New Britain herald., 1917-07-10

tracted for 1t at that price. When 1t reached $1.75 Letter could not unload without breaking the market, and, being unable longer to carry his vast holdings. committee consisting of Peavey and Armour was appointed to act for his creditors, and they finally disposed of his holdings, some beinh sold at $.so. Letters total loss on the deal, aside from his cash advances was the aggregate notes in controversy here. s257, 7,390.71. Action was started to recover on these notes in 1911. The court sustains Letters defense that the notes constituted part of a con- spiracy or combination to control markets in violation of article 35. Minn. Const.. chapter 10. 1. Gen. Laws Minn., in force in 1898, and sec tion 13o c. 3s.R. S. H., all of which laws make such a conspiracy se- rious cirme, with harsh punishment; and the court adds that such agree ments are void also at common law as being in restraint of trade ana against public safety.
 To the plaintiffs contention that the Monarch and Interior Elevator Companies. who sold the wheat 10 Letter. had no participation Tn the unlawful conspiracy, the court shows Peavey's relation to them ana hls part in the agreement; and to the suggestion in the briefs. that the re- lation of the companies to the trans action was that of Peavey's undts- closed principals, the court reply that this did not enlarge their right over Peavey's. nor deprive Letter or any defense against them which he would have had against Peavey. Judgmnt for defendant was affirmed.
 To My Sons Best Friend.'
 The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in Early V. Arnold. Ss South eastern Reporter. 300, has been ask ed to determine who was a certain mothers sons "best friend" One MaItnda F. Arnold left her property to her son with the provision that if he died with 'heirs," or, as the court construed the word. children" then the property was Ito go to whoeve: has been his best friend"
 The son died without issue. leaving a will which provided: "I do by these presents consider my uncle and aunt my best friends, and do hereby and herewith bequeath and give' to them,
 
 20 years of age at his decease, so his realty could not pass under his will and his uncle and aunt-perhaps on the theory they were one in law my marriag age-conceived the idea that they might take under the mothers will as having been the sons "besr friend" The court inclined to the opinion. however, that considering the son could not tell who had been his best friend, for the best he had been able to do was to select two. it was too much of problem for a court Wherefore they were obliged to hold the mothers devise over her sons best friend" bad for indefiniteness.
 
 ing Street.
 Commissioner Taylor of the Su- preme Court of Minnesota has written an opinion interesting because of the facts and law involved, which ap- pears in the case of Kafka V. David- son. 160 Northwestern Reporter, 1921. Tn February, 1911. the owners of building in St. Paul leased to plaintiff, for a period of years. months. a storeroom therein. for monthly rental of $165. reserving the right to terminate on 6 months mo- tice and payment of $1,5O0. in case the land was sold or rented for 25 years or more. Novemb Der 25. 1911, the owners leased the land to defend- ant for 100 years. subject to existing leases with tenants. Plaintiff and de- fendant madevan agreement with drawing the provision for notice,
 ~A> innate on 60 days notice and pay nent of $1.50O To widen the street the city condemned a strip of 20 feet along the land, which included all but feet of the plaintiffs leasehold, al of s11,5OS, which was, by previous agreement with the owners, assigned to defendant The award although not apportioned among those various- ly interested In the property, was af- firmed on appeal in suit by the plain tiff for separate damages, on the ground that the award could not be made in gross and then divided among the parties according to their interests. The city took the condemn ed lands: plaintiff brought this suit for damages On trial verdict was dt- rected for defendant.
 The court holds that (DThe con. demnation proceeding being regular, all parties are bound thereby. but any might sue for his share of the gross l award. CD Where leasehold estate is taken, the measure of damages Is the market value of the estate taken, or. If only a part be taken the diff ference between the entire estate and 1 the part taken. (3) Plaintiff was en !. ! titled to the value of his leasehold | which could not exceed the $1,5O0 as agreed. plus the rental value for the | 60-day notice period. (4 It was com 1 potent for plaintiff to prove that l market value of premises as cigar ! store had been enhanced by long use as such (5) Plaintiff is only entitled 1 to such share of the award as would