme Court
T. F. Tillinghast, appellant. VS.. United State

T. f. Tillinghast, appellant, vs.. United States
Savings / Loan company, respondent
Syllabus: The plaintiff was the owner OF
twenty five shares Of full-paid stock of the de-
PENDANT and gave notice Of withdrawal. The
parties disagreed as to the amount the plaintiff
was entitled to recover for his stock. He
dictlon of Rhode Island to recover the face value
of his stock. The defendant. which was
going concern answered, claiming the right TO
have deducted from the face value the amount
of the two assessments Of 10 per cent each on
the stock account Of losses sustained Plain
tiff recovered judgment for the full amount OF
his claim. The judgment has been paid less
sum equal to the amount OF the assessments
This is an action on the judgment to recover the
balance thereof. Held, that, between the
parties hereto. the plaintiff Is a judgment cred
itor, and the trial court erred in permitting the
defendant to show that 1t was insolvent when
the plaintiff gave notice Of withdrawal. and
that its capital stock was impaired to such an
extent that no greater proportion Of the moneys
contributed by stockholders can be returned to
them than has already been paid to the plaintiff
on his judgment. -. ez>
Order reversed and = new trial granted.
Start. O. J.
In re application Of Horace B. Gates to regis
ter title, respondent, VS.. Patrick Keigher ct
Is, al, defendants, state of Minnesota appellant
Syllabus: Where lands have been sold for
taxes and the purchaser thereafter perfects his
title hereunder, the state cannot impeach such
title by resale Of the land for taxes due and
unpaid for prior years. State vs.. Camp, 70
Mimi, 843, followed. <''
Judgment and order affirmed. Lewis, ].
Noah @. Viou, respondent, vs.. Brooks-Scanlon
Lumber company, appellant.
Syllabus: Plaintiff. foreman In lumber
MILL was hurt by tramcar falling from q
bridge into a ravine over which the track ran.
Plaintiff was engaged In removing from that
ravine other cars which had previously fallen
from the same track at the same place.
The evidence showed a sufficient expression
Of appreciation Of personal danger to the servant
to bring the case within the ordinary rule which
justifes a servant in continuing dangerous
employment because Of reliance upon the promise
Of the master to remedy defect In instrument
talities or place OF work in answer to com
plant made by the servant. That the Servant
who complained to the superintendent Of the
mill Of the danger arising from the original de
sign Of the track and bridge was foreman
with much power over other employees and thei
work did not place him outside Of the class o.
persons to whom the master owed the duty Of
exercising reasonable care In providing q SAT,
place and instrumentalities for work.
The danger that car might fall from tn,
bridge upon the plaintiff at work in the rayint
matter Of law he was guilty Of contributor,
negligence In failing to provide against suel
contingency.
The mere fact that injuries caused by the neg
iugence or the person sought to be charged nav
been increased by the negligence Of an attend
ing physician does not relieve that person o.
consequent liability. Nor does the fact that be
fore suit is brought against such person thu
injured person settled a claim against hfs at
tending physician for malpractice operate to re
| ileve the person originally guilty Of negligence
| of liability. 80
In this case plaintiff settled claim for NAL
practice by the physician who treated hi
injuries caused by defendants negligence 70
$242.40. The court charged the jury as follows
THE plaintiff having settled with his attend
| ing physician for alleged improper treatment
| he cannot recover Of the defendant for an,
aggrayation Of damage caused by the doctor
! improper treatment The plaintiff can only re
4 cover such damages as proxsmately result fror
| defendants negligence aside from any aggraya
ton Of damages caused by the negligence Of tn
attending physician. For any condition fror
which the defendant is now suffering, and whic
| is to be referred to improper treatment by hi
attending physician he has received satisfac
! ton and he cannot recover OF this defendan
therefor. A verdict Of $12.50o was reduced b
the court to $500, which was accepted b
the plaintiff. It is held that the charge Of tn
court contained no Just ground Of complaint b
the defendant, and that the final award Of dam
| ages was not excessive nor void because plaintiff
| did not bear the burden Of tracing his damage
~ defendAnt - their prox1mats cause, Or b