The Minneapolis journal., 1906-11-30

British-American Land & Investment company.
respondent, vs.. Western Land Securities COM
| Syllabus: The evidence is sufficient to sus-
tain the finding of the jury that the contract
In question was one of agency for the sale of
| lands upon commission, and that the sale was
procured thru the efforts of respondent
| Order affirmed. Lewis, J.
Charles W.. Weeks, respondent, Vs. Charles Up
! Syllabus: Title by adverse possession may
! be acquired under a claim of title, altho the
interested parties were mistaken as to the true
boundary line. Seymour Sabin & Co., vs.. Carli;
| 81 MINI. 81.
The. evidence supports finding that the
eishteen-inch strip of land under the caves of
barn was not held by respondent under an ease
ment, but was in his adverse possession and
occupied by him in connection with the balance
of the disputed property for more than twenty
| years. =,
| Order affirmed. I Lewis ].
Adelbert Z. Hopkins, respondent, vs.. Samuel J.
Baremore ct al, defendants; Samuel J. Bare
@9Te RxS;s,n4 appellant 9Rntn xsnass ~.o,4.
| for the purchase Of real estate upon the repre-
sentation Of the actual owners that the vendor
signing the contract is the only party in inter-
est, the undisclosed owners are proper parties
! defendant in an action to enforce specific per-
formance of the contract 49,. s,--s -. s-,s.-.
| The complaint states a cause Of action in
specific performance, aud not an action for
|
form the contract ,-s~"I - ,:E>stt "rc< :
| Order affirmed; IL Lewis, J..
Rasmus Hendrickson, respondent, VS.. Charles
| K. Ash, appellant. 80, ..a# -.
Syllabus: Respondent was employed to work
upon chain-carrier in sawmill. Whether or
not respondent guilty of contributory neg
lfgence, or assumed the risks, were questions
for the jury, in view Of the nature of the
apparatus, the character Of his. duties, his ex-
perience and the lack of proper instructions.
| Order affirmed. Lewis, T.
| Edward ]. Fockens, George Fockens and Daniel
I Fockens, co-partners as Fockens Bros, re-
spondents, vs.. United States Express company,
appellant. ~ ~ -.
| Syllabus: When goods are delivered for trans-
portation in sound condition to a common car-
rier and by it delivered to the consignee in a
| damaged state the presumption arises that the
damage was caused by negligence of the car:
rier, and It Is required to prove the contrary by
peFishabie fruit and the carrier IS reqared
to exercise reasonable care and to take into
consideration the character Of the fruit, condi
tion Of the weather and the time necessary to
complete transportation. - N.
Altho in. charging the jury the court inaccu.
rately termed the tendency OF ripe berries to
deteriorate an act Of God, nevertheless the cor.
rect rule Of law was stated respecting the duty
Of appellant. s.
stoned, at least in part, by the negligence o1
the carrier.
| Order affirmed. Lewis, j.
NJ. C. Stalllman, respondent vs. J. G. Shea
appellant.
public street she glanced up. and down an6
observed the street clear of vehicles except {
team approaching some distance to the right
The team was driven rapidly and struck respond
ent when she was almost across. The view was
unobstructed and the collision could easily have
been avoided had either party been on the look
out.
Held, The evidence was sufficient to justify
the jury in finding that appellant was guilty Of
negligence and that respondent was not.
Order affirmed. Lewis, J.
o. N. Lindh, respondent, vs.. Great Northern
Railway company, appellant.
Syllabus: An action ex delicto to recover
damages to injured feelings lies at the suit Of
I tthea-husl,ands against soil
ing and running the casket containing the body Of
bis dead wife and mutilating and disfguring tht
corpse by negligently and wilfully exposing II
to rain. Larson vs.. Chase, 47 MINI, 3O7, fol
lowed and approved.
Order affirmed. --Jaggard, J.
Robert NJ Bunker. appe1lant. va Hanson
respondent.
Syllabus; The municipal court OF the city
Qt~ Minneapolis has no jurisdiction In forcibl,