The Minneapolis journal., 1906-06-08
owners along the line Of that part Of the street
to be vacated
Writ discharged. Lewis, J. &

to be, vacated.
Writ discharged. Lewis, J.
Augusta Linse, respondent VS. Carl Linse, ap-
syllabus--When divorce from the husband is
granted to the wife upon the ground Of adul-
terry her interest in the husbands estate is the
same as upon his death. Holmes VS.. Holmes 81 |
Mimi, 352. t3s
But If in such action the wife freely and
advise6ly consents to certain division of the
as perm anent alimony in lieu Of all other inter-
ests, and such division is accepted and adopted |
by the trial court, and Judgment is entered that
except as to such amount the wife has share
or interest in the husbands estate such iudp- |
ment is final unless set aside for cause, and
having accepted aud retained the amount ad.
judged as permanent alimony, she is estopped
from denying the validity of the judgment.
Judgment reversed. Lewis J.
State ex-rel Edward T. Young, attorney gen
eral. relator VS.. G. B. Jack, respondent.
Syllabus: The charter of the city OF Still.
water contains the following provisions:
80 I" the city clerk shall forthwith give
notice to the officers elected Of their respective
fuse or neglect for ten (1O) days after notice of
his election or appointment, to enter upon the
discharge Of the duties of his office, shall be
deemed to have vacated his office" every per-
son elected or appointed to any office under this
act shall, before he enters upon the duties Of
his office, take and subscribe an oath OF office
and file the same with the clerk Of the city,
Held The special municipal judge elected at
the general election Nov. Z, 1905, for the ensu-
ing terms to commence the second Tuesday OF
April following, duly qualified and accepted the
office altho his offcials oath was not executed
and filed with the city clerk until Dec 4 1908
Ordered that the writ issue as prayed for.
| tbtS:a E> & h rsf Lewis. ]. 4
Village Of Pillager, Cass county, Mimi. appel
lant, S.. M. Hewitt, as Hewitt Bridge
company, respondent
Syllabus: First--The plaintiff and defendant
respect fair and reasonable, for the building Of
a. bridge by the defendant for the plaintiff.
Of It's failure e eomsr wt
the provisions of the statute as to the letting
Of the contract It was void. The defendant in
and built the bridge IN accordance with the
plans and specifications therefor. The plaintiff
accepted the bridge and voluntarily paid to the.
defendant therefor $500 in cash and 81 300 in
Its bonds. The bridge was carried away by
food. This is an action to recover from the
thereof. Held that the plaintT @ cannot a0ue. re-.
cover. rt4Ei ''- . =
second-The trial court did not abuse it's dis
cretlon IN denying a new trial on the ground
Of plaintiffs surprise by the testimony of a
witness called by the defendant
| Order affirmed. Start, @, J. s
Gottlieb schlag, appellant, vs. Gooding- Coke
company, respondent. \ r. :. =
Syllabus: First--In an action for damages
dam maintained by defendant, it is held that
the. the findings Of the trial court, to the effect
. land by a properly executed deed of convey
anee to the predecessors Of defendant and that
thus granted, are sustained by the evidence.
Second-objection to a deposition upon the
ground Sa that the necessity for taking the same
on the trial should be made before the same is
read IN evidence; If not then made, it is waived.
! 'uus" n' s"en' anlrineo: Brown, J. +
partners M Alien Ward sp rssponSsnfs ana; Ss. Ss.
lants. = y seon' appei-
services rendered in connection with c.. and
money expended. and in an accompanying letter
requested B. to call on G. and agree upon what
same amount If not less than stated eP' snm ue
-. called on c., but did not reply to A. letter
/ In an action on an account stated, based on
the acquiescence Of B., 1T was error to eyclnde
| evidence of statements made BY B. to g. IN
relation to the account.
| order reversed and new trial granted -. E
Anna NJ Willard, appellant VS., John B. Hodapp
Syllabus: Action to determine adverse claims
/ 20 real estate. The plaintiff is the owner of
the land d! unless her title has been divested BY
YAK judgment and sale under which the in
teryenor claims title. The tax Judgment and
sale aets were for, assessments for local improve
ter Of the city Of Mankato. s@l = -, o-'
actions to test the ysdy tax seies de not ee
apply to acttons FOR the possession of real
estate nor to actions where the party invoking
the statute alleges title in himself by virtue
OF the tax sale and asks the court to determine
judge: 1t to be in him, for such a Judgment
would carry with it as necessary incident
the land. london & n. VI. Co.. ys. inn Gbson - -
Mimi, S94: followed. ....r s--..s0a' :.
,.ss sseond-Juagmeats nc in local assessment pro
Mankato stand upon the same basis as judg
ments In ordinary tax proceedings and can
@ not De lmpeached IN collateral action by show
Ing irregularities in the assessment proceed
| ings. s-- -.r..E...- - ::
Third-The finding and decision of the trial
and the intervenor the owner Of the land ii
question are sustained by the evidence. - &
Order affirmed. z. Start, C.J. /
Estella L. Pearsan RESPONDENT. ys.t<Jr n
Tabour, appellant. - - ''' =
Syllabus An action to enforce an obligation
barred by discharge in bankruptcy proceed
), ings, based upon the obliger's subsequent prom
], Use to pay. must fail unless there be strong
Identification of the debt and as to a distinct
unconditional and present promise to pay.
y The possibility Of wrong to; the discharged
, OF the legitimate benefit Of the bankruptc,
: act, Is not to be remedied by hostile, unusua
or forced interpretation Of the evidence intro
duced In support Of such promise to pay.
Wherever upon the application of the nat
ural and ordinary rules Of common sense An,
simple logic to the proof introduced in supper
of the subsequent promise to pay construe,
as a whole the trial court is satisfied tina
, | such proof conforms to the legal standard, an
it is contradicted It is it's duty to submit th
questions of fact to the jury under appropriate
Instructions
In this case the evidence Of such subseouen
promise to pay, is held to have justified its sub
Q mission to the Jury and the verdict Of tn
9 jury against the debtor
- made before the discharge, promising to, pa,
( the debt thereafter, is held under the circum
Q stances Of this case to have been properly re
8 cived in evidence. ;E
The refusal Of trial court to set aside tn
: verdict because Of alleged misconduct Of coun
9 | sci for plaintiff in his address to the jury i
}. held not to have been reversible abuse o
! discretion. in view Of the incompleteness o
the record and Of the charge of the court witt
: reference thereto. <s- .. ..-@.-E...s "a.
Order affirmed. s.s~ Jaggard, J.
i A. e. Clark. Respondent vs.. Charles Baxte
and J. e. Baxter appellants.
| Syllabus-Repeals by implication are not ia
I vored, but If q; subsequent statute, altho no
:. repugnant in all its provisions to the forme
= enac tInent the same subject. Is clearly In
: tended to prescribe the only rule which shou1,
: govern in the case provided for, it repeals til