The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1923-01-19
NOTABLE CASE DECIDED

Supreme Court Hands Down Opinion
In Hard Fought Action
Redwood Falls, January 15.-The
supreme court has handed down a
decision in the case of Dora Fox VS..
George Fox and Ella Fox. The case
was a hard fought one having been
once tried in the district court OF
Cottonwood county, and twice before
Judge Olsen and jury in Redwood
Falls. .
The facts briefly stated are as fol-
lows, In 1910 tie son George Fox was
owing his mother Dora Fox the sum
of about $500 on a pTomissory note.
The mother brought an action in
district court to recover on the
one; then I'll Sett eme9 on
ton on the note the mother and son
entered into new agreement,
whereby the son and daughter in
law agreed to furnish the aged lady
with proper home, food, clothing,
shelter and care for the rest of her
life and in addition thereto pay to
her the sum OF $50 per year as long
as she lived. -
The mother entered theS home of
them until about the year 1915, when
the son and daughter in law refus-
ed to give her support and took her
to another son to live. The mother
brought an action in the district
court of Cottonwood county and re-
covered about $500 in the year 1919.
In 1921 she brought a further ac-
ton in the dictrictl court of Redwood
county and was awarded q verdict
Of $500, under the instructions of the
court limiting recovery from the
time of the bringing of the former
action to the time of the commence
ment OF the 'nsf action lIE
On Mr.. Dolliff's motion who ap-
pes red for tCe son ~ 20 Y It
aside the verdict and granted a new
trial, on the theory that the value
of the entire contract should have
been submitted to the jury, and in
this manner ending the entire liti-
CATION On the next trial the judy
brought in 2 vCrfticr for sEaGs PFC >
a motion for a new trial was made,
which was this time denied by the
court, and on the judgement entered
an appeal was taken to the supreme
court
On tho trials in the lower court
as well as in the supreme court,
some new questions never having
been passed upon before were rails
ed. The common and familiar rule is
that man shall not twice be veX-
ed for the same cause consequent
ly Mr.. Dolliff contended that the
former action in Cottonwood county
was a complete bar to the bringing
Of second action in this county.
Judge Laudon, who appeared for
the mother, contended that the con-
tract provided for two principal du-
ties to be performed by the son. The
first to furnish a home, board and
keep, and secondly to pay an annual
payment of $50 per year. That the
two items were clearly severable.
and that on trial in Cottonwood
county the one item Of $50 per year
was submitted to the jury only, and
board and keep had never been pas
sed upon by he jury and that the
value of the home, board and keep
was expressly withdrawn upon the
trial.
The supreme court adopted the
last view, and holds that the first
action was not q bar to the bringing
of the last action. That because that
portion of the contract relating to
the furnishing of home, board and
keep having been expressly with
drawn, il became no part of the for
mer verdict. and was in effect a dis
missal as to such portion, and that
under the circumstances the mother
should be allowed to recover.