The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1917-07-26
Wins Two Supreme Court Cases.

Attorney E. L. Mcmillan has added |
two more cases to the many on record
to his credit on file in the State su-
preme court.
The first case is that Of Edward
Kuhne, respondent, VS.. John eau ct al,
defendants. The appeal was from
Stearns county and reverses the rul-
ing Of Judge Roeser. The syllabus
hereunder covers the points in the
case:
SYLLABUS.
/. Where a father makes an adj
vancement to his daughter and then
dies testate, the advancement becomes
esas.nere gift. A promise to repay it to
other heirs and mortgage given to
secure the performance of such prom
Use, is without consideration.
2. An allegation in pleading that
an advancement was made, cannot be
construed as an allegation that loan
was made, even though the donee af-
ter the death of the donor makes an
agreement to repay.
3. When seals were in use in this
state, seal affixed to contract i'm
ported good consideration, but where
the contract purported to state the
consideration and the consideration
stated is not good, it will not be pre-
sumed that some other consideration
existed which was good:
Judgment reversed.
In the opinion it is shown that this
was an appeal from default judg-
ment and that the only question
raised was that the complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause Of action.
The second case in which Mr.. Nc
MILAN was upheld was that of Jones
VS.. Blair, an appeal from the ruling of
: Judge Nethaway of Kanabec county
The syllabus follows:
, SYLLABUS.
Plaintiff gave real estate agent
the "exclusive sale" of certain lands
The agent made a contract of sale, as
f vendor, with defendant and another as
I vendees, and received the whole of the
purchase price, except what was to be
paid in the future upon note secured
by purchase money mortgage to be
e delivered upon delivery of deed con
veying good title. The agent informed
plaintiff of the sale and the term!
: thereof, but RENTED only $500-leav
: ing balance of $1,397.6O still coming
= to plaintiff from the $1,000 received
: by the agent. But plaintiff was no
e. ~ bod rno1o fhI
full down payment: Subsequent!
$500 more was paid by the agent t.
plaintiff. After plaintiff learned tn
true facts concerning the payment t.
!. the agent, he brought this. actor
: against one of the vendees, this de
: PENDANT, for specific performance o
/" the contract so made by his agent
II Defendant counterclaimed for like re
;. lief. Held:
: Plaintiff by bringing this actor
g adopted the contract made by tn
Y agent in his behalf. 1t is the only con
Il tract upon which an action can b
!. based. He is to be considered as tn
10 undisclosed principal. No point ca
$. now be raised by plaintiff from tn
lie fact that the contract had two vendee:
It He elected to assert a cause of actio
", against the one only and the one doe
= not object.
C. By bringing this action, to specific
ally enforce the contract, after a
knowledge of what this agent ha
done, plaintiff ratified and adopted hi
acts in toto, and must bear the los
at arising from the agents misappropr
III alton of part Of the money paid by tn
20 vendee, even though the agent had n
~ authority under the written contrat
le of employment to make contract {
i sale or receive the purchase money.
! The action was by John P. Jone