The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-12-07
Supreme Court

Mary Meyer, respondent. VS.. the town Of Peters,
burg ct al, appellants. #
Syllabus: Where strip of land has been
der the provisions Of section 1882, general
statutes 1894. and all Of the provisions Of the
\ statute as tosits use have been complied with,
and the public authorities may have been mis-
taken as to the true location of section line
which they believed to have been the center Of
| the highway as used. ss--s.E RS 4. a. -.s
Order reversed and new trial granted. !
liz .. aa.s... .I y 4.~--s.> !. Start, O. J. q
i John w.. johnson, partners as w. s. Cleve-
| !and Co., respondents, vs.. John II. Rowe,
doing business as John H. Rowe Lumber
i company, appellant. a." EE i
+ Syllabus: In this, an action to recover dam
ages for breach of contract to sell lumber,
it is held that the trial court did not in it's
rulings as to. the admission Of evidence, that
the evidence sustains the verdict.
+ Order affirmed. Start, G. J.
In re Drainage Ditch No. 6, G. W. Patterson
ct al, appellants, VS.. the Chicago Rock
Island & Pacific Railway company, respond
| ent. ..
company, paying gross earnings tax in lieu Of
| all taxes and all assessments provided by
s. L. 1873 chapter Ill, is exempt from assess
ments for special benefits accruing thereto by
Order affirmed. Start, 9. J.
! george RelS, appellant, vs.. Valentine Refs and
Maggie Refs, respondents.
Syllabus: In connection with proceedings to
| dissolve partnership, each partner is entitled
to an account Of all firm TRANSACTIONS; ad:
| 5ustment of the accounts is a necessary con-
dit1on precedent to determination Of the rights
or the parties under the partnership agree.
ment. =
There are exceptional cases in which no or
DER Tor an accounting is proper as where the
| parties have agreed on settlement, or as
! where the court, finding the facts and granting
! RELIEF ha had hofo OIL ;ofon
dence pertaining to the accounts 80 that its
findings operate as an accounting.
That under particular circumstances it may
be difficult to make true accounting, or that
the only statement possible will be approx
nation to correctness, is reason for refus.
Ing the redress Of accounting.
| 1t Is held that in this case an accounting
culties.
Order reversed. -Jaggard, J.
Mary Olson, respondent vs.. Ole Dahl, appellant.
| Syllabus First-A Judgment does not come
within the rule made the foundation Of section
1855 r. L. 1905, by which new promise or
! part payment suspends the operation Of the
statutes of limitations and revives and continues
the cause of action.
second-That rule applies to contracts, express
or implied.
| Third-A judgment is not contract within
the meaning Of the rule.
Fourth-A cause of action becomes merged
IN the judgment rendered in an action to re
| q
part payment of the Judgment after the bar Of
the statute of limitations has become fixed does
not by Implication revive the original cause of
action, as such payment operates upon contracts
| for the payment of money. =
| Order reversed. Brown J.
Miriam Milton. as administratrix Of the estate
| OF Sylvester A. Milton, deceased respondent
| vs. Biesanz Stone company, appellant.
| Syllabus: In an action to recover for the
death Of PLAINTIFFS intestate. boy 10 years
Of age, whose death alleged to have been
caused by the negligence Of defendant, the evil
dence is considered and held sufficient to support
| the verdict Of the jury. =
second-It appearing from a special finding
| OF the jury In answer to a specific question sub
mitted to them. the ground on which the general
verdict was founded. errors of the court in refer
ence to other theories Of the case held not re-
| versible.
| Third-Certain assignments of error consid-
! cred and held to present no reversible error.
| oioef ainrmeo. Brown, ].
P. o. Melby. respondent vs.. Sven Giesdah1 et
| al, DEFENDANTS, J. Q. Peterson, appellant.
| Per acknowledgement affirmed