The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-01-19
Supreme Court

sylvester h1pp, respondent, VS. Henry Ginger |
ct al, defendants, Lillian Lambert, appel
liant s}..G. 80 -zg,..s. s..s.
Syllabus: 81 First-Johnson vs.. johnson, 90
Mimi, 1877, to the effect that a memorandum
Of trial court attached to, but not expressly
made a part of its order or decision, may be
referred to when 1t furnishes a Controlling
reason for the courts decision," followed and
applied ~ .-. .... '. r
Second-Such memorandum may not, however,
be referred to for the purpose Of impeaching
or contradicting express findings of fact or
cision made. ..,... .5...- ....-.t.a.
Third-The grantee Of defendant in an ac-
ton to determine adverse claims to real prop
erty wherein judgment has been rendered by |
default, may move the court to vacate and |
set aside the judgment and for leave to de-
fend therein, but his right to that relief de-
rights he succeeded, would, on the facts dis
closed be entitled to it.
Fourth-It must affirmative1y appear, to JUS |
tify granting such motion, when addressed
to the discretion of the court under General
Statutes 1894, section 5267, that it made
, with due diligence and within one year from
actual notice Of the judgment
Fifth-An affidavit by such grantee stating
in general terms that the defendant. his grant,
, Or, had no actual notice or knowledge Of the
judgment is hearsay evidence, and INSULT
cient to establish the fact Of want of notice
in defendant, -tu = ..a-g T. i
sixth-The rule excluding hearsay evidence
| applies to affidavits used upon motions to va
| cate and set aside judgments. g. =.
! Seventh-The rule that an order or decision
of the court below, otherwise right as mat
| ter Of law, will not be reversed merely be-
cause the reasons assigned therefor by the
| court were wrong, applied. ~
| Order affirmed Brown, ].
In estate Of James A. Bradley, deceased,
Henry ~, W: Bradley ru11 administrator, appellant,
| Syllabus: Ftrst-An appeal to the district
court from an order of the probate court va
eating and setting aside administrators
! ar aunt for vic 81,
court. ordinarily, the propriety Of the order
appealed from and not the merits Of the ad:
illustrators account. -.. - ,-sE2z r.
! Second-But where on such an appeal the
parties Voluntarily 1itigate the merits Of the
administrators account, and the court hears,
. adjusts and determines the same, the parties
are bound by the result to the same extent
as tho the matters were properly before the
court + .. ~. - y. ~ i T..
Third-An order granting new trial viii
| not be sustained as one having been based upon
| the ground that the verdict or findings were,
not sustained by the evidence; and therefore
discretionary order within the rule Of Hicks
| vs., Stone, unless it affirmatively appears from
| the record to have been so granted. Fitger VS.
Guthrie, s3 Mimi, $50, followed. s. !.
Order reversed. . a" Brown, J.
Kathryn Carlin, respondent, vs.. Charles D.
Kennedy appellant. ,#l II asE% s.
Syllabus: Frst-The evidence was sufficient
to Justify the jury in finding that the ironing
| mangIe involved in this action was defective
| a
the rollers to protect employees while engaged
| in putting a covering upon the rollers, and that
the employer was negligent in directing an in
experienced employee to assist in putting a
suitable instructions, and warning her as to
the danger connected Herewith.
Second-The evidence was sufficient to justify
the jury in finding that respondent did not
assume the risks and was not guilty of con-
trtbutory negligence In performing the work
Third-Expert testimony was proper with ref
erence to the proper and customary way Of
! putting coverings upon such rollers, and as
equipped with a proper guard to protect en-
ployees.
Fourth-D Damages, as found by the jury, were
| not excessive.
Order affirmed. Lewis, J.
State ex rel. Charles e. Otis, as receiver Of the
Savings Bank Of st. Paul, ct al, petitioners,
vs. the district court Of Ramsey county and
Grier NJ. Orr, one of the Judges Of said court,
| respondents.
/ Syllabus: The amendment of 1893 to section
36, article 4, Of the constitution to the effect
that legislative body shall be a feature OF
home-rule charters was not intended to prevent
the board of public works, appointive body.
from exercising the duties imposed by the ST.
Paul city charter in respect to reassessment
Former decisions adhered to which hold that in
, board of public works under the St Paul charter
are valid. notwithstanding the occurrence OF ju-
risdictional defects in the original assessment
proceedings. 40: 5.sfs
Order affirmed. Lewis, J.
In re estate of Catherine. Kenny. deceased. ST.
I IS Paul Gaslisht company, appellant. VS.. Mary
\ Z, I. Kenny, respondent. IS.
Syllabus: First--Real property Inherited by d
child from its fathers estate descends under snb-
whtre the child dies without issue and befo
:. : y = - s. /.