The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-04-27
SUPREME COURT

Mary v. Roche, appellant, vs.. NJ. B. Dunn, re-
spondent.
Syllabus: In summary proceedings agaiSst
the respondent under the provision of X. L. 1905,
section 551, held, that the facts found by the
trial court do not justify the conclusion that
he unlawfully failed to pay over money In his
hands as sheriff on the demand of appellant
without any reasonable excuse. Hull VS.. Chap
ell, II Mimi. 1876. followed.
Order affirmed. Start, =. >.
The Farmers United Township Mutual Hail as
ISOLATION of Minnesota, respondent vs.. Edward
Daily, appellant.
Syllabus: policy in a mutual hail sssocia.
tion, organized under sections 1888 to $500,
G. S. 1891, and acts amendatory thereto, which
was issued in 1901, is subject to an annual
assessment of ) per cent of it's face at a date
subsequent to the amendment made by section
o, chapter 211 laws of 1903.
The holder of such policy Is not entitled
TO set off against an assessment of particular
year. in an action brought to enforce II, a bal
ance of loss in prior year remaining unpaid,
after the insured had received en- that loss
proper proportion of funds available Tor tnaf
purpose under his agreement with the associa-
ton.
1t is held, that the association, under the
policy, application and bylaws appearing IN
this record, is entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys fee fox collecting the assessment, and
that the fee allowed by the court was in fact
Judgment affirmed -Jaggard, J.
State ex-rel william .Erb. appellant, VS.. Alex
| A. Swesas ct al. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, Ole
| J. johnson ct al, defendants, James Sutor es
al Neutrality-suspicious.
| Syllabus An appeal from judgment against
| n board of county commissioners rendered In an
| action involving its official powers and duties
! can only be taken authorized by the action
| of the board. Individual members thereof cam
not appeal.
| Appeal dismissed. Brown, ]. :
|
Leroy stegner, as administrator of the estate Of
! Jasper T. Stegner, deceased, respondent, va
Chicago Milwaukee st. Paul Railway eoIn'
| pany ct al, defendants; Chicago Miiwaukes
/ & ST. Paul Railway company, appellant.
Syllabus: The facts In this case are not es-
| sentially different from the facts before the
4 court upon the former appeal QO2 n. W. r.,
| 205), and 1t does not conclusively appear from
| the evidence that deceased guilty of con-
| tributory negligence.
Judgment affirmed. Lewis. j.
| O. H. Bjoin appellant, VS.. William Anglim ana
/ C. d. Billings, respondents.
Syllabus: a bond which upon its face pur-=
ports to be obligation of principal and his
sureties TO indemnify third party from loss
under a contract with the principal is void as
to the sureties unless executed by the principal.
4 In this action by the obligee to enforce the
obligation against the sureties on such bond
the complaint should have set out the fact that
the sureties waived its execution by the prin-
cipal and authorized its delivery to the obligee,
as valid obligation. In the absence Of such
allegations the complaint did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a of action, and
upon the trial the sureties were entitled to
Judgment upon the pleadings.
| Order affirmed. Lewis, ].
| International Boom company ct al, respondents,
VS.. Rainy Lake River Boom corporation, ap-
u pellant.
Syllabus: First-In determining the characteF
: of a corporation reference must be had to that
onfta 80 nfofinT ciT=
) the nature and scope of its business.
Second-It cannot be made one kind of cor.
, poration merely by being labeled as such If iti
deelarsd: objects show it TO be something else.
Third-Defendant in this action. tho fits artf
cles ofsasseeiation state that it incorporated
underrtitle "a chapter. 3d. G.. S. 1894, was IN
fact as shown by its declared objects, organized
t for the purpose of improving Rainy Lake rive
to- facilitate and render the driving of logi
thereon kpEaetieable, by locating therein boom.
and sorting works, and for conducting and carry
4 ing on the business of storing sorting, boomin:
q and handling logs thereon-the business con
n templated by chapter 221, G. L. 1885, amenda
: tory of title 1 of chapter 81, G. S. 1894 A
r such It is entitled to all the benefits of tina
r statute p .f
: Observation-Disclosures Improvement Boon
- company VS.. 'Brien IS Mimi. 325, distinguished
Fifth-Eyidence held to show a contract pun
q suant to which defendant collected, sorted an
e handled plaintiffs logs as they were drive
d down the. Rainy Lake river past Its sortin
e zl[Morhs&uufIHS lue ctdeon OIL 1SUt, lHdl IL
n entitled to reasonable compensation therefor.
81, Sixth--To enforce payment of which lit pc:
~ sessesr lien upon, the logs in controversy
this action by virtue of the statute above n
le ferred to, and is entitled to retain possesso
le Of the same until the same is paid and di:
s charged.
" Seventh-There was no waiver of defendant
l. lien by the surrender and delivery of part
- the logs handled during the season. The lie
created by the statute extends to all logs wit
y reference to which labor and services PEI
lie formed by corporations of this character, an
lie may be enforced as an entirety against an
b. | portion Of the logs.
he Order reversed and new trial granted.
20 Brown J.
Il 10y - -
&c James Costello, respondent, VS.. John Frankma
= ct al, eopartners as Frankman Brothers