The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-04-20
Supreme Court
Her HOMESTEAD
LIKE Her CASTLE
WoMAN's RIGHTS EQUAL TO HUs.
BANDS AGAINST INVASION.
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds
Lower Tribunal, Which Awarded
Damages for Fright Caused by a Big
Corporation - Other Cases Are De-
cided.

A woman 8 house is her castle, just
as is a man s, and no invading corpora
ton or other force may safely ignore
the old principle, according to dictum
of the supreme court of the state of
Minnesota. The decisions in this and
in other cases follow: .=..G - ~ #...:.
Caroline Leach, respondent, VS.. Great Northern
Railway company, appellant. H.
Syllabus: First-A wife has an interest in
the homestead of herself and husband altho the
legal title thereto is in him. and she is en-
titled to the peaceful and, quiet enjoyment
thereof. Any unlawful invasion OF such right
is legal wrong against her.
Second-In action to recoyer damages sus-
tanned by the plaintiff by reason of fright caused
by the wrongful acts Of the DEFENDANTS en-
ployees 1t is held that the evidence justified the
submission of the to the jury, and that 1t
sustains the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed. Start, G. ].
In the matter Of the estate of Hans Peterson.
deceased, Ole Peterson ct al, appellants vs..
Mari Hansdatter Christopherson, respondent.
Syllabus: This case involves a contest as to
the validity of will. Held:
First-Where party has right to choose
one or two appropriate, but inconsist-
| ent remedies, and with full knowledge of all
Of the facts and Of his rights, makes deliberate
choice of of them, he is bound by his cleo
| ton and is estopped from again electing and
resorting to the other remedy.
Second-Thc doctrine of election Of remedies
differs from that of estopDel in its broadcast
sense, in that the party invoking 1t need not
show that he will suffer some material disad-
vantage unless his adversary be. required to
| abide by his election.
Thrd-The respondent herein filed a petition
in the probate court for the probate Of the WILL
| On the day appointed for the hearing the ap-
| pellants appeared and moved to dismiss the
| petition. The motion denied and the hear
| ing adjourned to enable the appellants to offer
proof of the will. On the adjourned day the
| respondent fled objections to the allowance Of
the will and the appellants appeared in support
of the will. The contest tried in the pro-
bate court without objection by anyone. and re-
suited in an order admitting the will to pro-
bate. The respondent appealed from the order
to the district court The appellants when
| the case was called for trial in the district
/ court moved to dismiss the appeal because the
| respondent had elected to take under the will
! and was estopped to contest it. Held, that
the appellants estopped from raising the
question for the first time In the district court.
Fourth-The writing whereby the father Of an
/ illegitimate child acknowledges himself to be
the father Of such child, provided by G. S.
| 1904, section 4479. need not be made for the
express purpose Of acknowledging the, paternity
of thee child 1t is sufficient compliance with
the statute If the acknowledgment be made in
any written instrument, collateral otherwise,
signed by the father in the presence of a
| competent witness, in which he clearly and
specifically acknowledges that he is the father
| of the child. The writing here in question Is
| SuUlC1enL 10 eSlaDuSl Cle ue1rSQ1p OIL Tue re-
spondent.
Fifth--The finding Of the trial court to the
effect that the writing purporting to be the
will of the testator not signed by him,
nor by any person in his presence by. his ex-
press direction, is sustained by the evidence.
l. Sixth--A party to an action interested in
| the event thereof is not competent to testify
| to conversations with or, admissions of de-
ceased party had with or made to third party
in his presence.
Order affirmed. Start, g. J.
Gustav Kern, administrator Of the estate OF
Harriet Kern, deceased, Respondent vs.. L. ".
Gerzema and Charles A. Cooper, appellants.
Syllabus: In an action by an administrator
against the assignee of an heir Of his interstate
to recover possession Of land, held that a find
ing Of the trial court to the effect that pos
session of the land by the administrator was
necessary for the purposes Of administration was
sustained by the evidence, ands further that there
were reversible errors in the rulings of the
trial court to the admission Of evidence.
Order affirmed Start G. J.
Pond & Hasey company, respondent, c. NJ
Winslow ct al, appellants.
Per Curiam-Order affirmed.
Patrick Cunningham. respondent, vs. Powers
Simpson company, appellant.
Per Curiam-Order affirmed.