THE LIBRARY OF
THE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNE VINCULUM
OMNIBUS, ARTIBUS
OF MINNESOTA.
GIFT OF
ACCESSION
SHELF
345.42
M66a
A DIGEST OF THE DECISIONS
OF THE
:
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
FROM THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT TO APRIL, 1892
As reported in the MINNESOTA REPORTS, Volumes 1 to 47, and the
NORTHWESTERN REPORTER
WITH A FULL TABLE OF THE CASES DIGESTED, SHOWING ALSO WHERE THEY HAVE
BEEN OVERRuled, Affirmed, CITED, ETC., AND A TABLE OF
STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. 2
PREPARED BY, MEMBERS
OF THE
EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM
LIBRARY
ST. PAUL, MINN.
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1892
COPYRIGHT, 1892,
BY
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOLUME 2.
Pages
-
1361-2096
2097
DIGEST OF VOLS. 1-47, MINNESOTA REPORTS, AND MINNESOTA
CASES IN VOLS. 1-51, NORTHWESTERN REPORTER-N-Z,
TABLE OF CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, Construed,
ETC.,
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.,
•
(iii) †
MINNESOTA
LIBRARY
72271
2289
DIGEST OF DECISIONS
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA,
AS CONTAINED IN THE
MINNESOTA REPORTS, VOLS. I TO 47, INCLUSIVE, AND IN THE NORTHWEST-
ERN REPORTER, VOLS. I TO 51, INCLUSIVE.¹
A STAR (*) INDICATES THAT THE CASE REFERRED TO IS ANNOTAted.
Name.
N.
Mooring.
2. The owner of a raft of logs on the Missis-
Change of name of railroad company, see Rail- sippi river has a right to moor the same to the
road Companies, 7.
bank in a proper place and manner, in respect
to the right of passage of other rafts, and for a
reasonable time, to enable him to make a sale of
Misnomer, see Parties, 21-29.
Suing in fictitious name, see Action, 44.
in partnership name, see Partnership, 84–88. the logs.-Hayward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 430.
National Banks.
See Banks and Banking, 30-43.
Naturalization.
See Aliens, 3-8.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
See, also, Riparian Rights.
As boundaries, see Boundaries, 1–4.
3. The reasonableness of the period, place,
and manner of such mooring of a raft, with re-
spect to the right of passage of other rafts, is a
question for the jury, under proper instructions
from the court.-Hayward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 430.
Landing.
4. Where the Mississippi river is in fact nav
igable, it is in law a navigable stream, and par-
ties navigating its waters enjoy the same rights,
and are entitled to the same exemptions, as in
rivers navigable at common law; and the right
to land freight and passengers extends to high-
water mark.-Castner v. The Dr. Franklin, 1
Minn. 73, (Gil. 51.)
Inland lakes not navigable waters of United States, Negligence in navigation.
see Maritime Liens.
Right of navigation-Rafts.
1. The owners of rafts have the same rights
to the navigable waters of the Mississippi river
as those of steam-boats.-Castner v. The Dr.
Franklin, 1 Minn. 73, (Gil. 51.)
5. Propelling a raft of logs in the channel of
a river by means which impart such motion to
the raft as to place it beyond the control of the
navigator is negligence.-Hayward v. Knapp, 23
Minn. 430.
6. It is the duty of one navigating a raft of
logs, not only to use proper care and diligence
NOTE. The Minnesota cases in vol. 51, N. W. Rep., are digested to and including page 923.
(1361)
(1362)
1363
1364
NAVIGABLE WATERS-NEGLIGENCE, I.
:
贵
​to avoid collision with other rafts or vessels, |
after seeing them, but also to use proper dili-
gence to see them in time.-Hayward v. Knapp, 23
Minn. 430,
Riparian owner-Right to use of water.
7. A riparian owner on a navigable river may
use the water flowing past his land for any pur
pose, so long as he does not obstruct navigation.
-Morrill v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.,
2 N. W. 842, 26 Minn. 222; State v. Minneapolis
Mill Co., 2 N. W. 839, 26 Minn. 229.
Obstruction—Actions.
8. A person who has entered into a contract
obligating himself to drive logs down a stream
navigable for such purposes, knowing that the
stream had been and was unlawfully obstructed,
and who is hindered and subjected to expense, in
performing his undertaking, by reason of such
impediments, is not entitled to maintain a private
action for damages against the person creating
such obstructions in the highway.-Brennan v.
Lammers, (Minn.) 48 N. W、 766.
46 Minn. 209.
9. A complaint by riparian owners on a navi-
gable stream, simply alleging that defendant had
sc obstructed the navigation of the river as to
prevent plaintiffs from transporting wood used in
their business by means of the river, does not state
facts sufficient to enable plaintiffs to maintain a
private action, the injury to plaintiffs being the
same in kind as that sustained by the general pub-
lic.-Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 986.
42 Minn. 532.
Distinguishing Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.,
11 N. W. 114, 28 Minu. 534; McKenzie v. Same, 13 N. W. 123,
29 Minn. 258.
Necessaries.
For infant, see Infancy, 10.
Liability of husband, see Husband and Wife, 5.
Negative Pregnant.
Sce Pleading, 76-81.
NEGLIGENCE.
1. WHAT CONSTITUTES, 1-33.
II. REMOTE AND PROXIMate Cause, 34–50.
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, 51–75.
IV. ACTIONS, 76-100.
Causing death, see Death by Wrongful Act.
Contribution between persons jointly liable, see
Contribution, 3, 4.
Contributory negligence, see Carriers, 39, 115-126:
Horse and Street Railroads, 9, 10; Master and
Servant, 112-184; Municipal Corporations, 181–
183; Railroad Companies, 155, 156, 166, 182, 183,
203, 218-229, 260-276, 304-306.
Defective streets, see Municipal Corporations,
136-189.
In setting fire, see Railroad Companies, 282–312.
Liability of county, see Counties, 73.
Liability of master for negligence of servant, see
Master and Servant, 18-22.
of school-districts, see Schools and School-
Districts, 51, 52.
of servant to master, see Master and Serv
ant, 9, 10.
Limiting liability, see Carriers, 46-51; Innkeep-
ers, 6-8.
Of attorney, sce Attorney and Client, 19.
bank in failing to make collection, see Banks
and Banking, 11-18.
carrier of goods, see Carriers, 17-37, 42–53, 57-
63.
of live stock, see Carriers, 38-41.
of passengers, see Carriers, 79-114.
city officer, see Municipal Corporations, 136–
189.
clerk, see Clerk of Court, 11-13.
fellow servant, see Master and Servant, 76–
111.
horse or street railroad, see Horse and Street
Railroads, 3–10.
insurance agent, see Insurance, 123.
master, see Master and Servant, 25-71.
officer or agent of municipal corporation, see
Municipal Corporations, 92–97.
physician, sec Malpractice.
pledgee, see Pledge, 7-10.
proprietor of ferry, see Ferry, 4-8.
railroad company, see Railroad Companies,
154-312.
telegraph company, see Telegraph Companics,
1, 2.
Opinions of witnesses, see Evidence, 132-141.
Right of action under laws of foreign state, see
Conflict of Laws, 6, 7.
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES.
Dangerous premiges.
1. The owner or occupant of real property is
bound to use ordinary care and diligence to keep
the premises in a safe condition for the access of
persons coming thereon by his invitation, ex-
press or implied, for the transaction of business,
or any other purpose beneficial as to him.-Nash
v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 24 Minn. 501.
•
2. Plaintiff was injured by the falling of the
walls of a building of defendants, on a lot adjoin-
ing his own. Held, that defendants were not lia-
ble for such injury if they had exercised reason-
able care to make such walls safe, and, after such
care, believed them safe.-Schell v. Second Nat.
Bank of St. Paul, 14 Minn. 43, (Gil. 34.)
Premises adjoining highways.
3. The owner and occupant of premises, who
maintains a private passage-way opening into his
basement, within the limits of a public street, and
which, through his negligence, has become dan-
gerous to persons traveling on the street, is liable
for injuries occasioned thereby. That the law also
imposes a liability on the city does not relieve him.
-Landrue v. Lund, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 699.
38 Minn. 538.
4. The owner of a lot abutting on a public street
in a city, who erects a building on it with a roof so
constructed that ice and snow collecting on it will
naturally and probably fali upon the sidewalk be-
low, is liable, without other proof of negligence,
1365
1366
NEGLIGENCE, L.
to a person injured by the falling ice or snow |
while traveling on the sidewalk with due care;
and it is no defense in such a case that he exer-
cised all the diligence and care he could to re-
move the snow and ice from the roof.-Hannem v.
Pence. (Minn.) 41 N. W. 657.
40 Minn. 127.
Elevators.
5. In an action for injuries sustained through
the giving away of a passenger elevator it ap-
peared that the fall of the elevator was in conse-
quence of the cable breaking. The cable had been
in use for three or four years without accident,
but had worn some, and there was evidence that
the wearing could easily have been seen if prop-
erly looked after. Held, that the question of neg-
ligence was properly submitted to the jury.-Good-
sell v. Taylor, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 873.
41 Minn. 207.
6. The fact that machinery has been used with
safety for years, and is not obviously dangerous,
will not justify a presumption that it will con-
tinue safe, and that its use may be continued,
without examining it to ascertain if its safety may
not have been impaired from wear.-codsell v.
Taylor, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 873.
41 Minn. 207.
7. The rule as to the degree of care required,
and as to the onus of proof in case of injury from
giving way of machinery, applicable between a
common carrier of passengers and his passengers,
is applicable as between the owner and manager of
a passenger elevator and the passengers in it.-
Goodsell v. Taylor, (Minn.) 42 Ñ. W. S73.
41 Minn. 207.
Railroad tracks and machinery.
8. Defendant, while engaged under contract
with a city in grading a public street, used
dump-cars running on a track a considerable dis-
tance along the street for the purpose of trans-
porting earth. The cars moved slowly, and were
dangerous only to persons attempting to ride on
them, or accidentally falling on the track in
front of the wheels. A boy, five years of age,
while riding on one of the cars, jumped or fell
off, and was killed. It did not appear that he
was seen by any of defendant's employes in time
to have prevented the accident, or that there
was any negligence in the management of the
cars or in conducting the work. Held, that de-
fendant was not liable on the ground of negli-
gence. His duty to exercise reasonable care did
not extend to the employment of men speciallv
to keep watch of the approach of children or
others to prevent them from riding upon the cars,
but when, in the use of ordinary care, their pres-
ence was discovered, to use due diligence to pre-
vent any injury to them.-Emerson v. Peteler, 29
N. W. 311, 35 Minn. 481.
Distinguishing Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 207.
9. Where the turn-table of a railroad stands
in a public place, and is of such a character, and
in such a position, as to tempt young children to
play upon it, though it stands on the company's
own premises, they are bound to take proper
measures to prevent injury to young children
playing upon it, and may be liable for injury re-
sulting from such failure, though the child in-
jured was an actual trespasser at the time.-Keffe
v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 207.
Stared in Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39 N. W. 404,
39 Minn. 168. to be limited by Kolsti v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 19 N. W. 655, 32 Minn. 133; Emerson v. Pet-
eler, 29 N. W. 312, 35 Minn. 484.
10. A railroad company is not required to so
displaced and put in motion by children, this
fasten or secure a turn-table that it cannot be
being more than the ordinary care required in .
regard to such machinery.-Kolsti v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 19 N. W. 655, 32 Minn.
133.
the death of a child who was crushed against a
11. In an action against a railroad company for
turn table that was pushed aside from its proper
position, while the child was playing about it, it is
a question for the jury whether defendant had ex-
ercised the requisite degree of care in securing
such turn-table, though it may have been fastened
in the manner usual with railroad companies.-
O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45
N. W. 410.
43 Minn. 289.
12. In an action against a railroad company for
damages caused by frightening plaintiff's mules
by the negligent blowing of a whistle on defend-
ant's locomotive it appeared that plaintiff was
employed to haul a load of goods from a ware-
house near defendant's track. When plaintiff ap-
proached the warehouse he found that access there-
to was obstructed by defendant's freight-cars.
Plaintiff asked the engineer of a detached engine
standing near by to move the cars. The engineer,
after looking around for the yard-master to get an
order to move the cars, and not seeing him, sud-.
denly blew several blasts with his whistle, caus-
ing plaintiff's mules to run away. There was
evidence that the whistle was blown as loudly as
it could be, and that it was such as was used to
drive cattle from the track. Plaintiff's les
were gentle and not easily frightened. Another
team standing near the place was also frightened.
Plaintiff's team could easily be seen from the
engine. The engineer testified that he whistled
for the yard master, and that he blew the whis-
tle in the usual manner for that purpose. Held,
that the evidence was sufficient to carry the
question of negligence to the jury, and a verdict
for plaintiff would not be disturbed.-Gibbs v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 4 N. W. 819, 26
Minn. 427.
Telegraph wires.
13. Wires of a telegraph company in a public |
street were broken by the weight of ice produced
by water thrown on them by the city fire depart-
ment in extinguishing a fire, and fell into the
street, where they became partly imbedded in
ice, and formed a dangerous obstruction. Held,
that it was the duty of the company to remove
the fallen wires within a reasonable time after
notice, and that it could not relieve itself from
this duty by assuming to abandon the property.
-Nichols v. City of Minneapolis, 23 N. W. 868,
33 Minn. 430.
Lumber pile in street.
14. A complaint for damages resulting from in-
jury to a minor child, caused by the fall of a stick
1367
1368
NEGLIGENCE, I.
of timber from defendants' lumber pile, alleged
to have been carelessly and insecurely construct-
ed in the street, states a cause of action.-Holly
v. Bennett, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 189.
46 Minn. 386.
Runaway teams.
15. Leaving a horse unhitched in the street is
not necessarily a want of ordinary care, but it
may be shown that he was trustworthy to stand
unhitched, that he was under the observation and
control of somebody near, or other circumstances
showing the exercise of ordinary care.-Griggs v.
Fleckenstein, 14 Minn..81, (Gil. 62.)
16. Leaving a horse unfastened and unattended
in a public street of a city is evidence of negli-
gence in an action to recover for injuries caused
by his running away.-Courternier v. Secombe, 8
Minn. 299, (Gil. 264.)
Explosions.
17. Permitting the water in the boiler of a
steam-boat to fall below three inches above the
flue is, unless the same happened through inevita-
ble accident, an act of negligence, for which the
owner is liable.-McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn.
357, (Gil. 232;) Fay v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523, (Gil.
491.)
18. Plaintiff, a deck-hand on a steam boat, was
injured by the explosion of the boiler of another
steam-boat while the two boats, operated by de-
fendants, jointly interested in their earnings,
were going up the Mississippi, side by side.
Held, that the fact of such explosion was prima
facie evidence against defendants that it was
caused by their fault or negligence, or that of
their servants.-Connolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn.
519, (Gil. 428.)
19. Act Cong. July 7, 1838, (5 U. S. St. at
Large, p. 306, § 13,) entitled an act to provide
for the better security of lives of "passengers"
or steam-boats, which makes the bursting of a
boiler thereon prima facie evidence of negli-
gence on the part of the owner, in an action for
injuries to person or property" caused thereby,
applies as well to suits for injuries sustained by
employes as to those for injuries to passengers.
Fay v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523, (Gil. 491;) Con-
nolly v. Same, 15 Minn. 519, (Gil. 428.)
Fires.
20. Though a person may burn the grass and
stubble on his own land, he must exercise care and
prudence in that respect; and, if he burns the
grass at a time when it is probable that damages
to others will follow, he will be liable if such dam- |
ages do in fact result from the burning.-Dewey v.
Leonard, 14 Minn. 153, (Gil. 120.)
21. Defendant set a fire on his land to protect
his haystacks, but it appeared that almost im-
mediately after the fire was started it got beyond
control, that there was a wind blowing, and the
grass and stubble were very dry. Held, that the
question of defendant's negligence should have
gone to the jury.-Richards v. Schleusener, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 599.
41 Minu. 49.
22. For the purpose of protecting his property
from a fire raging near, defendant started a back
|
fire. The day was windy, and in the direction in
which the wind was blowing, and extending to
plaintiff's farm, was a marsh covered with tail, dry
grass. It did not appear whether any care was
taken by defendant to prevent the fire from injur-
ing others. Held sufficient to sustain a verdict
for plaintiff in an action for injuries sustained
from defendant's fire.-Jesperson v. Thillips,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 770.
46 Minn. 147.
Who liable for injuries.
23. Where a building contractor lets the stone
and brick work of a building to a subcontractor,
and afterwards pays the subcontractor on account
of the work, and inserts timbers into the walls,
knowing that improper materials were used in
building the same, or having had opportunities to
know the same, he must be deemed to have ac-
cepted the work, and to have sanctioned the
workmanship and material used.-Bast v. Leon-
ard, 15 Minn. 304, (Gil. 235.)
24. In an action to recover damages caused by
explosion of the boiler of the steam-boat_John
Rumsey, it appeared that defendant and one
Rumsey sbared in the profits earned by several
boats, some of which were owned by defendant,
and some by Rumsey. Held, that an instruction
that if defendant "was equally interested with
Rumsey in the earnings and profits of the John
Rumsey that made them partners in running the
boat," was not objectionable as being, in effect,
an instruction that any interest in the earnings,
etc., without regard to its character, would make
them partners, the meaning of the instruction
being that equality of interest in all respects
would have that effect.-Connolly v. Davidson,
15 Minn. 519,' (Gil. 428.)
25. Where several co-servants are engaged in
the same work, so that the negligence of one may
endanger the other, each is bound to exercise the
man would do under similar circumstances, and
same care and skill as an ordinarily prudent
resulting from failure or neglect in that respect.-
is responsible for injury to his fellow-servant
Griffiths v. Wolfram, 22 Minn. 185.
26. A co-servant cannot be made responsible
for injuries to his companions resulting from de-
fects in the work on which they are engaged,
and not from the neglect of the party sought to
be charged.-Griffiths v. Wolfram, 22 Minn. 185.
27. Defendant had a lease of, and exclusive con
trol and possession of, the third story of a building.
A faucet in this story was turned by some one, and
water ran from it, injuring plaintiff's goods in a
lower story. A short time before the accident,
defendant's goods stored on the third floor were
sold at auction, and defendant had loaned the key
to such story to the purchaser. Held, that defend-
ant was responsible for the proper care of the
water fixtures, and that the decision of the trial
court that defendant was negligent would not be
disturbed.-Rosenfield v. Arrol, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
768.
44 Minn. 395.
28. The plaintiff corporation had constructed
and was operating a canal through its lands for
the use of its water-power, and had granted
1369
1370
NEGLIGENCE, I., II.
rights of way across the canal, and to erect and
maintain a bridge across it, to several parties to
whom it had conveyed mills and sites along the
canal. The canal had been bridged over in part
by plaintiff and in part by its grantees with its
license, and the bridge so made, bordering on a
public street, was open for travel as one thor-
oughfare in front of the several mills. Held,
that plaintiff, having the ownership, possession,
and control of the bridge, was liable to a person
rightfully upon any portion of it for injuries
caused by plaintiff's failure to exercise reason-
able diligence to keep the bridge in repair, or to
take reasonable precautions to prevent accident
from its being in disrepair, though such condi-
tion resulted from the negligence of the owners
of one of the mills; and that, as between plain-
tiff and such owners, the duty to repair being
upon the latter, plaintiff could recover from them
the amount paid by plaintiff in settlement of a
claim for such injuries, as the parties were not
in pari delicto, and plaintiff might adjust and
pay such claim without action, and thereupon re-
cover indemnity from the mill owners. Negli-
gence on the part of plaintiff's agent charged
with the duty of looking after and inspecting the
condition of the entire platform, in failing to
warn the mill owners of its weak and decayed
condition, which was known to him, or to take
any action thereupon, was not such contributory
negligence on the part of plaintiff as to defeat its
right to indemnity, as it owed no such duty to the
mill owners, who, as between it and them, were
alone bound to repair.-Minneapolis Mill Co. v.
Whecler, 16 N. W. 698, 31 Minn. 121.
Who entitled to damages.
might differ as to the inferences to be drawn, it
is error to take the case from the jury.-Bennett
v. Syndicate Ins. Co., (Minn.) 39 N. W. 488.
39 Minn. 254.
II. REMOTE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE.
What constitutes proximate cause-
general.
34. Where several concurring acts or condi-
tions of things, one of which is a wrongful act or
omission, produce an injury, and it would not
have been produced but for such wrongful act
or omission, such act or omission is the proxi-
mate cause of the injury, if the injury be one
which might reasonably be anticipated as a nat-
ural consequence of the act or omission.-Camp-
bell v. City of Stillwater, 20 N. W. 320, 32 Minn.
308.
35. Defendant's team, being left unhitched, ran
away in the principal street of a town, thereby
frightening the team of W., which was securely
hatched, causing them to also run away, and in
doing so they ran into plaintiff's horse, injuring
him so that he died. Held, that defendant's neg-
ligence in leaving his team unhitched was the
proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff's horse,
and t at defendant was liable for such injury.
Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 81, (Gil. 62.)
36. Where plaintiff unlawfully permits his
cow to run at large, by reason of which she
strays upon a railroad track and is injured by a
passing train, his unlawful act will be deemed a
proximate, and not a remote, cause of the injury.
-Locke v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15
Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
37. The complaint in an action against a city
alleged that a railway company laid its track
and operated its railroad along side of and in
places lengthwise upon one of the streets, and
that the track was so constructed that a carriage
29. Defendants, wholesale dry goods merebants,
maintained an elevator in a shipp ng room for
freighting purposes solely. No one was allowed
in the room except defendants' employes, team-
sters specially invited to aid in handling heavy
packages, and expressmen. Plaintiff's intestate
was sent for goods purchased of defendants, and
was told to call at the door of the shipping-room
opening into an alley, but to wait outside. The intes-driven even with care on or over it would be in
tate, however, entered the room, and was killed by
falling down the elevator shaft. Held, that plain
tiff could not recover, though no guards were
placed about the shaft.-Trask v. Shotwell, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 699.
41 Minn. 66.
30. An express company is liable for negligent
ly running a truck on a depot platform against a
policeman, whose habit it was to visit the station
at train time.-Ingalls v. Adams Exp. Co., (Minu.)
46 N. W, 3.25.
44 Minn. 128.
Province of jury.
31. The question of exercise of ordinary care
in the use of one's own property so as to avoid
injury to another is for the jury.-Marsh v. Web-
ber, 16 Minn. 418, (Gil. 375.)
32. Where the facts in regard to alleged ncg-
ligence are fairly in doubt or controversy, the
question as to the existence of negligence is one
for the jury.-Erd v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn.
443.
33. When the evidence as to negligence is such
that fair-minded men of ordinary intelligence
intelligence
great danger of being overturned and broken;
that there was no fence or barrier of any kind
between the part of the street occupied by the
track and the part not so occupied; and that,
while plaintiff in his buggy was driving his horse
along said street, his horse was suddenly fright-
withstanding plaintiff's efforts to prevent him,
ened by a car moving along the track, and, not-
ran upon the track where it was laid on and
jured plaintiff. Held, that such injury might
along the street, overturned the buggy, and in-
reasonably have been anticipated as a natural
consequence of the omission to place some barrier
to prevent it, and that the complaint was valid,
as against a demurrer on the ground that the
frightening of the horse by the moving car, and
not the neglect of the city to properly guard the
street, was the proximate cause of the injurv.-
Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 20 N. W. 320, 32
Minn. 308.
38. A freight train, while running at nigh
broke apart, and the forward part of the train,
having been afterwards stopped, was run into by
the detached rear cars, and the conductor, who
was at the rear of the train, was killed by the
collision. In an action against the railway com-
1371
1372
NEGLIGENCE, II.
f
plaintiff's wife.-Renner v. Canfield, 30 N. W. 435,
36 Minn. 90.
pany for damages for his death, there was evi-
dence that the immediate cause of the breaking
apart of the train was that a brake which had
been applied to one of the rear cars, being so de-
44. If the acts of defendant amounted to any
fective that it would not remain wound up when tort which, in any view, could be held to be the
the car was in motion, was released by the jar proximate cause of this injury, the gist of it must
of the car, and that the consequent collision and have been, not the killing of the dog, but negli-
recoil of that car with the one in front of it broke gence in shooting it in such proximity to plaintiff's
the coupling between them. Held, that the dehouse as might naturally and reasonably be antic-
fective brake was the proximate cause of the ipated as likely to injure the inmates.-Renner v.
death of the conductor, notwithstanding that a Canfield, 30 N. W. 435, 36 Minn. 90.
sudden increase of the speed of a locomotive on
passing to a down grade might have contributed
to
the breaking apart of the train, and that the
subsequent stopping of the forward part of the
train and the collision were the natural and
probable result of the breaking apart of the train,
which were to be referred to the same defect as
a proximate cause.-Ransier v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 20 N. W. 332, 32 Minn. 331.
What constitutes
Fires.
proximate cause-
cause
39. Defendant set fire in his stubble-field after
plowing three furrows around the field to prevent
the fire from spreading. The fire "jumped" the
plowed strip, and spread upon the prairie, where
defendant attempted to extinguish it. The evi-
dence tended to show that defendant did not en-
tirely extinguish the fire, but that it smouldered
for two days in the soil of a neighboring slough,
and then broke out afresh, and spread to plain-
tiff's land. Held, that it could not be said as a
matter of law that plaintiff's injury was too re-
mote to warrant a recovery against defendant.-
Krippner v. Biebl, 9 N. W. 671, 28 Minn. 133.
40. The fact that the fire remained latent in
the slough so long did not, as a matter of law,
excuse defendant from liability for the subse-
quent injury.-Krippner v. Biebl, 9 N. W. 671, 28
Minn. 139.
41. A fire, caused by sparks escaping from de-
fendant's locomotive, commenced on the property
of one N., and then was communicated to an ad-
joining barn, and from thence to the barn of
plaintiff, which was about 60 feet from the point
where the fire commenced. Held, that the injury
of plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, too remote
to justify a recovery. Johnson v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 16 Ñ. W. 488, 31 Minn. 57.
42. Where plaintiff's property was injured by
fire caused by sparks escaping from defendant's
locomotive, held, that the fact that one N. negli-
gently left combustible matter exposed to the
danger of being set on fire by sparks from a loco-
motive, and that the fire actually started in such
material, did not preclude a recovery by plain-
tiff.-Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
16 N. W. 488, 31 Minn. 57.
Injuries caused by fright.
43. Defendant, while on the highway near plaiu
iff's house, shot and killed a dog. Plaintiff's wife,
bo, unseen by or without the knowledge of de-
cadant, stood near by and saw the shooting, was,
owing to her previous delicate state of health, so
startled and frightened by the occurrence as to
become seriously ill. Held that, even assuming
the act to have been a tort, the mere killing of the
dog was not the proximate cause of the injury to
45. If the negligence of a carrier place a pas-
senger in a position of such apparent imminent
peril as to cause fright, and the fright causes
nervous convulsions and illness, the negligence
is the proximate cause of the injury.-Purcell v.
St. Paul City Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 Ñ. W. 1034.
Nature of injuries.
46. If an injury is the direct cause of a diseased
condition which results in paralysis, the paralysis
may be ascribed to the injury as a proximate
cause.-Bishop v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., (Minn.)
50 N. W. 927.
47. Plaintiff, a man of 50 years, received in a
cable railway accident injuries which rendered
him unconscious for a few moments, but on re-
gaining consciousness he did not seem to be seri-
ously injured. On the right side of his head were
a few cuts and a contusion, which did not seem
harmful, and the marks of which disappeared in
a few days. He went about his business the same
day, but, while he had always before the accident
been in good health, he afterwards became nerv-
ous and irritable, unable to sleep, and suffered a
dull, heavy pain in the back of his head, extend-
ing sometimes down his back. Seven months after-
the accident, his entire left side became paralyzed.
The medical expert testimony was contradictory,
but some physicians testified that the paralysis,
in their opinion, was caused by the rupture of a
blood-vessel, and that the rupture resulted from
the injury received in the accident. Held, that
the proximate cause of the paralysis.--Bishop v.
the jury were warranted in finding the accident
St. Paul City Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 Ñ. W. 927.
Contributing act of third person.
48. A party is not relieved from liability for in-
juries caused by his negligence because of the cul-
pable act of some third person that contributed
thereto.-McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. #57, (Gil.
232;) Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 81, (Gil.
62.)
49. Where the negligence of defendant and the
act of a third person concurred to produce the
injury complained of, so that it would not have
happened in the absence of either, the negligence
of defendant was a proximate cause of the in-
jury.-Johnson v. North western Telephone Ex-
change Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 225.
Province of jury.
50. In an action against a railroad company for
the death of a child which was crushed against a
turn-table which was turned from its proper posi-
tion, while the child was playing in defendant's
yard, it is a question for the jury whether the dis-
placement of the turn-table conduced to the injury,
1873
1374
NEGLIGENCE, III.
Ry.:Co.,
-O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.)
45 N. W. 440.
43 Minn. 289.
III. CONTRIbutory NEGLIGENCE.
In general.
51. Contributory negligence on the part of
plaintiff will prevent recovery, unless the injury
is the result of intentional wrong on the part of
the defendant.-Carroll v. Minnesota Val. R. Co.,
13 Minn. 30, (Gil. 18;) Griggs v. Fleckenstein,
14 Minn. 81, (Gil. 62.)
52. Where, in an action for negligence, there
is no evidence that the injury complained of was
wantonly, maliciously, or intentionally inflicted,
and uncontroverted facts show the plaintiff guilty
of contributory negligence, it is proper for the
court to instruct the jury, as matter of law, that
plaintiff cannot recover.-Donaldson v. Milwau-
kee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 293; Brown v.
Same, 22 Minn. 165.
53. If a person, in doing that which it is his right
to do in the discharge of his duty, exercise ordina-
ry care and prudence, he is not chargeable with
contributory negligence, although the result
showed that he imperiled his life or personal safe-
ty in doing as he did.-Carroll v. Minnesota Val.
R. Co., 14 Minn. 57, (Gil. 42.)
54. A person who might, with the exercise of
ordinary care, have avoided an injury, cannot re-
cover therefor, even if it is incurred while in the
enjoyment of his own property, for he has no right,
even there, to invite peril, or run into danger
caused by the negligent acts of his neighbor.-
Schell v. Second Nat. Bank of St. Paul, 14 Minn.
43, (Gil. 34.)
55. In a suit for damages from the defective
construction of a tunnel which plaintiff had per-
mitted defendant to drive under its premises, it
was shown that the tunnel was destroyed by the
influx of water from a river at a point where the
plaintiff had excavated rock from the bed of the
river, before the tunnel had reached that point,
but after the direction of the tunnel had been
determined upon, and that plaintiff's injury re-
sulted from such destruction. Held, that it was
a question of fact whether such excavation had
not directly contributed to the injury; the bur-
den of proof in such instance being upon the
defendant.-St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.
v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 277, (Gil. 249.)
56. In an action for personal injuries, involv-
ing questions of the negligence of both parties,
the court instructed the jury that "each party
had a right to rely, at all times, and under all
circumstances, until the contrary appeared, that
the other would use ordinary care and diligence
to prevent a collision. " Held, that this lan-
guage was not to be taken as meaning that each
party might regulate its conduct with absolute
reliance upon the presumption that the other
would exercise ordinary care, as it appeared that
this, when taken in connection with the rest of
the charge, meant no more than that each party,
in regulating his own conduct, might have re-
gard to the presumption that the other would ex-
ercise reasonable care, which involved no error.
-Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 N.
W: 651, 31 Minn. 526.
57. Plaintiff's goods stored in the basement of
a building were injured by water from a faucet
turned on in an upper story under the control of
defendant. Held, that contributory 'negligence
was not shown by testimony that plaintiff had in-
formed defendant that when there was danger of
the pipes freezing he would shut the water off in
the basement, the time when freezing might rea-
sonably be expected not having arrived.-Rosen-
field v. Arrol, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 768.
44 Minn. 395.
Knowledge of danger.
5S. A failure, under ordinary circumstances,
to make diligent use of available means to avoid
a known and apprehended danger, where it is
apparent that if such means had been used the
danger would have been averted, will be regarded
as contributory negligence.-Brown v. Milwaukee
& St. P. Ry. Čo., 22 Minn. 165.
59. The fact that plaintiff co-operated with de-
fendant in operating a threshing-machine with
the knuckles and tumbling-rod uncovered, con
trary to law, will not prevent the defense of
contributory negligence being interposed.-Hocum
v. Weitherick, 22 Minn. 152.
60. Plaintiff's office adjoined a building which
was burned, leaving the outer walls standing. A
month or more thereafter plaintiff entered his
office after a storm commenced, during which the
walls of the burned building were blown down,
crushing plaintiff's office in their fall, and injuring
him severely. Held, the dangerous condition of
the walls being apparent to plaintiff, that he was
guilty of contributory negligence in entering the
building during the storm, and that he was not en-
titled to recover damages for his injuries. -Schell
v. Second Nat. Bank of St. Paul, 14 Minn. 43, (Gil.
34.)
61. Defendant piled a quantity of smoke-stacks
and other material so near to the track of a rail-
way, and in such a manner, that one of the cars
of a passing train caught one of the smoke-stacks,
pushed it against a tower in which plaintiff was
stationed in his employment of signaling trains,
and he was injured thereby. Held, that it was
a question for the jury whether so piling the
smoke-stacks was an act of negligence as to
plaintiff, under the circumstances, and that the
action of the railroad company in continuing to
run its trains, and of plaintiff in continuing in
his employment of signaling trains, could not be
alleged by defendant as negligence in law, but
for which the injury would not have happened,
defendant having made it dangerous for them to
continue their lawful employment.-Martin v.
North Star Iron Works, 18 N. W. 109, 31 Minn.
407.
62. Plaintiff's cellar was overflowed and his
goods damaged, on several occasions, in conse-
quence of the obstruction of a sewer by reason of
the negligence of defendant city having the con-
trol and management of it. Held, that it was
not, as matter of law, contributory negligence on
his part to allow goods to remain in the cellar
after the first overflow. -Taylor v. City of Aus-
tin, 20 N. W. 157, 32 Minn. 247.
1375
1376
NEGLIGENCE, IIL
63. The plaintiff watered his cattle at holes cut
in the ice of a lake, from which defendant and
others had long been accustomed to take ice.
Plaintiff had warned his servant not to let the cat
tle go to the lake unattended, as there was danger
of their falling into openings from which the ice
had been taken. The servant let the cattle out of
the barn. They had not been watered since the
day before, and went to the lake unattended, and
were drowned in an opening made by defendant.
Held that, though plaintiff and his servant had no
notice of this opening, the servant's negligence
contributed to the injury, and plaintiff could not
recover.—La Riviere v. Pemberton, (Minn.) 48 N.
W. 406.
46 Minn. 5.
Of traveler on public street.
61. In an action for damages for injuries caused
by the negligence of the defendant, it appeared
that the defendant had dug a ditch by the side of
the sidewalk for the purpose of putting in sewer
pipes; that where the ditch crossed the sidewalk
an obstruction was placed. Plaintiff, walking along
the street in the night, when he came to the ob-
struction, turned into the street and fell into the
ditch. Held. that the plaintiff was not guilty of
contributory negligence in turning into an unim-
proved street in the night-time at a place other
than the regular crossing.-Collins v. Dodge,
(Minn.) 35 N. W. 368.
37 Minn. 503.
65. In an action for an injury caused by de-
fendant's negligently driving his buggy against
plaintiff in a public street, it not appearing that
the street was much thronged with vehicles, it
was not negligence per se in plaintiff to go along
in the street, for a lawful purpose, without look-
ing behind him to see if vehicles might be ap-
proaching from that direction. Undhejem v.
Hastings, 38 N. W. 488, 38 Minn. 485.
Of children.
66. In an action for injuries to a boy employed
in defendant's mill it appeared that he was an
unusually bright boy, nearly 13 years old; that
he had been at work in the mill for a month,
and during that time had ridden daily on the el-
evator to his work in the sixth story of the mill;
and that he must have seen that if, when the ele-
vator was ascending, an object was extended any
considerable distance over and outside of the
railing around the elevator, it would come in con-
tact with the sides of the shaft. He was injured
by a beam or joist coming in contact with the
back part of his head, while ascending in the
elevator. He testified that he did not recollect
whether he leaned over, but the physical facts
demonstrated that he must have leaned over the
top of the railing so that his head extended 8 or
10 inches beyond it. No necessity or controlling
cause for so doing appeared. Held that, holding
him responsible simply for the exercise of such
care as could reasonably be expected from one of
his age and capacity, he was guilty of gross neg-
ligence.-Ludwig v. Pillsbury, 28 N. W. 505, 35
Minn 256.
67. A boy 101½ years old, and of average intelli-
gence, who had often been near a railway turn-
table, and had a general knowledge of its structure
and operation, and had been repeatedly warned by
his father that it was dangerous to play on it, and
told not to do so, and knew that the railway com-
pany prohibited children from playing on the ta-
ble, engaged with other boys in swinging on it,
and was injured. Held, contributory negligence.
-Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 39 N.
W. 402.*
39 Minn. 164.
Limiting Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn.
207.
Care of children.
child 4 years old from falling off a sidewalk into
63. In an action by a parent for injuries to a
an excavation, in consequence of a defective con-
dition of the railing guarding the same, the
evidence showed that the child was an active, in-
telligent child, in good health, accustomed to be
on the street, but usually in charge of the parents
or nurse; that the plaintiff lived nearly opposite
the defective sidewalk, and knew of the defect;
that the child, without the knowledge of its
parents or person in charge, went on the sidewalk,
and fell through the unprotected portion, and was
injured. Held, that negligence, as a matter of
law, was not shown; nor did any presumption of
negligence on the part of either parent or child
arise from such facts.-City of St. Paul v. Kuby,
8 Minn. 154, (Gil. 125.)
69. Defendant's grain elevator was operated
by machinery moved by horse-power in an ad-
joining "power-house." The place was attractive
to children, and plaintiff's intestate, a boy six
years old, was left alone in the power-nouse by
defendant's employe, who had knowledge of his
presence, and was caught in the uncovered ma-
chinery and killed. Held, that the acts or omis-
sions of the child's parents in suffering him to
be on the street, in the vicinity of the power-
house, was not negligence proximately contrib-
uting to the injury, and a verdict in plaintiff's
favor would not be disturbed. Gunderson v.
Northwestern Elevator Co., (Minn.) 49 N. W. 694.
47 Minn. 161.
70. Where a child of 17 months, having been
left in the house for a few minutes by its moth-
er, escapes by an open door to the street, where
it is run over by a street-car, the mother is not
guilty of contributory negligence.-Weissner v.
St. Paul City Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 606.
47 Minn. 468.
71. A mother allowed her son, a child of six,
to go out to coast with a younger brother, in the
yard of the house in which they lived, while she
was engaged in household duties. Afterwards
she called them to come in, and, when they had
started, resumed her work. Instead of coming
in, the children went on the street to coast, and
a few moments afterwards one was killed in a
collision between his sled and a street-car.
Held, that a finding that the mother was not neg-
ligent was warranted.-Strutzel v. St. Paul City
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 690.
Imputed negligence.
47 Minn. 543.
72. Plaintiff, while riding by invitation in the
private carriage of another upon a public street
in a city, with no authority over the driver, was
injured by reason of a defect in the street. Held,
1377
1378
NEGLIGENCE, III., IV.
that plaintiff might recover therefor against the
city on the ground of its negligence in respect of
the condition of the street, notwithstanding the
negligence of the driver of the carriage contrib-
uted to produce the injury.-Follman v. City of
Mankato, 29 N. W. 317, 35 Minn. 522.
|
station a flagman at the crossing of the railroad
with the street, although required to do so by a
city ordinance; and "wrongfully and negligently"
running a train along the street, without any
brakeman at the forward end of the train. Held,
that this sufficiently alleged negligence in the
particulars specified, although it was not appar-
ent in what way the alleged breach of duty
caused the injury.-Johnson v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 17 N. W. 622, 31 Minn. 283.
73. In an action for injuries to a child 18
months old from being run over by defendant's
railway train, there was evidence tending to
show negligence both on the part of defendant
in the management of the train, and on the part
of the father of the plaintiff in the care of the
child. Held, that the negligence of the father
was to be imputed to the child, so as to bar a
recovery by the latter for the injuries.-Fitz-safe condition in the respect of leaving a danger-
gerald v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 13 N. W.
168, 29 Minn. 336.
Province of jury.
74. The degree of care required to be shown,
where contributory negligence is charged, varies
with the character and degree of the danger to
be avoided or guarded against; and where the
facts are in issue the question is one for the
jury.—Erd v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 443.
75. The jury must determine the existence of
contributory negligence when the facts on which
the same is predicated are in dispute. —Erd v.
City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 443.
Pleading.
IV. ACTIONS.
76. An averment of damages caused by negli-
gence, without previous allegation of facts to
show the negligent acts causing such damages, is
a mere conclusion of law, and avails nothing.-Lee
v. Emery, 10 Minn. 187, (Gil. 151.)
77.. An allegation of negligence, as applied to
the conduct of a party, is not a mere conclusion of
law, but a statement of an ultimate pleadable fact.
Hence, in an action for damages resulting from
certain acts of another, alleged to have been neg-
ligent and careless, the complaint is not demurra-
ble as not stating a cause of action, unless the par-
ticular acts alleged are such that they could not be
negligent under any possible evidence admissible
under the allegations.-Rolseth v. Smith, (Minn..)
35 N. W. 565.*
38 Minn. 14.
78. A complaint which alleges that "defendant,
by himself and his servants, negligently, care-
lessly, and intentionally set fire to and burned a
stack of straw in the vicinity" of plaintiff's
premises, "and so negligently and carelessly
*
*
it
watched and tended said fire that
came into plaintiff's said premises, and con-
sumed his hay," states a cause of action, though
the specific acts constituting the negligence are
not stated.-Keating v. Brown, 13 N. W. 909, 30
Minn. 9.
79. The complaint, in an action for damages
for the death of plaintiff's intestate by the negli-
gence of defendant, set forth as acts of negli-
gence the construction of defendant's railroad
through a street in the city in such manner as to
render the highway dangerous for public use,
for which no necessity appeared; neglecting to
V.2M.DIG.-44
80. The complaint in an action against a street-
railway company alleged that defendant negli-
gently and willfully permitted one of its turn-
tables to be and remain in a dangerous and un-
ous opening in the same unprotected; that one of
defendant's cars, in charge of its servant, was
driven on the turn-table, and carelessly and neg-
ligently swung around thereon, while plaintiff's
child, four years old, was standing thereon; and
that by reason of the negligence of defendant
the child's foot passed through the opening, and
he was injured. Held, that this stated a cause
of action, even if it be taken as admitted that the
driver of the car did not know that the child
was on the turn-table. If there was contrib-
parents, that was matter of defense; it was not
utory negligence on the part of the child or its
necessarily to be inferred on the face of the
complaint.-Ekman v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co.,
24 N. W. 291, 34 Minn. 24.
81. The complaint alleged that defendant neg-
ligently, wantonly, and recklessly caused the whis-
tle of its locomotive to be blown off, with a noise,
near a team of horses, and violently frightened
said team, and caused them to become unmanage-
able and to run away; that the negligent, careless,
and unlawful blowing of said whistle was the sole
cause of said team running away; and that by rea-
son thereof, and without negligence on the part
of the driver of the team, said team ran away, and
ran against plaintiff, without negligence on her
part, and struck her with great violence; and
that she was permanently injured, etc. Held suf-
ficient to show on its face that the wrongful act of
defendant was the proximate cause of the injury
complained of.-Dúgan v. St Paul & D. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 538.
40 Minn. 544.
S2. Proof of contributory negligence upon the
part of the plaintiff in an action for negligence
is admissible under a general denial in the an-
swer.-St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v.
Eastman, 20 Minn. 277, (Gil. 249.)
Evidence-Burden of proof.
83. Contributory negligence is a matter of de-
fense, and plaintiff, in making out his case, need
not prove the absence of it.-Hocum v. Weither-
ick, 22 Minn. 152; Whittier v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 394; Wilson v. North-
ern Pac. R. Co., 3 N. W. 333, 26 Minn. 278;
Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 9 N. W.
75, 28 Minn. 69.
84. There is no presumption in law of negligence
on the part of a child of tender years or its parents
in the bare fact that it is found in a street or upon
a sidewalk without an attendant.-City of St. Paul
v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 154, (Gil. 125.)
1379
1380
NEGLIGENCE, IV.
Evidence - Competency and relevancy | ly v. Railway Co., 9 N. W. 588, 28 Minn. 98.-
in general.
Kolsti v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 19 N. W.
655, 32 Minn. 133.
85. The mere falling of a wall in process of
construction, not occasioned by the act of God or
of third persons, taken in connection with facts
showing that unfit materials were used in the
construction, or the work otherwise imperfectly
done, is competent evidence to show negligence
in the erection of the wall on the part of the
contractor, rendering him liable for damages re-
sulting therefrom, though the work was actually
done by a subcontrator.- Bast v. Leonard, 15
Minn. 304, (Gil. 235.)
86. In an action against a building contractor
for damages sustained by the fall of a brick wall
in course of erection by a subcontractor, to whom
the work was let by defendant, evidence of the
contract between defendant and the owner of the
building, that the owner complained to defend-
ant, while the work was in progress, as to its
character, as to who directed the subcontractor
where to lay the foundations, how many anchors
were furnished by the defendant, and how far
they should have been put in, is all competent,
as is also the opinion of competent persons as to
the cause of the falling of the building, and as
to whether builders present at the making of
mortar could tell whether it was good or not. -
Bast v. Leonard, 15 Minn. 304, (Gil. 235.)
87. In an action for injury resulting from the
running away of a horse, the fact that defendant
came up immediately after the accident, and
claimed and took away the runaway horse, is evi-
dence that he was the party in charge of the horse
at the time the runaway occurred, and responsible
for the injury.-Courternier v. Secombe, 8 Minn.
299, (Gil. 264.)
Custom and usage.
88. In an action against a builder for negli-
gence in stretching a guy-rope across a street so
low that plaintiff was swept off his wagon by it
and injured, an ordinance of the city regulating
the height of such guys is not admissible, as the
grant of a privilege by the city cannot exempt the
builder from liability for injuries resulting from
not stretching the guy high enough.-Larson v.
Tobin, (Larson v. Ring,) 44 N. W. 1073, 43
Mirn. 88.
Similar accidents.
92. For the purpose of showing the defective
character of a railroad switch, alleged to have
caused an engine to be thrown from the track,
evidence that other engines and cars missed the
track at the same point, both before and after the
accident complained of, may be competent as
tending to show that the common cause of the
accidents was daerous or unsafe.-Morse v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 16 N. W. 358, 30
Minn. 465.
93. In an action for damages for the death of
plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused
by the negligence of defendant railway company
in allowing its track to become and remain out
of repair, the defects alleged were a broken rail
and defective switch at the point where the acci-
dent occurred, which caused the intestate's death.
Held, that evidence of other defects in defend-
ant's tracks at other places, not shown to have in
any way contributed to the injury complained of,
or to have been the result of a cause presump-
tively operating at the place of the casualty, or
which might have caused the defects which pro-
duced the injury, was not admissible.-Morse v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 16 N. W. 358, 30
Minn. 465.
94. In an action for injuries received in an acci-
dent caused by a broken switch-rail, evidence that
engines had previously run off the track at the same
place, both before and after the time in question,
is admissible, when it is shown that at the time
such accidents occurred the switch was in sub-
stantially the same condition as respects the par-
ticular defects complained of.-Clapp v. Minneapo-
lis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 N. W. 340, 36 Minn. 6.
95. In an action against a railroad company for
damages caused by the defective condition of a
crossing over defendant's track, whereby plain-
tiff's horse caught its foot in the same, and was
injured, a witness for plaintiff was asked how his
(witness') horse's foot got caught at the same
made to the question on the ground that it was in-
crossing. Held that, no objection having been
definite, the court had a right to presume that its
$9. Evidence of the height at which builders purpose was to show a similar accident caused by
usually stretch such guys is inadmissible, as cus-lowed.-Kelly v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 9 N. W.
the same defect, and the question was properly al-
tom could not sanction the practice if it was 588, 28 Minn. 98.
negligent in itself. -Larson v. Tobin, (Larson v.
Ring,) 44 N. W. 1078, 43 Minn. 88.
90. In an action against a railroad company for
damages caused by the displacement of a plank in
a highway crossing, testimony as to how planks at
such crossings are usually laid is admissible as
bearing on the question whether defendant used
due care in constructing and maintaining such
crossing.-Kelly v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 9 N. W.
.588, 28 Minn. 98.
91. On a question of negligence in the care of
a railway turn-table, for the purpose of prevent-
ing children having access to it being injured by
it, evidence that the fastenings to the turn-table
were similar in character to those in general use
on such turn-tables is competent. Following Kel-
I
Subsequent precautions and repairs.
96. In an action against a railroad company for
injuries received at a street crossing plaintiff may
show that immediately after the accident defend-
ant adopted certain precautions to prevent similar
accidents, as tending to show that the omission to
take such precautions before the accident was
negligence.-Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
9 N. W. 575, 28 Minn. 103.
97. In an action against a railroad company for
damages caused by the defective condition of a
crossing, evidence that after the injury defendant
repaired the defect complained of is admissible.-
Kelly v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 9 N. W. 588, 28
Minn. 98.
1381
1382
NEGLIGENCE, IV.-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, I., II.
98. In an action against a railway company
for damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate,
alleged to have been caused by the negligence of
defendant in allowing its track to become and
remain out of repair, the defects alleged were
a broken rail and defective switch at the point
where the accident occurred which caused intes-
tate's death. Held, that evidence that after the
accident defendant repaired the switch alleged to
have been defective was not competent as an ad-
mission of the previous unsafe condition of the
switch. Overruling O'Leary v. City of Mankato,
21 Minn. 65.-Morse v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 16 N. W. 358, 30 Minn. 465,
Instructions to jury.
|
99. In an action for injuries resulting from de-
fendant's negligence, where evidence of con-
tributory negligence has been admitted without
objection, the jury are properly directed to take
it into consideration, for, whether admissible or
not under the pleadings as drawn, it is a proper
issue to be made in the case. -Blakeley v. Le Duc,
19 Minn. 187, (Gil. 152.)
100. Upon a charge to the jury in an action for
negligence that the burden was upon defendant
to prove contributory negligence on the part of
plaintiff, if a specific instruction is desired by de-
fendant that contributory negligence affirmative-
ly appearing from the evidence on the part of
plaintiff would be as effectual to bar a recovery
as if proved by defendant, defendant should re-
quest it to be given.-Greene v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 17 N. W. 378, 31 Minn. 248.
Promissory notes of school trustees, see Schools
and School-Districts, 26-31.
Protection of bona fide purchasers from effects of
usury, see Usury, 30, 31.
Purchase by national banks, see Banks and Bank-
ing, 34, 35.
Regulation of protest, see Constitutional Law,
93.
Subject to levy of execution, see Execution, 32.
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
What constitutes bill of exchange.
1. An order directing the drawee to pay to
payee or order "the two hundred and fifty dollars
ing engine, and this will be receipt in full of all
due us by you on account of cash paid for repair-
demands of us," is a draft or inland bill of ex-
change.-Hillstrom v. Anderson, (Minn.) 49 N.
W. 187.
46 Minn. 382.
2. An order for the payment of a sum certain
to a third person is none the less a bill of ex-
change because it shows on what account it is to
be applied, or the consideration which has been
received. Hillstrom v. Anderson, (Minn.) 49 N.
W. 187.
46 Minn. 382.
What constitutes promissory note.
3. An obligation in the following form: "Cer-
tificate of deposit. Chicago, July 14, 1864. Hyde
& Broughton have deposited in this office $535.75
in treasury notes to the credit of themselves,
and payable to their order hereon in United
States 6 per cent. interest-bearing bonds, "-is
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. not a promissory note, but a special contract for
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES, 1–3.
II. EXECUTION AND DELIVERY, 4-10.
III. INTERPRETATION, 11-14.
IV. NEGOTIABILITY, 15–26.
V. VALIDITY, 27–34.
VI. CONSIDERATION, 35-47.
VII. ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION, 48-51.
VIII. ACCOMMODATION PAPER, 52-54.
IX. INDORSEMENT AND TRANSFER, 55-107.
X. SURETIES AND GUARANTORS, 108-114.
XI. ACCEPTANCE, 115-121.
XII. DEMAND, PROTEST, AND NOTICE, 122–149.
XIII. PAYMENT, 150-155.
XIV. CHECKS, 156-159.
XV. ACTIONS, 160-224.
See, also, Due-Bills; Orders.
Alteration of note, see Alteration of Instruments,
4-6, 10.
Certificate of deposit, see Banks and Banking,
7, 8.
Conversion of promissory note, see Conversion of
Personal Property, 49, 50.
Guaranty of note, see Guaranty, 1-6.
Indorsement of part payment, see Limitation of
Actions, 74.
Liability of maker of note as garnishee, see Gar-
nishment, 7, 8.
Payment by, see Payment, 2, 3, 5-11.
Power of partner to bind firm, see Partnership,
37, 38.
Promissory notes of corporations, see Corpora-
tions, 65-68.
the delivery of bonds of a certain character, and
of the nominal amount specified; and its indorse-
ment operates only as a transfer of the beneficial
interest, and does not create the liabilities of
indorser.-Easton v. Hyde, 13 Minn. 90, (Gil. 83.)
II. EXECUTION AND DELIVERY.
Signature.
4. A note executed by an agent must show,
from the instrument itself, that it is on behalf
of the principal; it is not sufficient that the agent
signing it designate himself as such.-Fowler v.
Atkinson, 6 Minn. 578, (Gil. 412.)
5. Defendants made a promissory note as fol-
lows: "Nine months after date, for value received,
we, the trustees of school-district No. 20, county
of Olmsted, promise to pay A. W. Bingham, or
bearer, the sum of $69, with interest at the rate of
10 per cent. per annum from date;" and signed
their individual names, adding the word "Trus-
tees." Held, that prima facie they were person-
ally liable, and the burden was upon them to show
the contrary.-Bingham v. Stewart, 13 Minn. 106,
(Gil. 96.)
6. Where one executes a note, and affixes the
word "Pres. " to his signature, he is prima facie
personally liable thereon, the word "Pres. " being
taken as descriptio persona merely, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary.-Brunswick-Balke-
Collender Co. v. Boutell, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 261.
45 Minn. 21.
1383
1334
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, II.-IV.
7. In an action against an individual on notes
that he has signed, affixing the word "Pres. " to his
name, defendant, in order to overcome his prima
facie personal liability, must not only show that
he executed the notes on behalf of the corpora-
tion of which he is president, and that plaintiff
knew this, but also that the debt evidenced by
them was one that the corporation had authority
to contract, and that it authorized him to contract
it.-Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Boutell,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 261.
Date.
45 Minn. 21.
8. Where a note is intended to bear date as of
the time of its execution, but is wrongly dated by
mistake, the mistake may be corrected, except as
to an innocent purchaser or indorsee, who would
be prejudiced by the correction.-Almich v. Down-
ey, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 197.
Delivery.
45 Minn. 460.
9. A promissory note has no legal inception
or existence as a binding contract until delivered.
-Stein v. Passmore, 25 Minn. 256.
10. After a note has been executed and deliv-
ered to the payee, the contract between him and
the maker is complete, and when he hands it
back to the maker, who obtains indorsements
thereon and redelivers it, the indorsers cannot
be held as joint makers.-Joyslin v. Kent, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 1110.
47 Minn. 271.
III. INTERPRETATION.
Time of payment.
11. A promissory note, payable in one year,
with interest at 4 per cent. a month, contained
the following words after the signature: "With
privilege of two years, by paying interest annu-
ally at 4 per cent. per month." Held, that the
note was for one year, with the right in the
maker, in case he paid the interest at the end of
the first year, to retain the money for the second
year; and, failing so to do, the note became due
at the end of the first year, and thereafter drew
interest at 7 per cent. per annum.-Chapin v.
Murphy, 5 Minn. 474, (Gil. 383.)
Contemporaneous
evidence.
agreements
Parol
12. In settlement of an action on a promissory
note given by defendant for the price of a boiler
and engine purchased from the payee, who had
assigned the note to plaintiff, defendant gave a
new note, in consideration of an agreement by
the payee of the first note to repair the boiler,
which defendant alleged had been warranted,
and had proved defective. Held, that the fulfill
ment of the contract to repair was not a condition
precedent to the payment of the new note.-Jag-
ger v. Winslow, 15 N. W. 242, 30 Minn. 263.
13. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that
an absolute agreement on a note to pay money is
to be performed only on a contingency.-Curtice v.
Hokanson, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 694.
ment between the parties that, if the maker should
be forced to assign for benefit of creditors, the
payee should file his claim on the note with the
assignee, and release the maker from all claims
other than such as might be paid by the assignee.
-Harrison v. Morrison, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 66.*
39 Minn. 319.
Distinguishing Healy v. Young, 21 Minn, 389.
IV. NEGOTIABILITY.
What instruments negotiable-Certain-
ty as to amount.
15. A note which contains a stipulation for the
payment of a reasonable attorney's fee, in addi-
tion to the face amount of the note, in case suit is
brought for its collection, is not negotiable.—
Jones v. Radatz, 6 N. W. 800, 27 Minn. 240.
16. An instrument in the usual form of a nego-
tiable promissory note promised payment of a
specified sum, "with interest at 10 per cent. per
annum from date until paid; seven, if paid when
due. " Held, that it was sufficiently certain to
treated as a penalty; only 7 per cent. interest be-
be negotiable, the increase in interest might be
ing payable after maturity.-Smith v. Crane, 22
N. W. 633, 33 Minn. 144.
Payment in money.
17. A promissory note or bill of exchange, pay-
able in "currency," is payable in money, and is
negotiable.-Butler v. Paine, 8 Minn. 324, (Gil.
284.)
Unconditional promise.
18. To constitute a valid negotiable instrument
the promise must be absolute and unconditional,
and dependent upon no contingency.-Third Nat
Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530.
19. A note payable when a certain person shall
be elected to a certain office, irrespective of the
question of its validity, is not negotiable, and, if
payable to the payee or bearer, possession is no
evidence of title.-Cooper v. Brewster, 1 Minn.
94, (Gil. 73.)
Conditional sale.
20. An instrument in the form of a promissory
note, given for the purchase price of machinery,
provided that the title thereto should remain in
the payee, and should not pass to the maker un
til the note and interest thereon were fully paid,
and contained a reservation on the part of the
payee of the right to take possession of the ma-
chinery whenever he should deem himself inse-
Held, that it did not constitute a negotia-
ble promissory note.-Third Nat. Bank v. Arm
strong, 25 Minn. 530.
cure.
Distinguished in Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co., 19 N. W.
388, 32 Minn. 91.
21. An instrument in the following form is a
non-negotiable promissory note: "On or before
the first day of June, 1876, for value received in a
Minnesota Seeder, I promise to pay to Thompson
& Duncan, or order, thirty-eight dollars, payable
at the —, in New Ulm, with interest at 10 per
cent. per annum, payable annually from date until
14. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that paid; and, in addition, I will pay five dollars_at-
when a note was executed there was an oral agree-torney's fees if the note is collected by suit. For
38 Minn. 510.
J
1385
1386
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, IV., V.
own
*
•
the purpose of obtaining credit, I certify that I
The express condition of the pur-
chase and sale of said seeder, No. 3,096, is that the
title, ownership, and right of possession does not
pass from Thompson & Duncan until this note and
interest is paid in full; and the said Thompson &
Duncan have full power to declare this note due,
and take possession of said seeder, No. 3,096, at any
time they may deem themselves insecure, even be-
fore maturity of said note." Following Bank v.
Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530.-Stevens v. Johnson, 9 N.
W. 677, 28 Minn. 172.
22. A written contract consisted of a promise
to pay a certain sum of money, with interest, in
the form of a promissory note, with agreements
added thereto for a reduction for payments on or
before maturity, and for payment of attorneys'
fees if suit should be commenced on the note, and
that it was a condition of the sale and purchase
of the machine for which the note was given that
the title thereto did not pass from the payees
named in the note until payment of the note and
interest in full, and that they should have power
to declare the note due and take possession of
such machine at any time they might deem them-
selves insecure, and sell said machine, and apply
the proceeds on the unpaid balance of the price.
Held, that it was not a promissory note. Fol-
lowing Third Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn.
530.-Edwards v. Ramsey, 14 N. W. 272, 30 Minn.
91.
Collateral mortgage.
23. The fact that a note in the form of a nego-
tiable promissory note is secured by a collateral
mortgage upon real estate, duly recorded, does
not affect the negotiability of the note; and pay-
ment of the amount of the note by the maker to
the payee before maturity, and the formal satis-
faction of the mortgage by the payee, will not de-
feat a recovery against the maker upon the note
by an indorsee who took it in good faith before its
maturity. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 24, pro-
viding that "the recording of an assignment of
a mortgage shall not in itself be deemed notice
of such assignment to the mortgagor,
so as to invalidate any payment made
*
to the mortgagee," does not apply to such a case.
-Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 12 N. W. 517, 29 Minn.
177.
Seal.
24. An instrument in form a promissory note,
but under seal, is not negotiable.-Helfer v. Al-
den, 3 Minn. 332, (Gil. 232.)
25. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 23, § 9, which
provides that "bonds and other obligations under
seal for payment of money, payable to bearer or
to some person designated as bearer, or payable to
order, issued by any corporation or joint-stock
company, shall be negotiable in the same manner
and to the same extent as promissory notes," the
affixing of the corporate seal to a note made by a
corporation does not affect its negotiability.-Auer-
bach v. Le Sueur Mill Co., 9 N. W. 799, 28 Minn.
291.
reference to a seal in the body of the instru-
ment, it was a sealed instrument, and not nego-
tiable.-Brown v. Jordhal, 19 N. W. 650, 32
Minn. 135.
V. VALIDITY.
Fraud-False representations.
27. To maintain the defense to a promissory
business stock, and transferred to plaintiff after
note given in part payment for the purchase of a
maturity, that there were fraudulent represen-
tations inducing the purchase, the same facts
must be proved which would be necessary to
maintain an action for damages for deceit in the
sale. Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 470, (Gil.
421.)
Sp
28. Plaintiff, holding a tax-deed for a farm oc-
cupied by defendant, after inffectual negotiations
between them for a settlement, brought suit
against defendant for possession of the land,
with plaintiff by executing to him a promissory
whereupon defendant compromised the matter
note, in consideration for which plaintiff execut-
Held, that statements made by plaintiff, during
ed to defendant a quitclaim deed of the land.
and prior to the negotiations for settlement, to
the effect that he had a valid title to the land,
and could recover possession unless defendant
settled with him, although in fact his tax-deed
was void, and vested no title in him, as was aft-
erwards judicially determined, were rather ex-
fact, and were not such fraudulent representa-
pressions of opinion than positive statements of
tions as to constitute a defense to an action on
the note.-Perkins v. Frinka, 15 N. W. 115, 30
Minn. 241.
29. In an action on a promissory note, given
upon the settlement of an action on a former
note, defendant alleged that the execution of the
note was obtained by fraud. Held, that testi-
mony by him as to representations by plaintiff's
attorney to him at the time of its execution, as
to the legal effect of the terms of settlement, was
not admissible; there having been no relation of
trust or confidence between defendant and plain-
tiff's attorney, and no misunderstanding as to
the facts.-Jagger v. Winslow, 15 N. W. 242, 30
Minn. 263.
30. In an action on promissory notes by the
payee against the maker, there was evidence tend-
ing to sustain the defense alleged, that defendant
was induced to execute the notes by fraudulent
representations of plaintiff's agent as to their
contents. Held, that it was not important
whether defendant was negligent in trusting to
such representations.-Aultman v. Olson, 26 N. W.
451, 34 Minn. 450.
31. In an action on promissory notes given to
the agent of the payee, the answer set up fraud
practiced by such agent in procuring the notes to
be executed in terms materially different from
those in fact agreed to by the maker. Held, that
this was a good defense to the maker, he having
acted in good faith, irrespective of whether the
26. An instrument in the form of a negotiable agent acted, in the particular matters to which
promissory note had, after and opposite to the the fraud related, with or without authority. To
signature of the maker, brackets inclosing the such a case the law of rescission or of reforma-
word "Seal." Held that, although there was notion of contracts has no application, the defense
1387
1388
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, V., VI.
being that the notes are not the maker's contracts, | at plaintiff's solicitation, as collateral security
but are void.-Aultman v. Olson, 26 N. W. 451, 34
Minn. 450.
32. L. assigned to C. certain letters patent at a
fixed price, part of which C. paid, and gave L. his
notes for the remainder. C. afterwards brought
action against L., alleging that he was induced to
purchase the letters patent, which were worth-
less, by the false and fraudulent representations
of L., and alleging damage, and demanding judg-
ment to the amount of the price which he alleged
he had paid. Meantime L. indorsed some of the
notes to S., who had notice of the fraud, and he
brought action on the notes against C. Held that,
in the action by C., he could not recover on ac-
count of the notes, unless he had paid them, or
might be obliged to pay them, and the bringing
of that action did not affect his right to defend
against the notes on the ground of the fraud.
Smith v. Carlson, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 761.*
36 Minn. 220.
for a past-due note of the same amount of defend-
ant's son, who had just failed in business. Held,
that this showed an entire want of consideration.
Security Bank of Minnesota v. Bell, 21 N. W.
470, 32 Minn. 409.
39. Where the only evidence of want of con-
sideration, pleaded as a defense to a note, is that
it was given for the right to manufacture and
sell a patented article within certain territory,
which right had not been interfered with, a
verdict for plaintiff should not be disturbed.
Owsley v. Geenwood, 18 Minn. 429, (Gil. 386.)
40. Promissory notes given for the price of a
harvesting-machine, signed by the buyer and a
surety, were delivered to the seller's agents, who
afterwards allowed the buyer to substitute other
notes which were signed by himself, but the sig-
nature of the surety on which was forged, and
sent the new notes to the seller, the payee named
therein; the agents not knowing that the sig-
nature of the surety was forged. The payee after-
wards procured from the surety other notes exe-
33. A faise representation by the holder of a se
ries of notes that the first one had been paid at ma-
turity, on the faith of which representation a pur-cuted by him, secured by mortgage of his real es-
chaser buys the other notes, giving his own in pay-
ment therefor, is such a fraud as will entitle the
purchaser to rescind the contract though no actual
damage be shown, and is a good defense to an ac-
tion on the purchaser's own notes, where the
rights of bona fide purchasers have not inter-
vened.-MacLaren v. Cochran, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
408.
44 Minn. 255.
İntent of payee.
34. The intention of the payee to convert to his
own use a note given to him for the benefit of an-
other, would be no defense to the maker, if in fact
the note was not so converted, but was used in ac-
cordance with the intention of the maker.-Elias
v. Finnegan, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 330.
Sufficiency.
VI. CONSIDERATION.
37 Minn. 144.
35. Where, by the mutual agreement of debtor
and creditor, a book-account is put into a note,
payable at a future day, the transaction is prima
facie evidence that the remedy upon the debt is
thereby suspended until the maturity of the note,
and the extension of credit is a new and adequate
consideration for the note and a mortgage given
to secure it.-Lundburg v. Northwestern Elevator
Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 685.
42 Minn. 37.
36. An answer by the maker of a promissory
note that it was given as collateral security for
a pretended precedent debt, and that no such
debt existed, of which defendant had notice, is
good.-Dunning v. F'ond, 5 Minn. 302, (Gil. 238.)
37. In an action on a promissory note, an an-
swer by one, who indorsed it before delivery, that
he was an accommodation indorser, and that the
maker received no sufficient consideration for the
note, is insufficient.-Dunning v. Pond, 5 Minn.
296, (Gil. 234.)
38. In an action on a promissory note by the
payee it appeared that defendant gave the note,
tate, ostensibly to secure the notes upon which
the surety's signature was forged, which both
parties supposed to be the original notes; both
surety and payee being ignorant of the forgery
and substitution. Held, that the notes and mort-
gage so given must be treated as given to secure
the original indebtedness, and that a finding that
they were without consideration was erroneous.
-Egan v. Fuller, 29 N. W. 813, 35 Minn. 515.
Illegal consideration.
41. A promissory note, given by husband to
wife in pursuance of an agreement for alimony,
made to facilitate divorce proceedings, and rest-
ing on no other consideration, is void. —Adams
v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72.
42. The fact that defendant was a party to an
illegal agreement, and in pari delicto, will not
affect his right to plead its illegality in an action
on a note for which it furnished the sole consid-
eration.-Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72.
Failure.
43. Where a promissory note is given for the
agreed price upon a contract to convey real es-
tate in fee-simple, want of title in the vendor
deos not constitute a failure of consideration for
the note.-Lough v. Bragg, 18 Minn. 121, (Gil.
106.)
Distinguishing Lowry v. Hurd, 7 Minn. 356, (Gil. 282.)
44. Defendant, an inventor, pending an appli-
cation for a patent, assigned a portion of his in-
vention to plaintiff. Subsequently plaintiff as-
signed to defendant, taking his promissory note
therefor. Held, that the fact that after the re-
assignment a patent was issued to plaintiff for a
portion of the theory of the invention so reas-
signed, and that by reason thereof the subse-
quent application of defendant for a patent for
his invention was rejected, on the ground that it
would infringe the patent issued to plaintiff,
was no defense to the note.-Clark v. Smith, 21
Minn. 539.
45. Where an acceptance was given to the payee
of a bill of exchange in consideration of his agree-
1389
1390
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, VI.-IX.
ment to make certain payments, the fact that he
violates that agreement does not constitute a fail-
ure of consideration, so long as he remains legally
obligated by his promise.-Vanstrum v. Liljen-
gren, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 555.
37 Minn. 191.
46. A partial failure of consideration may be
a defense to an action on a negotiable promissory
note, brought by the original holder, or one who
stands in his shoes.-Torinus v. Buckham, 12 N.
W 348, 29 Minn. 128.
Distinguishing Walters v. Armstrong, 5 Minn. 448, (Gil.
364;) Whitacre v. Culver, 9 Minn. 295, (Gil. 279;) Leighton
v. Grant, 20 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
|
privilege will lapse, and the note become absolute;
but a voluntary extension of the privilege if acted
on will be binding on the parties, and will be
deemed to rest on a sufficient consideration.-Stout
v. Watson, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 195.
45 Minn. 454.
VIII
VIII. ACCOMMODATION PAPER.
Evidence.
52. Parol evidence is admissible to show that
notes were executed and delivered as accommoda-
tion paper solely.-Pray v. Rhodes, (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 838.
42 Minn. 93.
Rescission.
47. Where there is one consideration, not sus-
ceptible of apportionment, for several promissory
53. An accommodation note has no validity un-
notes, a partial failure of that consideration can-
not, in the absence of fraud or mistake, impeach til it has passed into the hands of a third party for
any one of the notes in an action on it.-Leigh-value, and until negotiated the maker can rescind
the agreement.
ton v. Grant, 20 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
Second Nat. Bank v. Howe,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 200.
Distinguished in Torinus v. Buckham, 12 N. W. 349, 29
Minn. 131.
VII. ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION.
Alteration.
48. After an accommodation indorsement was
made upon a promissory note, the maker, with-
out the knowledge or consent of such indorsee,
inserted in the body of the note, "Payable before
maturity, and interest on unexpired term refund-
ed, if I so elect," and then negotiated the same
to an innocent bona fide holder for value. Held
that, as such alteration did not affect the in-
dorser's contract, it was as to him immaterial.-
Herrick v. Baldwin, 17 Minn. 209, (Gil. 183.)
49. E. signed a negotiable promissory note as
surety for H., and delivered it to H., on condition
that he should not deliver it to plaintiff, the
payee, until he procured the signature of J. as
co-surety. H. failed to get J.'s signature, but,
without the knowledge or consent of E., procured
R. to sign the note as co-surety, and then deliv-
ered it to plaintiff, who took it for a valuable
consideration, without any notice of the facts
stated. Held, that E. could not avail himself,
as against plaintiff, of the condition imposed by
him; and that the obtaining the signature of J.
as co-surety was not such an alteration of the in-
strument as to discharge E.; at least where the
payee had no notice when he took the note of the
circumstances.-Ward v. Hackett, 14 N. W. 578,
30 Minn. 150.
Modification.
50. An agreement, made after maturity of a
note, to accept payment at a particular place,
is, without some new consideration, void. It is
also void if made before maturity, in consilera-
tion of part payment to be made after maturity.
Colter v. Greenhagen, 3 Minn. 126, (Gil. 74 )
51. Where, upon the execution of a promissory
note, the payee, as part of the contract, indorses
an agreement upon the note that, in case the maker
should erect a dwelling-house upon the lot therein
described on or before a certain date, the note
should be canceled, the right to cancel the note in
this way is a privilege or option to be exercised
within the time limited, and, unless extended, the
|
40 Minn. 390.
54. Where, on receiving notice from the maker
of an accommodation note that he rescinds and
revokes the act, an officer of a bank falsely and
fraudulently makes statements in reference to the
solvency and financial standing of such payee, of
a character calculated to and which actually mis-
lead the maker, and induce him to withdraw his
previous rescission of the contract, and to consent
to the negotiation of the note to the bank, the latter
can be held responsible if it subsequently receives
the note from the payee; and it is not material
that at the time of the notice, and when the false
and fraudulent statements were made, the bank
was not interested in or connected with the note.
-Second Nat. Bank v. Howe, 42 N. W. 200, 40 Minn.
390.
2
IX. INDORSEMENT AND TRANSFER.
Sufficiency to pass title.
55. An indorsement of a promissory note “for
collection" makes the indorsee an agent for the
collection of the note, and does not pass the title so
as to make him a proper party plaintiff in a suit
upon such note.-Rock County Nat. Bank of
Janesville, Wisconsin, v. Hollister, 21 Minn. 385;
Third Nat. Bank of Syracuse, New York, v. Clark,
23 Minn. 263.
56. A transfer by the trustee of a corporation
of a promissory note, payable to its order, and
the legal title to which is in such corporation,
without the direction of its executive committee,
who alone have power to authorize such transfer,
is binding, and vests a good title, even as against
the corporation, the beneficial owner, if the in-
dorsee knew nothing of the restriction on the
power of the trustee.-Downer v. Read, 17 Minn.
493, (Gil. 470.)
57. On a sale by plaintiffs to defendants of
lumber, to be paid for in promissory notes se-
cured by mortgage executed by a third party and
held by defendants, nothing was said about de-
fendants indorsing the notes. Held, that any as-
signment or transfer of the notes that would con-
vey the title would fulfill the contracts in regard
to them on the part of the defendants.-Paine v.
Smith, 24 N. W. 305, 33 Minn. 495.
1391
1392
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, IX.
58. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 89, providing
that in actions on promissory notes the possession
of the note is prima facie evidence that the same
was indorsed by the "person" by whom it purports
to be indorsed, applies to corporations as well as
natural persons, (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 4, § 1;)
and an indorsement made by the duly-authorized
agent of a corporation, by simply writing the name
of the corporation, without indicating that it was
made by an agent, is sufficient.-First Nat. Bank
v. Loyhed, 10 N. W. 421, 28 Minn. 396.
59. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 89, the pos-
session of a note by an indorsee, purporting to be
indorsed by a corporation, is prima facie evidence
hat it was so indorsed, without proof that the
person who made it had authority to do so.-Na-
tional Bank of Battle Creek v. Mallan, (Minn.) 34|
N. W. 901.
37 Minn. 404.
60. Where a draft which was intended for "C.
A. R." was erroneously indorsed to "C. R.," and
was shown to have been inclosed in a letter duly
addressed and mailed to "C. A. R., " at his place of
business in a distant city, but miscarried, and was
never received by him, and was fraudulently in-
dorsed and collected by a stranger, held, in a sub-
sequent action to recover the amount of the draft
by the true owner, that, in the absence of any
identification of the fraudulent indorser, or that
any person bearing the name "C. R.," so indorsed,
lived in or received his mail, at the time, in the city
to which the letter was sent, the mistake in the
original indorsement was not sufficient to raise an
issue for the jury upon the question of plaintiff's
negligence, and a verdict was properly directed
for him.-Lennon v. Brainard, (Minn.) 31 N. W.
172.
36 Minn. 330.
them an opportunity of ascertaining the solvency
of makers. Afterwards plaintiffs refused either
to discount the note, or to return it, and defend-
ants brought suit for the value of the note, in
which they obtained judgment, which plaintiffs
paid. Held, that defendants were not liable as in-
dorsers; that payment of the judgment invested
plaintiffs with title to the converted property as
of the date of the conversion, which was merely
the obligation of the makers of the note, without
any contract of indorsement by defendants,-no
such contract ever having been consummated.-
Haas v. Sackett, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 237.
40 Minn. 53.
65. A. indorsed an unsigned note, and deliv-
ered it to the payee named, who was to procure
the signature of C. thereto as maker; A. to be
liable as indorser only. Held, C.'s signature
having been obtained, that the payee was the
agent of A. in procuring C.'s signature, and A.
was liable as indorser.-Rogers v. Stevenson, 16
Mina. 68, (Gil. 56.)
Indorsement after maturity.
66. The holder of a promissory note past due
agreed with the maker that if defendant would in-
dorse the same he would extend the time of pay-
ment. Defendant thereupon, at the maker's re-
quest, but without knowledge of this agreement,
wrote his name on the back. Held, that such in-
dorsement, so made, did not make him liable as
maker or indorser; that it might have authorized
the writing of a contract of guaranty above his
name, but, none having been written, he was not
liable as guarantor.-Moor v. Folsom, 14 Minn.
340, (Gil. 260.)
Indorsement by partner
Ratification.
67. T. and P. were partners. Dissolving, they
divided all the assets but one note, which T.,
Sufficiency to create liability of in- under mistake of law, and without special au-
dorser.
thority from P., indorsed in the late firm name,
the proceeds. P., before the note fell due, know-
and procured to be discounted, taking one-half
61. A payee of a note assumes the liability of
an indorser by writing on the back of the note:
"For value received I hereby assign and transfering the note to have been discounted, demanded
and received the other half of the proceeds.
the within note, together with all interest in and Held, that he could not plead ignorance of the
all right under the mortgage securing the same."
-Maine Trust & Banking Co. v. Butler, (Minn.) that thereafter retaining his portion of the pro-
fact of discounting after protest of the note, and
48 N. W. 333.
ceeds of its discount was a ratification by him
of the indorsement as made by T., and binding
upon him.-First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Par-
sons, 19 Minn. 289, (Gil. 246.)
sons, 19 Minn. 289, (Gil. 246.)
45 Minn. 506.
62. As to subsequent bona fide holders of a
negotiable note, one is an indorser who, not being
a party to the note, places his name on the back
thereof after its execution and delivery, before
maturity, and before it has been indorsed by the
payee.-Buck v. Hutchins, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 808.
45 Minn. 270.
63. By a general indorsement of a promissory
note by the holder thereof, pursuant to a previ-
ous contract in writing by him to assign the
note, no mode of assigning it being indicated, he
assumes the usual liabilities of an indorser.-
Collom v. Matthews, (Collom v. Bixby,) 21 N.
W. 855, 53 Minn. 50.
64. Defendants, the payees and holders of a note,
desiring to raise money on it, wrote their names
on the back of it, and applied to plaintiffs to dis-
count it. On plaintiffs' request defendants left
the note with them for the sole purpose of giving
Effect of indorsement before delivery.
68. A party other than the payee of a promis-
sory note, putting his name on the back thereof
before delivery, thereby becomes a joint maker,
and liable as such.-Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369,
(Gil. 272;) Rey v. Simpson, 1 Minn. 380, (Gil.
282:) Winslow v. Boyden, 1 Minn. 383, (Gil. 285;)
McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114;)
Marienthal v. Taylor, 2 Minu. 147, (Gil. 123;)
Robinson v. Bartlett, 11 Minn. 410, (Gil. 302;)
Stein v. Passmore, 25 Minn. 256.
The cases of Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil. 272,) Mc-
Comb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114,) aud Marien-
thal v. Taylor, 2 Minn. 147, (Gil. 123.) are distinguished in
Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 330, (Gil. 230.)
69. Where a person puts his name on the back
of a note to give it credit with the payee, and
1393
1394
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, IX.
the payee is influenced in receiving the note | Nininger, 5 Minn. 523, (Gil. 417;) Coon v. Pru-
and parts with something by reason of the name, den, 25 Minn. 105.
the person so indorsing may be held as an orig-
inal maker.-McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139,
(Gil. 114.)
70. Where a party other than the payee in-
dorses a promissory note before its delivery to
give it credit, he is liable thereon as a joint
maker, although he received no valuable consid-
eration. Robinson v. Bartlett, 11 Minn. 410,
(Gil. 302;) Priedman v. Johnson, 21 Minn. 12.
71. One who consents to become an indorser on
a note, and signs the same, and delivers it to the
maker, for whose debt it is given, to be delivered
to the payee solely on condition of the latter's con-
sent to extend the time of payment of the whole
debt according to the terms of the note, cannot be
bound by the delivery of the note after the pay-
ment of a large sum thereon, upon the refusal of
the payee, who had knowledge of the condition, to
comply therewith, and as to him the note is in-
valid.-Wager v. Huntington, (Minn.) 34 N. W.
745.*
37 Minn. 392.
72. In an action on a promissory note against
the maker and indorser, evidence that before mak-
ing the note defendants were negotiating for the
sale of real estate, the note to be secured by a
mortgage thereon; and that the indorser objected
to the terms of sale because the mortgage would be
a second one, whereon plaintiff agreed to purchase
the note, and look to the security for payment,
asking only a reasonable discount, if the indorser
would take it, and the mortgage, at a certain
price,-is not material, as the transaction was
nearly two months before the indorsement, and it
was not shown that the indorsement had any con-
nection with the former transaction.-Knoblauch
v. Crossman, (Minn.) 37 N. W. 586.
38 Minn. 352.
Parol evidence to vary or explain in-
dorsements.
73. Where, prior to delivery, and to give credit
to a note, a party indorses the same, parol tes-
timony is competent to show the circumstances
under which such indorsement was made, and to
charge him as an original maker instead of an
indorser.-Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil.
272;) Rey v. Simpson, 1 Minn. 380, (Gil. 282;)
Winslow v. Boyden, 1 Minn. 333, (Gil. 285;) Mc-
Comb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114.)
The cases of Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil. 272,) and
McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114,) are distin-
guished in Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 330, (Gil. 230.)
74. A party other than the payee, who, before
delivery, writes his name on the back of a prom-
issory note, with the purpose of giving credit
thereto, is liable as joint maker, and cannot vary
that obligation by parol evidence.-Peckham v.
Gilman, 7 Minn. 446, (Gil. 355.)
75. Parol testimony is inadmissible to show
that an indorsement of commercial paper by the
payee, in ordinary form, makes his liability
other than that of an indorser.-Levering v.
Washington, 3 Minn. 323, (Gil. 227;) Borup v.
The case of Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn. 328, (Gil.
227.) distinguishes Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 370. (Gil. 272;)
McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114;) Marienthal
v. Taylor, 2 Minn. 147, (Gil. 123.) The case of Coon v.
Pruden, 25 Minn. 105, distinguishes McComb v. Thomp-
son, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114.)
76. If, in addition to an indorsement of a prom-
issory note, there are other words showing its
character and the relation the party intended to
assume, the agreement so expressed cannot be
varied by parol.-McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn.
139, (Gil. 114.)
77. In an action upon a promissory note, if
there is anything to be found in the writing it-
party intends to assume to the note, parol evi-
self that indicates what particular relation a
dence is not admissible to vary the relation.—
McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114.)
78. Where a note is indorsed in blank, parol
evidence is admissible to show that the indorse-
ment was made for the purpose of guarantying the
note, and becoming security to the payee for its
amount.-Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil. 272.)
79. Where a partner makes a note to the order
of the firm, and the firm indorses it, parol evi-
dence is not admissible to show that the payee
indorsing the note was in fact a maker.—Coon v.
Pruden, 25 Minn. 105.
80. The indorsement of a negotiable note or
bill before maturity by the payee creates an ab-
solute warranty to the immediate and subsequent
indorsees that either the maker or acceptor will
pay the same upon due presentment, or the in-
dorser will cause the same to be paid upor due
notice of its dishonor, and this warranty can-
not be changed by evidence of contemporaneous
agreement.-First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. Na-
tional Marine Bank, 20 Minn. 63, (Gil. 49.)
secretary, was made payable to the order of "A.
81. A note, signed by a corporation by its
J. B., Treasurer. " It was indorsed, "A. J. B.,
Held that, as it did not appear of
Treasurer."
what A. J. B. was treasurer, the indorsement was
prima facie his individual contract, but that ex-
trinsic evidence was admissible to show that he
made it only in his official capacity as treasurer
of the signing corporation.-Souhegan Nat. Bank
v. Boardman, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1116. 46 Minn. 293.
Transfer without indorsement.
82. A promissory note may be transferred by
mere delivery, so as to vest the title and right to
sue in the holder; but in such case the transferee
takes the note subject to all disabilities, and not
as a bona fide holder.-Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn.
107, (Gil. 89.)
Distinguished in Van Eman v. Stanchfield, 10 Minn.
262, (Gil. 204.)
83. Title to a promissory note may be trans-
ferred without indorsement or delivery of such
note.-Nininger v. Banning, 7 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210;)
Foster v. Berkey, 8 Minn. 351, (Gil. 310.)
The case of Nininger v. Banning, 7 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210,)
distinguishes Borup v. Nininger, 5 Minn. 523, (Gil. 417.)
84. A note payable to order, and passed with-
out indorsement, is not taken in the regular
1395
1396
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, IX.
course of business.-Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107, | Bona fide purchasers-Who are, gener-
(Gil. 89.)
85. Where a promissory note payable to the
husband is transfered by him directly to his wife,
without indorsement, the title thereto vests in her,
so far as the maker is concerned, although she paid
no valuable consideration for such transfer.-Tul-
lis v. Fridley, 9 Minn. 79, (Gil. 68.)
86. The mere possession of an overdue prom-
issory note, by a person other than the payee, with-
out the indorsement of the payee, is not evidence
of ownership in such person. Van Eman v.
Stanchfield, 13 Minn. 75, (Gil. 70.)
Distinguishing Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107, (Gil. 89.)
Rights and liabilities of indorsers.
87. The indorsement by the payee of a promis-
sory note under seal creates the same liability
on his part as the indorsement of a negotiable
note, but not as to subsequent holders, unless in-
dorsed to the indorsee or his order, or the in-
dorser expressly promises to pay the note.-Hel-
fer v. Alden, 3 Minn. 332, (Gil. 232.)
88. The indorser of a promissory note may,
at any time after maturity, pay the same and
enforce it against the principal; or, when sever-
al judgments have been recovered against him
and the maker, may pay the one against himself,
and take an assignment of and proceed to enforce
the one against the maker. Comp. St. Minn. c.
60, § 36, authorizing plaintiff, at his option, to sue
all parties to a note in one action, does not change
this rule, and au indorser paying such judgment
may have the same assigned to himself or a third
person, and proceed to enforce it against the
maker.-Folsom v. Carli, 5 Minn. 333, (Gil. 264.)
What defenses available to the maker.
89. A defense arising between the original
parties to a promissory note, subsequent to its in-
dorsement to one as security, is not available in
an action by the indorsee on the note.-Becker v.
Sandusky City Bank, 1 Minn. 311, (Gil. 243.)
90. Want of delivery by the maker is no de-
fense to a promissory note in the hands of a bona
fide purchaser for value before maturity.-Kin-
yon v. Wohlford, 17 Minn. 239, (Gil. 215.)
91. Mere want of consideration between maker
and payee is not sufficient, in an action by the
indorsee, to require proof that he gave value for
it. The further element of fraud or illegality
between the original parties is required.-Cum-
mings v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228.)
92. Simple want of consideration for a prom-
issory note is no defense thereto in the hands of
an innocent indorsee for value, without notice of
such infirmity, although he may have purchased
the same for less than its face value.-Daniels
v. Wilson, 21 Minn. 530.
93. Where a promissory note of a third person
is taken in good faith before maturity in payment
of a pre-existing debt, the indorsee is entitled to
protection as a bona fide holder against any equi-
ties between the antecedent parties.-Stevenson v.
Hyland, 11 Minn. 198, (Gil. 128.)
ally.
94. One who purchases a note secured by mort-
gage given for the purchase price of land pend-
ing a suit against the payee by the maker to can-
cel the deed and mortgage and recover back his
payments, and with a guaranty from the payee
against such suit, and all lawful claims of the
maker in respect to the note and mortgage, is not
a bona fide purchaser. Dorr v. Steichen, 18
Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
Notice of defects or equities.
95. Where a negotiable note is discounted by a
bank through its cashier, the mere fact that the
cashier was a stockholder and director of the cor-
poration, which was the payee and indorser of the
note, will not charge the bank with notice of any
equities against it.-First Nat. Bank v. Loyhed,
10 N. W. 421, 28 Minn. 396.
96. L., an individual doing business under the
name of the "Bank of B.," holding several notes
payable to himself by his name, or by the name
of the Bank of B., indorsed the notes, and sent
them to plaintiff, another bank, requesting plain-
tiff to discount them, and place the proceeds to his
credit, which plaintiff did. Afterwards plaintiff
returned the notes to L. for collection, having
indorsed them: "Pay Bank of B., or order, for
collection account of" plaintiff. L., having re-
ceived the notes for collection, transferred them
by indorsement before their maturity, with plain-
tiff's indorsements uncanceled upon them, to de-
fendant, in payment of a pre-existing debt from
L. to defendant. Defendant noticed the indorse-
ments when he received the notes, but asked no
questions, and no notice to him of plaintiff's
rights was shown, except such as might be in-
ferred from the facts stated. Held, that the in-
dorsements were notice to defendant of plain-
tiff's title, and that defendant's conduct in for-
bearing to make inquiries was not merely proof
of negligence, but, in the absence of anything to
support a contrary conclusion, was proof of mala
fides.-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hanson, 21 N.
W. 849, 33 Minn. 40.
97. The indorsement of a negotiable note, mak-
ing it payable simply to the order of A., who has
no personal interest in the transaction, the indorse-
ment being really made for the benefit of B., is not
a transfer to B. in the usual course of business, so
as to exclude defenses by the maker, as against the
payee.-Elias v. Finnegan, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 330.
37 Minn. 144.
98. It is not essential that the written promise
to accept a bill be shown or exhibited to a person
who takes the bill relying upon its existence; but,
if he chooses to act without inspecting the promise
in writing, he is held to have such information as
he would have acquired by reading the same.
Woodard v. Griffiths-Marshall Grain Commission
Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 433.
43 Minn. 260.
99. In an action on a negotiable promissory
note, defendant offered to prove that he signed
the note, supposing it to be merely a receipt for
a plough which the agent of the payee had de-
livered to him to try; that such agent presented
the instrument to him for his signature, told him
1397
1398
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, IX., X.
it was a receipt, and at his request read to him
the language of a receipt; that there was no
one who could read English within half a mile
of the place; that he believed the agent read it
truly, and, relying on such reading, signed it,
supposing it to be a receipt, and not intending to
sign, and not knowing that he was signing, a
note. No proof was offered that plaintiff was not
a bona fide holder. Held, that the negligence of
defendant in executing the note precluded the
defense, as against a bona fide holder, that he
was induced to sign and deliver it by false and
fraudulent representations.-Mackey v. Peter-
son, 13 N. W. 132, 29 Minn. 298.
100. The purchaser of what purports to be, or
is said to be, negotiable paper, must exercise
ordinary prudence in respect to knowledge de-
rived from an inspection of the paper.-Stein v.
Rheinstrom, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 827.
47 Minn. 476.
101. Defendants issued their bonds to one S.,
payable to him or the holder thereof, and obli-
gated in the body for the payment of the principal
in five years, and interest annually, "on the pres-
entation of the corresponding interest warrants"
to the county treasurer. Interest coupons were
attached. They were stolen from S., and, after
some of the interest was due, sold to plaintiff with
all the coupons attached. Held, that the overdue
interest was a suspicious circumstance, sufficient
to put plaintiff on its guard, and that it took sub-
ject to its grantor's infirmity of title.-First Nat.
Bank of St. Paul v. County Com'rs Scott County,
14 Minn. 77, (Gil. 59.)
102. A mere general recital in a bond issued by
a railway company, negotiable on its face, that
such bond belongs to a series of bonds secured
by a trust-deed of the property of the company, is
not sufficient to destroy its negotiability, or to
put bona fide purchasers of the bonds upon in-
quiry as to the existence of conditions in the
deed qualifying the terms of payment in the
bond, or affecting his right to maintain a suit at
law thereon, upon default in the payment there
of when due.-Guilford v. Minneapolis, S. Ste.
M. & A. Ry. Co., (Mina.) 51 N. W. 658.
Overdue paper.
103. A negotiable instrument, payable at a time
certain, is overdue as soon as that time is past,
whether it is payable generally or only at a speci-
fied place; and one taking it afterwards acquires
no better title than that of the party from whom
he purchased.-First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v.
County Com'rs Scott County, 14 Minn. 77, (Gil. 59.)
104. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 27, provides
that, in the case of an assignment of a thing in
action, the action by the assignee is without
prejudice to any set-off or other defense exist-
ing at the time of, or before notice of, the assign-
ment, but that this section does not apply to ne-
gotiable instruments transferred in good faith,
and upon good consideration, before due. Held,
that the statute places an overdue bill or noté
upon the same footing as any other chose in action,
and that a purchaser of an overdue draft takes it
subject to any set-off arising out of an independ-
ent transaction against an intermediate holder,
if such set-off could have been asserted against
|
such__ holder while the drafts belonged to him.-
Le Due v. First Nat. Bank, 16 N. W. 426, 31
Minn. 33.
105. In determining whether a purchaser of a
draft, payable on demand, takes it as overdue
paper, subject to all equities or defenses exist-
ing against the assignor, the test is the length of
time the draft has been outstanding, without
reference to whether the draft has ever been pre-
sented to the drawee for payment.-Le Duê v.
First Nat. Bank, 16 N. W. 426, 31 Minn. 33.
106. A draft payable on demand was transferred
nearly five months after date. Held that, there
being no explanation as to why the draft was
outstanding so long, the court was justified in
finding that the purchaser took it as overdue and
dishonored paper.-Le Due v. First Nat. Bank,
16 N. W. 426, 31 Minn. 33.
107. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 27,
by which the assignment of an overdue promis-
sory note is subject, like the assignment of any
other chose in action, to "any set-off or other de
fense existing at the time of, or before notice of,
the assignment," the assignee of such a noté
takes it subject not only to defenses existing
against the payee at the time of his assignment,
but also subject to defenses existing against an
intermediate holder, while the note belonged to
him.-Tuttle v. Wilson, 23 N. W. 864, 33 Mină. 422.
X. SURETIES AND GUARANTORS.
Validity of guaranty-Conditional de-
livery.
108. In an action on a note, it appeared that the
guarantors had signed it under an agreement to
guaranty its payment, provided certain others
would also join in the guaranty, and had written
their names on the back of the note, and left it with
the agent of the payees with the understanding that
unless those signatures were obtained, their in-
dorsements should be inoperative. The other sig-
natures were not obtained, and there was no evi-
dence to show that plaintiff was a purchaser in
good faith without notice and for value. Held,
plaintiff could not recover against such guaran-
tors. Westman v. Kumweide, 15 N. W. 255, fol-
lowed.-Merchants' Exch. Bank v.Luckow, (Minn.)
35 N. W. 434.*
37 Minn. 542.
Liabilities of guarantors.
109. One who, before maturity, unconditionally
guaranties the payment of a note, becomes abso-
lutely liable upon default of the maker.-Hunger-
ford v. O'Brien, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 161.
37 Minn. 306.
110. The guarantor is not entitled to notice of the
maker's default, and the mere neglect of the hold-
er to pursue a remedy against the maker does not
discharge him. So, if the paper had been pre-
viously indorsed to the guarantor, the failure of the
holder at maturity to make demand of the maker,
and give notice to the prior indorser, does not dis-
charge the_guarantor.-Hungerford v. O'Brien,
(Minn.) 34 N. W. 161.
37 Minn. 306.
1399
1400
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, X.-XII.
111. Where the holder of a note brings suit |
against the guarantor of collection, without having
first attempted to collect from the maker by due
process of law, it is incumbent on him to prove
that the maker was, at the maturity of the note,
and still continues, so utterly insolvent that an ac-
tion against him would have been fruitless.-D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Thompson, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 1.
36 Minn. 528.
By partner.
118. An acceptance by a partner, in his own
name, of a bill of exchange drawn upon the firm,
is not binding either upon the firm or accepting
partner.-Heenan v. Nash, 8 Minn. 407, (Gil. 363.)
Liabilities of acceptor.
119. It is no defense in an action against the
acceptor of a bill of exchange that there was no
consideration as between the drawer and payee of
Equitable rights of surety as against the bill.-Vanstrum v. Liljengren, (Minn.) 33 N. W.
payee.
112. Where one of several signers of a joint note
is surety for the others, but such fact does not ap-
pear upon the face of the paper, the payee is not,
in the absence of any notice, bound to inquire into
the relations of the makers as between themselves,
nor, until informed thereof, is he bound to regard
the equitable rights of such surety.-Benedict v.
Thoe, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 10.
37 Minn. 431.
Release or discharge.
113. Defendant was liable on a promissory note
as accommodation and second indorser. The
first indorser made an assignment for the benefit
of his creditors, the property being sufficient to
pay all claims, and afterwards, and before the
action, the assignee, with the consent of the
nolder of the note, and without defendant's
knowledge, reconveyed the property to the as-
signor. Held, that the holder of the note, by
consenting to such reconveyance of the trust-es-
tate, and relinquishing his right to have the note
paid from the proceeds thereof, without defend-
ant's consent, thereby released him from liabil-
ty.—Willis v. Davis, 3 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
114. Possession of a promissory note, payable
to the bearer, while presumptive evidence that
the possessor is the owner or lawful holder, and
entitled to receive payment, raises no presump-
tion that he is authorized to make any arrange-
ment in regard to it for the benefit of another as
the owner.-Woodbury v. Larned, 5 Minn. 339,
(Gil. 271.)
XI. ACCEPTANCE.
What constitutes.
115. A promise in writing to accept a bill of ex-
change, made within a reasonable time before it is
drawn, will amount to an acceptance of the bill in
favor of a person to whom the promise is communi-
cated, and who also takes the bill for a valuable
consideration, on the faith and credit of the prom-
ise.-Woodard v. Griffiths-Marshall Grain Commis-
sion Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 433.
43 Minn. 260.
116. The word "except," written and signed
upon a bill of exchange by the drawee, is an ac-
ceptance.-Vanstrum v. Liljengren, (Minn.) 33 N.
W. 555.
37 Minn. 191.
117. The words "payable the fifteenth day of
May, 1883," written and signed by the drawee upon
a bill of exchange drawn upon him, constitute a
qualified acceptance.-Vanstrum v. Liljengren,
33 N. W. 555, 37 Minn. 191.
555.**
37 Minn. 191.
120. Even though a bill of exchange be really,
but not in terms, given to the payee for the pur-
pose of collection, the payee may maintain an
action in his own name against the drawee, upon
the acceptance of the latter.-Vanstrum v. Lil-
jengren, 33 N. W. 555, 37 Minu. 191.
Acceptance and payment of forged
draft.
121. A forged draft was presented for payment,
and the drawee, without an examination, which
he might have had, paid the same to defendant,
who had negotiated the draft in the ordinary
course of business. Held, in an action by the
drawee against the holder to recover back the
amount paid, that a drawee is presumed to know
his correspondent's signature, and if without
draft he pays it, he cannot recover from a holder
availing himself of an opportunity to examine a
who is free from fault, as for moneys paid by
mistake.-Bernheimer v. Marshall, 2 Minn. 78,
(Gil. 61.)
XII. DEMAND, PROTEST, AND NOTICE.
Demand.
122. A bill of exchange, payable to the order of
the drawer at a specified place, and accepted by
the drawee, need not, in order to entitle the
payee to bring an action against the acceptor
thereon, be presented at the place named for
payment. If the acceptor has funds there, that
may relieve him from damages and costs, but
will not operate as a defense to the debt.—Free-
man v. Curran, 1 Minn. 169, (Gil. 144.)
123. The holder of a note or bill, payable on a
day certain at a specified place, is not bound to
make a demand at the time and place specified
in order to maintain an action thereon; but, if
the maker was ready to pay at the time and
place, he may avoid damages and costs by plead-
ing a tender of payment, and bringing the money
into court.-Balme v. Wambaugh, 16 Minn. 116,
(Gil. 106.)
as between the indorser and indorsee, is, in legal
124. The indorsement of a non-negotiable note,
of exchange by the indorser in favor of the in-
contemplation, equivalent to the drawing of a bill
dorsee, entitling the former to presentment, de-
mand, and notice.-Hart v. Eastman, 7 Minn. 74,
(Gil. 50.)
125. To fix the liability of an indorser upon an
indorsement made upon an overdue note, it must
be presented for payment within a reasonable
time. What is a reasonable time is a question of
1401
1402
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XII.
mixed law and fact, to be determined by the jury
under instructions of the court, but where nothing
but the time of the delay appears the court will in-
struct the jury how to find. A delay of one year is
unreasonable, as a matter of law, and will dis-
charge the indorser.-Hart v. Eastman, 7 Minn.
74, (Gil. 50.)
126. Where a note has been made by a member of
a firm to the order of the firm, and indorsed by
it, the relation of the firm is that of indorser,
and demand on the maker is necessary to make
the firm liable.—Coon v. Pruden. 25 Miun. 105
127. The residence of the maker of a promissory
note is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
presumed to be in the state where such note is
made or dated.-Herrick v. Baldwin, 17 Minn.
209, (Gil. 183.)
128. Where the maker of a note, before its ma-
turity, removes his residence from the state
where it is so made, and takes up his permanent
residence elsewhere, it is sufficient if present-
ment for payment be made at his last place of
abode in the state from which he has so removed.
-Herrick v. Baldwin, 17 Minn. 209, (Gil. 183.)
Protest and notice.
129. Under Laws 1856, c. 5, § 5, which requires
a notary protesting a note to serve notice by mail-
ing the same to an indorser, directed to the post-
office nearest his reputed place of residence, mail-
ing a notice to a post-office where the indorser had
a box and frequently got his mail, but which
was not nearest his reputed place of residence,
is insufficient service. Marshall v. Baker, 3
Minn. 320, (Gil. 224.)
130. Under Laws Minn. 1856, c. 5, § 4, notice of
protest might be made by mail as well on a resi-
dent of a town where the same is mailed as if he
resided elsewhere. - Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn.
426, (Gil. 341.)
|
the maker in the state, said maker having left
the state, and having no residence or place of
business therein. Held that, no objection hav-
ing been made to its introduction on the trial,
objection to its competency, as showing the facts
so recited, would not be considered in the appel-
late court, and, under the circumstances, it was
sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of due
presentment and demand.-Herrick v. Baldwin,
17 Minn. 209, (Gil. 183.)
136. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 26, § 9, does not
make the protesting of promissory notes and in-
land bills of exchange necessary to charge the
indorser, but simply makes the notary's certif-
cate prima facie evidence of the facts certified
therein. - Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396, (Gil
842.)
187. An instrument of protest of a note by a
notary in another state recited facts showing
proper demand of payment and. refusal, and cer-
tified that he "duly notified the indorser" there-
of. Held, that such an instrument being made
by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 26, § 8, prima facie
evidence of the facts therein certified, it was to
be received as prima facie evidence that the in-
dorser was actually or personally served with
the proper notice; but on its being made to ap-
pear in rebuttal that the indorser never received
such notice in fact, it devolved on the holder of
the note to prove the facts showing exercise of
such diligence as the law accepts as equivalent.
to evidence of actual notice.-Bettis v. Schreiber,
17 N. W. 863, 31 Minr. 329.
C.
138. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
26, § 8, making instruments of protest of a bill
or note by a notary prima facie evidence of the
notice to indorsers included in such protest.
facts therein certified, extends to a certificate of
Bettis v. Schreiber, 17 N. W. 863, 31 Minn. 329.
139. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 26, § 7, provid-
ing that notice of protest may "be given by depos-
131. A notice of protest, properly folded and ad-iting the same in the post-office, postage paid, and
dressed, is sufficient, whether inclosed in an en-puted place of residence, and the notary shall, in
directed to the party protested against at his re-
velope or not. - Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426, such instrument of protest, certify to the time and
(Gil. 341.)
manner of such service upon the several parties.
protested against," evidence that a notice of pro-
test was not received is not admissible, in the ab-
sence of evidence tending to show that such notice-
was not in fact deposited in the post-office, direct-
ed, etc., for the purpose of contradicting the no-
tary's certificate.-Wilson v. Richards, 9 N. W.
872, 28 Minn. 337.
132. Comp. St. Minn. c. 5, § 96, making the certif-
icate of protest of a notary evidence of the fact of
protest, refers as well to past as future protests.-
Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426, (Gil. 341.)
133. At the time of the making of a promissory
note, Act 1856, p. 9, § 5, permitted service of no-
tice of protest by mail. Subsequently, and be
fore its maturity, by Act July 26, 1858, (Pub. St.
c. 5, §5,) relating to protests of commercial paper,
the provision permitting such service was re-
pealed. Held, in an action against an indorser,
that the law in force at the maturity of the note
governed, and that service of a notice of protest
by mail was insufficient. -Levering v. Washing-
ton, 3 Minn. 323, (Gil. 227.)
134. The fact that notices of protest were prop-
erly sent and postage prepaid may be shown by
proof outside of the notary's record.-Rogers v.
Stevenson, 16 Minn. 68, (Gil. 56.)
135. An instrument of protest recited present-
ment and demand at the last place of abode of
140. A statement in a notary's certificate of pro-
test that notices of protest "were put in the post-
office at," etc., is equivalent to a statement that.
the notary himself put the notices in the post-
office.-Wilson v. Richards, 9 N. W. 872, 28 Minn.
337.
Waiver.
141. An agreement entered into by all the par-
ties to a note to extend the time of payment 15
days does not operate as a waiver of demand and
notice.
notice.-Michaud v. Lagarde, 4 Minn. 43, (Gil.
21.)
142. Adding to an indorsement the words, "not
to be paid by us in any event, within one year from
1403
1404
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XII.-XIV.
date," does not waive presentment for payment,
but merely extends the time of payment by the in-
dorser.-Hart v. Eastman, 7 Minn. 74, (Gil. 50.)
143. Defendants, having a general contract
providing that they should receive notice of non-
payment of all notes to be indorsed by them un-
der it, subsequently indorsed such notes, con-
taining, in the body thereof, an express waiver
of presentment for payment, protest, notice of
protest, and non-payment. Held, that such
waiver, was binding on them, as in the case of any
other indorser, notwithstanding the general
agreement. -Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396, (Gil.
342.)
144. The payee of a promissory note indorsed
it as follows: "For value received, I waive no-
tice and protest, and guaranty payment. " Held,
that this was a waiver of demand of payment,
and notice of non-payment to him as indorser.
Wolford v. Andrews, 13 N. W. 167, 29 Minn. 250.
145. Parol evidence is not competent to show
that, when negotiable paper was indorsed, the
indorser verbally waived presentment and notice
of non-payment.-Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co.,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 326.
45 Minn. 495.
Excuse for not making demand, or giv-
ing notice of dishonor.
146. Presentment for payment is not excused by
knowledge that the maker is insolvent, and that
the note will not be paid.-Hart v. Eastman, 7
Minn. 74, (Gil. 50.)
147. Where a promissory note is payable at the
office of the makers, presentment and notice of
non-payment are not excused by the fact that be-
fore maturity the makers had become insolvent,
and removed from the state. -Farwell v. St. Paul
Trust Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 326.
45 Minn. 495.
148. A note was made at the place where the
payee, but not the maker, resided, and the payee
indorsed it to one who was doing business at the
same place and who knew that the maker resided
in another state. Before maturity the maker,
without the knowledge of the indorsee, removed
to the former place. Held, that demand, so as to
charge the indorser, was excused.-Salisbury v.
Bartleson, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 265.
39 Minn. 365.
149. The absconding of the maker of a prom-
issory note will not excuse the giving of notice
to the indorser.-Michaud v. Lagarde, 4 Minn.
43, (Gil. 21.)
Time.
XIII. PAYMENT.
150. In the absence of demand, the maker of a
note, secured by a chattel mortgage, is entitled
to the whole of the business hours of the last day
of grace in which to pay the note.-Daly v.
Proetz, 20 Minn. 411, (Gil. 363.)
What constitutes satisfaction.
151. A gift of a promissory note by the owner
to the maker cancels the debt evidenced thereby.
-Stewart v. Hidden, 13 Minn. 43, (Gil. 29.)
152. A negotiable note was, by its terms, pay-
able at a particular bank, upon a day certain,
but was never left with the bank or its officers,
and the payee having it in his possession was
absent at the time it fell due. Held, that a ten-
der to the bank cashier, upon the day of maturi-
ty, of an amount sufficient to pay the note,
coupled with a condition that the note be deliv-
ered, the tender not being kept good, nor in any
manner renewed, did not operate to discharge the
lien of a mortgage given to secure its payment.-
Balme v. Wambaugh, 16 Minn. 116, (Gil. 106.)
153. The note teller of a bank protested a note
sent to the bank for collection from another bank,
but, he and his bank supposing that the protest
was too late, and that therefore he had become
liable to his bank, and the latter to the other
bank, for his neglect, he paid the amount of the
note to his bank, and the latter paid it to the
other bank, which had no knowledge of the facts,
but subsequently, on being informed of the trans-
action, indorsed the note to the teller, with in-
tent to pass the title to him. Held that, as it did
not appear that the payment by the teller or by
the transaction did not operate as a satisfaction
his bank was made with intent to satisfy the note,
of it, so as to discharge the parties liable there-
on. -Fogarty v. Wilson, 15 N. W. 175, 30 Minn.
289.
154. The payee of a note, who has agreed with
the maker, in consideration of certain services
rendered, to transfer such note to the maker's
wife, cannot, after full performance by the maker,
enforce collection against him, in violation of his
contract, and such executed agreement is a valid
equitable defense both against the payee and his
assignee with notice.-Nunnemacker v. Johnson,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 351.
38 Minn. 390.
155. Matters of account in favor of the maker
of a note, and which might be set off against it,
do not constitute payment of the note, unless
there was an agreement, express or implied, that
they should be applied in payment.-Rugland v.
Thompson, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 604.
XIV. CHECKS.
What constitutes.
156. A writing as follows: "D. & Co. Bankers:
Pay to the order of, on sight, two hundred dol-
being indicated in it, or space left for the name
lars in current funds," is not a check, no payee
of a payee, and no action can be maintained
against the drawer.-McIntosh v. Lytle, 3 N. W.
983, 26 Minn. 336.
157. A draft for money drawn on a bank, pay
able at a day subsequent to its date and the date
of its issue, is not a "check," but a "bill of ex-
change," and is entitled to days of grace.—Harri-
son v. Nicollet Nat. Bank, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 336.
41 Minn. 488.
Validity-Presumption.
158. A check, (the drawer's signature being
genuine,) in the hands of one not the drawer, is
presumed to have been complete when signed,
and to have been then delivered to the payee.-
1405
1406
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XIV., XV.
Hensel v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., (Minn.) | Loss of note.
33 N. W. 329.
37 Minn. 87.
Forged indorsement.
159. If a check payable and delivered to a payee
named, or order, comes into the hands of one not
entitled to it, who forges the payee's indorsement
and passes the check to another person, who re-
ceives the money on it, such other person is not
liable for such money to the drawer, but may be
liable to the payee.-Hensel v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. R. Co., 33 N. W. 329, 37 Minn. 87.
XV. ACTIONS.
Who may maintain action.
160. Under Pub. St. c. 60, § 27, providing that
every action must be prosecuted in the name of
the real party in interest, an indorsee of non-
negotiable paper, if he is the owner, must sue
in his own name.-Helfer v. Alden, 3 Minn. 332,
(Gil. 232.)
161. One who claims title to a promissory note,
pledged as collateral security, as the assignee
of such pledgee, cannot maintain an action there-
on unless he shows that he also owns the debt to
secure which it is pledged. -Van Eman v. Stanch-
field, 13 Minn. 75, (Gil. 70.)
162. S. agreed with the maker to assume and
take up a certain promissory note then in the
hands of one F., and, as part of the same trans-
action, agreed with F. to make payment of the
said note to him. Held, that F. or his assignee
could recover upon such agreement only upon
proof that he was the owner of such note, or en-
titled, by virtue of some special property there-
in, to collect the same. -Van Eman v. Stanch-
field, 13 Minn. 75, (Gil. 70.)
163. The pledgee of a promissory note payable
to order, and transferred to him after maturity
without indorsement, as collateral security, may,
on default of the pledgor to pay the debt so secured,
maintain an action thereon in his own name
against the maker, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
66, § 26, which provides that "every action shall
be prosecuted in the name of the real party in in-
terest;" and it is not necessary that he demand
payment to entitle him so to sue.-White v. Phelps,
14 Minn. 27, (Gil. 21.)
164. In an action on a promissory note, an allega-
tion in the answer that plaintiffs have not now the
possession of the note, and that when the action
was commenced the note was in the possession of
a third party, is immaterial.-Hayward v. Grant.
13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154.)
|
167. The fact that a promissory note has been
destroyed by a third person to whom the payee de-
livered it with an offer to sell it, which was re-
fused, will not affect the payee's right of recovery
against the maker.-Homberg v. Kikhoffer, (Minn.)
45 N. W. 154.
43 Minn. 205.
Producing note.
note it must be produced and filed, unless it is
168. To entitle one to recover on a promissory
lost or destroyed, and then the bond required by
Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 73, § 69, must be filed.-
Armstrong v. Lewis, 14 Minn. 406, (Gil. 308.)
Defenses.
169. The facts that title to a promissory note
sued upon has passed from plaintiff, and that he
is not the real party in interest, constitute a good
defense. -Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 407, (Gil.
309.)
170. In an action upon a promissory note in the
hands of the original parties, it may be shown
that the note was never delivered, or was with-
Ruggles v. Swanwick, 6
out consideration.
Minn. 526, (Gil. 365.)
171. In an action on a promissory note the an-
swer set up that the money for which the note
was given was advanced to defendant upon con-
sideration that he would sell certain property to
third parties. Held an attempt to vary the
effect of the note, and as it did not appear from
the answer that the agreement, if in writing, in
any way referred to the note, or that it could be
established except by parol evidence, it consti-
tuted no defense.-Esch v. Hardy, 22 Minn. 65.
Parties.
܀
172. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 36, pro-
viding that "persons severally liable upon the
same obligation or instrument, including the par-
ties to bills of exchange and promissory notes,
and sureties on the same instrument, may, all or
any of them, be included in the same action,"
an absolute guarantor, on the same instrument,
of the payment of a promissory note, may be
joined as defendant in the same action with the
maker.-Hammel v. Beardsley, 17 N. W. 858, 31
Minn. 314.
173. Query, whether the pledgor should be made
a party defendant to an action brought by a pledgee
against the maker of a note, transferred to him,
without indorsement, as collateral security.
White v. Phelps, 14 Minn. 27, (Gil. 21.)
Pleading-Complaint.
174. A complaint upon a promissory note alleg-
165. One may be the owner of a note, and bringing that before niaturity such note was, for value
suit thereon, without having possession thereof.-
Armstrong v. Lewis, 14 Minn. 406, (Gil. 308.)
166. The holder of a promissory note under the
unconditional and unrestricted indorsement of
the payee has the legal title, and may sue in his
own name, although, as between themselves, the
assignor possesses the beneficial interest in the
proceeds.-Elmquist v. Markoe, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
970.
45 Minn. 305.
received, sold, transferred, indorsed, and deliv-
ered to the plaintiff, sufficiently alleges title in
plaintiff.-Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288,
(Gil. 219.)
175. In an action on a promissory note payable
to two persons jointly, an allegation of partner-
ship between them is surplusage, and need not
be proved. Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn. 55,
(Gil. 50,) followed.-Birdsall v. Fischer, 17 Minn.
100, (Gil. 76.)
1407
1408
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XV.
176. Where a complaint shows that plaintiffs
were the original owners of commercial paper,
their ownership will be presumed to have con-
tinued.—Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn. 55, (Gil. 50.)
177. In an action on a note payable to "Cabbott
& Lester, "an allegation that it was delivered to
"J. S. Cabbott and one Lester" is sufficient to
create a presumption that they were the payees
and owners thereof; and an allegation that the
"said Lester" indorsed the same to the plaintiff
(J. L. Cabbott) was sufficient to show his right
to sue thereon. Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165,
(Gil. 154,) followed.- Cabbott v. Radford, 17
Minn. 320, (Gil. 296.)
178. A negotiable promissory note imports a con-
sideration, and, in an action thereon, averment of
a consideration is not necessary. Hayward v.
Grant, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154;) Pinney v. King,
21 Minn. 514; Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72.
179. In an action on a note expressed to be for
value it is not necessary to set out the consid
eration thereof, and, if it should be in fact set
out, it is not necessary to prove the same.-
Priedman v. Johnson, 21 Minn. 12.
180. Where plaintiff in an action on a note is
permitted, without objection, to introduce the
note in evidence, it cannot afterwards be objected
that the complaint did not allege a valid consid
eration for the note.-Frunk v. Irgens, 6 N. W.
380, 27 Minn. 43.
181. A complaint on a note "for value received,"
setting out the note in terms, sufficiently alleges a
consideration. Following Frunk v. Irgens, 6 N.
W. 380, 27 Minn. 43.-Elmquist v. Markoe, 40
N. W. 825, 39 Minn. 494.
182. An action on a note for the amount there-
of, and also for interest thereon, is but a single
cause of action, and the allegation as to interest
is not the subject of a demurrer.-Daniels v. Brad-
ley, 4 Minn. 158, (Gil. 105.)
183. A complaint alleged the making of a prom-
issory note, and its indorsement upon an agree-
ment consented to by the payee, indorser, and
makers; that it should not be payable at maturi-
ty, nor until 15 days after its transfer by the in-
dorser; and that when the note became payable
the makers had absconded. Held, on demurrer,
that the complaint did not state a cause of ac-
tion against the indorser.-Michaud v. Lagarde,
4 Minn. 43, (Gil. 21.)
184. Where the complaint in an action on a
promissory note fails to state when the note fell
due, it will be presumed that it was due pres-
ently.-Libby v. Mikkelberg, 8 N. W. 903, 28
Minn. 38; Same v. Husby, 8 N. W. 903, 28 Minn.
40.
185. A complaint on a note payable to the order
of S., which sets up the fact of her death, and that
the note was subsequently transferred and assigned
by her executor to plaintiff, and that plaintiff ac-
quired title to the note as a distributee of the estate
of S., through her executor, is good on a demurrer
interposed on the ground that the complaint failed
to show the ownership of the plaintiff.-Perkins v.
Merrill, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 3.
37 Minn. 40.
186. A complaint upon a promissory note averred
its making and execution by A. on February 4th,
and that on March 16th, and before the plaintiff
(the payee) accepted the same, B., for the pur-
pose of making it good, and giving it credit,
signed the same as maker by writing his name
on the back thoreof, as of that date, and then
and there delivered it to the payee. Held, suffi-
cient to charge B. as joint maker at the time of
its legal inception, and before delivery.-Stein
v. Passmore, 25 Minn. 256.
187. A complaint on a promissory note is not
rendered demurrable by the fact that no revenue
stamp appears upon the copy set out, since such
a stamp is no part of the note itself.-Cabbott v.
Radford, 17 Minn. 320, (Gil. 296.)
Pleading-Answer.
188. Where the complaint alleges the mak-
ing of a note, and its indorsement to plaintiff,
an answer admitting the making, but denying any
knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the other allegations of the com-
plaint, is neither sham, frivolous, nor irrele-
vant.-Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
189. Where a note has passed through several
hands, in the absence of evidence that the maker
has actual or presumptive knowledge of such
transfers, his denial of knowledge or informa-
tion, sufficient to form a belief as to such trans-
fers, raises a material issue.-Morton v. Jack-
son, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
The
190. In an action on a bill of exchange, against
the acceptor, the complaint averred that plaintiff
was the surviving partner of a firm that had
drawn its bill of exchange, payable at a specified
place to its own order, upon defendant; that the
same had been accepted, duly presented for pay-
ment, and payment refused; and that plaintiff
was the lawful owner and holder thereof.
answer admitted the drawing and acceptance of
the bill, but denied knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the fact of pre-
sentment, or as to whether plaintiff was the
surviving partner or lawful owner or holder of
the bill, or as to whether defendants were in-
debted to him. Held, that these denials were
immaterial, and raised no issue, and the answer
containing them was properly stricken out.-Free-
man v. Curran, 1 Minn. 169, (Gil. 144.)
Distinguished in Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 223, (Gil.
185.)
191. In a suit upon a promissory note by an
indorsee, allegation of indorsement is material,
and denial of it upon information and belief
puts plaintiff to proof thereof.-Morton v. Jack-
son, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
Distinguishing Freeman v. Curran, 1 Minn. 169, (Gil. 144.)
192. In a suit by the payee of a promissory note
against the maker thereof the defense was that
the title was in an assignee for creditors of the
payee, and that the payee had been enjoined in
a suit between him and his assignee from collect-
ing the note. Held, that the only question for
the jury was as to the title to the note, and the
assignment for creditors was admissible to prove
a transfer, and if the title was shown to be in
1409
1410
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XV.
the assignee there could be no recovery. -Harts- | him and his indorsee that he should not in any
horn v. Green, 1 Minn. 92, (Gil. 71.)
193. In an action brought upon a promissory
note, payable to the payees as individuals, an alle-
gation in the complaint that they were at the com-
mencement of the suit partners, and its denial in
the answer, raises no material issue.-Hayward
v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154.)
194. An allegation that plaintiff "is the owner
and holder" of notes sued on, following an aver-
ment that the notes were made to plaintiff, is a le-
gal conclusion; and an answer admitting that the
notes were given, but denying generally other alle-
gations, does not put in issue plaintiff's title.-
Holbrook v Usher, (Minn.) 39 N. W. 74.
39 Minn. 122.
195. A statement, in a second defense to a suit on
a note, that if the transfer alleged in the complaint
was made, the assignee had notice of defendant's
defense, is not an admission of the transfer, nor in-
consistent with the first defense, denying such
transfer.-Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 N. W.
351, 38 Minn. 390.
196. An answer denying that the note sued on
by one claiming as indorsee was ever transferred
to plaintiff, and alleging that the payee was the
actual owner, puts in issue the alleged sale and
indorsement to plaintiff.-Tarbox v. Gorman, 16
N. W. 466, 31 Minn. 62.
197. In an action on a promissory note the an-
swer denied that defendant ever, at any time or
place, made, executed, or delivered the note de-
scribed, and further averred that the note de-
scribed was obtained from defendant while he
was so intoxicated as to be unable to understand
or know what he was doing. Held to be a denial
of the validity, and not the execution, of such
note.-Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378.
198. In an action on a promissory note defend-
ants answered that they executed it in no other
capacity than that of officers of a corporation, and
in a separate paragraph alleged that plaintiff had
received certain stock of said corporation as secu-
rity for the payment of the note. Held, that this
paragraph, being but a part of the transaction be-
fore set out, is not demurrable as not stating a
defense.-Pratt v. Sparkman, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 663.
42 Minn. 448.
199. The answer in an action on a promissory
note against the maker denied any consideration for
the note. Held that, under such denial, defend-
ant might show that the note was given with an
accompanying mortgage to defraud his creditors.
-Webb v. Michener, 19 N. W. 82, 32 Minn. 48.
200. In an action on a promissory note, an answer
by the maker that it was given for a pretended
indebtedness, which did not exist at the date of
the note, but which admits that he had previous
ly purchased goods from the payee, and makes
no allegation of payment therefor, is insufficient.
-Dunning v. Pond, 5 Minn. 296, (Gil. 234.)
201. In an action on a promissory note against
the makers and indorser thereof, the answer of
the indorser alleged that it was agreed between
v.2M.DIG.-45
|
way be respousible for the payment or collectioù
of the note. Held, that as, if such agreement
was oral, it could not affect the liability created
by the indorsement, the answer was to be con-
strued as alleging a written agreement that the
indorser should not be held liable thereon. -Col-
lom v. Matthews, (Collom v. Bixby,) 21 N. W.
855, 33 Minn. 50.
202. A note given for the accommodation of the
payee was by him assigned to the plaintiff. In a
suit thereon the maker answered that it was given
for the accommodation of the plaintiff. At the
trial he offered to prove that when the note was
made the plaintiff agreed in writing that the
maker should not be personally liable, but that it
should be paid out of the proceeds of other secu-
rities. Held, that the evidence was not admissible
under the answer.-Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Penney,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 331.
44 Minn. 214.
203. In an action upon a promissory note the
amended answer alleged that "about two weeks"
prior to the maturity of the note it was agreed
that it should be payable at a certain place, and
that in consideration thereof the defendant paid
plaintiff $300 on the note. Held, that the an-
swer was sufficient as to part payment, but de-
fendant might be required to make it more defi-
nite and certain as to the time of the alleged
agreement and part payment.-Colter v. Green-
hagen. 3 Minn. 126, (Gil. 74.)
204. The answer to a complaint in an action on
promissory notes admitted the execution of the
notes, and set up in defense a counter-claim for
work and services performed before the execution
of the notes, and alleged that such work and serv-
ices were worth a sum exceeding plaintiff's de-
mand, and that no part had ever been paid. Held,
that while the giving of a promissory note is
prima facie evidence of an accounting and settle-
ment between parties, and that the maker is in.
debted to the payee, on such accounting to the
amount of the note, the presumption can always be
explained or rebutted, and the answer was suffi-
cient in such case.-Wakefield v. Spencer, & Minn.
376, (Gil. 335.)
by
205. In an action on notes given for the price of
a machine, brought by plaintiff as a transferee of
the notes without indorsement by the payee, the
answer denied the transfer, and set up a counter-
claim for a false warranty of the machine,
way of set-off. Held, that such claim of set-off
was no way inconsistent with the denial of
plaintiff's ownership of the note, and did not op-
erate as an admission of his ownership.-Wilson
v. Reedy, 20 N. W. 153, 32 Minn. 256.
206. In an action on a past-due note, an answer
ter-claims for breach of contract between plaintiffs
which admits the execution of the note, and coun-
ber, which was the only consideration of the note,
and defendants for the sale and delivery of lum-
is good on general demurrer.-Burns v. Jordan,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 523.
43 Minn. 25.
Reply.
207. An answer, in an action on a promissory
note, alleged that it was given as collateral to a
1411
1412
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XV.
debt fraudulently represented as due. The reply
admitted the statements, but denied that they
were false or fraudulent. Held, that an issue
was raised.-Dunning v. Pond, 5 Minn. 302, (Gil.
238.)
Pleading-Amendment.
208. In an action on a note, an alleged mistake
in its date should be set up in pleading, but where
the evidence of such mistake is received without
objection, and the fact established, the pleadings
may be amended to conform to the proof, or the
omission disregarded.—Almich v. Downey, (Minn.)
· 48 N. W. 197.
·
Variance.
45 Minn. 460.
209. A complaint in an action on a promissory
note alleged indorsement, protest, notice, etc.,
and defendant denied one of the indorsements,
and the protest, demand, and notice. The proof
offered was an instrument and certificate of pro-
test thereof in all respects as described in the
complaint, except that the instrument was under
seal. Held a variance. — Helfer v. Alden. 3
Minn. 332, (Gil. 232.)
if pleaded, that it was obtained from him through
fraud of the payee, and then plaintiff must show
himself a bona fide holder for value.-Cummings
v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228.)
216. Where a note and contract are parts of one
transaction, the contract entering into the con-
sideration of the note, so that it is without con-
sideration if the contract is void, if through the
fraud of the payee the contract is void, the fraud
taints the consideration of the note; and, the facts
being pleaded and shown in an action on the
that he is a bona fide holder for value.—Cum-
note by the indorsee, he is called upon to show
mings v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228.)
217. Where defendant in an action on a promis-
sory note relics on a partial failure of considera-
tion as a defense, he must show to what extent
the consideration has failed; and, if he does not
do so, plaintiff will be entitled to judgment for
the full amount of the note.-Bisbee v. Torinus,
2 N. W. 163, 26 Minn. 165.
Admissibility.
218. In an action on a promissory note, where
with plaintiff, to secure the same, a promissory
the defense was that defendant had pledged
note made by another, which was lost through
the negligence of plaintiff to enforce the same,
it is competent to prove on the trial that the
maker of the pledged note, at its naturity,
210. Where an answer in an action on a promis-
sory note alleged a total want of consideration,
proof of a partial want of consideration will not
prevent a recovery of the full amount of the note.
--Whitacre v. Culver, 9 Minn. 295, (Gil. 279.)
Distinguished in Torinus v. Buckham, 12 N. W. 349, 29 owned real and personal property, on the ques-
Minn. 131.
Evidence-Burden of proof.
211. A note was payable to the order of H., C. &
H., being the same names as the plaintiffs desig-
nated in the summons in an action upon it. Held,
that it would be presumed that plaintiffs were
such payees.-Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165,
(Gil. 154.)
212. In an action on a promissory note payable
"to order," by a holder to whom it has been trans-
ferred unindorsed, the transfer must be proved,
and mere possession of the note is not prima facie
evidence of that fact. Van Eman v. Stanchfield,
10 Minn. 255, (Gil. 197.)
►
213. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 89, in
an action upon a promissory note by one claim-
ing as indorsee, the possession of the note is
prima facie evidence that the same was indorsed
by the person by whom it purports to be in-
dorsed; and where, in such case, the note pur-
ports to be indorsed by the payee, by the hand of
an agent, it is not necessary, in order to make
out a prima facie case, to show the authority
of the agent.-Tarbox v. Gorman, 16 N. W. 466,
31 Minn. 62.
214. Such prima facie proof of title is rebutted
by evidence that plaintiff, with knowledge of
the facts, acquired the note from one to whom it
had been indorsed as collateral security merely,
and that, after the transfer to plaintiff, the obli-
gation for which it had been held as collateral
was discharged. -Tarbox v. Gorman, 16 N. W.
46, 31 Minn. 62.
215. In an action on a promissory note by an
indorsee against the maker, the latter may prove,
tion of his solvency.-Lamberton v. Windom, 12
Minn. 232, (Gil. 151.)
219. Where suit was brought on a promissory
note by an indorsee, after maturity, evidence
that the transfer was made by the payee for the
purpose of having suit brought in the name of
of fraud in the execution of the note, or to affect
the indorsee, is not competent on the question
the credibility of the testimony of such payee,
it appearing that he is liable as indorser.-Wilder
v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 470, (Gil. 421.)
indorsee the answer averred that defendant, at
220. In an action upon a promissory note by an
the time of signing the note, signed a certain writ-
ten contract, falsely and fraudulently represent-
ed to him to embody a verbal contract made be-
tween the parties, the effect of which was to
limit his liability on the note, and essentially
different from the written contract. Held, that
the note, verbal agreement, and written contract
were one transaction; that the representatious
referred to the contract in fact, and not its legal
effect, and the facts alleged were an actual fraud
on defendant, and under the answer it was com-
petent to prove the manner of misreading partic-
ular representations made, that defendant was
unable to read English, or able to read it only
with great difficulty, and all circumstances sur-
rounding the transaction.-Cummings v. Thomp-
son, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228. )
221. In an action on a promissory note, brought
by L. C. D., L. A. D., and F. W. A., as as-
signees of the note, the complaint alleged that
plaintiffs were copartners under the firm name
of L. C. D. & Sons. The answer denied the
transfer of the note to plaintiffs, and denied
that plaintiffs "were copartners, as alleged in
1413
1414
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, XV.-NEW TRIAL.
said complaint, or otherwise." The note intro-
duced in evidence had indorsed on it an assign-
ment thereof to L. C. D. & Sons. Held, that
this was not proof of title in plaintiffs, without
evidence of their copartnership, as alleged, or
other evidence of their identity with the as
signees named.-Dessaint v. Elling, 17 N. W.
480, 31 Minn. 287.
222. In an action on a promissory note signed
in the name of defendant by another the answer
denied that defendant made or delivered the
note, but the evidence, on trial by the court, was
sufficient to sustain a finding of ratification by
defendant of the making of the note by such other
person. Held, that an order refusing a new
trial should be affirmed.-Lineer v. Girrbach, 26
N. W. 229, 34 Minn. 410.
Instructions-Amount of recovery.
2. A paper issued weekly, containing princi-
pally religious news, and reading of interest to
persons of a particular religious denomination, but
containing a column each week devoted to the gen-
eral news of the day, embracing every sort of
news of interest to the general reader, is a "news-
paper" within the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 81, § 5, in which notices of sale on mortgage
may be published.-Hull v. King, (Minn.) 37 N.
W. 792.
38 Minn. 349.
3. A newspaper printed and published six
days consecutively each week, there being no is-
sue of it on Monday, is a daily newspaper within
the meaning of Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 47, wnich
authorizes the designation of an official paper for
the city of Duluth.-Tribune Pub. Co. v. City of
Duluth, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 309.
45 Minn. 27.
Designation of official paper.
223. In an action on a promissory note given by
defendant in compromise of a claim by plaintiff
to defendant's farm by virtue of a tax-deed, in
which the defense was that the note was obtained
without consideration, by fraud and false repre-
sentation, and it appeared that plaintiff's tax-ed
deed has since been adjudged invalid, the jury
were instructed that, even if they found that
plaintiff obtained the note by fraud or false rep-
resentations, yet he would be entitled to recovery
upon it to the extent of the taxes he had paid on
the land. Held, that this was error, as, if the
note was obtained by fraud, no recovery could
be had upon it, and, if not, plaintiff would be
entitled to recover the full amount, as the relin-
quishment of a doubtful claim to the land was a
sufficient consideration for the note.-Perkins v.
Frinka, 15 N. W. 115, 30 Minn. 241.
224. In a suit by a bonu fide holder of a note as
a pledge from one whose title was defective, the
recovery must be limited to the amount of the
debt secured by the pledge.-St. Paul Nat. Bank
v. Cannon, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 526.
46 Minn. 95.
Newly-Discovered Evidence.
As ground for new trial, see Criminal Law, 139;
Homicide, 98, 99; New Trial, 49–77.
New Promise.
To revive debt discharged in bankruptcy, see
Bankruptcy, 20.
NEWSPAPERS.
Designation of newspaper for publication of de-
linquent tax list, see Taxation, 100-113.
What is a newspaper.
1. The Northwestern Reporter, a weekly
publication, devoted specially to the interests of
the legal profession, and not publishing current
or general news, though it may be properly de-
nominated a "legal newspaper," is not a news-
paper, within the meaning of the municipal court
act of St. Paul, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 64, § 88,) au-
thorizing service of summons by publication.
Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minn. 146.
4. In 1878, and in every succeeding year, the
common council of the city of St. Paul designat-
as the official paper of the city the "St. Paul
Globe. " In 1878 there was only a daily edition
of the Globe, but shortly thereafter a weekly edi-
tion, called the "Weekly Globe" or "St. Paul
Weekly Globe" was issued, fed from the daily
issues. In the city, where only the daily issue
circulated, when the "Globe" or "St. Paul Globe"
was spoken of the daily issue was universally
meant, and so understood by everybody. Held,
that there was a sufficient designation of the "St.
Paul Daily Globe" as the official paper of the
city, even when there was a Weekly Globe.--
Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, (Minn.) 49 N. W.
325.
46 Minn. 540.
Distinguishing Russell v. Gilson, 31 N. W. 692, 3; Minn.
3.6.
*
What constitutes a publication.
5. A deposit by the publishers, in the post-
office, of newspapers to be delivered to subscrib.
ers, some residing within the city and some at
a distance, is, as to the papers so deposited, a
publication thereof.-Pratt v. Tinkcom, 21 Miun.
143.
NEW TRIAL.
I. APPLICATION, 1-6.
II. GROUNDS, 7-77.
III. WHEN GRANTED, 78-87.
IV. STATUTORY NEW TRIAL AS OF RIGHT, 88-107.
Allowed on appeal, see Appeal and Error, 662-
6€8.
Costs, see Costs, 12. 13.
In condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Do-
main, 225, 226.
criminal cases, see Criminal Law, 134–139;
Homicide, 97-99.
Necessary for review of sufficiency of evidence,
see Appeal and Error, 352-355.
On appeal from justice of the peace, see Appeal
and Error, 732–741.
Review of order on application for new trial, see
Appeal and Error, 96-102, 268-272, 397, 463-173,
524-534.
1415
1416
NEW TRIAL, I, II.
J. APPLICATION.
What decision may be vacated.
Case settled.
6. A case properly settled and allowed cannot
be disregarded in determining a motion for a new
1. A dismissal of an action for insufficiency trial, though the court may be of opinion that it
of evidence is a decision, within the meaning of does not correctly set forth the facts. Steinkrauss
the statute allowing a motion for a new trial up-v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 70,
on the ground that the "decision" is not justified 39 Minn. 135; Reichenberger v. Minneapolis, L.
by the evidence and is contrary to law.-MeCor- & M. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 71, 39 Minn. 137.
mick v. Miller, 19 Minn. 443, (Gil. 384;) Thomp-
son v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4; Volmer v. Stager-
man, 25 Minn. 234.
2. In an action to set aside, on the ground of
fraud and undue influence, a deed in the nature of
a family settlement and certain conveyances exe-
cuted for the purpose of carrying out such settle-
ment, and for an accounting of the property re-
ceived under such deed and conveyances, the court
by the consent of parties first tried the issue as to
fraud and undue influence, and left the matter of
the accounting to be had thereafter, It was found
that the deed and conveyances were procured by
undue influence, and therefore void, and that
plaintiff was entitled to a judgment declaring them
void, and for an accounting. Held, that such find-
ing was a "decision" within Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 66, § 253, and a motion would lie to vacate the
same, and for a new trial, before the accounting or-
dered by the court was had.-Ashton v. Thomp-
son, 9 N. W. 876. 28 Minn. 330.
Time for application.
3. Under Pub. St. c. 61, § 59, subds. 1-3, 6,
which provide that a new trial may be granted for
irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury,
or prevailing party, or any order of the court, or
abuse of discretion by which a fair trial is pre
vented, misconduct of the jury or prevailing
party, accident or surprise, and newly-discov-
ered evidence, the motion for the new trial may
be made after judgment.-Eaton v. Caldwell, 3
Minn. 134, (Gil. 80.)
4. Although Gen. St. Minn. 1856, c. 66, § 222,
providing for a stay of entry of judgment, after
verdict, "until the hearing and final decision of
a motion for a new trial," seems to require that,
when a case has been tried by a jury, inotion for
a new trial should be made before judgment, as
the right to move for a new trial upon the report
of a referee or decision of a judge is expressly
given by section 235, and no opportunity to move
therefor is allowed before judgment, the district
court may, in its discretion, after entry of a
judgment of nonsuit, allow a motion for a new
trial before the time to appeal from the judgment
has expired.-Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 457,
(Gil. 411.)
Modifying Ames v. Mississippi Boom Co., 8 Minn. 467,
(Gil. 417.)
5. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, §§ 253,
254, giving the right to make a motion for a new
trial, but fixing no limit of time therefor except
where the motion is made on the judge's minutes,
such a motion, made otherwise than on the min-
utes, may be made after judgment, and within
the time for an appeal, if the party have no rea-
sonable opportunity to move before judgment, but
he must use reasonable diligence in so doing.
Kimball v. Palmerlee, 13 N. W. 129, 29 Minn. 302;
Deering v. Johnson, 22 N. W. 174, 33 Minn. 97.
In general.
II. GROUNDS.
7. Mere immaterial variance between the alle-
gations and proof is not sufficient ground for a
new trial.-Short v. McRea, 4 Minn. 119, (Gil. 78.)
8. The objection that the conclusions of law
are not justified by the findings of fact on a trial
by
by the court, though properly they should be
taken by a motion to modify or correct such con-
clusions, may be made on a motion for a
trial.-Farnham v. Thompson, 26 N. W. 9, 34
Minn. 330.
new
9. The action of the trial court in striking
out matter from a proposed case, even if improper,
is not ground for a motion for a new trial.-Schu-
mann v. Mark, 28 N. W. 927, 35 Minu. 379.
Rulings on evidence.
10. In an action for libel, the complaint set
forth two causes of action for two distinct libels,
both of which were submitted to the jury, and a
general verdict rendered thereon. Held, that er-
action was good cause for granting a new trial.
ror in the reception of evidence as to one cause of
Simmons v. Holster, 13 Minn. 249, (Gil. 232.)
11. Where, on cross-examination, a question,
as put, is too general as to time, but the answer
is confined to the proper period, the erroneous
form of the question is no ground for a new trial.
-McCormick v. Miller, 19 Minn. 443, (Gil. 384.)
12. The exclusion of testimony as to declarations
of a witness tending to impeach his testimony is
error requiring a new trial. -Tunell v. Larson,
(Minn.) 34 N. Ŵ. 29.
37 Minn. 258.
13. Exclusion of evidence, apparently imma-
terial, where no suggestion or evidence is offered
to show its materiality, is not ground for a new
trial.-Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.,
16 N. W. 494, 31 Minn. 74.
14. The exclusion of testimony of a fact which
the witness is afterwards allowed to testify to
without objection is not ground for a new trial.
-Weaver v. Mississippi & R R. Boom Co., 16
N. W. 494, 31. Minn. 74.
15. The admission of evidence immaterial and
irrelevant to the issue, which could not have
affected the determination of the jury, is not
ground for a new trial.-Wass v. Atwater, 29 N.
W. 8, 33 Minn. 83.
Improper instructions.
16. An instruction to the jury which, standing
alone, is on its face erroncous and prejudicial to
a party, is not ground for a new trial, if, taking
1417
1418
NEW TRIAL, II.
the charge as a whole, it is clear that the jury
cannot have been misled.-Farnham v. Thomp-
son, 18 N. W. 833, 32 Minn. 22.
17. Obscurity in a charge to the jury is not
ground for a new trial, if no explanation was
sought from the court.-Farnham v. Thompson,
18 N. W. 833, 32 Minn. 22.
Disqualification of juror.
18. The incompetency for implied bias of a
juror serving at the second trial of an action, by
reason of having acted as juror on the first trial
thereof, nearly three years before, where not
known to either party or their counsel, though
the clerk's minutes contained a list of such jury,
may be taken advantage of after verdict; and it
is not necessary for a party to show affirmatively
that injury was sustained thereby, nor is he
chargeable with negligence in not ascertaining
the objection from the record. -Williams v. Mc-
Grade, 18 Minn. 82, (Gil. 65.)
Misconduct of or affecting jury.
•
19. An attempt by a juror to send a letter to
the plaintiff, upon a subject of no interest to the
parties to the action, though improper, does not
furnish sufficient ground for setting aside a ver
dict for the plaintiff.-Eich v. Taylor, 20 Minn.
378, (Gil. 330.)
20. An unauthorized communication to a juror,
pending a trial, which it is apparent could not
have influenced his verdict in favor of the suc-
cessful party, is no ground for a new trial.-
Chalmers v. Whittemore, 22 Minn. 305.
21. A juror remarked to a stranger pending a
trial that defendant "was catching it, and was
making a fool of himself, " Held, that the ex-
pression, being apparently founded on the pro-
ceedings and evidence in the cause, was no ground
for a new trial.-Chalmers v. Whittemore, 22
Minn. 305.
22. Upon a view of the locus in quo had by
the jury, one of the parties to the suit, by whom
the place was being shown to the jury, made
statements in regard to the case manifestly tend
ing to influence their verdict. Held sufficient
ground on which to grant a new trial. -Hayward
v. Knapp, 22 Minn. 5.
23. In proceedings for condemnation of land,
on a view of the premises, by the jury, in charge
of an officer, under order of the court, the plain-
tiff, in answer to an interrogatory from the of-
ficer or one of the jurors, and without any bad
intent, answered correctly that a line pointed
out was one of the lines of the premises. Held,
that this was not ground for a new trial. -Os-
wald v. Minneapolis & N. W. R. Co., 11 N. W.
112, 29 Minn. 5.
Modifying Hoberg v. State, 3 Minn. 262, (Gil. 181.)
24. A deputy-sheriff having charge of a jury
sworn to assess the damages in condemnation pro-
ceedings, furnished them with cigars, which they
used.
In one affidavit filed in support of a motion
for a new trial, made by the owner of the land,
the deputy stated that the cigars were fur-
nished by the railroad company, and that the ju-
rors knew that fact. In another affidavit he stated
that he bought the cigars himself, and that the
railroad company's counsel refused to do so. On
cross-examination he stated that he had said in the
presence of the jury that he would get the cigars,
and risk getting the company to pay the bill, and
that he did so, and, some weeks later, when he sent
in the bill for the carriages used by the jury in
viewing the premises, he included the cigars, and
the company paid it. He stated also that no one
suggested furnishing the cigars, but that it was
common practice for the officers to give them to
jurors. The land-owner stated that he heard it
said in the presence of the jury that the cigars
were furnished by the railroad company. The ju-
rors stated that they understood the cigars to be
furnished by the officer at his own expense. Held,
that the court erred in granting a new trial.-Gur-
ney v. Minneapolis & St. C. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 2.
41 Minn. 223.
25. A jury, after being out 24 hours, were
brought in, and, being asked by the judge if there
was any probability of their agreeing, the fore-
stated that it was an important case, and they
man stated that they stood 11 to 1. The court then
had better make another effort; and, after retir-
ing, they again returned into court, in about 25
minutes, with a verdict. Held, that the disclos-
ure of the foreman was no violation of his oath,
and the verdict should not be interfered with.-
McNulty v. Stewart, 12 Minn. 434, (Gil. 319.)
26. A jury, having leave to bring in a sealed
verdict, stated to the officer that they had agreed,
and were allowed to separate. In the morning,
two of the jurors having claimed that they voted
for the sealed verdict under protest, the jury
were again sent out, and finally agreed upon a
verdict. Held, misconduct, which justified grant-.
ing a new trial.-Etna Ins. Co. v. Grube, 6
Minn. 82, (Gil. 32.)
27. A new trial will be granted for miscon-
duct of the jury which may have prejudiced the
that no prejudice in fact resulted.-Koehler v.
moving party, unless the successful party shows
Cleary, 23 Minn. 325.
28. Where it does not appear that misconduct
of a jury, complained of, was caused by miscon-
duct of the prevailing party, or some one in his
behalf, or was of such character as to affect the
verdict, and the court cannot see that it either
had or might have had an effect unfavorable to
the party moving for a new trial, the verdict
should not be set aside.-Kochler v. Cleary, 23
Minn. 325.
Objections to verdict or findings.
29. There is no substantial distinction between
the statutory ground for a new trial, "insuffi-
ciency of the evidence to justify the verdict,
or other decision, or that it is against law," in
force prior to 1866, and the ground specified in
Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 235, "that the ver-
dict, report, or decision is not justified by the
evidence, or is contrary to law. "Tozer v. Her-
shey, 15 Minn. 257, (Gil. 197.)
20. The failure of a jury to find fully and com-
pletely upon an immaterial question submitted
to them for a special finding is no ground for a
1419
1420
NEW TRIAL, II.
new trial.-Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil. | Remittitur of excess.
315.)
31. A judgment which is based on findings of a
referee, not responsive to the issues, will, where
the objection is properly.taken, be set aside.
ochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 52
32. In an action for damages caused by a
nuisance, to abate the same, and enjoin its con-
tinuance, the jury found generally upon the ques-
tion of damages, but not sufficiently upon special
facts to authorize an abatement and injunction,
as prayed. Before entry of judgment the defend-
ant appealed from an order denying a motion to
vacate the verdict, and for a new trial. Held,
that it could not be presumed that the court
would enter judgment for anything more than the
damages justified by the verdict, and about which
there was no dispute, and that the motions were
properly denied.-Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355,
(Gil. 315.)
33. When the record shows that a verdict is
recorded before a motion to poll a jury was made,
it cannot be contradicted by affidavits. -Steele v.
Etheridge, 15 Minn. 501, (Gil. 413.)
Excessive damages.
34. A verdict will not be set aside on the
ground that the damages are excessive, unless
the amount is so large and disproportionate as
to warrant the inference that the jury were
swayed by prejudice, partiality, passion, or cor-
ruption.-St. Martin v. Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156,
(Gil. 131;) Beaulieu v. Parsons, 2 Minn. 37,
(Gil. 26:) City of St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 154,
(Gil. 125) Chamberlain v. Porter. 9 Minn. 260,
(Gil. 244;) Chapman v. Dodd, 10 Minn. 350,
(Gil. 277;) Du Laurans v. First Div. St. P. &
P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49, (Gil. 29;) Shartle v.
City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308, (Gil. 284.)
35. To warrant the exercise of the authority
conferred on the district court by Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 66, § 253, to grant a new trial for "ex-
cessive damages appearing to have been given
under the influence of passion or prejudice," the
damages must be not merely more than the court
would have awarded if it had tried the case, but
they must, especially in an action for defama-
tion, so greatly and grossly exceed what would
be adequate in the judgment of the court that
they cannot reasonably be accounted for, except
upon the theory that they were awarded, not in
a judicial frame of mind, but under the influence
of passion, that is to say, of excited feeling,
rather than of sober jugment; or of prejudice,-
that is to say, of a state of mind partial to a suc-
cessful party or unfair to the other.-Pratt v.
Pioneer Press Co., 18 N. W. 836, 20 N. W. 87, 32
Minn. 217.
36. In an action for diversion of a water-course
in which the only question litigated was that of
damages, there was a wide diversity in the opin-
ion of the witnesses. Held, that an order grant-
ing a new trial, and setting aside a verdict as ex-
cessive, was within the sound discretion of the
trial court.-Schaffer v. City of St. Paul, (Minn.)
43 N. W. 65.
41 Minn. 310.
37. A trial court may, in its discretion, refuse.
a new trial on condition that plaintiff remit such
part of the verdict as shall, in the judgment of
the court, leave the recovery not excessive. This
may be done in actions of tort as well as on con-
tract. Following Craig v. Cook, 9 N. W. 712, 28
Minn. 232.-Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 28 N. W.
708, 35 Minn. 251.
38. The fact that a motion for a new trial was
denied only on the remission of a part of the ver-
dict deemed by the trial court to have been erro-
neously included therein, does not show neces-
sarily that the jury were actuated by passion or
prejudice.-Grant v. Wolf, 24 N. W. 239, 34
Minn. 32.
39. In an action for injuries to property by re-
moval of lateral support, evidence was given of
the extent of the injury, and the condition of the
property, as compared with its value when intact.
The only expert witness placed the difference in
value at $2,500. Held, that a verdict for $3,500
was not so excessive as to show that the jury were
influenced by prejudice or passion, and it was prop-
er to deny a new trial upon the consent of the
plaintiff to allow a deduction to $2,000.-Kopp v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 73.
41 Minn. 310,
Surprise, inadvertence, or accident.
40. The fact that a party, acting upon his at-
torney's advice that his cause would not be
reached for trial before a certain time, absented
himself, and the cause, being sooner reached,
which was material, is no ground for a
was tried in his absence, without his testimony,
trial.-Desnoyer v. McDonald, 4 Minn. 515, (Gil.
402.)
new
41. The facts relied on as grounds for a motion
for a new trial for accident and surprise on the
part of plaintiff, preventing him from being pres-
ent at the trial, and from being prepared there-
for, showed only that he relied on something upon
which he had no right to rely; and such facts
appeared to have been known to him and to his
attorney at the time of an application for a con-
tinuance of the cause, but they were not then
presented otherwise than by an oral unsworn
statement of counsel. Held, that no ground for
a new trial was shown.-Cheney v. Dry Wood
Lumber Co., 26 N. W. 236, 34 Miun. 440.
42. A motion for a new trial was based on al-
leged misconduct of plaintiff and surprise on the
part of defendant, consisting in plaintiff having
proceeded with the trial when the cause was
called in its order on the calendar, instead of
having it set for a day certain, and giving de-
fendant notice thereof, as his attorney had agreed
to do with defendant's attorney. Held that,
there being no affidavit of merits, the motion was
properly denied.-O'Kieffe v. Lenfest, 28 N. W.
260, 35 Minn. 237.
43. As ground for a new trial, the party showed
the absence from the trial of a necessary and
material witness, who intended to be present, but
was called away to a distance, and there disa-
bled, so that attendance was physically impossi-
ble. The nature of the disability, or any circum-
1421
1422
NEW TRIAL, II.
stances attending it, did not appear, or that a
subpoena had been issued for the witness, or any
step taken to enforce attendance, or that defend-
ant was not fully aware of the facts witness
would testify to; nor was any motion for a con-
tinuance then made. Held, that a case of accident
or surprise against which the party could not
have guarded was not made out.-Eich v. Taylor,
17 Minn. 172, (Gil. 145.)
44. Through the inadvertence of defendants'
counsel in drawing their answer, as well as upon
trial, Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 31, § 17, a special stat-
ute of limitations bearing on such damages as are
caused by mill-dams, was entirely overlooked, and
the jury were permitted to consider testimony as to
damages anterior to the period. Held not an er-
ror for which the court was responsibie, or for
which a new trial should be granted.-Barrows v.
Fox, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 777.
39 Minn. 61.
45. On the issue as to the priority of filing for
record two mortgages, defendant, relying upon
an abstract prepared by the register of deeds,
showing that his mortgage was first recorded,
made no preparation to prove the fact of the pri-
ority otherwise than by the record itself, as shown
by the abstract, but the court, on behalf of plain-
tiff, admitted parol evidence of the filing, showing
that his lien was first recorded. Held, that de-
fendant was entitled to rely upon his abstract, and
the record as thereby shown, as correct, and that
he was entitled to a new trial, on discovery of evi-
dence, after the first trial, that his deed was in fact
first filed for record.-Shaw v. Henderson, 7 Minn.
480, (Gil. 386.)
granted on the ground of surprise.-Russell v.
Reed, 19 N. W. 86, 32 Minn. 15.
Newly-discovered evidence-Materiali-
ty and sufficiency.
49. Where a person, claiming goods adversely
to one holding under a chattel mortgage, moves
for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence, such evidence should be material, and
where the evidence consists in an affidavit of the
person executing the chattel mortgage that there
was an agreement without consideration that the
mortgage should be released, such evidence is im-
material, and the motion should be denied.-Smith
v. Chapel, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 650.
36 Minn. 180.
50. In the distribution of the estate of a dere
dent, an issue was made as to whether an ante-
nuptial contract executed by him had been re-
scinded, which was found in the negative. Hed,
that newly-discovered evidence of declarations by
the husband that the contract had been annulled,
which declarations were admissible, because they
were against the husband's interest at the time
they were made, were sufficient to justify granting
a new trial upon that issue.-Hosford v. Hosford,
42 N. W. 1018, 41 Minn. 245.
51. Newly-discovered evidence, of such charac-
Held, that deter that there is no reason to suppose that the ver-
dict would be changed by it, is not ground for new
trial. - Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 171. (Gil.
134;) Eddy v. Caldwell, 7 Minn. 225, (Gil. 166.)
46. Where a verdict has been procured on
false testimony as to a lost letter, which defend-
ant, through no lack of diligence on his part,
could not anticipate, and was unprepared and
unable to rebut at the time of the trial, and he
has been guilty of no laches in making his ap-
plication, the same is properly vacated, and a
new trial granted.-Nudd v. Home Insurance &
Banking Co., 25 Minn. 100.
47. An original record having been lost, a cer-
tified copy thereof was used at the trial of an ac-
tion, which was subsequently discovered not to
conform to the original in important particulars.
Held, that the defeated party, having been mis-
led thereby, and having had no reasonable ground
for disputing the correctness of the copy at the
time, was entitled to a new trial on the ground
of surprise, unless it was apparent from the rec-
ord that the errors complained of would not
affect the result.-Farnham v. Jones, 19 N. W. 83,
32 Minn. 7.
48. In an action to restrain foreclosure of a
mortgage on the ground of a fraudulent altera-
tion thereof in a material part subsequent to its
execution, plaintiff produced at the trial the
original mortgage, unexpectedly to defendant,
who supposed that it was lost. The mortgage on
its face showed an erasure and alteration, which
it was material for defendant to explain, but he
was unable to do so, in the absence of the notary
who witnessed its execution, and whose evi
dence he did not discover to be material until
after an inspection of the instrument, subsequent
to the trial. Held, that a new trial should be
52. If the issue which newly-discovered evi-
dence tends to establish would not affect the suc-
cessful party's right to judgment, it is no ground
for new trial.-Sharpe v. Traver, 8 Minn. 273, (Gil.
239.)
Change of witness' testimony.
53. A motion by defendant for a new trial was
based on impeaching testimony to the effect that
witnesses for plaintiff had stated after the trial
that they had sworn falsely, and that they were in-
duced so to swear by the promises of plaintiff.
Held that, in view of the improbability that such
impeaching testimony was true, and of the fact
that it was denied in positive terms by the affida-
vits of the witnesses and the plaintiff, the dis-
cretion of the trial court in denying the motion must
be deemed to have been properly exercised.-Hoy
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W.
1117.
46 Minn. 269.
54. In an action by a lessee to recover damages
for injuries to goods through water leaking through
the roof, which was alleged to have been caused
by the negligence of the person employed by the
defendant to clean snow off the building, the same
witness (who was janitor of the building) was re-
lied upon by both parties to prove their respectivę
positions, and he testified that the leakage occurred
after the snow was cleaned off. On a motion by
the defendant for a new trial on the ground of sur-
prise, supported by the janitor's affidavit, which
set out that upon reconsidering the matter and
talking with others he found he was mistaken, and
that the roof leaked before he sent the man to clean
it, held, that the motion ought not to be granted,
looking to the fact that other circumstances seemed
to indicate that the janitor's testimony on the tria!
1423
1424
NEW TRIAL, II.
was correct.-Webb v. Barnard, (Minn.) 31 N. W. of the trial, and of a letter in his possession.
214.
36 Minn. 336.
Newly-discovered evidence
tive, contradictory,
evidence.
Cumula-
or impeaching
55. Newly-discovered evidence, which appears
by the affidavits to be simply contradictory and
cumulative, is no ground for a new trial.-Nin-
inger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140, (Gil. 110:) Johnson
v. Coles, 21 Minn. 108; Gilmore v. Brost, 39 N.
W. 139,* 39 Minn. 190; Schacherl v. St. Paul
City Ry. Co., 43 N. W. 837, 42 Minn. 42; Jones
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 43 N. W. 1114,
42 Minn. 183.
56. The fact that the evidence given at the trial
was by the party himself does not prevent other
evidence of the same fact by another from being
cumulative.-Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140, (Gil.
110.)
57. As a general rule, newly-discovered evi-
dence, tending only to contradict the testimony of a
witness, will not be sufficient to justify a new
trial.-Cirkel v. Ellis, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 513.
36 Minn. 323.
58. Newly-discovered evidence, which only
tends to contradict the testimony of a witness at
the trial, or which would not affect the general
result, but only the amount of punitive damages,
is not ground for a new trial.-Peck v. Small, 29
N. W. 69, 35 Minn. 465.
59. In an action for damages for forwarding
goods contrary to express direction, plaintiff's
wife testified to a direction to defendant to re-
tain them, and defendant did not testify. Held,
that alleged newly-discovered evidence that the
wife had admitted a direction to defendant to
forward the goods, being simply corroborative of
what might have been testified to by defendant,
and not of a character likely to change the re-
sult, was not ground for granting a new trial.-
Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 171, (Gil. 134.)
60. A new trial will not be granted for the
sole purpose of procuring evidence impeaching
the testimony of a witness.-Garduer v. Kellogg,
23 Minn. 463.
Previous knowledge of party.
61. On a motion for a new trial on the ground
of newly-discovered evidence, it appeared that
the witness by whom the proposed evidence was
expected to be given was a witness on a former
trial for the moving party, but was not exam-
ined in respect to the matter sought to be proved
on the new trial, because the attorney calling
him was unwilling to risk his answers in conse
quence of statements previously made to him by
the witness, although the witness was so con-
nected with the transaction as to be probably
familiar with the facts. Held, that the motion
was properly denied.-Taylor v. Mueller, 15 N.
W. 413, 30 Minn. 343.
62. On a motion for a new trial on the ground
of newly-discovered evidence, it appeared that
the evidence relied on consisted of the testimony
of a witness who was out of the state at the time
But it further appeared that the moving party had
refused a continuance proposed by the adverse
party, accompanied with a suggestion that the
testimony of such witness might be obtained for
the trial, if continued, and that they had elected
to go to trial without any evidence to sustain
one of several defenses, on which the testimony
of such absent witness might have aided them.
Held, that the motion was properly denied.-
Ward v. Hackett, 14 N. W. 578, 30 Minn. 150.
63. To justify granting a new trial for newly-
discovered evidence, it must appear that the
party was ignorant of its existence at the time of
the trial. It is not enough that his counsel was
ignorant of it.-Broat v. Moore, (Minn.) 47 N.
W. 55.
44 Minn. 468.
Diligence.
64. Newly discovered evidence, as ground for
a new trial, must not only be material, and dis-
covered since the trial, but of such character that
it could not, with the due exercise of prudence,
foresight, and diligence, have been discovered
by the party offering it before or at the time. -
Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn. 300, (Gil.
272.)
65. A new trial will not be granted on the
ground of newly-discovered evidence which the
party might have procured for the first trial by
the exercise of reasonable diligence, where a
failure of such diligence is not excused.-Laurel
v. State Nat. Bank, 25 Minn. 48.
66. Newly-discovered evidence, to justify a
new trial, or make error of the refusal of the
court to receive it after the case was partially
submitted to the jury, must be of such a charac-
ter that the party offering it could, with due ex-
ercise of prudence, diligence, and foresight, have
discovered it before the trial.-Baze v. Arper, 6
Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
67. Where it is doubtful whether or not newly-
discovered evidence, urged as a ground for a new
trial, might not, with proper diligence, have been
obtained for use on the first trial, a new trial will
not be granted.-Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140,
(Gil. 110.)
68. In an action against a bank to recover for
the loss of a note left with it for collection,
through its failure to notify the indorser of its dis-
honor, the issue was as to whether plaintiff's
agent who left the note at the bank informed de-
fendant of the indorser's residence. Defendant's
employe, who took the note, testified that there
was another person, whom he did not know, at the
counter, at such time. Held, that newly-discov-
ered evidence by the latter as to what was said at
such time was no ground for a new trial; it not
appearing that the bank by proper diligence could
not have procured such evidence at the trial.-
Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140, (Gil. 110.)
69. In an action on a note, defendant's answer
denied that he had made and signed the note,
and judgment was rendered for him. Plaintiffs
moved for a new trial on the ground of newly-
discovered evidence, consisting of testimony of
1425
1426
NEW TRIAL, II., III.
one of the persons from whom plaintiffs pur.
chased the note. Held, that due diligence re
quired plaintiffs to make inquiries of such per
son in the first instance, and that the motion
must be denied. -Evans v. Christopherson, 24
Minn. 330.
70. In an action on a note defendant testified
that he had paid the same to plaintiffs' agent.
There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defend-
ant moved for a new trial, on the ground of
newly-discovered evidence, consisting of testi-
mony of the agent to whom he paid the note.
Held, that due diligence required defendant
obtain the evidence of the agent before trial,
and that the motion must be denied.-Krassin v.
Shearan, 24 Minn. 355.
71. In an action by the seller of a machine,
the title to which had been reserved in the con-
tract of sale until the price should be paid in
full, the question at issue was whether defendant,
who had bought the machine from the purchaser,
(J.,) had notice of plaintiff's claim on account of
the unpaid purchase money. After verdict for
defendant, plaintiff moved for a new trial on the
ground of newly-discovered evidence, that since
the trial he had discovered that one H. was pres-
ent when defendant bought the machine from J.,
and heard J. state to defendant that plaintiff had
a claim against the machine. The only excuse
for not producing H. at the trial was that plaintiff
did not know that H. knew anything about the
matter until he (plaintiff) heard J.'s deposition
read at the trial. The deposition of J. was taken
in May and the trial occurred in June. Held,
that the motion was properly denied, as due dili-
gence was not shown.-Fenno v. Chapin, 8 N. W.
762, 27 Minn. 519.
72. Where the affidavits on which a motion for
a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence is made affirmatively disclose want of
ordinary diligence and prudence on the part of
the moving party in preparing for trial, and in
obtaining evidence wholly within his own knowl-
edge, and the newly-discovered evidence is ad-
mitted to be cumulative, a denial of the motion
is not error.-Keith v. Briggs, 20 N. W. 91, 32
Minn. 185.
| authority or any knowledge of the transaction, and
the attorney denied having informed him of it.
After verdict for defendant, plaintiff discovered
for the first time letters between these parties
tending to show such authority or ratification.
Held, that plaintiff had shown sufficient diligence
to entitle him to a new trial for this newly-discov-
ered evidence.-Humphreys v. Havens, 9 Minn.
318, (Gil. 301.)
Affidavits on motion.
75. Upon an application for a new trial upon
the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the
failure to produce the witnesses at the trial must
be sufficiently excused; and the affidavits of the
proposed witnesses, as to what they will testify,
should be presented, or satisfactory reason given
for the failure so to do.-Keough v. McNitt, 6
Minn. 513, (Gil. 357.)
76. An affidavit stating the newly-discovered
evidence, relied upon as ground for new trial, set
forth that the party making it learned what the
witness would swear to from a conversation had
with another, who had seen, or heard taken, a
deposition of such witness, which embodied such
newly-discovered evidence, but did not attempt to
show why a more direct statement of such evi-
dence was not given.
dence was not given. Held insufficient.-Eddy v.
Caldwell, 7 Minn. 225, (Gil. 166.)
77. On motion for a new trial, on the ground
of newly-discovered evidence, counter-affidavits
are admissible to show that such evidence has
no existence.-Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil.
315.)
III. WHEN GRANTED.
Power to grant.
78. A referce is a subordinate officer of, and
auxiliary to, the court, and the court has power
to set aside his report and grant a new trial for
errors appearing therein.-Thayer v. Barney, 12
Minn. 502, (Gil. 406.)
79. The court has no power to grant a new
trial on the ground that the jury may have been
unduly influenced by certain testimony, which
was admitted without objection, and which ap-
pears to have been at most merely superfluous;
such ground not being within the grounds for
granting a new trial specified in the statute.-
Flower v. Grace, 23 Miub. 32.
As to portion of defendants.
73. In an action for damages for the destruc-
tion of growing timber by fire caused by sparks
from one of defendant's engines, defendant moved
for a new trial on the ground of newly-discov-
ered evidence, consisting in the fact that when
the foliage came out in the spring after the fire
it appeared that very little of plaintiff's timber SO. Under an order, on a motion by defendant
had been killed, and that this fact could not have for a new trial, directing a new trial of the ac-
been so easily ascertained when the case was tion, unless plaintiff should elect to take judg-
tried, because the leaves had then fallen. Held,
Held, ment against three of the defendants for a speci
that the motion was properly denied, it appear-fied sum, and against another of them for a
ing that defendant was advised of the action be- specified part of that sum, plaintiff cannot take
fore the leaves fell, and might then have had an | judgment against the three as specified in it, and
examination made of the timber.-Austin v. have a new trial as to the other. MITCHELL and
Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 N. W. 798, 34 Minn. 351. VANDERBURGH, JJ. dissenting.-First Nat. Bank
v. Lincoln, 40 N. W. 573, 39 Minn. 473.
74. In an action on an agreement executed by
defendant through his attorney, he denied that the
agreement was authorized or ratified by him.
Plaintiff gave defendant notice before trial to pro-
duce all correspondence between defendant and
the attorney relative to such subject, but none was
produced; and on the trial defendant denied the
S1. Where two defendants make a joint motion
to have the verdict against them set aside and for
a new trial, it is not error to deny the motion if
the verdict is justified as to either defendant.
Miller v. Adamson, (Minu.) 47 N. W. 452.
45 Minn. 99.
1427
1428
NEW TRIAL, III., IV.
82. Where, in an action to determine adverse
claims to real estate, a claim asserted thereto by
one of two defendants is admitted by the plaintiffs
to be as determined upon the trial, it is error, as
to such defendant, for the court to grant plaintiffs'
motion for a new trial.-Lee v. Fletcher, (Miun.)
48 N. W. 456.
46 Minn. 49.
Trial by court-Death of judge.
83. Though a party moving for a new trial of a
case tried without a jury cannot, by reason of the
death of the trial judge, invoke such a reconsider-
ation as he alone could give, a new trial should not
be granted unless, after due allowance for the su-
perior advantages of the trial judge, it is still cicar
that the result was opposed to the weight of evi-
dence.-Reynolds v. Reynolds, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
236.
44 Minn. 132.
Irrelevant issue.
new trial where the judgment is against him.---
Davidson v. Lamprey, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)'
Overruling Howes v. Gillett. 10 Minn. 397, (Gil. 316.)
90. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 75, § 5, as amended
by Laws 1867, c. 72, § 2, giving a right to a sec-
ond trial, on demand and payment of costs, by
the party against whom judgment is rendered in
an action for the recovery of real estate, does
not apply to an action under Gen. St. c. 75, $ 15,
by a landlord who has a right of re-entry against
his tenant, or the assignee of his tenant, to re-
cover the leased premises for non payment of
rent. -Whitaker v. McClung, 14 Minn. 170, (Gil.
131.)
91. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 72, § 2, which author-
izes any person against whom a judgment has
been recovered, in an action for the recovery of
real property, to demand a second trial, on com-
plying with certain conditions, is applicable to
a case where, in an action to determine an ad-
84. An order granting a new trial for the pur- yerse claim to property, judgment was obtained
pur-yerse
pose of enabling a party to try a question not with- by defendant, who alleged title in himself, and
in the issues made by the pleadings is erroneous. demanded judgment for recovery of possession.
-Bullis v. Cheadle, 30 N. W. 549, 36 Minn. 164.
-Eastman v. Linn, 20 Minn. 433, (Gil. 387.)
Fenefit to party-Nominal damages.
85. A new trial should not be granted if it is
apparent that the result will not be changed,
even though the record discloses error.-Dorr v.
Mickley, 16 Minn. 20, (Gil. 8;) Lewis v. St. Paul
& S. C. R. Co., 20 Minn. 260, (Gil. 234;) Webb
v. Kennedy, 20 Minn. 419, (Gil. 374.)
86. A new trial may be denied where it is evi-
dent that it would not result in any benefit to the
party applying therefor, though there was error
in the former trial.-Maher v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 18 N. W. 105 31 Minn. 401.
87. In an action to recover the price of a horse
sold, defendant set up a breach of warranty. The
testimony under the answer tended to show a war-
ranty, but showed no damages. Verdict for plain-
tiff, and defendant moved for new trial. Held,
that as the jury could at best give only nominal
damages a new trial would not be granted.-Harris
v. Kerr, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 379.
37 Minn. 537.
IV. STATUTORY NEW TRIAL AS OF RIGHT.
When allowed.
88. Comp. St. Minn. c. 64, § 5, giving any person
"against whom a judgment for the recovery of
specific real estate is rendered" the right to a sec-
ond trial, upon payment within six months after
written notice of the judgment and payment of
the costs and damages recovered thereby, does
not apply to the plaintiff in an action of ejectment,
for in such action there can be no judgment "for"
a recovery either of the lands or damages against
him.-Howes v. Gillett, 10 Minn. 397, (Ğil. 316.)
Changed by Gen. St. c. 75, § 5, as amended by Laws 1867,
c. 72. See Davidson v. Lamprey, 16 Minn. 449, (Gil. 404.)
89. Under Gen. St. Minn. c. 75, § 5, as amend-
ed by Laws 1867, c. 72, providing that "any per-
son against whom a judgment is recovered in an
action for the recovery of real property may
have a second trial, etc., plaintiff is entitled to a
92. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11, giving a
second trial as of right in an action for the recor-
ery of real property, applies only to an action in
which recovery of possession is sought, either
It does
on the part of plaintiff or of defendant.
not apply to a statutory action to determine ad-
verse claims to real property.-Knight v. Valen-
tine, 29 N. W. 3, 35 Minn. 367.
rides that "any person against whom a judguient
93. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 75, § 5, which pro-
for the recovery of real property is rendered" may
demand another trial, operates in favor of the
personal representative of a deceased party to
uch suit, against whom judgment was rendered
after his death, without revival against the rep
resentative.-Stocking v. Hanson, 22 Minn. 542.
94. Where proceedings in forcible entry and
detainer under Gen. St. Minn. c. 84, § 11, become,
under the common practice, to all intents and
purposes, an action for the trial of the title of
real property in the nature of ejectment, the
party against whom judgment is rendered is en-
titled to a second trial, on compliance with
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11.-Ferguson v.
Kumler, 25 Minn. 153.
95. An action to set aside a deed of land on the
ground of fraud is not "an action for the recovery
of real property," within Gen. St. Minn. c. 75, §
11, allowing a second trial in such cases as a
matter of right.-Somerville v. Donaldson, 1 N.
W. 808, 26 Minn. 75.
96. In an action by a wife against her husband
for a divorce, issues involving the title and right
to possession of real estate claimed by her, of
which he was in possession, were tried and de-
termined, and the judgment dissolved the mar
riage, and adjudged that plaintiff was the abso
lute and sole owner of such real estate, describ.
ing it, and that he was entitled to the immedi.
ate possession thereof. Held that, under Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11, providing for a second
trial in actions for the recovery of real property
1429.
1430
NEW TRIAL, IV.-NON-JOINDER.
on payment of costs and damages, defendant
might have a second trial of the issues involving
the title and right to possession of the real es-
tate, without retrying the cause of action for di-
vorce.-Schioidt v. Schmidt, 19 N. W. 649, 32
Minn. 130.
97. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11, giving a
right to another trial in an action of ejectment
as a matter of right, has no application to a case
where defendant fails to answer, and permits
judgment to be rendered against him by default.
-Hallam v. Doyle, 29 N. W. 130, 35 Minn. 337.
98. A city in its complaint against a railroad
company alleged that certain premises were oc-
cupied by defendant with its depot buildings,
by means whereof a large portion of a street,
landing, and levee was occupied and blockaded,
and the city and public wrongfully excluded
therefrom, and that the occupation and use of the
premises by defendant was dangerous, and creat-
ed a public nuisance. The prayer was that de-
fendant be required to remove the buildings,
that the nuisance be abated, and that defendant
be ejected from the street, landing, and levee.
An injunction was also sought. Defendant in its
answer took issue on plaintiff's title and right
of possession, alleging ownership and possession
in itself, and also set up title by adverse posses-
sion. Held, that the action was for the recovery
of real property, the other relief asked being
merely incidental, and, under Gen. St. c. 75,
11, plaintiff, on a verdict against it, was entitled
to a new trial as of right.-City of St. Paul v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W.
662.
Demand and payment of costs, etc.
99. A notice of demand for a retrial of an ac-
tion for the recovery of real property, permitted
by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 75, § 5, is a proceeding
in the action, and if invalid may be set aside by
the court, on motion or order to show cause.
Davidson v. Lamprey, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)
100. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 75, § 5, as
amended by Laws 1867, c. 72, providing that, on
payment of costs and damages within six months
of notice of judgment in an action for the recov-
ery of real property, either party may, by notice
in writing, demand a retrial of the action, such
payment of costs and damages and written notice
of demand of another trial are conditions preced-
ent to the right to a retrial.-Davidson v. Lam-
prey, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)
101. A demand for a second trial in an action for
the recovery of real property, under Gen. St.
Minn. c. 75, § 11, may be made by the party him-
self, and a notice embodying such demand, made
in his name by an agent authorized by him to make
such demand, if seasonably served, is sufficient.-
West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N.
W. 1031.
40 Minn. 189.
102. A payment to the clerk of the amount of
judgment for costs and damages, in an action for
the recovery of real property, is not, in the ab-
sence of an order or rule of court authorizing it,
a payment into court or compliance with Gen. St.
|
action "upon payment of all costs and damages,"
etc.-Davidson v. Lamprey, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil.
402.)
103. An entry by the clerk in the record, after
judgment in an action for the recovery of real
property, that plaintiff had paid into court the
judgment in favor of defendant for costs, if unau-
thorized by any rule or order of the court, is in-
sufficient to show a payment of such costs into
court, in a direct proceeding in the same action
for a retrial, based on the payment of costs as a
condition precedent to the right to such retrial.
-Davidson v. Lamprey, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)
104. The payment and receipt of costs of the
first trial of an action for the recovery of real
property will not estop the party in whose favor
judgment is rendered on such trial from opposing
an application for a second trial, claimed under
Gen. St. Minn. c. 75, § 5, even if such costs were
paid for the avowed purpose of obtaining such
second trial.- Whitaker v. McClung, 14 Minn.
170, (Gil. 131.)
Distinguished in Lamprey v. Henk, 16 Minn. 407, (Gil.
361.)
Waiver.
105. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11, al-
lowing a new trial in an action for the recovery
of real property upon payment of all costs of
the former trial, the statutory requirement of
payment of costs is not waived by noticing the
cause for retrial, and entering it on the calen-
dar, after payment of part of such costs only, al-
though both parties supposed the whole costs to
have been paid. And after the six months lim-
ited for such payment by the statute have ex-
pired, the court has no power to relieve from the
default.-Dawson v. Shillock, 12 N. W. 526, 29
Minn. 189.
106. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. SS, § 9, author-
izing an attorney to bind his client in any of the
proceedings, in an action or special proceeding, an
attorney for defendant, in ejectment, may bind his
client by a stipulation to dismiss a demand by de-
fendant, under the statute, for a second trial.-
Bray v. Doheny, (Minn.) 40 N. W 262.*
Effect.
39 Minn. 355.
107. Under the provision of Comp. St. Minn.
c. 64, 7, that a judgment on a second trial of
an action for recovery of specific real property
shall be the final determination of the rights of
the parties, a second verdict for the same party
does not prevent a review by appeal or writ of
error, but is final only so far as it bars another
action for the same cause between the same par-
ties.-Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
Next of Kin.
See Descent and Distribution.
Non-Joinder.
Minu. 1866, c. 75, § 5, permitting a retrial of such Of parties, see Pleading, 123, 127.
1431
1432
NON-RESIDENT-NOTICE.
Non-Resident.
Defendants, service of summons, see Summons,
16-18, 21, 29-52.
Taxation of property, see Taxation, 32–34.
Validity of insolvent law, see Insolvency, 3, 4.
Will of, see Wills, 33.
Nonsuit.
See Practice in Civil Cases, 1-20.
Northern Pacific Railroad Com-
pany.
Exemption from taxation, see Railroad Compa-
nics, 110, 111.
Northfield, City of.
Incorporation, see Municipal Corporations, 1.
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Power to take affidavit, see Affidavit, 2-4.
Protests, see Negotiable Instruments, 129-140.
Certificate of acknowledgment-Seal.
1. A notary's certificate of the acknowledg-
ment of an assignment for the benefit of creditors
by the assignor was signed by the notary, but had
no notarial seal attached. Below this certificate,
and on the same page, was another certificate by
the same notary, with his seal attached, that the
assignee had accepted the trust. Held that the
seal attached to the second certificate did not ap-
ply to the first certificate also, and such first cer-
tificate was void for want of a notarial seal under
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 26, § 3.-De Graw v. King,
9 N. W. 636, 28 Minn. 118.
Distinguished in Osgood v. Sutherland. 31 N. W. 213, 36
Minn, 245, and Rachac v. Spencer, 51 N. W. 920.
2. Where a chattel mortgage purports to have
been acknowledged before a notary, but the certif-
icate is not authenticated by a notarial seal, the
filing of the instrument is no notice to subsequent
purchasers or mortgagees in good faith, under
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 3, requiring mort-
gages, in order to constitute such notice, to be ac-
knowledged before some officer authorized to take
the acknowledgment of deeds, and chapter 26, § 3,
providing that each notary shall provide himself
with an official seal, with which he shall authenti-
cate his official acts.-Thompson v Scheid, (Minn.)
38 N. W. 801.
39 Minn. 102.
Notice.
Constructive notice, see Vendor and Purchaser,
138, 139.
Of accounting by guardian, see Guardian and
Ward, 16, 17.
appeal, see Appeal and Error, 143-151, 701-
706; Criminal Law, 153, 154; Eminent Do-
main, 165; Highways, 38, 39.
Of application for appointment of guardian, see
Guardian and Ward, 4.
for license to sell decedent's real estate,
see Executors and Administrators, 102, 103.
for mandamus, see Mandamus, 42–43.
argument of appeal, see Appeal and Error,
206–208.
arrival of goods, by carrier, see Carriers, 22-
24.
breach of warranty, see Sale, 73–76.
claim against municipal corporation, before ac-
tion, see Municipal Corporations, 321–325.
of homestead, on removal therefrom, sce
Homestead, 54-59.
to property levied upon, see Execution, 52-
55.
condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Do-
marin, 128-134.
contest of election, see Elections and Voters,
40-44.
defects in fence of railroad, see Railroad Corn-
panies, 242-245.
in highway, see Municipal Corporations,
168-175.
in tools and appliances furnished for use
of servant, see Master and Servant, 54-57.
defenses to negotiable instrument, see Negoti
able Instruments, 95–102.
election, see Elections and Voters, 9-13.
execution sale, see Execution, 64–66.
expiration of time of redemption from tax sale,
see Taxation, 182-202.
foreclosure of mortgage by advertisement, see
Mortgages, 197–242.
fraud, as affecting running of statute of limita-
tions, see Limitation of Actions, 35–37.
guardian's sale, see Guardian and Ward, 30-
34.
lis pendens, see Lis Pendens, 1-3.
motion, see Attachment, 90; Practice in Civil
Cuses, 27; Venue in Civil Cases, 15.
prior mortgage, seo Chattel Mortgages, 86, 87.
proceedings for distribution of intestate's es-
tate, see Descent and Distribution, S-10.
protest, see Constitutional Law, 93; Negoti
able Instruments, 122-149.
sale of lands of decedent for payment of debts,
see Executors and Administrators, 109–113.
taking deposition, see Deposition, 3, 4.
tax sale, see Taxation, 158-165.
trial, see Appeal and Error, 21; Practice in
Civil Cases, 21-25.
To abate nuisance, see Nuisance, 6, 7.
agent, see Principal and Agent, 78-81.
assignee, of contracts of assignor, see Assign
ment for Benefit of Creditors, 98.
attorney, binding on client, see Attorney anó
Client, 15.
bank officers, see Banks and Banking, 24.
limit liability of innkeeper, see Innkeepers.
6-8.
mortgagee, by occupancy of premises, see
Mortgages, 44, 45.
redeem from execution sale, see Execution
119.
from foreclosure, see Mortgages, 412, 413
retract, before action for libel, see Libel anċ
Slander, 55.
purchasers, see Vendor and Purchaser, 132-
16.
quit, see Landlord and Tenant, 55.
terminate tenancy from year to year, see Land
lord and Tenant, 54.
1433
1434
NOVATION-NUISANCE, I.
NOVATION.
What constitutes.
1. A complaint alleged that after plaintiff had
paid a draft drawn on him by one T. it was agreed be-
tween plaintiff, defendant, and T. that the amount
so paid should be charged to defendant, who, in
consideration of the payment to T., agreed to re-
pay plaintiff, and that plaintiff, in consideration of
such agreement, discharged T. Plaintiff testified
that when he paid T.'s draft he understood from
T. that the amount was to be charged to defend-
ant; that he did not make any charge on his books
until four months later, when he saw defendant,
and asked him if it was all right; that defendant
replied that it was, and that plaintiff could charge
the draft to him, whereupon plaintiff made the
charge. The draft was never returned to T.
Plaintiff, defendant, and T. never had any con-
versation together about the matter, and nothing
was ever said to T. after the payment of the
money, until plaintiff brought his action. Held,
that the evidence did not show a novation of the
debt from T. to plaintiff such as would furnish a
consideration for defendant's promise to pay plain
tiff.-Johnson v. Rumsey, 11 N. W. 69, 28 Minn.
531.
Effect.
2. There must be an extinguishment of the old
debt by a mutual agreement between all parties,
whereby it becomes the obligation of the new
debtor. The discharge of the old debt must be
contemporaneous with and result from the con-
summation of an arrangement with the new debt-
or.-Cornwell v. Megins, 40 N. W. 610, 39 Minn.
407.
is to overflow lands of plaintiff without his con-
sent, is a nuisance, both at common law and under
the Minnesota statute.-Dorman v. Ames, 12 Minn.
451, (Gil. 347.)
2. Where a natural water-course exists on the
lands of a person, the construction of a sewer
which conducts to and empties upon the land of
such owner a greater body of water than the nat-
ural drainage and flow through the water-course,
thereby injuring the premises, is prima facie
wrongful, and is a nuisance.--O'Brien v. City of
St. Paul, 18 Minn. 176, (Gil. 163.)
Distinguished in O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333.
3. A wooden flouring-mill, operated by wa-
ter-power, is not, per se, a nuisance, within the
meaning of a clause of a lease of a mill-site and
water-power forbidding the erection and opera-
tion of any powder mill, chemical laboratory,
or other "nuisance" on such site.-Minneapolis
Mill Co. v. Tiffany, 22 Minn. 463.
Public nuisance-Legislative authority.
the authority of the sovereign power of the state,
4. A canal, which is constructed by or under
unless improperly constructed or maintained,
cannot be treated as a public nuisance.-Patter-
son v. City of Duluth, 21 Minn. 493.
5. It is no defense to a suit to abate a nuisance
in maintaining a dam that it was erected by legisla-
tive authority, where the erection does not neces-
sarily create the nuisance, but it arises from the
manner of its construction.-Village of Pine City
v. Munch, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 197.
42 Minn. 342.
Notice to abate.
3. An agreement by a mortgagee in a chattel
6. One who merely continues a nuisance is en-
mortgage, in consideration of a surrender and de- titled to notice to abate it before an action for its
livery to him of the mortgaged property, to pay abatement can be brought.-Thornton v. Smith, 11
the amount due upon a second mortgage to the Minn. 15, (Gil. 1;) Bartlett v. Siman, 24 Minn.
holder thereof, is a valid agreement, which
448.
may
be enforced by such second mortgagee.-Pulliam
v. Adamson, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 1132.
43 Miun. 511.
4. Where the purchaser of a stock of goods of
a partnership agrees, as part of the consideration,
to assume and pay the existing firm debts, the
creditors of the firm may enforce the contract by
actions against the purchaser, though they were
not specifically named or designated in the con-
tract of sale.-Maxfield v. Schwartz, (Minn.) 45
N. W. 429.
43 Minn. 221.
NUISANCE.
I. CIVIL ACTIONS, 1-29.
II. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, 30-36.
Abatement by municipal corporation, see Munic-
ipal Corporations, 318.
I. CIVIL ACTIONS.
What constitutes a nuisance.
1. The erection of a dam by one, either upon
his own land or that of another, the effect of which
7. A continuer of a nuisance, sued with the
person creating the same, by resting his defense
on the same grounds as the other defendant, and
making no objection until after the trial is con-
cluded, waives his right to notice before suit to
abate the nuisance.-Bartlett v. Siman, 24 Minu.
418.
Action for abatement.
8. An action to abate a nuisance, consisting
of the construction and maintenance of a stairway
and a railing to guard it in the sidewalk in front
of premises occupied by plaintiff under a lease,
cannot be maintained where it is not shown that
the rental value of plaintiff's premises is depre-
ciated or his trade affected thereby, or that he
has sustained any damage special or peculiar to
himself.-Ofstie v. Kelly, 23 N. W. 863, 33 Minn.
440.
9. In action to abate a dam as a nuisance, it is
not error to charge that if no damages have or
must necessarily accrue to plaintiff's premises by
reason of its erection, the action cannot be main-
tained.-Dorman v. Aines, 12 Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
10. Injuries merely theoretical, such as those
from the insensible evaporation and decrease of
water caused by dams, the occasional increase or
'1435
1436
NUISANCE, I.
|
decrease in the velocity of the current and Action for damages
quantum of water below, furnish no ground for
abatement of a dam.-Dorman v. Ames, 12 Minn.
451, (Gil. 347.)
11. In an action for the abatement of a dam
the plaintiff can properly show damages suffered
after the commencement of the suit, for the pur-
pose of showing a continuing injury.-Hayden v.
Albee, 20 Minn. 159, (Gil. 143.)
12. Mere delay in commencing a suit, or even
acquiescence in the act of the defendant, (unless
under circumstances that would create an equita-
ble estoppel,) short of the period of 20 years nec-
essary to give defendant a right by prescription to
flow plaintiff's land, will not bar his right of ac-
tion to abate a dam, causing the overflow, as an
existing nuisance.-Mueller v. Fruen, (Minn.) 30
N. W. 886.
36 Minn. 273.
Action for abatement
judgment.
13. In order to lay the foundation for the abate-
ment of a dam causing damage by overflow on
account of its height, and for injunction against
the same, there should be a specific finding by
the jury as to how much of the dam should be
abated, and if not so found it must be ascertained
by the court.-Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil.
315.)
-
Finding and
14. In an action under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
75, § 25, admitting the recovery of damages and
the award of an injunction against a nuisance iu
one action, the abatement of a dam and injunc-
tion against its maintenance, prayed, do not fol-
low the recovery of damages as a matter of
course, but are matters discretionary with the
court; and the failure of the jury to answer fully
questions submitted to it, the only object of which
is to aid the court in the exercise of this discre-
tion, is error that neither party can complain of,
and is not the subject of exception.-Finch v.
Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil. 315.)
15. In an action by a riparian owner to abate a
dam, by which water was set back on his land,
the court may direct the sheriff to cut down the
dam; Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 44, providing
that "by the judgment the nuisance may be en-
joined or abated, as well as damages recovered. "
-Ames v. Cannon River Manuf'g Co., 6 N. W.
787, 27 Minn. 245.
Action for damages.
16. Plaintiff complained of an obstruction in
the streets, which, if a nuisance at all, was a
public one, and the injury sustained by him was
only that in common with the general public,
differing only in degree and not in kind. ´ Held,
that he could not maintain an action for private
damages, but the remedy was by a proceeding by
the public_or its proper representative. -Shau-
but v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502.
17. In an action for damages, for the erection of
a nuisance, it is not necessary that the person
charged be the owner of the freehold. It is suffi-
cient if he is a party to the erection of such nui-
sance. His subsequent disposition of his interest
therein will not relieve him from liability for its
erection.—Dorman v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451, (Gil.
347.)
sances.
Continuing nui-
18. Where a nuisance is continuing, the fact
that it was erected and continuously maintained
upon the land without objection from the owner
is no defense to an action by a subsequent pur-
chaser, who bought with knowledge thereof, un-
less it has been maintained for a sufficient
length of time to bar his rights. -O'Brien v. City
of St. Paul, 18 Minn. 176, (Gil. 163.)
19. Where lands are injured by the erection and
maintenance of a nuisance on the land of an ad-
joining owner, the latter is liable to successive ac-
tions for damages caused by continuance of the
nuisance.-Sloggy v. Dilworth, (Minn.) 36 N. W.
451.*
38 Minn. 179.
20. The heirs or personal representatives of the
originator of a nuisance are not liable for damages
resulting from its continuance after his death, ex-
cept on neglect to abate it after notice.-Sloggy v.
Dilworth, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 451.
3S Minn. 179.
21. A recovery for a nuisance does not bar a sub-
sequent recovery for its continuance.-Byrne v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 36 N. W. 339.
38 Minn. 212.
Parties.
22. All persons whose property is affected by
a nuisance may join in an action to abate such
nuisance, and recover damages therefor, though
their property is owned severally, and not joint-
ly; but a separate judgment cannot be entered in
favor of each plaintiff for the separate damages
by him sustained. —Grant v. Schmidt. 22 Minn. 1.
23. In an action to remove a dam the com-
plaint, as to one of the defendants, averred that
he had, or pretended to have, some title or inter-
est in the land on one side of the river, at the
point where the dam abutted upon the shore.
Held, that as it might be necessary, in order to
remove such dam, to enter upon such defendant's
land, and as his title to the land might also give
him title to or control over the dam to the thread
of the stream, he was a proper party defendant.
-Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power
Co., 12 Minn. 137, (Gil. 77.)
24. Where lands are unlawfully flooded with sur-
face water, as the result of the joint act of several
persons, each may be sued for the entire damage;
but where the damage is the result of the acts of
several, acting independently, each is liable for
his proportion only.-Sloggy v. Dilworth, (Minn.)
36 N. W. 451.
38 Minn. 179.
Pleading and proof.
25. Under a complaint stating facts constitut-
ing a nuisance of one kind, it is not permissible to
prove a nuisance of an entirely different charac-
ter.-O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 18 Minn. 176,
(Gil. 163.)
Evidence.
26. Where there is no claim made that a nui-
sance is willfully maintained, it is not error to
reject evidence. offered on behalf of defendant,
1437
1438
NUISANCE, I., II.—NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
that the same is not willful.-Finch v. Green, 16 | Variance.
Minn. 355, (Gil. 315.)
Damages.
27. In an action for damages for a private nui-
sance, affecting injuriously the health and com-
fort of plaintiff and his family, he may recover
damages for such injuries suffered by his family,
as well as for that suffered by himself personally.
-Fierce v. Wagner, 13 N. W. 170, 29 Minn. 355.
32. An indictment for maintaining an unsafe
building charged that the same was maintained
on lots 1 and 2. The evidence showed that it ex-
tended over onto lot 3. Held not a variance,
but mere redundancy of proof.-Chute v. State,
19 Minn. 271, (Gil. 230.)
Evidence.
33. Defendant was indicted for maintaining a
28. In an action for damages for a nuisance it high stone building, overhanging the street, and
appeared that such nuisance had been maintained endangering the lives of passers-by. Held, that
two months before the action was brought, greatly it was not error to refuse to allow defendant to
affecting the comfort of plaintiff and his fam-show that he had consulted competent builders,
ily, and causing serious illness to his wife and and they advised him that it was safe.-Chute v.
several of his children. The jury found for State, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil. 230.)
plaintiff in the sum of $800. A motion by de-
fendant for a new trial was granted, unless plain-
tiff should stipulate that the damages be reduced
to $500, and he did so stipulate. Held, that the
order should not be reversed on appeal on the
ground that the damages were excessive.-Pierce
v. Wagner, 13 N. W. 170, 29 Minn. 355.
34. Defendant was indicted for maintaining
a dangerous building, overhanging the street,
and liable to fall upon passers-by. On the trial
the prosecution offered the records of a meeting
of the council of the city where the building was
situated, at which defendant was present as al-
derman, and at which a resolution was adopted
29. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 44, declaring such building unsafe and a public nui-
which defines a nuisance, and provides that, in sance, and requiring defendant to remove the
an action therefor, "the nuisance may be en- same. Held that, as the defense was not excusa-
joined or abated, as well as damages recovered, ble ignorance of the facts, but that they did not
as the statute gives the right to recover damages constitute the building a nuisance, such record
generally, any damages resulting from the nui- was incompetent, and its admission erroneous.
sance, whether direct or consequential, may prop-Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil. 230.)
erly be recovered in the action; and, if necessary
to a complete and effectual abatement of the nui- View.
sance, an injunction against its continuance may
properly be adjudged.-Celstrum v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., 24 N. W. 255, 33 Minn. 516.
II. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
Complaint.
">
30. Under a criminal statute, relating to build
ings which are unsafe, "so as to endanger life," a
complaint in a criminal proceeding, alleging a
building to be "dangerous, having been here-
tofore damaged by fire," is insufficient.—State
is insufficient.-State
v. Municipal Court of St. Paul, (City of St. Paul
v. Hennessy,) 35 N. W. 576, 38 Minn. 94.
31. Neither is such a complaint sufficient under a
stitute relating to build ngs which are "specially
dangerous in case of fire."-State v. Municipal
Court of St. Paul, (City of St. Paul v. Hennes-
sy,) 35 N. W. 576, 38 Minn. 94.
35. The matter of ordering a view by the jury
on indictment for maintaining a nuisance, is,
under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 114, 10, discre-
tionary with the court. -Chute v. State, 19 Minn.
271, (Gil. 230.)
36. On the trial of an indictment for nuisance,
in maintaining a dangerous building, the jury
were instructed to examine and view the build-
ing. The proper purpose of such view was not
stated. Held, that it would be presumed the
jury knew their duty, and, if more definite in-
structions were required by the defendant, he
should have so requested the court.-Chute v.
State, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil. 230.)
Nullity of Marriage.
See Marriage, 9, 10.
1433
1440
OATH-OFFICE AND OFFICER.
Oath.
See Affidavit: Perjury.
0.
Of commissioners on laying out highway, see
Highways, 17.
guardian on sale of ward's real estate,
Guardian and Ward, 27-29.
Swearing jurors, see Jury, 21, 22.
Obligation of Contracts.
See Constitutional Law, 93-118.
Obstructions.
see
Of highways, see Highways, 61–76.
navigable stream, see Navigable Waters, 8, 9.
Obtaining Goods under False
Pretenses.
See False Pretenses.
Occupation.
See Use and Occupation.
Adverse, see Adverse Possession.
Notice by occupancy, see Mortgages, 44, 45; Ven-
dor and Purchaser, 140-149.
of foreclosure to occupants of mortgaged
premises, see Mortgages, 224–229.
Regulation and licensing of occupations, see
License; Municipal Corporations, 10-13.
Occupying Claimants.
Improvements and payment of taxes, see Adverse
Claim, 39, 48; Constitutional Law, 122, 161-163;
Ejectment, 39-49; Partition, 12-14; Taxation,
275-304.
Offer.
Of evidence, see Trial, 6-10.
judgment, see C'ost8, 7.
reward, see Reward.
OFFICE AND OFFICER.
Sce, also, Clerk of Court; Court Commissioners;
District and Prosecuting Attorneys; Jail and
Jailer: Judge; Justices of the Peace; Notary
Public; Receivers; Register of Deeds; Sheriff's
and Constables.
Bank officers, see Banks and Banking, 21-24.
Church officers, see Religious Societies, 8, 9.
City and village officers, see Municipal Corpora
tions, 72-97.
Constitutional provisions fixing terms of office, see
Elections and Voters, 6.
right to public office, see Civil Rights, 2.
Contracts by state officers, see States and State
Officers, 4-8.
County officers, see Counties, 29–63.
Corporate officers, see Corporations, 31-54.
Election officers, see Elections and Voters, 14-16.
Mandamus to obtain possession of office, books,
records, etc., see Mandamus, 13-19.
Powers of executive officers, see Constitutional
Law, 15–28.
Questioning title to office, see Quo Warranto.
Review of official acts by certiorari, see Certiorari,
30-32.
Reward to officer for performance of official duty,
see Reward.
School officers, see Schools and School-Districts,
16-20.
State officers, see States and State Officers.
Town officers, see Towns, 5.
Venue in actions against officers, see Venue in
Civil Cases, 3.
Eligibility.
1. Under Const. Minn. art. 7, § 7, providing that
every person entitled to vote at any election shall
be "eligible" to office, a person of foreign birth can-
not hold office who first declares his intention to
become a citizen of the United States after his elec-
tion, but before the commencement of the term for
which he has been elected.-State v. Sullivan,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 802.
45 Minn. 309.
164;) In re Barnum, & N. W. 375, 27 Minn. 466; Scott
Distinguishing Territory v. Smith, 3 Minn. 240, (Gil,
County v. Ring, 13 N. W. 181, 29 Minn. 398.
Incompatible offices.
2. In Minnesota the offices of clerk of the district
court and of court commissioner are not incompat-
ible, and the acceptance of oue by the incumbent
of the other will not operate to vacate the latter;
and a writ of attachment issued by the same per-
son as deputy-clerk, who allowed it as court com-
missioner, is not void.-Kenney v. Goergen,
(Minn.) 31 N. W. 210.
Giving bond.
36 Minn. 190.
was
3. The appointment of a county treasurer by
resolution of the county commissioners
"upon the express condition" that he should
give bond and qualify within two days. His
bond was not presented to the board until three
days afterwards, but was then accepted and ap-
proved. Held, that this was a modification of
the resolution, and the appointment was valid.
State v. Ring, 11 N. W. 233, 29 Minn. 78.
Term.
4. The register of deeds for a county, elected
at the annual election in the year 1868 for the
term commencing January, 1869, died before
1441
1442
OFFICE AND OFFICER-ORDERS.
1 S
qualifying or entering on the duties of his office.
Held that, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 9, § 2,
providing that the term of office of such register
should be two years, and until his successor is
elected and qualified, the incumbent was entitled
to hold the office until January, 1871, and until
his successor was elected and qualified. Gen. St.
Minn. c. 8, § 125.-State v. Benedict, 15 Minn.
198, (Gil. 153.) .
Vacancies.
5. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 9, § 2, de-
claring that every office shall become vacant by
"the death of the incumbent" before the expira-
tion of the term, no vacancy is created by the
death of an officer elect who has not qualified
and taken possession of the office. -State v.
Benedict, 15 Minn. 198, (Gil. 153.)
6. A register of deeds elect died before
qualification and entry into the office. The suc-
cessor of the incumbent of the office could not be
legally elected until the annual election of 1870,
and therefore the legislature declared the office
vacant, and authorized the county commissioners
to fill the vacancy, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 83;)
but relator was illegally elected to the office at
the annual election of 1869. Held, that the ques-
tion whether or not the special act declaring a
vacancy in the office, and authorizing the county
commissioners to fill the same, was unconstitu-
tional, was immaterial to relator, his election
being illegal, and that he was not entitled to a
certificate of election.-State v. Benedict, 15 Minn.
198, (Gil. 153.)
Right to office and its records.
7. Where the term of office of the judge of a
county court of probate has expired, the person to
whom the certificate of election as his successor is
issued, having qualified, is prima facie entitled to
the possession of the books and records of such of- |
fice, although a contest of the election may be
pending.-Crowell v. Lambert, 10 Minn. 369, (Gil.
295.)
Compensation.
ty Com'rs Hennepin County v. Jones, 18 Minn.
199, (Gil. 182.)
Posting statutory fee-bill.
11. Comp. St. Minn. c. 63, § 33, requiring cer-
tain officers, including justices of the peace, to
set up the statutory fee-bill in their offices with-
in six months after the passage thereof, applied
only to those in office at the time of its passage,
or coming into office within six months thereaft-
er.-Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. 235, (Gil. 155.)
Powers.
12. Persons dealing with public officers, act-
ing under statutory authority, are chargeable
with notice of the extent of, and limitation up-
on, such authority.-Mitchell v. Board County
Com'rs St. Louis Čounty, 24 Minn. 459.
Personal liability.
13. The contracts of a public agent, acting in
the line of his duty, are binding on his principal
or government, and not on himself.-Balcombe v.
Northup, 9 Minn. 172, (Gil. 159.)
14. Where public agents, in good faith, con-
tract with parties having full knowledge of the
extent of their powers and authority, or equal
means of knowledge with themselves, and,
through ignorance of the law, exceed their au-
thority, they will not become personally liable
unless the intent to incur such liability is clear-
ly expressed. - Sanborn v. Neal, 4 Minn. 126,
(Gil. 83.)
Misconduct-Indictment.
15. Where an officer, assuming to act officially
under his official designation, and in such man-
ner as to deceive and mislead others, corruptly
does an act beyond his authority, he is guilty of
misbehavior in office, for which he may be in-
dicted.-State v. Wedge, 24 Minn. 150.
16. An indictment of an officer for neglect of an
official act must show that it was his duty to per-
form such act-State v. Coon, 14 Minn. 456, (Gil
310.)
Oils.
8. One claiming to be elected district attor-
ney entered in office and received the salary un-
til ousted by judgment. Thereafter the rightful
officer sued the board of supervisors for the sal-
ary of the office while occupied by the intruder. Inspection of illuminating oils, see Inspection.
Held that, in the absence of any notice to the
board of his claims, he could not recover.-Par-
ker v. Board Sup'rs Dakota County, 4 Minn.
59, (Gil. 30.)
9. Where the official term of an officer whose
salary is fixed at an annual sum is shortened by
a constitutional amendment, his salary ceases
with his term, and he is only entitled to compen-
sation pro rata to that time.-State v. Frizzell,
18 N. W. 316, 31 Minn. 460.
Distinguished in Beatty v. Sibley County, 21 N. W.
549, 82 Minn. 471.
10. The emoluments of public offices, when not
otherwise provided by the constitution, may be
increased, reduced, or regulated by law during
the term of office, at the will of the legislature,
and it cannot be objected by a county treasurer
that his office is singled out for reduction.-Coun-
V.2M.DIG.-46
Opinion Evidence.
See Criminal Law, 79; Eminent Domain, 203-
211; Evidence, 115-185; Homicide, 70-74.
Option.
To purchase, see Sale, S.
ORDERS.
County orders, see Counties, 75, 76.
Of court or judge, see Appeal and Error, 24–133;
Practice in Civil Cases, 40–48, 60; Summons,
46, 47.
1443
1444
ORDERS-OWATONNA, CITY OF.
Construction and effect.
1. An order directed to and accepted by de-
fendants to pay plaintiff "$250 out of the avails,
when received, from the sale of logs in your [de-
fendants'] hands belonging to" the drawer, being
payable out of a particular fund, is not a bill of
exchange, and to recover thereon plaintiff must
show what "the avails" are, and that they have
been received by defendants.-Kelly v. Bronson,
4 N. W. 607, 26 Minn. 359.
"}
by indorsing on it: "We hereby agree to pay the
within when due T. J. C. on the delivery of the
what pertained to the matter of the maps men-
Dakota maps. Held, that no other claims except
tioned can be taken into account to determine de-
fendant's liability.-Everard v. Warner, (Minn.)
31 N. W. 353.
36 Minn. 383.
Ordinance.
2. A., being indebted to defendants in a See Municipal Corporations, 15–71.
certain sum, gave them a bill of sale of certain
logs on the agreement that defendants should sell
the logs, retain the amount of their debt and ex-
penses, and pay the residue, if any, to A. After-
wards, A. gave plaintiff an order on defendants,
which they accepted, for $250, payable "out of
the avails when received from the sale of logs in
your [defendants'] hands belonging to me [A.]"
Held, that the words "belonging to me" referred
to "avails," and not to "logs. "-Kelly v. Bron-
son, 4 N. W. 607, 26 Minn. 359.
Ortonville, City of.
Assessor, see Municipal Corporations, 76.
Ouster.
Of cotenant, see Tenancy in Common and Joint
Tenancy, 1-3.
Owatonna, City of.
3. T. J. C. gave plaintiff a written order on de-
fendants in these words: "Please pay to the
bearer, J. R. E., ninety-five dollars, on delivery of
Dakota maps per agreement," which they accepted City justice, see Courts, 22.
1445
1446
PAPER-BOOKS-PARTIES.
Paper-Books.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 190–193.
Pardon.
P.
c. 66, § 33, which provides that “a father * *
may maintain an action for the injury of the
child," the damages recoverable are those sus-
tained by the minor only, and do not include
those resulting to the parent from loss of serv-
ices.-Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463.
Contract to secure, see Attorney and Client, 25, | Protection of child in commission of
26.
crime.
PARENT AND CHILD.
See, also, Bastardy; Guardian and Ward;
fancy.
Earnings of child, see Infancy, 5, 6.
7. A parent has no right to protect his child
in the commission of crime, though he may de-
fend the child as the child itself might do.-
In-State v. Herdina, 25 Minn. 161.
Parks.
Support of child-Liability of mother. City, see Municipal Corporations, 202–210.
1. A widow after marriage to a second hus-
band is not liable for the support of her minor
child by her former husband, where such child
has property of his own. She is entitled to have
the income of the child's property applied to his
support. In re Besondy, 20 N. W. 366, 32 Minn.
385.
Liability of stepfather.
Parol Agreement.
See Frauds, Statute of; Insurance, 12-15; Work
and Labor, 1, 2.
Parol Evidence.
Parol Trusts.
2. A stepfather is not bound to maintain the See Evidence, 256-350.
children of his wife by her former husband, un-
less he voluntarily assumes the parental relation,
and receives them into his family under circum-
stances such as to raise a presumption that he
has undertaken to support them gratuitously.-
In re Besondy, 20 N. W. 366, 32 Minn. 385.
Right of child to use of family prop-
erty.
3. The relation of parent and child gives the
latter the right, subject to such regulations as
the parent may adopt, to use in a careful and
proper manner the family property.-Bennett v.
Gillette, 3 Minn. 423, (Gil. 309.)
4. In an action to recover the value of a car-
riage and team of horses, it appeared that defend-
ant, at the request of plaintiff's daughter, under-
took to drive her to a certain place, and that the
horses ran away and were killed, and the car-
riage destroyed. Held, that the daughter had
a right to use plaintiff's property, customarily
applicable to family purposes, and that defendant
had no possession, but was a mere passenger on
the daughter's invitation, and not liable.-Ben-
nett v. Gillette, 3 Minn. 423, (Gil. 309.)
Action for injury to child.
*
5. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 33,
which provides that "a father *
may
maintain an action for the injury of the child, "a
father may maintain an action for injury to his
minor child in all cases where at common law
an action might have been maintained on behalf
of such minor.-Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463.
6. In an action brought by a parent for inju-
ries to a minor child under Gen. St. Minn. 1866,
See Trusts, 13-33.
PARTIES.
Absence, see Limitation of Actions, 48-55; New
Trial, 40-42.
Aliens as parties, see Aliens, 1, 2.
Counterclaims, see Counterclaim and Set-Off.
Death, see Abatement and Revival, 14-28; Judg
Ciao
ment, 2, 3; Limitation of Actions, 47.
Deposition of party as witness, see Deposition,
1, 2.
Designation in pleading, see Pleading, 38.
In actions by
Agent as trustee of express trust, see Principal
and Agent, 101, 102.
Assignee, see Assignment, 27, 28.
Stockholders on behalf of corporations, see Cor-
porations, 122–129.
In actions by or against
Husband or wife, see Husband and Wife, 76.
In actions for
Causing death, see Death by Wrongful Act, 5-7.
Conversion, see Conversion of Personal Prop-
erty, 10-12.
Deceit, see Deceit, 26-30.
Forcible entry and detainer, see Forcible Entry
and Detainer, 6.
Foreclosure, see Mortgages, 336-339.
Nuisance, see Nuisance, 22-24.
1447
1448
PARTIES.
In actions for
rm-
Specific performance, see Specific Perform-
ance, 78-80.
Trespass, see Trespass, 10.
Wrongful attachment, see Attachment, 107.
In actions on
Contracts, see Contracts, 138.
Negotiable instruments, see Negotiable Instru-
ments, 160-166, 172, 173.
Policies of insurance, see Insurance, 125–127.
Replevin bonds, see Replevin, 96.
In actions to
3. The entire legal title being in the plain-
tiff, he could maintain an action for the cancel-
lation of deeds in his own name, although other
parties had some equitable interest in the prop-
erty with him.-Triggs v. Jones, (Minn.) 43 Ñ. Ŵ.
1113.
46 Minn. 277.
4. Defendants executed to plaintiff and two
others in form, jointly, a bond in the penal sum
of $3,000, reciting that the principal obligor had
borrowed a certain sum from plaintiff, and to se-
cure the same had given him a mortgage on her
Enforce mechanics' liens, see Mechanics' Liens, land; that she had also borrowed a certain sum
141-144.
Quiet title, see Quieting Title, 20, 21.
Set aside fraudulent conveyances, see Fraudu-
lent Conveyances, 79–85.
Try tax title, see Taxation, 257, 258.
In bankruptcy proceedings, see Bankruptcy, 3-5.
condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Do-
main, 125-127.
mandamus proceeding, see Mandamus, 26-29.
proceedings by quo warranto, see Quo War-
ranto, 8-12.
to enforce liability of stockholders for cor-
porate debts, see Corporations, 158-165.
to recover possession of demised premises,
see Landlord and Tenant, S7, 88.
Interpleader, see Interpleader.
Intervention in garnishment proceedings, see
Garnishment, 62-73.
New trial as to portion of defendants, see New
Trial, 80-82.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 17-23, 151-160,
683.
Parol evidence as to parties to written instru-
ment, see Evidence, 323-328.
Presumptions as to, on appeal, see Appeal and
Error, 408, 409.
Privilege from service of process, see Summons,
23, 24.
Requiring performance of physical act by party,
see Trial, 1, 2.
Right to fees as witnesses, see Witness, 113.
Substitution of indemnitors of sheriff, see Sheriffs
and Constables, 46.
To contract, see Contracts, 56-65; Frauds, Stat-
ute of, 58, 59; Specific Performance, 7–10.
covenant, see Covenants, 1, 2.
deed, see Deed, 3-6.
>
judgment, see Judgment, 115–131.
Who may sue-Party in interest.
1. One to whom a note and accompanying
mortgage are given may enforce the same in his
own name, though a third person has an interest
in the debt.-Lundburg v. Northwestern Elevator
Co., 43 N. W. 685, 42 Minn. 37.
Proper or necessary parties-Plaintiffs.
|
from the other obligors, and to secure the same
had given them a second mortgage; and that
she was about to erect a house on the land. The
conditions were that the bond should be void if
she erected the house according to certain spec-
ifications, and that in case of her default plain-
tiff should have the right to complete the house,
and recover on the bond the sum expended by
him in doing so; that the bond should first ap-
ply to the payment of any claim plaintiff might
have by reason of the principal obligor's default
in its conditions; and that the liability to the
other obligees, in case of such default, should be
limited to the deficiency, if any, after foreclosure
and sale of the premises under their second
mortgage. Held that, on default, plaintiff could
sue on the bond without joining his co-obligees,
since it is apparent that distinct obligations
were assumed in favor of plaintiff from those in
favor of his co-obligees.-Sprague v. Wells,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 535.
47 Minn. 504.
Defendants.
5. In an action by a stockholder of a bank, pray-
ing the dissolution of the corporation, the vacation
of an assignment made by the president and cash-
ier, alleged to have been made without the knowl-
edge of the stockholders, and with intent to
defraud them, removal of the assignee, and ap-
pointment of a receiver, the bank, the president,
and the cashier and assignee, are all proper parties
Mitchell v. Bank of St. Paul, 7
Minn. 252, (Gil. 192.)
defendant.
•
6. The cashier is a proper party, though no
fraud on his part is shown, nor relief as to him
asked. ATWATER, J., dissenting. Mitchell v.
Bank of St. Paul, 7 Minn. 252, (Gil. 192.)
7. Plaintiff was owner, and S. & J. M. pledgees,
of certain personal property, which they, with S.
& E. L., as parties of the first part, transferred to
B. and others, as parties of the second part, and B.
was constituted agent and trustee of the other
parties of the second part, and given power to sell
certain of the property, and apply the proceeds to
the payment of certain debts, the remainder of the
2. In an equitable action brought to cancel a property being leased by the parties of the second
contract by which three persons-A. and B. as co- part to S. & E. L.; and it was agreed that plaintiff,
partners, and C.-became agents for several other on paying the balance of the debts, should have a
persons in the purchase and management of real reconveyance of such remainder of the property,
property, and to recover a stated sum of money and that, on his default, B. should have power,
which, it was claimed, had been made and kept by after a certain time, to sell the same. Held, in an
the copartners in buying the property for less than action against the trustee and some of the cestuis
the amount represented by them to the principals que trustent for an accounting, that S. & E. L., as
as the purchase price, the fact being unknown to lessees of the parties of the second part, were not
C., C. is a proper party plaintiff to the action.-proper parties defendant, nor was one of the pledg
Crump v. Ingersoll, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 141.
44 Minn. 84.
ees whose debt had been paid, but that the other
pledgee and S. L. were proper defendants, as debt
1449
1450.
PARTIES.
ors in one of the unpaid debts.-Fish v. Berkey, 10 | claim, different parties, holding under several
Minn. 199, (Gil. 161.)
.
8. A complaint against J. and W. alleged
that defendants were partners under a certain
firm name. The answer alleged that the firm
was composed of defendants and one R. On
plaintiff's motion, it was ordered that R. be
made a party defendant, and that he answer the
complaint. The complaint stated no cause of ac-
tion against R., and was not amended so as to
cure the defect. Held, that the order making R.
a defendant to the action was erroneous, and
should have been vacated.-Penfield v. Wheeler,
7 N. W., 364, 27 Minn. 358.
9. In a suit to enjoin the foreclosure of a mort-
gage on the ground that it has already been satis-
fied, the person to whom the notes secured by the
mortgage are payable is not a necessary party.
Redin v. Branhan, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 445.
43 Minn. 283.
10. The assignor of a mortgage, who covenants
that it is unpaid, is not a necessary party to a suit
against the assignee to enjoin the foreclosure of
the mortgage on the ground that it had been sat-
isfied prior to the assignment.-Redin v. Branhan,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 445.
43 Minn. 283.
11. A deed conveying real estate cannot be re-
formed in an action to which the owners are not
parties.-Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 1129.
46 Minn. 321.
12. A bill alleged that defendant had an equit-
able interest in land under a contract with the hold-
er of the legal title, one P., and that he assigned such
interest to plaintiff; that, after P. died, defendant
procured his successor to sell all the land to third
persons, having no notice of either contract or as-
signment, thereby divesting plaintiff's interest;
that defendant did this to defraud plaintiff, and
that he received the profits of the transaction;
and it prayed an accounting, etc., against him.
Held, that P.'s successor was not a necessary
party where it appeared that P.'s claims had been
satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale.-Smith v.
Glover, (Minn.) 46 Ñ. W. 406.
44 Minn. 260.
fraudulent conveyances from the debtor, may be
joined in one action as defendants.-North v. Brad-
way, 9 Minn. 183, (Gil. 169.)
15. Where property in dispute between par-
ties claiming title thereto is sold, and proceeds
paid into court to abide the event of the action,
an action by the real owner, who is not a party
to the former proceedings, may be maintained
against all such claimants for the recovery of the
fund so in the hands of the court, and his cause
of action is single, though defendants thereto
claim through different titles.-Mann v. Flower,
25 Minn. 500.
16. The complaint in an action for damages for
negligence and unskillfulness of defendant as a
physician and surgeon alleged, in substance,
that defendant and G. were copartners as prac-
ticing physicians and surgeons; that plaintiff
employed the firm to treat him professionally;
that part of the time G. attended him, and did
his work skillfully; that the remainder of the
time defendant attended him, and performed his
duties negligently and unskillfully, causing the
injuries complained of. Held, that this was an
action on the contract, the gist and gravamen of
which was the breach of contract, and that both
copartners should be joined as defendants.-Whit-
taker v. Collins, 25 N. W. 632, 34 Minn. 299.
*
17. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 36, provid
ing that "persons severally liable upon the same
obligation or instrument *
may all or any
of them be included in the same action," in an ac-
tion on a contractor's bond, given to plaintiff con-
ditioned that the contractor should pay all claims,
and prevent a lien from attaching, plaintiff may
join all, or one or more, of the persons severally
liable.-Steffes v. Lemke, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 302.
40 Minn. 27.
18. An order improperly allowing persons to
be made parties defendant to an action for the
specific performance of a contract to convey
may be vacated on motion as matter of right, and
a petition for that purpose is unnecessary.-Steele
v. Taylor, 1 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
19. Excess of parties defendant is not a ground
of demurrer by a party properly sued.-Lewis v.
Williams, 3 Minn. 151, (Gil. 95;) Nichols v. Ran-
13. In an action against a city to enjoin the pay-dall, 5 Minn. 304, (Gil. 240.)
Defect of parties.
ment of a certificate of indebtedness, the complaint
alleged that the certificate was for money advanced
for grading a street in the ninth ward, and was is-
sued and held by D. as a claim against the city, to be
charged in account against the ninth ward funds;
that said certificate was for value received as-
signed to D.; and that he was the owner thereof,
and the same was wholly unpaid; and, by reason
of further allegations in the complaint, plaintiff in-
sisted that the claim was invalid, and prayed that
the city be enjoined from taking any steps for its
payment. Held that, as the complaint showed on
its face that D. was the owner of the claim, he
was a necessary party.-Graham v. City of Min-
neapolis, 42 N. W. 291, 40 Minn. 436.
Joinder of defendants.
14. In an action by a creditor to subject prop-
erty fraudulently conveyed to the payment of his
20. Where there is a clear defect of necessary
parties, it may be allowable for the court to sug-
gest the defect and continue the cause until they
are added; but the court will not, when such de-
fect is first suggested or becomes apparent at the
hearing, for that cause absolutely dismiss the
complaint.-Cover v. Town of Baytown, 12 Minn.
124, (Gil. 71.)
Misnomer.
21. The full names of the parties should be
used in the title of a cause, not the initials
merely.-Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20, (Gil. 7;)
Gardner v. McClure, 6 Minn. 250, (Gil. 167.)
22. The use of initials in designating either
plaintiff or defendant in judicial proceedings is
1451
1452
PARTIES.
bad practice, but not ground for demurrer.
Gardner v. McClure, 6 Minn. 250, (Gil. 167.)
23. The fact that the parties to an action are
designated by the initials of their Christian names
is no ground for the dismissal of the complaint, the
proper remedy being a motion to require the com-
plaint to be amended in that respect.-Kenyon v.
Semon, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 10.
43 Minn. 180.
24. The word "junior" is no part of a man's
name, and need not be used in legal proceedings.
-Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 78, (Gil. 45.)
25. A judgment entered by default against one
who is sued by a wrong name, there being no
suggestion that his real name is unknown, or
that he is known by one name as well as the
other, is rendered without jurisdiction of defend-
ant's person, and is void.-Atwood v. Landis, 22
Minn. 558.
Intervention and substitution.
31. On an application by purchasers of land
at execution sale to be made parties to a suit
in regard to the same, the failure of plaintiff to
appear is no evidence of consent that such pur-
chasers may be made parties.-Steele v. Taylor,
1 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
32. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 131, provides
that "any person who has an interest in the mat-
ter in litigation, in the success of either of the
parties to the action, or against either or both,
may become a party to any action or proceeding
between other persons. " Held that, to entitle a
party to intervene, he must have an interest in
the matter in litigation of such direct and im-
mediate character that he will either gain or lose
by the direct legal effect and operation of the
judgment therein.-Bennett v. Whitcomb, 25
Minn. 148.
33. In an action to reform certain conveyances,
and the power under which they were made,
26. Defendant, William H. Landis, was sued with reference to the description of the land, a
as "William A. Landers," without any sugges- party claiming under an adverse tax-title has not
tion that the latter was not his right name. Sum- such an interest as will entitle him to intervene.
mons was personally served, and judgment by de--Bennett v. Whitcomb, 25 Minn. 148.
fault duly entered Held, that the court ac-
quired no jurisdiction, and that the judgment
and subsequent order, made on notice, amending
the proceedings by substituting the true name,
were void.-Atwood v. Landis, 22 Minn. 558.
Distinguished in Morse v. Barrows, 33 N. W. 707, 87
Minn. 240.
27. In an action commenced by attachment be-
fore a justice of the peace, the justice, under sec-
tion 10, c. 65, Gen. St. 1878, may, upon a plea in
abatement for misnomer of the defendant, order
the process and proceedings corrected by insert-
ing the true name. To justify that, it is not nec-
essary that the process should state that the de-
fendant's true name is unknown.-Morse v. Bar-
rows, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 706.
37 Minn. 239.
Distinguishing Atwood v. Landis, 22 Minn. 558.
28. In a service of summons by publication un-
der Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 64, a mistake in print-
ing the name of the defendant "Berlah M. P." in-
stead of "Beulah M. P.," the true name, is not so
misleading as to affect the validity of the service.
-Lane v. Innes, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 4.
43 Minn. 137.
29. One who accepts and places on record a
conveyance of land to himself, wherein his name
as grantee is erroneously written, knowing of the
misnomer, will be deemed to have adopted such
name for the purpose of acquiring and holding the
land, and cannot complain if, in judicial pro-
ceedings against him with respect to such title,
service by publication of a summons is addressed
to him by such name, and a judgment thereon is
effectual as against him.-Blinn v. Chessman,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 666.
Idem sonans.
30. The similarity between the names "Will-
iam H. Landis" and "William A. Landers" is
not such as to constitute a case of idem sonans.
-Atwood v. Landis, 22 Minn. 558.
debt is due, unpaid, and exceeds in amount the
34. The holder of a chattel mortgage whose
value of mortgaged property alleged to have been
destroyed by the negligence of a third person, has
an interest of such direct and immediate char-
acter, in the result of an action brought by the
mortgagor against such third person to recover
the value of said property, as will entitle him to
intervene and participate in the litigation.-Wohl-
wend v. J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Co., (Minn.)
44 N. W. 517.
42 Minn. 500.
35. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 41, whick
provides that an action may be prosecuted to the
end in the name of the original party notwith-
standing any transfer of interest, plaintiff in &
suit against a railroad company for negligently
setting fire to his buildings may continue the ac-
tion, although the insurance company has paič
him the full amount of his insurance on the build
ings.-Nichols v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 32 N. W. 176.
36 Minn. 452.
36. After an action had been brought against
a sheriff for wrongful levy of attachments, the
sheriff's indemnitors were brought in as defend-
ants. Held that, although the facts as to the
giving of the indemnity and showing that the
indemnitors were chargeable were not pleaded
either in the complaint or in the answer of the
sheriff, the defect was cured by the answer of
the indemnitors, setting forth those facts. —Lesher
v. Getman, 15 N. W. 309, 30 Minn. 321.
37. In Minnesota, a stranger to an action can-
not make any motion or application therein ex-
cept to be made a party.-Mann v. Flower, 5 N.
W. 365, 26 Minn. 479.
·
38. Where application is made to the court
for leave to intervene, though no such leave is
required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 131,
relating to interventions, it is not improper prac-
tice for the court, on such motion, all parties
1453
1454
PARTIES—PARTITION.
being before it, to consider questions in refer-
ence thereto, the same as if raised on motion to
strike out the intervener's complaint.-Bennett
v. Whitcomb, 25 Minn. 148.
39. Under Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 124, provid-
ing that the court may, before or after judgment,
amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or
striking out the name of any party, or by cor-
recting a mistake in the name of a party, the
court may amend the record in an action brought
by a guardian in his own name, instead of his
ward's, to recover insurance due the ward, by
inserting the ward's name as plaintiff.-Perine
v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., (Minn.) 50 N. W.
1022.
40. Where an appeal is from an order bringing
up only a portion of the record, a motion for sub-
stitution pending appeal should be in the court be-
low; but, if the appeal brings up the entire case,
it should be in the appellate court.-Keough v.
McNitt, 7 Minn. 29, (Gil. 15.)
Jurisdiction.
PARTITION.
1. The power to make partition, conferred upon
the probate court by Gen. St. Minn. c. 55, is only
given as an incident of settling the estates of de-
ceased persons, and as a part of the final step of
administration,-viz., the decree of distribution,-
and can only be exercised while the land is still in
the possession of the court for the purposes of ad-
ministration. After the administration is closed,
and the land assigned to the heirs by a decree of
distribution in common or undivided shares, no
subsequent proceeding for partition can be insti-
tuted in the probate court.-Hurley v. Hamilton,
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 912.
tiff.
37 Minn. 160.
tenants in common, for that chapter does not
require that the party seeking partition should
be in actual possession of the land.-Cook v.
Webb, 19 Minn. 167, (Gil. 129.)
5. The whole matter of title, and of the rights
of the parties in the premises, may be determined,
and a partition ordered, whenever the plaintiff
shows himself seised of the requisite title, whether
the land is held or claimed adversely to him or
not.-Bonham v. Weymouth, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 805.
39 Minn. 92.
6. The action for partition will not lie against,
and the judgment and partition will not affect the
estate of, one who is only tenant for life of the
whole property of which partition is sought.--
Smalley v. Isaacson, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 352.
40 Minn. 450.
7. It will lie for partition of the reversion, al-
though the land be in possession, under an out-
standing particular estate. Following Cook v.
Webb, 19 Minn. 167, (Gil. 129.)-Smalley v. Isaac-
son, (Minn.) 42 N. Ŵ. 352.
Summons.
40 Minn. 450.
""
8. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 74, § 2, provides
that a summons in partition "shall be addressed
by name to all owners and lienholders who are
known, and generally to all persons unknown,
having or claiming an interest in the property.
Held, where the complaint shows that the only per-
sons having or claiming an interest in the property
are plaintiffs and defendants, the summons is
sufficient, the title of the action being given, if
addressed "to the above-named defendants. "-.
Martin v. Parker, 14 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Pleading-Complaint.
9. Where the complaint in an action for par-
tition, in alleging plaintiff's title to the land in
When action lies-Possession of plain- controversy, avers that such title was acquired
through a deed from the city in proceedings to
enforce an assessment for local improvements,
and alleges the execution of the certificate of
sale and deed, but does not allege the rendition
of the judgment in such proceedings, the com-
plaint is insufficient, since it does not show any
authority in the city to execute the deed.-Bell
v. Dangerfield, 3 N. W. 698, 26 Minn. 307.
2. Where the purchaser at a foreclosure sale
under a mortgage executed by tenants in common
afterwards purchases the right of one of the co-
tenants to redeem, the estate so acquired is not
merged in his previous equitable estate, and he has
a right to partition as against the other co-tenant,
who paid redemption money to the sheriff in full
of the mortgage both as to himself and co-tenant,
after the transfer of the co-tenant's right to re-
deem.-Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 289, (Gil. 216.)
3. Actual possession of premises, or right to
the actual possession thereof, is not necessary to
enable one tenant in common to maintain an ac-
tion for partition, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
74, which provides that partition may be had by
any one who has an estate of inheritance, or for
life or for years, as joint tenant or tenant in com-
mon of land.-Cook v. Webb, 19 Minn. 167, (Gil.
129.)
4. Where lands leased for a term of years are
in the actual possession of the lessee, and owned
by several persons as tenants in common, both of
the rents and the reversionary estate, they may
be partitioned, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 74,
in an action brought by one of such owners and
Judgment for sale-Motion to vacate.
10. Non-resident defendants were served by pub-
lication only. For want of an answer, judgment
was rendered, and the lands sold to plaintiff by a
referee; it having been found by the court that
partition could not be made without great preju-
dice to the owners. Sale was confirmed, and the
lands afterwards conveyed by plaintiff to alleged
bona fide purchasers. A part of defendants sea-
sonably and properly moved, on affidavits and an-
swers, to vacate the judgment, and set aside all
proceedings subsequent thereto, and allow de-
fenses on the merits. The affidavits and answers
were ample in form and substance, and were con-
fessedly true. Held, that it was not necessary to
make the alleged bona fide purchasers parties to
said motion, nor need they be notified of its pend-
ency; and that the court erred in refusing to per-
mit the interposition of the proposed answers, and
1455
1456
PARTITION-PARTNERSHIP, I.
in denying a trial on the merits.-Welch v. Marks, | Counterclaims by or against partners, see Coun-
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 611.
Appeal.
39 Minn. 481.
11. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 74, § 6, provides that
i suit for partition, where the titles of the parties
have been duly proved or admitted, the court shall
render judgment that partition be made, and shall
appoint three referees to make it according to the
respective rights of the parties as determined by
the action. Section 8 provides that upon the con-
firmation of the report of these referees judgment
shall be rendered that such partition shall be ef-
fectual forever, etc. Held, that the judgment
provided for by section 8 is the final judgment in
the suit, and, on appeal from that, the judgment
prescribed in section 6 may be reviewed.-Dob-
berstein v. Murphy, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 171.
44 Minn. 526.
Occupying claimants - Improvements
and taxes.
12. The provisions of the occupying claim-
ants law, (Gen. St. Minn. c. 75, §§ 15-24,) by
which one, who goes into possession of land under
color of title in good faith has a lien for improve-
ments made, and taxes paid, by him without re-
gard to the consent of the real owner, apply to the
action for partition.-Smalley v. Isaacson, (Minn.)
42 N. W 352.
40 Minn. 450.
13. A tenant for life, making improvements
and paying taxes during the continuance of the
life-estate, is not entitled to the benefits of the oc-
cupying claimants law. Smalley v. Isaacson,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 352.
40 Minn. 450.
14. The value of improvements belonging to
tenant for years of lands partitioned, and which
do not form a part of the realty to be divided, is
immaterial in a suit for partition.—Cook v. Webb,
19 Minn. 167, (Gil. 129.)
PARTNERSHIP.
I. THE CONTRACT, 1–18.
11. FIRM PROPERTY, 19-26.
terclaim and Set-Off, 32-34.
Declarations of partners as evidence, see Evi-
dence, 86, 87.
Exempt property, see Exemptions, 18, 19.
Insolvency, see Insolvency, 80, 81.
Joint owners of vessel, see Shipping, 1–3.
Mortgage to partnership, see Mortgages, 30.
Partners as agents, see Principal and Agent, 38.
Promise by purchaser of goods of firm to pay firm
debts, see Novation, 4.
Real property, see Adverse Claim, 10; Deed, 85;
Frauds, Statute of, 50; Mortgages, 50; Specific
Performance, 10.
Suretyship between partners, see Principal and
Surety, 1, 2.
I. THE CONTRACT.
What constitutes as between the par-
ties.
1. Tenants in common of certain real estate
entered into a contract for the construction of cer-
tain mills thereon, each to contribute a certain
proportion of the expense, and after the construc-
tion to run the same, sharing profits in a certain
proportion. Held, that they were not thereby
partners in the ownership of the mills, and a claim
of one against the other for failure to perform was
a personal claim, and not one against the real es-
tate.-Moody v. Rathburn, 7 Minn. 89, (Gil. 58.)
2. Plaintiffs and defendant entered into articles
of a copartnership for a certain time; defendant
to have the privilege at the end of that period of
receiving, instead of a share of the profits, a certain
sum as salary for his services. At the end of the
time specified, he took the gross amount, instead
of a share of the profits. Held that, as between
themselves, they were partners, with the privilege
on the part of defendant to be a partner or salaried
employe, and that at his choice to be an employe
the plaintiffs remained partners.-Bidwell v. Madi-
son, 10 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
3. By a contract between plaintiffs and de-
fendants for the purchase of eggs during a cer-
tain period, and for the storage and sale of the
eggs on joint account, the funds required were
to be furnished in equal proportions. Either
party was to have the right to make sales. No
III. POWER OF PARTNERS TO BIND THE FIRM, 27- compensation was to be charged by either for
51.
IV. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF PARTNERS INTER
SE, 52-71.
services, and the profit or loss was to be equally
divided. Held, that this created a copartner-
ship between them, which was dissolved by the
V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF FIRM AND PRI- completion of the business contemplated. -Bohrer
VATE CREDITORS, 72–76.
VI. CHANGES OF FIRM-INCOMING AND RETIRING
PARTNERS-Successive FIRMS, 77-83.
VII. ACTIONS, 84-98.
VIII. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 99.
See, also, Associations.
Acceptance by partner, see Negotiable Instru-
ments, 118.
Assignment by, see Assignment for Benefit of
Creditors, 37-42; Insolvency, 18-23.
Assignment of mortgage by, see Mortgages, 103.
Attachment of interest of partner, see Attach-
ment, 13.
Continuance by executors, see Executors and Ad-
ministrators, 38, 39.
v. Drake, 23 N. W. 840, 33 Minn. 408.
4. Where a complaint alleges that plaintiff
was entitled to a share in the profits of a transac-
tion set out in the complaint, that he was to con-
tribute more or less of his time, and was to repay
to defendants money advanced by them for his in-
terest, without regard to profit or loss, it alleges
facts constituting him a partner, and when the
business is at an end, and the assets reduced to
money, he is entitled to an accounting.—Stern v.
Harris, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1036.
40 Minn. 209.
5. J., without authority, but assuming to act
as a guardian for his infant son T., entered into
a partnership agreement with one V. The money
1457
1458
PARTNERSHIP, I., II.
required to be contributed was paid by J. from
is own means, and by the agreement he was au-
trorized to act in all firm matters for T. The
share of the profits coming to T. was drawn by
J., and mingled with his other moneys, and no
account thereof was ever given to T. The trans-
action was never ratified by T. Held, that the
evidence showed a partnership between J. and
V. only.-Miles v. Von Deyn, 6 N. W. 417, 27
Minn. 56.
holding themselves out to be partners; and, upon
the principle of estoppel, this may be by words
spoken or written, or by conduct leading to the be-
lief that they are partners.-Cirkel v. Ellis, (Minn.)
31 N. W. 513, 36 Minn. 323.
Evidence.
pose it, may, at least in behalf of a third person, be
14. The fact of a copartnership, and who com-
proved orally, though there be written articles.-
What constitutes as to third persons-McEvoy v. Bock, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 740, 37 Minn. 402
Holding out as partners.
6. Where two persons engage in carrying on a
business, one furnishing the capital and the other
the labor and skill, and they share the profits, they
are partners, at least as to third persons.-Wright v.
Davidson, 13 Minn. 449, (Gil. 415;) Warner v.
Myrick, 16 Minn. 91, (Gil. 81.)
7. An agreement to share the profits of a busi-
ness, nothing being said about the losses, will
constitute a partnership as to third persons.
Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 91, (Gil. 81.)
8. An agreement between a surviving part-
ner and the widow and next of kin provided that
such surviving partner should continue the busi-
ness, and, among other things, that the profits
should be divided according to the respective
interests of the parties; the same to be divided
and apportioned annually, by taking an inven-
tory, keeping accounts, etc. Held, that such
agreement created a partnership as to third par-
ties.-Delaney v. Dutcher, 23 Minn. 373.
9. An agreement by which a debt due from
one is charged to and assumed by another, to be
paid out of the profits of a partnership of which
the latter is a member, does not have the effect to
make the former a member of such partnership.-
Delaney v. Timberlake, 23 Minn. 383.
10. Although articles of partnership may be in
writing, still one who has been held out as a
partner, or is, in fact, a dormant partner, and
who has not signed the articles, may be sued
and held liable jointly with those who did sign.-
Wood v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 394, (Gil. 365.)
11. Defendants entered into articles of associ-
ation for the purpose of securing the extension
and improvement of a public street, not for any
purpose of gain or profit, intending to become in-
corporated; but they failed to perfect the pro-
posed incorporation. Held, that the prosecution
of the contemplated work by the incorporated
association did not constitute the association a
partnership, nor make defendants copartners,
with authority in each to bind all by acts with-
in the scope of the business undertaken. -Johnson
v. Corser, 25 N. W. 799, 34 Minn. 355; Upton v.
Same, 25 N. W. 801, 34 Minn. 355.
12. The mere stating of an account between the
actually contracting parties does not impose a li-
ability upon another, who, after the dealings in
question, may be discovered to have been held out
as a partner of one of the contracting parties.-
Brown v. Grant, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 268.
39 Minn. 404,
13. Persons not partners inter se may render
themselves liable as such, as to third persons, by
|
15. In an action against a firm, where one of the
defendants is charged, not as an actual member of
the firm, but as having held himself out as such,
the testimony of the other defendant as to wheth-
er he told plaintiff at the time of the dealings
sued on that the first defendant was a partner or
responsible as such is admissible to establish an
estoppel to deny the partnership.-Brown v.
Grant, 40 N. W. 268, 39 Minn. 404.
16. A declaration of one person that another not
present is his partner is not competent evidence to
charge the other as partner.-McNamara v. Eustis,
48 N. W. 1123, 46 Minn. 311.
17. The fact that parties hold themselves out as
partners is prima facie evidence that they are
such.-McCarthy v. Nash, 14 Minn. 127, (Gil. 95.)
Refusal to consummate agreement.
18. An instrument embodying the terms of a
proposed partnership was signed with the under-
standing between the parties that it should be
operative only on fulfillment of certain conditions,
and for that reason it was retained by the scrivener.
Held, there having been no delivery of the instru-
ment, that no action would lie for the refusal of
one of the parties to consummate the partnership.
-Hill v. Webb, 45 N. W. 1133, 43 Minn. 545.
II. FIRM PROPERTY.
What constitutes.
in the name of one or more partners, may, in
19. Lands, although the legal title may stand
equity, become partnership property, by agree-
ment between the parties in writing or parol, ex-
pressed or implied.-Arnold v. Wainwright, 6
Minn. 358, (Gil. 241.)
19a. A contract between I. and M. recited a
purchase of lands by M., and provided that he
should manage, sell and dispose of the land with
the consent of I., who should use his best endeav-
ors to release the lands from certain liens, and
that the profits should be divided, one-third to I.,
and the remainder to M. Held, that this created
a partnership, so that notice to I. of certain equi-
table titles in the land was binding on M.-King
v. Remington, 29 N. W. 353, 36 Minu. 15.
20. Plaintiffs and C. entered into a joint un-
dertaking as partners for the erection of cer-
tain structures on land purchased by them.
Lumber was bought by plaintiffs, delivered on
the ground, and there used in the building, with
their knowledge, by C., who had the active con-
trol and supervision. Held, that his taking pos-
session and so using the building material made
the whole of it the property of the firm. -Person
v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 189.
1459
1460
PARTNERSHIP, II., III.
Transfer.
21. A debt due from an individual member of
the firm to the partnership for services performed
by the partnership is partnership property, and
may be sold and transferred to a third person,
and an action at law maintained thereon by such
assignee for the recovery thereof.-Russell v.
Minnesota Outfit, 1 Minn. 162, (Gil. 136.)
22. Partnership real estate is in equity re-
garded as personalty, and is subject to the same
liability, and the partners to the same restric-
tions in regard to its disposition, as in the case of
other partnership property.-Arnold v. Wain-
wright, 6 Minn. 358, (Gil. 241.)
Mortgage in firm name.
23. A partnership may take a mortgage of
personal property in the firm name, as security
for a debt to the partnership. -Kellogg v. Olson,
24 N. W. 364, 34 Minn. 103.
24. In a mortgage of real estate the mortgagee
was designated as "D. B. Dorman & Co.," which
was the name of a partnership composed of one
D. B. Dorman and another. Held, that the mort-
gage operated only in favor of Dorman, whose
name was contained in the partnership name.-
Gille v. Hunt, 29 N. W. 2, 35 Minn. 357.
Buildings and machinery on land
partner.
want of authority is not on the partnership.
Bank of Commerce v. Selden, 3 Mina. 155, (Gil. 99.)
Contracts-Seal.
30. When a written contract, not required to be
under seal, within the scope of the partnership
business, is executed under seal by one partner in
behalf of the firm, the seal may be rejected as sur-
plusage, and the instrument treated as the parol
contract of the partnership.-Sterling v. Bock,
(Minn.) 41 N. W.‍236.*
40 Minn. 11.
31. Where a contract in behalf of a partnership,
executed under seal by one partner, is ratified by
the other partners, it becomes the deed of the firm
as fully as if executed under seal by all the part-
ners. Sterling v. Bock, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 236.
40 Minn. 11.
32. A debt due a firm is merged in a sealed
contract, as to the time and conditions of payment,
made by one of the partners in his own name, but
authorized and ratified by the firm.-Clark v. Lin-
deke, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 326.
Guaranty.
44 Minn. 112.
33. The implied authority of a partner to binà
his copartners in matters within the general
scope of the partnership business does not extend
of to guarantying the debt of a third person.-Sel-
den v. Bank of Commerce, 3 Minn. 166, (Gil. 108.)
25. A firm composed of M. and B. erected with
firm money certain buildings and machinery on
land owned by M. for the purposes of the firm
business, which was thereafter carried on there.
No express agreement was made between M. and
B. with reference to the ownership of the build-
ing and machinery, which were affixed to the
land. Afterwards M. borrowed money for the
purpose of paying the firm debts, and gave a
mortgage on the land, buildings, etc., to secure the
loan. Held, that the mortgage passed the rights
of the firm to the buildings and machinery on the
mortgaged land.-Chittenden v. German-Amer-
ican Bank, 6 N. W. 773, 27 Minn. 143.
Evidence.
26. Parol evidence is competent to show land
held by one partner to be in fact partnership
property. Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co.,
21 Minn. 127.
III. POWER OF PARTNERS TO BIND THE FIRM.
In general.
27. A partner is not bound by an act of his
copartner unless within the general scope of the
partnership business, or authorized or recognized
by him.—Irvine v. Myers, 4 Minn. 229, (Gil. 164.)
28. Where a writ of attachment for the col-
lection of a firm debt is issued by one partner
without the knowledge of the other, but in the
firm name, and property is wrongfully taken,
both partners are liable for the conversion.-
Vanderburgh v. Bassett, 4 Minn. 242, (Gil. 171.)
29. Query, where one deals with a partner,
supposing him to have authority in the premises
from the firm, whether the burden of showing
34. Where one partner guarantied the debt of
another person in the firm name, an instruction
to the jury, in an action upon the guaranty, that
if the party to whom it was made had reason to
believe that it was made with authority to use
the firm name, the firm would be liable, is im-
proper, and ground for a new trial. -Selden v.
Bank of Commerce, 3 Minn. 166, (Gil. 108.)
35. The partnership relation does not of itself
authorize a partner to guaranty in the name of the
firm the obligations of a third person, and the bur-
den of showing authority in him to do so is on
the person seeking to enforce such guaranty
against the firm.-D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Stone,
13 N. W. 922, 30 Minn. 25.
of farm machinery as agents, under contracts by
36. The business of a partnership was the sale
the terms of which, whenever they sold a ma-
chine partly on credit, they were to take a note
of the purchaser for the unpaid part of the pur-
chase money, and guaranty payment thereof.
Held, that a guaranty by one of the partners of
the note given by a person who purchased such
a machine from a purchaser thereof from the
firm, on an arrangement that such note should
be substituted for the note given to the firm by
the original purchaser, was outside the business
of the partnership, and merely for accommoda-
tion, and did not bind the other partner.-D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Thompson, 28 N. W. 260, 35
Minn. 229.
Negotiable instruments.
37. Where one partner draws his own draft :n
plaintiff's favor, and then accepts it in the name
of the firm, prima facie the firm is not liable
upon such acceptance, and plaintiff cannot re-
cover without proving that such acceptance was
1461
1462
PARTNERSHIP, III.
1
1
within the general scope of the partnership bus- |
iness, or was made with the authority or consent
of the remaining partners.-Bank of Commerce
v Selden, 3 Minn. 155, (Gil. 99.)
38. Articles of copartnership provided that
moneys needed for purchases for the firm should
"be drawn for by the operating agent" of the
firm on one of its members, and a further clause
provided that "neither party, nor the agent of
the parties, shall sign the firm name to any note
or evidence of indebtedness, except with the
concurrence of both parties." Held, that the sec-
ond provision was not intended as a restriction
on the authority conferred on the operating
agent by the first provision, and that drafts
drawn by the agent, and signed in the firm
name “by B., agent, were authorized by the
agreement.-Gaslin v. Pinney, 23 Minn. 26.
"}
Application of payments.
nership name used for the accommodation of, or
as surety for, the partner or a third person, and
such fact is known to the creditor, or is implied
from the nature of the transection, at the time
the note or other instrument is received by him,
the burden of proof is thrown upon the creditor
to show a previous authority or subsequent con-
sent on the part of the other partners before they
3 Minn. 155, (Gil. 99. }
can be charged.-Bank of Commerce v. Selden,
42. One partner cannot, without the consent of
ment, made in the firm name, to apply the part-
his copartners, bind the partnership by his agree-
nership property in satisfaction of his individual
debts.-Hinds v. Backus, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 655.
45 Minn. 170.
43. A partner bought goods from the firm, and
gave his note therefor, payable to the firm, which
it indorsed and had discounted, using the proceeds
in its business. The note was afterwards renewed
several times by the maker executing a new note,
and procuring the indorsement of the firm to be
made by one duly authorized to indorse the firm's
paper. Held, that the firm was liable on such in-
dorsements.-Wilson v. Richards, 9 N. W. 872, 28
Minn. 337.
39. Plaintiff sold defendant, March 7th, a bill of
goods on 60 days' credit. April 1st, defendant
took S. into partnership. April 16th and 17th, and
May 18th, plaintiff sold to the firm, (but in the
name of defendant,) three other bills of goods on
60 days' credit. May 14th, defendant paid plain-
tiff $50 to apply on the bill of March 7th, and June
18th, paid $100 to be applied generally on account,
a statement of which was presented by plaintiff,
which included the bill of March 7th. July 23d, dividual debt due them from H. of $814, and sent
44. Plaintiffs drew a draft on one H. for an in-
plaintiff presented to S., in defendant's absence, the draft to a bank for collection. H. gave the
an account which contained the last three bills, bank his individual check for $500, and the
(but not that of March 7th,) on which was credited check of the firm of H. & Co., which firm was
$150, leaving a balance which S. paid, and plaintiff composed of H. and defendant, for the balance
receipted the account. S. then knew nothing due on the draft, $323. Both checks were drawn
about the bill of March 7th. All payments were
made with partnership funds. Plaintiff sued for that when H. and defendant entered into the
on the bank which held the draft. It appeared
the bill of March 7th, and defendant pleaded pay-partnership agreement defendant paid H. $558 to
ment of $50, May 14th, and $100, June 18th. Held,
that the application of those payments having
been made, and the credits accepted by S., de-
fendant's partner, the latter was bound thereby.-
Flarsheim v. Brestrup, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 438.
43 Minn. 298.
40. Two partners, doing business as M. & Co.,
had also become interested in a firm consisting of
three other members, called the "P. E. Co." M. &
Co. acted as the P. E. Co.'s commission house, pro-
ceeds of goods sold being deposited to M. & Co.'s
account in plaintiff bank and remittances made to
the P. E. Co. It being in issue whether loans made
to M. were on account of M. & Co. or the P. E. Co.,
and there being evidence to justify a conclusion
that M. & Co. had made the loans for the P. E. Co.
and misappropriated the funds to their own pur-
poses, in part at least, an instruction that, to hold
the members of the P. E. Co., plaintiff must show
that the business transacted by M. & Co. with
plaintiff was wholly connected with the business
of the P. E. Co.,-that is, that they borrowed and
checked and deposited for the use of the P. E. Co.,
-is error. If M. & Co. made these loans for them-
selves and not for the P. E. Co., and credit was
only given to them, the fact that they afterwards
applied the money for the benefit of the P. E. Co.
would not make the latter liable.-National Bank
of Commerce v. Meader, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1043.
40 Minn. 325.
Payment of individual debt.
41. Where a partnership note is given for the
private debt of one of the partners, or the part-
It
did not appear whether H. had used the $558, or
pay the debt for which the draft was drawn.
that the knowledge of the bank that funds of
had put it in with the funds of the firm. Held,
the firm had been used to pay the draft charged
plaintiffs with notice thereof, and the evidence
was sufficient to justify the submission to the ju-
ry of the question whether H. had authority to
so use the funds of the firm.-Davis v. Smith, 7
N. W. 731, 27 Minn. 390.
45. Where one partner, without the consent of
the others, delivers the note of the firm in pay-
ment of its debts, and of a debt of his own, there
is a failure of consideration to the extent of the
individual debt, and the creditor has the burden
of proving that the other partners consented to
such an application of the note.-Farwell v. St.
Paul Trust Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 326.
Accounts and admissions.
45 Minn. 495.
46. A partner is bound by statements contained
in accounts and communications sent out by his
copartner, where the matters contained therein
are within the scope of the ordinary and author-
ized business of the firm, though he had no knowl-
edge as to the character of such statements.
Coleman v. O'Neil, 1 N. W. 846, 26 Minn. 123.
47. Where two persons undertake a joint agen-
cy, they are partners as far as concerns the prin-
cipal; and an account rendered to the principal,
within the scope of the business, by one of them
1463
1464
PARTNERSHIP, III., IV.
will be binding upon the other, though he had
no knowledge of it, and had no real interest in the
business, but lent his name for the purpose of se-
curing credit for the former.-Milwaukee Har
vester Co. v. Finnegan, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 9.
43 Minn. 183.
48. After the dissolution of a partnership, an
admission by one of the partners does not bind the
others.-National Bank of Commerce v. Meader,
41 N. W. 1043, 40 Minn. 325.
Submission to arbitration.
49. A submission to arbitration by one member
of a firm of a controversy relating to the part-
nership business is not binding on his copartners.
-Walker v. Bean, 26 N. W. 232, 34 Minn. 427.
After dissolution.
50. After dissolution, one member of a firm
cannot waive the statute of limitations upon a
claim already barred, so as to affect the other.
Whitney v. Reese, 11 Minn. 138, (Gil. 87.)
51. After the dissolution of a copartnership,
one partner cannot, by indorsement of a note in
the firm name to one cognizant of the dissolution,
bind as indorsers the other partners of the late
firm, though such indorsement be in payment of
a balance due from such firm to the indorsee.
Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396, (Gil. 342.)
IV. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF PARTNERS INTER SE.
Funds furnished for partnership pur-
poses.
52. By an agreement between plaintiffs and
defendants in the nature of a contract of partner-
ship the funds necessary for the business were
to be furnished in equal proportions by the two
parties, and were to be procured upon their re-
spective notes for equal amounts, the notes of
each party to be indorsed by the other. Held,
that plaintiffs were entitled to be reimbursed for
payments by them on such notes made by defend
ants. -Bohrer v. Drake, 23 N. W. 840, 33 Minn.
408.
Negligence as to goods of firm.
54. By a partnership agreement for the pur-
chase, storage, and sale of eggs on joint account
between plaintiffs and defendants, defendants,
who had a cold storage warehouse, were to store
the eggs therein until disposed of. Held, that
they were liable to plaintiffs for a failure to ex-
ercise ordinary care in keeping the eggs, through
the want of which some of the eggs became
spoiled.-Bohrer v. Drake, 23 N. W. 840, 33 Minn.
108.
Distribution of property.
55. Upon dissolution the property of a firm is
subject first to the payment of firm liabilities.
What is left is the property of the several mem-
bers, and subject to distribution among them.
No one but creditors have any interest in the
disposition made by the firm of its property.—
Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107, (Gil. 89.)
Dissolution by death of partner.
56. A provision in articles of partnership for
the continuance of the partnership for a fixed
period does not prevent the death of a partner
during that period from operating as a dissolution
of the partnership.-Hoard v. Clum, 17 N. W.
275, 31 Minn. 186.
Accounting.
57. Where one partner has the exclusive con-
of the partnership funds and books of account,
trol of the finances, and the custody and control
have exceeded the disbursements, he is, in the
and, on an accounting, it appears that the receipts
absence of anything to show that the excess was
applied to the use of the firm, properly charge-
able with such excess.-Johnson
Johnson v. Garrett, 23
Minn. 565.
58. Plaintiff's share of the profits of a firm in
which he was partner was to be, with a guaran-
ty that it would be at least $5,000 per year. For
three years his share of the profits was credited to
him on the books, but in each year it was less than
the $5,000, and the balance was not credited to
him. Held, that these yearly accountings were
merely to ascertain the net profits and did not alter
Broderick v. Beaupre, (Minn.) 42 N. W. S3.
40 Minn. 379.
Property purchased in fraud of part- the terms of the written partnership agreement.-
nership.
53. H., T., and R. having formed a copart-
nership to buy and sell land, T. advised the pur-
chase of a certain lot offered for sale at $2,500.
While H. and R. were considering the purchase,
T. agreed with the owner that if T. should pro-
cure a purchaser of two-thirds of the lot for
$2,500, the owner would convey to T. for his serv-
ices the other one-third. T. concealed this
agreement from H. and R., and by representing
to them that the one-third of the lot had been
sold to another person, but that the remainder
could still be purchased at $2,500, procured them
to agree to such purchase, and such two-thirds
of the lot was conveyed to the three, and the
one-third T. procured the owner to convey to C.,
the wife of T., for no consideration other than
the agreement between the owner and T. Held,
that C. held the title to the one-third in trust for
H. and R., to the extent of their interest in the
partnership.-Hodge v. Twitchell, 23 N. W. 547,
33 Minn. 389.
59. Where a partner has left a portion of his ac
crued profits in the business, the statute of lim-
itations does not begin to run in any event against
his right to recover this interest before the disso-
lution of the firm.—Broderick v. Beaupre, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 83.
40 Minn. 379.
60. Though the articles of partnership between
plaintiff and defendant provide that defendant
shall be chargeable with all credits given to per-
sons other than those included in a list to be fur-
nished him, no such charge can be made against
him in an accounting, where no list was ever
furnished him.-Cole v. Aune, (Minn.) 49 N. W.
195.
46 Minn. 378.
61. In an action by the wife of a deceased part-
ner against the surviving partner, upon a note
1465
1466
PARTNERSHIP, IV., V.
|
made by the firm, the defendant cannot offset in- by himself and plaintiff in exchange for land in
debtedness alleged to be due him from the estate another state, and had mortgaged the land so
of the deceased partner, on the ground that the received, and received money from the mort-
money loaned to the firm, for which the note was gagee. Held,
gagee. Held, that the complaint was not de-
given, was advanced to her by the deceased part- murrable on the ground that the court had no
ner when his estate was in fact insolvent; for there jurisdiction of the land outside the state, since
must first be an accounting, and the liability of a personal judgment could be rendered against de-
the deceased partner definitely established, be- fendant; nor was it demurrable on the ground
fore assets in her hands can be reached, or she be that several causes of action were improperly
charged as trustee of the estate of the deceased joined, or that it failed to state a cause of action.
partner, or held liable to account in an action be-Shackelton v. Kneisley, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 470.
tween her and the surviving partner. -Little v.
Simonds, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 186.
Action for accounting.
46 Minn, 380.
62. No demand is necessary before bringing
an action for an accounting between partners.
-McClung v. Capehart, 24 Minn. 17.
63. The fact that a member of a firm has failed
to pay the full amount agreed by him to be con-
tributed to the capital stock of a firm will not
prevent his maintaining an action against the
balance of the firm for an accounting.-Palmer v.
Tyler, 15 Minn. 106, (Gil. 81.)
64. In an action by one partner against the
others for an accounting, a person to whom one
of the partners, being insolvent, had transferred
partnership property with intent to defraud the
other partners, and evade payment of his share
of the losses of the firm, inay be properly made
a defendant.—Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 106,
(Gil. 81.)
65. A supplemental bill, filed in a suit between
partners for a dissolution and an accounting, al-
leged that the settlement pleaded in bar by de
fendant was procured on the false inventories of
defendant as to the goods on hand and claims
due the concern and on the books of accounts,
which were false to defendant's knowledge, but
which plaintiffs believed to be correct.
sufficient, although the original bill alleged as a
ground of dissolution the making of "defective"
inventories and keeping of "defective" accounts.
-Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 106, (Gil. 83.)
Held
66. In a supplemental bill, filed in a suit be-
tween partners for a dissolution and an account-
ing, praying to set aside for fraud an agreement
to dismiss the suit, set up in bar by defendant,
a prayer to enforce the provisions of the agree-
ment in case the prayer to set the same aside for
fraud is not granted, does not confirm the agree-
ment.—Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 106, (Gil. 83.)
67. In a suit by a partner against his copart-
ner for an accounting, the complaint alleged that
plaintiff, a builder, and defendant, a real-estate
dealer, owned lots on which they were building
and had nearly completed a block of houses, and
that by agreement the title was in defendant's
name; that by certain specified false represen-
tations defendant induced plaintiff to part with
his interest in the premises for land in another
state, the deed to which, though made by a third
person as grantor, was delivered to plaintiff by
defendant; that the land was of no value, and
that neither the grantor nor defendant had title
thereto; that prior to this transaction, and
without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, defend-
aut had actually sold and conveyed the lot owned
|
Fraud or mistake in accounting.
68. In an action by a retiring partner against
the continuing partners, asking a judgment against
them, jointly, on the ground of an alleged fraud
in their settlement with him, no separate judg.
ment or individual relief against either being
prayed, an allegation of a disposition by one of
the defendants of partnership property, and fail-
ure to account for the same, is immaterial, and
may be stricken out on motion. -Berkey v. Judd,
12 Minn. 52, (Gil. 23.)
ness,
69. Plaintiff being in partnership with four
others, an accounting was had and sale made of
the assets, and continued to carry on the busi-
his interest to three of them, who received all
Held, that
Subsequently, one of the three died.
the original accounting and purchase might be
an action based upon fraud in
maintained by plaintiff against the two surviv-
deceased partners.-Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287.
ors, without joining the representatives of the
70. A mistake of fact in an accounting between
copartners upon dissolution of the partnership
affords ground for relief in equity, irrespective of
any express agreement that mistakes should be
corrected.-Cobb v. Cole, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 364.
44 Minn. 278.
Action at law.
71. One who is engaged in the business of the
partnership upon a specified salary, but is in fact
a partner, should not be permitted to sue the
firm therefor; and an amendment to the answer
setting up facts showing such relation may prop-
erly be allowed.-Wood v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 394,
(Gil. 365.)
V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF FIRM AND PRIVATE
CREDITORS.
What are firm debts.
tained by them to enable them to enter into part-
72. Upon a loan of money by D. to S. and B., ob-
nership, S., with the understanding between all
parties that B. should have one-half of the money
and pay one-half of the interest, gave his individ-
ual bond, secured by a mortgage on his individual
property, for the amount of the loan. They en-
tered into partnership, and the money was used in
their firm business. Held, that the loan was not
a partnership transaction, and that B. was liable
to D. for one-half the debt for which S. was his
surety.-Metzner v. Baldwin, 11 Minn. 150, (Gil.
92.)
Right of private creditor in firm assets.
73. A sheriff may levy upon the interest of a
partner in partnership assets, and, for the pur-
pose of making sale of such interest, take posses-
1467
1468
PARTNERSHIP, V.-VII.
sion of the firm property, holding it until he ex-
ecutes his levy by sale.-Barrett v. McKenzie, 24
Minn. 20; Wickham v. Davis, 24 Minn. 167.
74. An injunction will not be granted at the
suit of one partner in an insolvent firm, to re-
strain the levy and sale on execution of the indi-
vidual interest of another partner in such firm,
at the suit of his individual creditor, although
the officer and such creditor may have notice of
such insolvency.-Wickham v. Davis, 24 Minn.
167.
75. A purchaser at execution sale of a part-
ner's interest in copartnership business and as-
sets acquires no title to any of the property en-
titling him to a delivery, or, as to partnership
debts, a right to collect them, but only a right
to an accounting.-Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn.
20.
Receiver-Powers and duties.
76. In an action to wind up the affairs of a
partnership the judgment appointed a receiver,
and directed him to sell all the real and person-
al property of the firm. Held, that the receiver
was thereby authorized to sell all the real estate
of the firm, though it was not described in the
complaint or judgment.-Barron v. Mullin, 21
Minn. 374.
VI. CHANGES OF FIRM-INCOMING AND RETIRING
PARTNERS-SUCCESSIVE FIRMS.
80. A stage passenger was drowned while
crossing a ferry, through negligence of the ferry-
man, and a judgment was recovered by dece-
dent's representative against the proprietors of
the stage, who were partners, and they paid the
judgment. Held, that their right to recover
therefor against the ferry owner was a mere in-
cident to their right of action for breach of his
contract, and passed, on dissolution of their
partnership, to one of the partners, under an
agreement that he should retain all the "prop-
erty" of the concern.-Blakeley v. Le Duc, 22
Minn. 476.
81. Upon the dissolution of a firm, of which
plaintiff and defendant were partners, the mem-
bers thereof entered into an agreement under seal,
by which all the firm property and demands ow-
ing it were assigned to defendant, "in trust to sell
said property,
" and collect all demands due the
firm, and with the money thus realized to pay the
firm debts; the defendant agreeing to pay the oth-
er members of the firm $100 each for their interest
in the firm, and to pay all debts of the firm, and
against the firm. Held, that defendant, under
save them "harmless from any debts which stand"
this agreement, was not a trustee, but a purchas-
ble to plaintiff for a debt owed by the firm, which
er for a valuable consideration, and therefore lia-
plaintiff was compelled to pay on defendant's re-
fusal.-Rose v. Roberts, 9 Minn. 119, (Gil. 109.)
82. A firm composed of two members was dis-
solved by the death of one of them, on which the
Rights and liabilities-Of retiring part- survivor and another formed a new partnership,
ner.
77. Plaintiff sued defendants as copartners upon
an account for work and labor. It appeared that
defendants were in partnership till within a short
time of plaintiff's engagement; that at the time of
such engagement the defendant who appeared and
defended the action showed him his work; that
the tools and apparatus of the partnership re-
mained unchanged; that the business was still car-
ried on in the partnership name; and that nothing
was done until after plaintiff had rendered his serv-
ices, to notify third persons that the partnership
was dissolved. Held sufficient to support a find-
ing of a continuance of the partnership as to third
persons.-Reid v. Frazer, (Minn.) 35 Ñ. W. 269.
37 Minn. 473.
Of partners continuing or succeed-
ing to business, assets, etc.
78. A partnership was dissolved by the pur-
chase of the interest of one member of the firm
by a third party, and a new firm formed in place
of the old. Held, that the title to promissory
notes of the old firm passed to the new, and that,
under Rev. St. Minn. 1851, c. 70, § 27, which
provides that actions shall be prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest, they were en-
titled to sue thereon in their own name.-Pease
v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107, (Gil. 89.)
79. A contract of dissolution of partnership
provided that all the personal property of the
firm should be "retained by, and be the property
of," one of the partners. Held sufficient to pass
a claim for recovery of money which the partner-
ship had been obliged to pay a third person in
consequence of a breach of contract.-Blakeley v.
Le Duc, 22 Minn. 476.
with the same name as the old firm. Held, in an
action against the survivor of the old firm to re-
cover a debt contracted by that firm, that a debt
due to the new firm could not be attached for such
liability of the old firm.-Allis v. Day, 13 Minn.
199, (Gil. 189.)
Liability of executor of deceased part-
ner.
83. An executor of one partner, continuing the
business with the survivor as directed by will, is
not personally liable for debts previously con-
tracted, and the surviving partner has no implied
authority to bind him for such debts.-Mattison v.
Farnham, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 347.
VII. ACTIONS.
44 Minn. 95.
By partners-Use of firm name.
84. The right of a partnership to sue for or
collect a debt due the firm is not affected by the
fact of a levy upon the interest of one of the
partners in the partnership.-Barrett v. McKen-
zie, 24 Minn. 20.
85. A purchaser at an execution sale against
one partner levied on his interest in partnership
property does not acquire any title to or right of
possession in the property; these still remain in
the partnership, and, if the purchaser take pos-
session, the other partners have a right to use the
partnership name to recover the property or its
value.-Lane v. Lenfest, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 84.
40 Minn. 375.
86. On a debt due to a partnership composed
of four persons, two of them sued and recovered
1469
1470
PARTNERSHIP, VII., VIII.-PARTY-WALLS.
judgment. Held, that the four partners might
maintain an action to set aside a fraudulent con-
veyance by the judgment debtor.-Fuller v. Nel-
son, 28 N. W. 511, 35 Minn. 213.
87. A defendant who has obligated himself to
plaintiffs in their partnership name cannot be
permitted, in a suit on such obligation, to ob-
ject to their capacity to constitute a partnership,
for the reason that one of them is alleged to be
a corporation; their organization being sufficient
to establish their joint interest in the contract
sued on.-Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Donahue,
(French v. Donohue,) 12 N. W. 354, 29 Minn.
111.
88. An undertaking to indemnify a sheriff on
the levy of an execution by him in an action by
partners in a partnership matter may be valid,
although executed in the name of the partner-
ship. Schoregge v. Bishop, (Schoregge v. Gor-
don,) 13 N. W. 194, 29 Minn. 367.
89. The want of an allegation of partnership
in a complaint, in the title to which the plain-
tiffs are described as partners, is no ground of
demurrer. Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn. 55,
(Gil. 50.)
Against partners-Judgment.
94. A lien by attachment, in a suit against
non-resident partners, may be acquired on the
individual property of one of the partners situated
within the jurisdiction, and the judgment, ren-
dered upon substituted service of the summons,
though entered in form against all, may be en-
forced against the property so attached.-Daly v.
Bradbury, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 190.
Pleading.
46 Minn. 396.
95. Where an action is brought by two or
more plaintiffs. as partners, the partnership
should be alleged, and, if the defendants are
sued as such, a similar allegation should be made
as to them.-Foerster v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Minn.
210, (Gil. 171.)
96. In an action by or against a copartnership,
an allegation of partnership is material, and, if
denied, must be proved.-Irvine v. Myers, 4 Minn.
229, (Gil. 164;) Fetz v. Clark, 7 Minn. 217, (Gil.
159.)
97. In an action against two or more as part-
one, and is put in issue by a general denial of each
ners the allegation of partnership is a material
and every allegation in the complaint-Fetz v.
Clark, 7 Minn. 217, (Gil. 159;) Id., 8 Minn. 86, (Gil.
61.)
90. In an action upon a joint promise of de-
fendants as partners, plaintiff must prove the
98. In an action against a copartnership for
joint contract and recover against both defend-goods sold and delivered, an answer by one part-
ants or neither of them.-Whitney v. Reese, 11
Minn. 138, (Gil. 87.)
ner, denying that the goods were purchased at
his request or with his knowledge or consent,
raises an issue for the jury.—Irvine v. Myers,
Distinguished in Town v. Washburn, 14 Minn. 272, (Gil. 4 Minn. 229, (Gil. 164.)
202.)
>>
91. In an action against two late partners on a
joint contract, several judgments cannot be recov-
ered, where each answer admits a "joint contract,
but there is no evidence of a "several liability.
The action is not one in which one joint associate
is "sued for the obligations of all," and therefore
Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 38, does not apply.-Beatty
v. Ambs, 11 Minn. 331, (Gil. 234.)
VIII. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
Failure to comply with statute
eral partnership.
Gen-
99. Where a limited partnership is attempted to
be formed, but the contribution of the special part-
ner is made in goods and not in cash, as required
by the statute, the partnership must be treated as
a general one so far as the liability of the partners
to creditors is concerned.-In re Allen's Estate,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 382.
41 Minn. 430.
Part Payment.
92. In an action against two late partners for
goods alleged to have been sold them jointly, the
answer of one denied the sale, but admitted goods
placed in the hands of the late firm to be sold on
commission, a sale thereof, and an indebtedness
on account thereof in a certain sum. The answer
of the other admitted a sale and delivery to the
firm of goods to a less amount. The allegations As satisfaction, see Accord and Satisfaction, 1-6.
in both answers were denied by a reply. Held, To prevent running of limitations, see Limitation
that plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment upon
the pleadings for either amount.-Beatty v. Ambs,
11 Minn. 331, (Gil. 234.)
93. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 266, provides
that whenever two or more persons are sued as
joint defendants, and on the trial the plaintiff
fails to prove a joint cause of action against one
or more of the defendants, judgment may be
rendered against him or them against whom the
cause of action is proved. Held, that where it
appears, in an action against three persons as a
partnership, that the partnership exists as to on-
ly two of such defendants, judgment may be giv-
en against the two constituting the firm.-Miles
v. Von Deyn, 6 N. W. 417, 27 Minn. 56.
Overruling Fetz v. Clark, 7 Minn. 217, (Gil. 159.)
of Actions, 68-73.
Part Performance.
Recovery of compensation, see Contracts, 125-127.
To take contract out of statute of frauds, see
Specific Performance, 44-57.
PARTY-WALLS.
Party-wall agreement.
1. A party-wall agreement, by which one
acquires a right of support on an adjoining lot,
is a conveyance, within Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 40,
1471
1472
PARTY-WALLS-PAUPERS.
$26, which provides that the term "conveyance"
"shall be construed to embrace every instrument
in writing by which any estate or interest in
real estate is created;" and where such agree-
ment contains no express covenant on the part of
any of the parties to pay for the wall, none can be
implied therefrom against an assignee of any of
the parties, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 40, § 6,
which provides that "no covenant shall be im-
plied in any conveyance
of real estate."
Warner v. Rogers, 23 Minn. 34.
2. Plaintiff, lessee of a lot, entered into a
party-wall agreement with the owner of an ad-
joining lot, by which one-half of the wall was
to rest on the adjoining lot, to be a party-wall for-
ever, and that, when said owner, his heirs or as-
signs, desire to use the same, they might do so on
the payment of one-half of the cost of the wall.
Held, that plaintiff, by such agreement, acquired
an easement in the adjoining lot for the support
of the half of the wall resting thereon, and that
a subsequent purchaser of the lot, using the party-
wall with notice of the agreement, was liable to
pay one-half of the cost thereof.-Warner v.
Rogers, 23 Minn. 34.
an
3. A party- wall agreement provided that
one-half the cost of the wall should be paid by
adjoining lot-owner, and that such wall
should be constructed with joist holes for such lot-
owner. Held, that an assignee of such lot-owner,
having used the wall without objecting thereto,
could not plead, in bar of an action to recover
his half of the cost of such wall, that it was
not constructed in precise accordance with the
agreement.-Warner v. Rogers, 23 Minn. 34.
Passengers.
See Carriers, 65-146.
Patents.
For public lands, see Public Lands, 110, 111.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.
Who entitled to.
No
patent were advanced by the corporation; nor by
the fact that he did not at the outset give notice
of his intention to claim royalty. Deane v.
Hodge, 27 N. W. 917, 35 Minn. 146; In re St.
Paul Harvester Works, Id.
Utility of invention.
2. On an issue as to whether a patent for
weighing scales was void because useless, the
only evidence was the testimony of a witness who
had seen three of the scales, and who said that
they would not weigh correctly. There was no
evidence as to how far the scales varied from
correctness, or whether the defect was in the
principle of the invention or faulty construction.
Held, that the invention was not shown to be so
devoid of utility as to avoid the patent.-Wilson
v. Hentges, 3 N. W. 338, 26 Minn. 288.
Sale of patent-right State regulation.
3. Laws Minn. 1871, c. 26, which requires
owners of patent-rights before a sale thereof in
Minnesota to file with the clerk of the district
court a true copy of the letters patent, is void,
as an unauthorized attempt by the state legisla-
ture to regulate the sale of patent-rights.—Crit-
tenden v. White, 23 Minn. 24.
Licenses-Royalties.
4. The grant of a license to sell a patented
article is a sufficient consideration to support a
promise to pay the price of such license, if the
patent is valid, though it may not be a profitable
one.-Wilson v. Hentges, 3 N. W. 338, 26 Minn.
288.
5. The owner of two patents for improve-
ments in the same machine, suing for license
fees for the use by the defendant of both patents,
may recover such fees for the use of the second
in so far as it contains anything new and prac-
tically useful in addition to the first. And the
defendant, having enjoyed the undisturbed use
of both patents, cannot raise the question of the
validity of the second patent, as including claims
and specifications embraced in the first patent.-
Deane v. Hodge, 27 N. W. 917, 35 Minn. 146; In
re St. Paul Harvester Works, Id.
6. Under a contract to pay royalty for the use
of an article for which a patent has been applied,
subject to be terminated by notice, the provisions
concerning the time of payment being ambiguous,
no royalty can be demanded until the patent is is-
sued, although the contract has been terminated
before that time, as the right to royalty is in abey
ance pending the application.-Travis v. Minne-
apolis Sweeper Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 1015.
1. Plaintiff was the patentee of certain im-
provements in harvesting-machines, which were
adopted and manufactured and sold, in connec-
tion with such machines, by a corporation, of
which plaintiff, during the time of such use, was
first a director, and afterwards president, and
was then appointed its "patent director. "
compensation was allowed him except his salary
as president, and it did not appear that that was
intended as compensation for special services
in making inventions or improvements or secur-
ing patents. Held, that his relations to the cor-
poration were not inconsistent with his individ-
ual right to make such inventions, and secure a
patent therefor as his own property, and to re-
cover a reasonable compensation for the use there-
of by the corporation, as under an implied license;
nor was he precluded by the facts that the
model for the patent, which was inexpensive,
was made by workmen of the corporation, and
that the fees of the attorney who procured the See Poor and Poor-Laws.
41 Minn. 176.
7. In an action for compensation for the use
of a patent under an implied license, where there
is no established royalty, the invention having
been used by defendant only, general evidence
and testimony of experts as to the value of the
use of the improvement are admissible. -Deane
v. Hodge, 27 N. W. 917, 35 Minn. 146; In re St.
Paul Harvester Works, Id.
Paupers.
1473
1474
PAWN-PAYMENT, I.
Pawn.
See Pledge.
PAYMENT.
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES, 1-14.
II. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE, 15-19.
III. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT, 20–34.
IV. APPLICATION, 35–43.
By check.
2. Payment by check is not absolute, but condi-
tional, unless expressly so agreed, and where a
check is returned by the creditor, and used by the
debtor, the debt remains. -Good v. Singleton,
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 359.*
39 Minn. 340.
3. In an action against an express company
for the amount of a draft intrusted to it for col·
lection, and returned by it as uncollected, the
drawee testified that he had paid the amount of
the draft to defendant's agent, who had ab-
Application as against surety, see Principal and sconded, by a check which was collected, for a
Surety, 7.
by partners, see Partnership, 39, 40.
Effect as satisfaction, see Accord and Satisfac
tion, 1-6, 8, 9.
Into court, see Tender, 13.
sum larger than the amount of the draft, which
was to have been applied upon the draft and other
demands against the drawee in the agent's hands
for collection; and the evidence also disclosed a
reason why the draft was not taken up at the
finding by the jury that the draft was paid.-
Bardwell v. American Exp. Co., 28 N. Ŵ. 925,
Of chattel' mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages, 89- time of the payment. Held, that this justified a
92.
mortgage, see Mortgages, 131.
negotiable instruments, see Negotiable Instru- 35 Minn. 344.
ments, 151-156.
taxes, see Taxation, 64, 65.
On redemption from mortgage, see Mortgages,
414-423.
Partial payment, see Accord and Satisfaction,
1-6; Limitation of Actions, 68–73.
Presumption as to date, see Evidence, 22.
Provisions of contract, see Contracts, 96, 97.
Recovery of illegal interest paid, see Usury, 32-36.
of price paid for goods, see Sale, 177, 178.
of price paid for land, see Vendor and Pur-
chaser, 105–114.
of taxes paid, see Taxation, 79–82, 294–301.
Right to subrogation, see Subrogation, 1.
Tender, see Tender.
To agent, see Principal and Agent, 83, 84.
Under contract for sale of real estate, see Vendor
and Purchaser, 20, 21.
In goods.
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES.
By due-bill.
4. Defendants, real-estate agents, agreed to
give plaintiff half of the commissions on all sales
of property listed in defendants' office for which he
procured purchasers. Plaintiff found a purchaser
for a piece of property, on which defendants re-
ceived a commission of $650. In an action for
plaintiff's share of the commission, defendants did
not offer any evidence to controvert the facts, but
claimed that a certain due-bill for $100 was received
by plaintiff in full settlement. Held, that it was
proper to instruct the jury that the only issue was
whether the due-bill had been accepted in full set-
tlement.-Olson v. Cremer, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 616.
43 Minn. 232.
By bill of exchange or promissory note.
5. The giving of a promissory note or bill of
exchange may, by agreement of the parties, op-
erate as payment of a precedent debt.-Keough
v. McNitt, 6 Minn. 513, (Gil. 357;) Goenen v..
Schroeder, 18 Minn. 66, (Gil. 51.)
7. The mere receipt by the vendor of a draft
by the vendee, accepted by the drawee, for the
purchase price of goods sold, is insufficient to
raise a presumption of its acceptance in absolute
payment.-Devlin v. Chamblin, 6 Minn. 468, (Gil.
1. A dealer in certain articles of merchan-
dise made a note payable in those articles at his
6. An indorsement made on a note, "Received
place of business one day after date. The note
was not presented on the day it became due, but, note for the amount being given, together with
on within interest up to date, a promissory
some months thereafter, the payees' agent took testimony of the payee that it was the under-
the note to defendant's place of business, and,
after inquiring the price of one of the articles in standing that such note settled the interest be-
tween the parties to that date, is evidence that
which the note was payable, presented the note
and demanded payment, whereupon defendant-Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 66, (Gil. 51.)
the note was taken in payment of such interest.
offered to pay in that article at a certain price,
to which the agent objected as too high, although
that price was the market value of the article.
No other presentation of the note or demand of
payment was made. Defendant had always kept
on hand at his place of business sufficient of the
articles named in the note to pay it, and had al-
ways been ready and willing to pay it when pre-
sented. Held, that he was not in default, as it
was not necessary that he should segregate from
his general stock sufficient of the articles to pay
the note, and such readiness to perform was a
good defense to an action on the note; and that,
even if there had been a default by which the
note had become payable in money, the refusal to
receive the article offered in payment, solely on
the ground that the price was too high, was a
waiver of such default.-Beede v. Proehl, 27 N.
W. 191, 34 Minn. 497.
V.2M.DIG.-47
325.)
""
""
"}
8. The acceptance of a note "for, or 'on ac-
count of,
or "in payment of, an existing debt,
in the absence of an express agreement or under-
standing that it is taken in absolute satisfaction
or discharge of the debt, will be deemed to be a
conditional payment only, and the mere recital
in a receipt or other writing of the fact of pay-
ment by note is not, by itself, sufficient evidence
of absolute payment. GILFILLAN, C. J., dissent-
ing.-Combination Steel & Iron Co. v. St. Paul
City Ry. Co., 49 N. W. 744, 47 Minn. 207.
1475
1476
PAYMENT, I.-III.
9. Where the purchaser of seed-wheat exe-
divers sums, and at that date made his certain
cutes, as security for the purchase price, a "seed- promissory note for an amount less than the ag
grain note, " and also a mortgage on personal prop-gregate of such indebtedness; also, that no part
of the prior indebtedness had been paid. Held,
that no presumption arose that such promissory
note was given in payment and settlement of
such existing indebtedness. McArdle v. Mc-
Ardle, 12 Minn. 98, (Gil. 53.)
erty, the execution of a second "seed grain note"
to correct a mistake in the first one in describ-
ing the land on which the crop is to be grown,
does not operate as a payment of the first note,
nor as a discharge of the chattel mortgage.
Miller v. McCarty, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 235.
47 Minn. 321.
10. A debt evidenced by a note, and secured
uy a chattel mortgage, is not shown to be paid,
so as to satisfy and cancel the mortgage, by
part payment in cash, and a note for the bal-
ance, in the absence of an agreement that the
new note was received as full payment.-Hanson
v. Tarbox, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 474.
47 Minn. 433.
11. Where the indorser of a note, after the
maker has failed to pay it and it has been pro-
tested, gives his own note to the holder, and the
latter accepts it, and surrenders the old note to
the indorser, it will be presumed that the new
note was taken as payment of the old one by the
indorser.-Bausman
Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co.,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 496.
47 Minn. 377.
By deposit in bank or with third per-
son.
12. Where a note secured by mortgage is pay-
able at a bank, and a purchaser of the property
assumes the debt, and at its maturity deposits
the amount in the bank, with instructions to pay
it on the note, this does not operate as a pay-
ment, and the holder of the note may sue the
maker, though he has brought an action against
the bank to recover the money deposited.-St.
Paul Nat. Bank v. Cannon, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 526.
46 Minn. 95.
13. Where money has been deposited by a debtor
with a third person for the payment of his indebt-
edness, the assent of the creditor thereto, the
arrangement being a beneficial one for him,
may be presumed, when he has knowledge of
such deposit; but such knowledge will not be pre-
sumed from proof, merely, of the transaction be-
tween the debtor and depositary.-Simonton v.
First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 24 Minn. 216.
14. The delivery by a debtor to a third person
of money to pay his indebtedness, until the
creditor assents to such transaction, creates the
relation of principal and agent only, and may be
revoked by the debtor at any time before such
assent is given. -Simonton v. First Nat. Bank of
Minneapolis, 24 Minn. 216:
Distinguished in Trunkey v. Crosby, (Tucker v.
Vaughan,) 23 N. W. 847, 33 Minn. 467.
II. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
Pleading.
15. An allegation of payment in an answer,
without showing that it was made on account of
the claim sued upon, is insufficient.-Esch v.
Hardy, 22 Minn. 65.
16. A complaint alleged that, prior to a certain
date, defendant was indebted to plaintiff in
Receipt-Admissibility under pleadings.
17. In an action to recover for a bill of lumber al-
leged to have been sold to the defendant, the an-
swer consisted of a denial only, and contained no
affirmative allegations of payment or otherwise.
Upon the trial plaintiffs' account, introduced in
evidence without objection, was receipted as paid
by the acceptance of a third party, which plain-
tiffs' evidence in explanation showed was never
paid. Held, that such receipt and acceptance be-
came immaterial under the pleadings, and were not
Farnham v. Murch, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 453.
available to defendant as evidence of payment.-
36 Minn. 328.
Construction and effect.
18. A written instrument in the form of a re-
"1
ceipt, having in the margin the figures "$1,100,
acknowledged the receipt on a certain date of
"eleven hundred on contract of asylum contract
was a receipt for $1,100.-Butler v. Bohn, 17 N.
of fifty-five thousand dollars." Held, that this
W. 862, 31 Minn. 325.
19. A recital in an assignment of a judgment,
acknowledging receipt of a sum of money as the
consideration thereof, is not evidence of the fact
of payment of that sum as against a third party.
-Ferris v. Boxell, 25 N. W. 592, 34 Minn. 262.
III. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT.
Recovery of money paid-In general.
20. One who voluntarily, and with his eyes
open, and under no mistake of fact, pays money
to another, cannot maintain an action for its re-
covery.-Smith v. Schroeder, 15 Minn. 35, (Gil. 18.)
21. One having no title to land, who volunta-
rily pays taxes with full notice of his want of
title, is not entitled to recover the amount paid
from the owner of the land.-Shillock v. Gilbert,
23 Minn. 386.
Mistake.
22. One who, under ignorance of the rule of law
that distances must yield to natural boundaries
called for in a deed, pays money for a quitclaim of
property which, under this rule, already belongs
to him, cannot recover it, where the transaction is
free from fraud or confidence, and both parties
know all the facts.-Erkens v. Nicolin, (Minn.) 40
N. W. 567.*
39 Minn. 461.
23. Where a judgment creditor, accompanied by
an officer, proceeds to the debtor's premises to
enforce the judgment, concerning the amount of
which the debtor is ignorant, and procures an
excessive payment by fraudulently misrepre-
senting the amount of the judgment, the debtor
may recover the excess, not only on the ground
of fraudulent deception. but also on the ground
1
1477
1478
PAYMENT, III.
that it was an overpayment by mistake of fact.-
Lund v. Davies, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 79.
Duress.
47 Minn. 290.
24. A notice of foreclosure under a power of
sale claimed as due a sum largely in excess of
what was due, and the property was sold to the
mortgagee for the amount claimed, which a sub-
sequent incumbrancer was obliged to pay, and
did pay, under protest, before the purchaser
would allow him to redeem. Held, that the
amount so paid, in excess of what was actually
due on the first mortgage, might be recovered
back.-Bennett v. Healey, 6 Minn. 240, (Gil.
158.)
Distinguishing Bidwell v. Whitney, 4 Minn. 76, (Gil.
45;) Banker v. Brent, 4 Minn. 521, (Gil. 408.)
25. Plaintiff chartered a vessel from defendant
for the transportation of a cargo of wheat to B.,
no special agreement being made as to the time
of delivering or receiving the cargo. By reason
of other vessels waiting to be loaded, the vessel
chartered did not receive her cargo until six days
after plaintiff was advised that she was ready,
although he had wheat in elevators for delivery,
and ordered it delivered; he having no control
over the management of the elevators. After the
vessel arrived at B., the cargo was detained and
delivery refused until plaintiff should pay de-
murrage claimed; and, to release the grain from
such detention, he paid the sum claimed, under
protest. Held, that defendant, not being in fact
entitled to demurrage, had no right to detain
the cargo on a claim therefor, although asserted
in good faith, and that the detention of the grain
constituted such duress of property that the pay
ment was not voluntary, and plaintiff was enti-
tled to recover it.-Fargusson v. Winslow, 25 N.
W. 942, 34 Minn. 384.
Distinguished in Cable v. Foley, 47 N. W. 1136, 45 Minn.
423.
26. Plaintiffs, as administrators, returned and
filed an inventory of their intestate's property
in the probate court, and the judge of that court
refused to allow the administration to proceed un-
til the administrators had paid into the county
treasury the amount prescribed by Laws Minn.
1885, c. 103, "in lieu of fees, costs, " etc. A large
part of the estate was such as to require immediate
administration, and plaintiffs therefore paid the
tax under protest. The law was afterwards de-
clared unconstitutional. Held, that plaintiff may
recover the illegal tax so paid.-Mearkle v. Board
of County Com'rs, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 165.
44 Minn. 546.
27. An executor, without objection, paid a cer-
tain sum into the county treasury, because of the
provisions of a statute afterwards declared to be
unconstitutional, and because the probate judge
informed him that it would be necessary, before
proceeding further with the administration, to pay
said sum.
The evidence was not such as to require
a finding that the estate would have suffered, if
the executor, instead of paying said sum, had en-
forced his legal remedy against a judge refusing
to perform his duties in the administration of an
estate. Held, that the evidence justified a finding
that the payment was voluntary.- De Graff v.
Board County Com'rs Ramsey County, (Minn.) 48
N. W. 1135.
46 Minn. 319.
Recovery of money paid-Void tax or
assessment.
28. A payment of illegal taxes made upon de-
mand by the tax collector, with a warrant in his
hand for their collection, is not such a voluntary
payment as will prevent a recovery of the money
so paid.-Board of County Com'rs Dakota County
v. Parker, 7 Minn. 267, (Gil. 207.)
29. Money paid to the county treasurer to re-
deem from taxes claimed to be illegal, under pro-
test, and to enable a party to have a deed re-
corded, cannot be recovered back from the treas-
urer; the register of deeds having no power to
require a certificate of such payment of taxes as
a condition precedent to registry. Smith v.
Schroeder, 15 Minn. 35, (Gil. 18.)
Distinguished in State v. Nelson, 42 N. W. 548, 41 Minn.
25.
30. One who by force of the statute is unable to
place on record a deed of conveyance by which he
has acquired title to real estate, by reason of ille-
such
gal taxes being charged on the land, may pay
taxes, in order to secure the recording of his deed.
Suth payment is not voluntary, and may be recov-
ered back.-State v. Nelson, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 548.
41 Minn. 25.
Distinguishing Smith v. Schroeder, 15 Minn. 35, (Gil. 18.)
31. Plaintiff's land having been sold under a
judgment for an assessment levied thereon for
opening a street, he redeemed the land by pay-
ing to the city the amount with which it was
charged by the judgment and sale. The street
was never opened, the project of opening it hav-
ing been abandoned by the city. Held, that
plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount so
paid, as upon a failure of the consideration for
which it was paid, even though the abandon-
ment took place before such
before such payment was
made by him; his payment not being volun-
tary, but by coercion of law. -Valentine v. City
of St. Paul 26 N. W. 457, 34 Minn. 446.
32. Plaintiff's land was sold under a judgment
for the amount of an assessment against it
for a local improvement, and a certificate of sale
was given to the purchaser. The certificate of
sale and the assessment were void, and plaintiff,
with knowledge of the facts affecting their valid-
ity, paid to the city treasurer the amount claimed
to be due by virtue of the sale, to redeem the
land therefrom. Plaintiff was in possession of
the land at the time, and there was no evidence
that the city contemplated interfering with his
possession. The only coercion alleged was a
threat on the part of the city treasurer to give
to the holder of the certificate of sale a deed of
the land if it was not redeemed within the time
limited by law. Held, that the payment was
voluntary, and the amount thereof could not be
recovered from the city.-Shane v. City of St.
Paul, 6 N. W. 349, 26 Minn. 543.
i
33. Where after lots have been assessed for im-
proving a street, and sold under a regularly en-
tered judgment therefor, the agent of the owner
redeems them from the sale, and pays the neces-
sary money to the city treasurer, the owner cannot
recover the money sc paid from the city because
he and the city authorities were mutually mistak-
1479
1430
PAYMENT, III., IV.-PEDIGREE.
en in believing that one of the lots belonged to |
him, and that the others fronted on the street, and
were liable to assessment, since, even if the lots
were not liable to the assessment, the judgment
was not void, and the city was bound to receive
the redemption money, and the owner had the
right to pay it, so that the rights and obligations
in respect to the payment were not affected by the
facts erroneously supposed to exist.-Langevin v.
City of St. Paul, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 817.
Recovery of money paid-Demand.
84. F., being convicted on a criminal charge be-
fore a justice of the peace, for the purpose of ap-
peal, voluntarily, in ignorance of his legal rights,
paid to the justice the costs of the prosecution and
a fee for making return. Held, that F. could not,
without a previous demand, recover any part of
the money.-Ford v. Brownell, 13 Minn. 184, (Gil.
174.)
In general.
IV. APPLICATION.
that when a grant for a valuable consideration is
made to one person, and the consideration is paid
by another, "such conveyance shall be presumed
fraudulent as against creditors, at that time, of the
person paying the consideration. "-Hersey v. Ben-
nett, 9 Ñ. W. 590, 28 Minn. 86.
N.
Distinguishing Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278, (Gil.
197.)
39. On the taking of an account under a judg-
ment declaring a deed absolute in its terms to
be a mortgage, a large balance was found due to
the grantee for various debts, but the court made
no appropriation of moneys received from sales
of timber on the land to any specific debts.
Held, that they should be applied as received to
the debts first due.-Wolford v. Andrews, 13 N.
W. 167, 29 Minn. 250.
Right of parties to make application.
40. Where a debtor owes several accounts,
and makes payments generally, without direction
as to application, the creditor may apply them
as he sees fit. -Newell v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 19.
35. Where a person has two demands against
another, one arising out of a lawful contract, and
the other out of a contract prohibited by law, a
payment, without direction as to its application,
will be applied upon the lawful claim, to the
the
exclusion of
unlawful one.-Solomon v.
Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278, (Gil. 197.)
Distinguished in Hersey v. Bennett, 9 N. W. 598, 28 tracts, with directions to apply the same on his ac-
Minn. 91.
36. Where payment is made generally upon in-
debtedness, part of which is secured, and part of
which is unsecured, and no direction given as to
the application, it will be applied, in the first in-
stance, to the payment of the unsecured indebted-
ness; and where the indebtedness consists of the
principal and interest, payment will be first ap-
plied to the payment of interest.-Lash v. Edger-
ton, 13 Minn. 210, (Gil. 197.)
37. In a stumpage contract A. contracted with
B. to pay a specified sum per thousand for all
logs cut upon certain pieces of land, and a pay-
ment was made upon the contract. One of the
One of the
pieces of land from which logs were cut did not
belong to B., and he had no rights therein. Held,
that he could not recover for logs cut from that
piece of land, and the payment must be applied
upon the logs cut from land in which he had an
interest.-Scheffer v. Tozier, 25 Minn. 478.
41. Where a contractor for the erection of a
building, including materials therefor, pays over
money received on his contract to parties who have
furnished him materials, upon that and other con-
count, generally they are at liberty so to apply it,
and, in the absence of more particular instructions
at the time, the law will apply it to the oldest items
of his account.-Jefferson v. Church of St. Mat-
thew, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 74.
41 Minn. 392.
42. Nor can they be compelled to change the ap-
plication to the particular account for materials
furnished for the building referred to, on the
ground that they knew that the money was re-
ceived by the contractor from the owner thereof.
To bind them to make such special application, the
parties interested must see that such application
is made or directed at the time, or, if the money is
paid to the contractor under an agreement that it
should be so applied, such understanding or agree-
ment should be seasonably communicated to the
material-men. -Jefferson v. Church of St. Mat
thew, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 74.
41 Minn. 392.
43. After acquiescing in the application of a pay-
ment in extinguishing one demand and accepting
the benefit of it for that purpose, a debtor cannot
avail himself of the same payment to extinguish
another demand, although when he made the pay-
ment he directed its application on the latter.-
Flarsheim v. Brestrup, (Minn.) 45 N. W 438
43 Minn. 298.
38. Defendant, while indebted to plaintiff on an
open, running account for goods sold and delivered,
purchased and paid for property and had the same
conveyed to his (defendant's) wife. After such
purchase and conveyance, other sales and deliv-
eries were made by plaintiff to defendant, and
were charged in the account, and payments were
made by defendant to plaintiff, but were not ap-
plied by either party to any specific items of the
account. Held, that the payments would be ap-
plied to the items of the account in the order of
their priority of date, though the effect thereof | See Hawkers and Peddlers.
was to extinguish all the items prior to the con-
veyance to defendant's wife, so that as to the un-
paid balance of the account plaintiff was a subse-
quent creditor to such conveyance, and could not
subject the property so conveyed to his debt, un-
Peddlers.
Pedigree.
der Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 43, § 8, which provides | Proof of, see Evidence, 60, 61
1481
1482
PENALTIES-PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
Penalties.
By contract, see Damages, 11-13.
For Lonpayment of taxes, see Taxation, 68–70.
usury, see Usury, 37.
Liability of school officers, see Schools and School-
Districts, 17-20.
Pene actions, see Qui Tam and Penal Actions.
Pendente Lite.
See is Pendens.
Performance.
Of coutract, see Contracts, 98-127; Vendor and
Purchaser, 35-49.
Part performance to take contracts out of statute
of frauds, see Specific Performance, 44–57.
To eutitle plaintiff to specific performance, see
Specific Performance, 63–70.
Validity of contract to be performed on Sunday,
see ¡unday, 7–10.
PERJURY.
What constitutes-Unauthorized oath.
Personal Injuries.
See Animals, 1, 2; Assault and Battery; Car-
riers, 79-114; Death by Wrongful Act; Horse
and Street Railroads, 3-7; Master and Serv
ant, 25-71; Negligence; Parent and Child, 5, 6;
Railroad Companies, 160-166.
Abatement of action, see Abatement and Revival,
14.
Action under laws of foreign state, see Conflict of
Laws, 6, 7.
Damages, see Damages, 51-55, 80-90.
Payment in satisfaction, see Accord and Satisfac
tion, 8, 9.
Proof, see Evidence, 108-110.
Personal Property.
Action for possession, see Replevin.
Confusion, see Confusion of Goods.
Exchange, see Exchange of Property.
Inheritance, see Descent and Distribution.
Mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages.
Pledge, see Pledge.
Sale, see Sale.
Taxation, see Taxation.
Title to, see Conflict of Laws, 2, 3.
1. An oath made on application to a money See Treason.
lender for a loan not administered pursuant to, nor
required nor authorized by, any law, cannot be
made the basis for a charge of perjury.-State v.
McCarthy, (Minn.) 42 N. W 599.
Indictment.
41 Minn. 59.
2. An indictment for perjury, in the form
prescribed by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 108, § 2, No.
24, is sufficient. -State v. Thomas, 19 Minn. 434,
(Gil. 418.)
Petit Treason.
PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Improper use of negative-Action.
There is an implied contract between a pho-
tographer and his customer that the negative for
which the customer sits shall only be used for the
printing of such photographic portraits as the cus-
tomer may order or authorize, and an action will
lie for its breach.-Moore v. Rugg, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 141, 44 Minn. 28.
3. An indictment for perjury, alleging that
the offense was committed in a certain town and
county of this state, in the court of a certain
named fustice of the peace, which court had au-
thority to administer an oath, sufficiently de-
scribes the court.--State v. Stein, (Minn.) 51 N. See Trial, 1.
W.474.
4. As indictment for perjury alleging that
defendant's testimony (the same being partic-
ularly specified) was willfully and corruptly
false, is equivalent to alleging that he willfully
and knowingly testified falsely.-State v. Stein,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 474.
Qualification of jurors.
5. Defendant was indicted and convicted of
perjury, committed on the trial in the district
court of an appeal from a justice of the peace.
One of the jurors on the trial of the indict-
ment had been a juror on the trial of the cause
in the justice court, upon the appeal in which
the perjury was subsequently committed, which
was unknown to defendant or counsel on either
side. Held, that such fact was not ground for
challenge, within Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 116, §§
17-19, and not available in arrest of judgment. —
State v. Thomas, 19 Minn. 484, (Gil. 418.)
Physical Examination.
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
See, also, Malpractice.
Privileged communications, see Witness, 15.
Right to practice medicine, see Constitutional
Law, 173.
Certificate of qualification to practice
medicine - Powers of medical exam-
iners.
1. Under Laws Minn. 1883, 3. 125, requiring
as a condition of the right to practice medicine a
certificate of qualification from the board of medi-
cal examiners, and providing that the board may
refuse certificates to individuals guilty of un-
professional or dishonorable conduct, the action
of the board in determining whether it should
grant such a certificate partakes of a judicial
character, and an applicant cannot compel by
1483
1484
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS-PLEADING.
:
mandamus the issuing of a certificate to him.-
State v. State Medical Examining Board, 20 N.
W. 238, 32 Minn. 324.
of general surgery and dentistry.-State v. Van-
dersluis, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 789.
42 Minn. 129.
2. Laws Minn. 1883, c. 125, § 9, providing that
the board of medical examiners may refuse cer-
tificates for the practice of medicine to individ-ply
uals "guilty of unprofessional or disbonorable
conduct," does not contemplate matters of mere
professional ethics, but the term "unprofessional"
is used convertibly with "dishonorable. "-State
v. State Medical Examining Board, 20 N. W. 238,
32 Minn. 324.
3. Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 9, which provides
that a license to physicians and surgeons shall only
be granted "by the consent of not less than seven
members" of the board of examiners, does not
confer upon said board the right or power to abso-
lutely disregard the learning and qualifications of
an applicant; or to unreasonably or arbitrarily re-
ject his claims; or, at will, grant or refuse its cer-
tificate or license; and hence the statute is not, for
that reason, unconstitutional and void.-State v.
Fleischer, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 696.
41 Minn. 69.
Certificate of qualification to practice
medicine-Revocation.
4. Under Laws Minn. 1883, c. 125, § 9, pro-
viding that the board of medical examiners may
refuse certificates for the practice of medicine
"to individuals guilty of unprofessional or dis-
honorable conduct, and may revoke certificates
for like causes," the power to revoke such cer-
tificates is not a judicial power, which cannot,
under the state constitution, be vested in the
board of examiners.-State v. State Board of
Medical Examiners, 26 N. W. 123, 34 Minn. 387.
5. The publication by a physician of an ad
vertisement containing false statements as to
his ability to cure disease, he knowing such
statements to be false when he makes them, and
intending thereby to deceive and impose on the
public, is "unprofessional and dishonorable con-
duct," within Laws Minn. 1883, c. 125, § 9, au-
thorizing the state board of medical examiners to
revoke certificates granted for the practice of
medicine for such conduct.-State v. State Board
of Medical Examiners, 26 N. W. 125, 34 Minn.
391.
Certificate of qualification to practice
dentistry.
6. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 19, which provides, by
section 5, that no one shall have the absolute right
to be examined for a certificate to practice dentis-
try who is not possessed of a diploma from some
dental college in good standing, the examining
board to have the power to determine the standing
of colleges granting diplomas, is not unconstitu-
tional, as discriminating against a class who may
not have been able to attend a dental college.-State
v. Vandersluis, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 789.
42 Minn. 129.
7. Section 7 of the act, which provides that all
persons shall be said to practice dentistry, within
the meaning of the act, who, for compensation,
treat diseases or lesions of the human teeth or
jaws, or correct malpositions thereof, does not pre-
vent a licensed surgeon from treating diseases of
the jaws, which may come within the scope both
8. The provision of the act that it shall not ap-
to acts of bona fide students of dentistry done
direct supervision of a preceptor or a licensed den-
in the pursuance of clinical advantages under the
tist in the state, during the period of their enroll-
ment in a dental college and attendance upon a
regular, uninterrupted course in such college, is not
unconstitutional as discriminating between stu-
dents of dentistry, or against schools of dentistry
of other states.-State v. Vandersluis, (Minn.) 43
N. W. 789.
42 Minn. 129.
Plats.
Evidence of dedication, see Dedication, 11-23.
Referred to in deed, see Deed, 26-29.
Town plats, see Towns, 4.
PLEADING.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES, 1-34.
II. COMPLAINT, 35–57.
III. ANSWER, 58–96.
IV. REPLY, 97-112.
V. DEMURRER, 113–158.
VI. VERIFICATION, 159–165.
VII. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS,
166-185.
VIII. MOTIONS RELATING TO PLEADINGS, 186-234.
IX. PLEADING AND PROOF-VARIANCE, 235-277.
X. WAIVER OF DEFECTS-AIDER BY VERDICT,
278-304.
Admissions, see Evidence, 111-113.
Alleging counterclaim or set-off, see Counter-
claim and Set-Off, 40–58.
175.
duress, see Duress, 8.
estoppel, see Estoppel, 75.
foreign incorporation, see Corporations, 173–
payment, see Payment, 15-17.
right of bona fide purchaser, see Vendor and
Purchaser, 167.
67.
right to subrogation, see Subrogation, 17.
special damages, see Damages, 95-104.
statutes, see Statutes, 72, 73.
statute of frauds, see Frauds, Statute of, 63-
statute of limitations, see Limitation of Ac-
tions, 75–88.
tender, see Tender, 12.
usury, see Usury, 43-47.
Amendment of pleadings, see Appeal and Er-
ror, 443-445.
Before justices, see Justices of the Peace, 59-72.
Entry of judgment, on default, see Judgment, 17–
57.
Filing pleadings, see Practice in Civil Cases, 53-
56.
In actions by or against
Assignees, see Assignment, 29, 30.
Carriers, see Carriers, 33-35.
Cities, see Municipal Corporations, 326-330.
Corporations, see Corporations. 69–81.
1485
1486
PLEADING, I.
In actions by or against
Counties, see Countics, 83-85.
Executors, etc., see Executors and Adminis-
trators, 137.
Infants, see Infancy, 30, 31.
Partners, see Partnership, 95-98.
Sureties, see Principal and Surety, 24-27.
In actions for
Accounting between partners, see Partnership,
65-67.
Assault and battery, see Assault and Battery,
3-5.
Causing death, see Death by Wrongful Act, 9,
10.
Compensation of attorney, see Attorney and
Client, 39, 40.
Conspiracy, see Conspiracy, 2, 3.
In actions to
Recover possession of demised premises, see
Landlord and Tenant, 89, 90.
Redeem from mortgage, see Mortgages, 459, 460.
Set aside foreclosure sale, see Mortgages, 295.
fraudulent conveyances, see Fraudulent
Conveyances, 86–96.
Inconsistent allegations, see Conversion of Per-
sonal Property, 28–30.
In creditors' suit, see Creditors' Suit, 5.
criminal cases, see Criminal Law, 27-36.
equity, see Equity, 82-89.
garnishment, see Garnishment, 49–53.
interpleader, see Interpleader, 3.
mandamus proceedings,
32-38.
see Mandamus,
Objection for defect of parties, see Parties, 20.
Conversion, see Conversion of Personal Prop- Presumptions as to, on appeal, see Appeal and
erty, 16-36.
Divorce, see Divorce, 14-17.
False imprisonment, see False Imprisonment, 5.
Forcible entry and detainer, see Forcible Entry
and Detainer, 8-13.
Foreclosure, see Mortgages, 340-343.
Libel or slander, see Libel and Slander, 56–73.
Malicious prosecution, see Malicious Prosecu-
tion, 18.
Malpractice, see Malpractice, 3, 4.
to, on appeal, see Appeal and Error, 308-324.
Error, 411-418.
Review of orders affecting, see Appeal and Er-
ror, 77-84, 220-222, 239-241, 446-448.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Alleging facts or conclusions.
1. In an action against a city, the gist of which
was the worthlessness of certain certificates de-
Money had and received, see Money Received, livered to plaintiff in payment for work done, the
16-19.
Money lent, see Money Lent, 2-4.
complaint alleged that, by reason of gross negli-
gence of defendant's agents in not causing the
Negligence, see Master and Servant, 64, 65, 75, estimate of the expense of the whole work, and of
165; Railroad Companies, 277–281.
Nuisance, see Nuisance, 25.
Partition, see Partition, 9.
Price of goods, see Sale, 156-164.
Relief against judgments, see Judgment, 275,
276.
Removal of highway obstructions, see High-
ways, 67, 68.
Services, see Work and Labor, 11, 12.
Slander of title, see Libel and Slander, 97, 98.
Specific performance, see Specific Performance,
81-92.
Trespass, see Trespass, 11-14.
Use and occupation, see Use and Occupation,
2, 3.
Wrongful attachment, see Attachment, 108.
In actions of
Ejectment, see Ejectment, 12–25.
Replevin, see Replevin, 26-38.
In actions on
Accounts stated, see Account Stated, 8-15.
Bonds, see Bonds, 12.
Contracts, see Contracts, 145-162.
Contractors' bonds, see Mechanics' Liens, 135,
136.
Policies of insurance, see Insurance, 129-137,
177-179.
Promissory notes, see Negotiable Instruments,
174-208.
Sheriff's bond, see Sheriffs and Constables,
58-60.
Subscriptions, see Subrogation, 16.
In actions to
Determine adverse claims, see Adverse Claim,
23-39.
Enforce mechanics' liens, see Mechanics' Liens,
145-153.
Quiet title, see Quicting Title, 22–28.
the excavations in front of each lot, and of the
proportion to be assessed upon each lot, to be filed
with the then city comptroller, each and all of
the certificates were worthless, and no lien upon
nor collectible out of the lots therein described.
Held, that it did not allege traversable facts, but
only conclusions of law.-Griggs v. City of St.
Paul, 9 Minn. 246, (Gil. 231.)
2. In alleging a levy on execution it is suffi-
cient to aver in general terms that the levy was
made, without stating the specific facts consti-
tuting such levy. -First Nat. Bank of Hastings
v. Rogers, 13 Minn. 407, (Gil. 376.)
3. An allegation in a pleading that certain
acts done, not wrongful in themselves, were
against the provisions of an act of congress, and
in fraud of the plaintiff, is a mere legal conclu-
sion, and not an allegation that defendant acted
fraudulently.-Kelley v. Wallace, 14 Minn. 236,
(Gil. 173.)
4. In an action to set aside a deed alleged to
have been fraudulently procured, plaintiff al-
leged that certain lands inherited by her were
conveyed in such deed, and in a subsequent
clause of the complaint averred that she was
scised in fee-simple of the property conveyed,
without showing how she acquired the same.-
whether by descent or purchase. Held, a suffi-
cient averment of title.-Buckholz v. Grant, 15
Minn. 406, (Gil. 329:) Id., 16 Minn. 158, (Gil. 141.)
5. The allegation in a complaint that plaintiff
is the actual, legal, and bona fide holder of a
promissory note described, is a mere conclusion
of law, and a denial of such allegation is imma-
terial.-Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 493, (Gil. 470.)
6. A complaint alleged that a promissory note
was "duly assigned" to the defendant. Held,
1487
1438
PLEADING, I.
that the words imported a delivery of the note
by the plaintiff, actual or constructive, and an
acceptance by the defendant, and are not the al-
legation of a mere conclusion of law. -Hoag v.
Mendenhall, 19 Minn. 335, (Gil. 289.)
14. Under the rule that facts essential to a
cause of action should be "positively alleged, "
and not by way of recital, argument, or inference,
an allegation in the complaint, in an action for
property claimed to have been obtained by duress
of imprisonment, that the defendant "well knew”
that the warrant was issued by an officer who had
no jurisdiction, is merely an allegation of “knowl-
edge," and therefore insufficient, and such facts
are not admitted by a demurrer to the complaint.
Price v. Doyle, 26 N. W. 14, 34-Taylor v. Blake, 11 Minn. 255, (Gil. 170.)
7. An allegation in a complaint that plaintiff
was obliged to pay the amount of a lien claimed
on his property, in order to discharge the lien,
the facts not appearing, is a statement of a mere
conclusion.
Minn. 400.
8. A complaint alleged the filing of a lien ac-
count under the mechanics' lien law on a cer-
tain day, and that "said account and lien so filed
* * constituted and was a valid and specific
lien upon the premises." Held that, as it did not
appear that the lien account was filed within the
period limited by statute therefor, the statement
of the creation and existence of the lien was only
a legal conclusion.-Price v. Doyle, 26 N. W. 14,
34 Minn. 400.
9. As against a demurrer an allegation of an ulti-
mate fact or conclusion of fact is sufficient. Thus,
after the creation of a life-estate had been stated,
an allegation that "the defendants succeeded to
and became possessed of said life interest and es-
tate" is, as against a demurrer, a sufficient allega-
tion of a transfer to defendants.-Curtiss v. Living-
ston, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 357.
36 Minn. 380.
10. A complaint in an action against a railroad
company, which alleges that defendants" by the cul-
pable carelessness, negligence, unskillfulness, and
mismanagement of said defendants and their em-
ployes, wrongfully ran a locomotive, with a train of
cars thereto attached," against plaintiff's horses
and wagon while lawfully traveling along a public
highway, is not objectionable as stating merely
conclusions of law.-Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 9 N. W. 75, 28 Minn. 69.
15. The complaint in an action for negligently
setting fire to and destroying plaintiff's house,
and grain therein stored, alleged ownership and
possession of the premises by plaintiff on a cer-
tain day, and the storing of grain therein on a
certain other day, and that, said plaintiff still re-
maining in possession, and said grain being stored,
as aforesaid, on a certain day the defendant, etc.
Held, that the complaint sufficiently showed own-
ership and possession at the time of the injury.
-Gould v. Eagle Creek School-Dist., 7 Minn. 203,
(Gil. 145.)
16. A complaint averring that on April 15, 1865,
plaintiff leased certain premises to defendants by
written lease, duly executed, bearing date on such
day, for a certain term, commencing on such
day, and that said lease was duly delivered to
defendants, and they took possession thereunder,
sufficiently avers delivery of the lease and pos-
session of the premises April 15th.-Rhone v.
Gale, 12 Minn. 54, (Gil. 25.)
17. Under the rule of pleading that facts essen-
tial to a plaintiff's rights, and necessarily within
his knowledge, should be alleged positively, an
averment in his complaint that a contract was
made "on or about" a day named is insufficient,
where the time of making such contract is materi-
al and essential to plaintiff's title.-Lockwood v.
Bigelow, 11 Minn. 113, (Gil. 70.)
Distinguished in Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 117, (Gil.
Distinguishing Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 109.)
22 Minn. 165.
11. Where a complaint alleges a general result,
as that a mortgage was "duly foreclosed," and also
the special facts upon which such result depends,
the facts, and not the conclusion, will control.
Pinney v. Fridley, 9 Minn. 34, (Gil. 23.)
Certainty.
12. An allegation in a pleading that a party
"charged” a certain sum for services, without
any averment that the charge was an agreed or
correct one, or that the services were worth
that or any sum, is insufficient to authorize a re-
covery thereon. -Farrington v. Wright, 1 Minn.
241, (Gil. 191.)
13. A complaint, in an action to vacate a tax-
sale, which alleges th..t plaintiff was "lawfully
seised and in possession of block 23, in the town of
Kasota, Le Sueur county, composed and compris-
ing ten distinct and separate lots, numbered from
1 to 10, inclusive," and subsequently mentions the
block as "being subdivided, as herein before set
forth, into lots," does not allege in a traversable
form that the block was subdivided into lots,
which, therefore, is not admitted by a failure to
deny.-Moulton v. Doran, 10 Minn. 67, (Gil. 49.)
18. The complaint in an action by a judgment
creditor to remove, as a cloud upon the title, a con-
veyance by the debtor, showed that by the record
the conveyance was filed one hour prior to the
docketing of the judgment, but alleged that the
docketing of the judgment was prior in point of
time. Held, that it was not demurrable.-Banning
v. Armstrong, 7 Minn. 40, (Gil. 24.)
19. A complaint alleged that the P. Bank, at
the time of defendant's promise, was about to be
established under the laws of the state, by said
defendant, or under his control, and that the first
issue of bank-notes of that bank was made on a
certain day. Held a sufficient averment of the
incorporation of the bank in question.-Yale v.
Edgerton, 14 Minn. 194, (Gil. 144.)
Matters of presumption or inference.
20. An answer alleged the docketing of a judg
ment December 1, 1862, and that execution was is-
sued thereon "on or about the 28th day of Novem-
ber, 1862. " Held, under the presumption in favor
of the regularity of proceedings in a court of gen-
eral jurisdiction, that it would be presumed that
the execution did not issue till after the docketing
of the judgment, and that the answer was not
1489
1490
PLEADING, I., II.
fatally defective for want of certainty. Lockwood | -Romans v. Langevin, 25 N. W. 638, 34 Minn.
v. Bigelow, 11 Minn. 113, (Gil. 70,) distinguished.- 312.
Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 114, (Gil. 105.)
21. In pleading a promise to answer for the
debt, default, or miscarriage of another, it is not
necessary to allege that such promise was in writ-
ing. It will be presumed to have been in writ-
ing unless the contrary appears.-Wentworth v.
Wentworth, 2 Minn. 277, (Gil. 238;) Walsh v. Kat-
tenburgh, 8 Minn. 127, (Gil. 99.)
(
22. The complaint in an action for damages to
plaintiff's land described it as lots fronting on
First street," and referred to said First street
as a street existing in the town of M., to the es.
tablishing of a grade thereon, and the situation
of the property with reference to such street.
Held, that it should be inferred that First street
was a public thoroughfare or highway.-Farrant
v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 13 Minn. 311,
(Gil. 286.)
Construction of allegations.
30. An allegation that a person executed a mort-
gage "whereby he mortgaged" certain property,
implies that he owned it, or at least had a mort-
gagable interest in it.-Brunswick-Balke-Collen-
der Co. v. Brackett, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 214.
37 Minn. 58.
31. Where the intention with which a partic-
ular act was done becomes material, the inten-
tion may be directly alleged as a fact; and an
answer, to be good, must deny such intention.-
Wilcox v. Davis, 4 Minn. 197, (Gil. 139.)
32. In an action by a junior mortgagee against
the purchaser at the foreclosure of a senior mort-
gage, for false and fraudulent misrepresentations
as to when the time of redemption "expired, the
complaint averred execution of the mortgage Oc-
tober 14, 1865, foreclosure by advertisement, and
sale on January 27, 1872, and that the year al-
lowed by law for redemption expired January 27,
1873. Held, as against a general objection to the
complaint made for the first time at the trial,
that such allegation was a sufficient though in-
ferential and argumentative averment that two
of the three years allowed for redemption by Laws
24. A promise to pay money, no time being 1860, c. 87, in force at the execution of the mort-
expressed, being in law a promise to pay on de-gage, had been waived, as prescribed in such
mand, such a promise may be pleaded as made, defendant, in February, 1873, had sold the prem-
statute, especially as the answer admitted that
without expressly alleging a promise to pay on
ises in question. -Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146.
demand.-Chamberlain v. Tyner, 18 N. W. 97, 31
Minn. 371.
23. Where a request to pay is required to be al-
leged, the general averment, "though often re-
quested," is sufficient on demurrer.-Hall v. Will-
iams, 13 Minn. 260, (Gil. 242.)
25. Where a contract alleged as that of a par-
ty is in issue, it is proper to show that the
same was executed by a duly-authorized agent,
though execution by an agent was not averred.
Weide v. Porter, 22 Minn. 429.
26. An allegation in a complaint that by a
lease, a copy of which is attached, plaintiffs de-
mised, leased, and let the premises, includes the
authority of an agent, by whom the lease appears
to have been exccuted on the part of some of the
plaintiffs. -Stees v. Kranz, 20 N. W. 241, 32 Minn.
313.
27. A complaint need not state the names of of-
ficers or agents of the defendant who did the act
constituting plaintiff's cause of action, but such
acts may be pleaded generally as done by defend-
ant.-Todd v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., (Minn.)
35 N. W. 5.
37 Minn. 358.
28. In an action to quiet title by setting aside
a deed alleged to have been executed by the gran.
tor with intent to defraud subsequent bona fide
purchasers, it was not expressly alleged in the
complaint that the deed in question was never
delivered, though plaintiff claimed such to be
the fact. Held, that allegations in the complaint
that the deed was "made and executed" without
the knowledge of the grantee, and that the gran-
tee was never at any time seised of the premises
conveyed, amounted to an allegation that the
deed was never delivered.-Smith v. Dennett, 15
Minn. 81, (Gil. 59.)
29. An averment that a written agreement was
"made and entered into" includes its delivery.
33. In an action of ejectment for land claimed
by plaintiff under an execution sale, and which
appeared by the pleadings to be in one body, the
answer alleged that at the time of the sale two
separate dwelling-houses stood upon the property,
each being upon portions of different lots in the
block, and that they were occupied by two dis-
tinct tenants of defendant, each of whom was in-
dependent of the other, and stated the value of
each of the portions of such lot as being more
than the amount of the judgment for which the
property was sold, and that the whole was sold
as an entire tract. Held, that the answer could
not be construed as pleading the fact that the
property sold consisted of several parcels, as,
while that might be inferred, the facts stated
were not inconsistent with the land being one
tract or parcel.-Cool bough v. Roemer, 15 Ñ. W.
S69, 30 Miun. 424.
Exhibits.
34. The recitals in a penal bond, which is an-
nexed to the complaint in an action thereon, do
not, as a matter of pleading, serve the purpose
of an allegation that the facts are as recited.
Sprague v. Wells, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 535.
47 Minn. 504.
Entitling.
II. COMPLAINT.
35. Where several counties are attached to
another for judicial purposes, the entitling a com-
plaint in the court for all said attached counties,
containing the name of the county in which ac-
tion is brought, is a compliance with Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 62, § 11, providing that the com-
plaint shall contain the name of the court in
which the action is brought.-Young v. Young,
18 Minn. 90, (Gil. 72.)
1491
1492
PLEADING, II.
Statement of separate causes of action.
36. The mere fact that separate paragraphs of
a pleading are separately numbered is of itself
insufficient to determine their character as sepa-
rate and distinct counts or causes of action.-
Merrill v. Dearing, 22 Minn. 376.
Duplicity.
37. In an action by several plaintiffs, the com-
plaint is not objectionable on the ground of du-
plicity merely because, while alleging a cause of
action in favor of all the plaintiffs, it states facts
which might sustain an action brought by only one
of them. Whelan v. Board of County Commission-
ers of Sibley County, 9 N. W. 175, 25 Minn. 80.
Designation of parties.
38. An action against P. and S., "supervisors of
the town of Newport, " for trespass, committed un-
der color of office, in laying out a road, is an ac-
tion against them as private persons, and not an
action against the town, and the addition of the
words "supervisors, " etc., is merely descriptive
of the person.-Holton v. Parker, 13 Minn. 383,
(Gil. 355.)
Statement of cause of action.
39. Where the complaint shows a liability on
the part of defendant it is not necessary to in-
quire in what character his liability originated.
Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil. 272;) Rey
v. Simpson, 1 Minn. 380, (Gil. 282;) Winslow
v. Boyden, 1 Minn. 383, (Gil. 285.)
40. Every fact necessary to make out plaintiff's
cause of action, or which defendant has a right to
controvert, must be alleged, and conclusions of
law not justified by the facts are irrelevant and
nugatory.-Griggs v. City of St. Paul, 9 Minn. 246,
(Gil. 231.)
41. In an action for damages for injuries caused
by the upsetting of a carriage, the complaint al-
leged that defendant drove in front of plaintiff's
carriage, thereby causing a collision, and, to avoid
running into a house, plaintiff had to turn sud-
denly down a certain street, and that while thus
"turning and driving as aforesaid, with all care
and skill possible under the circumstances, the
plaintiff's carriage upset," and then stated the
injuries resulting from the upset. Held, that the
complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to consti-
tute a cause of action; for there was nothing al-
leged to show that defendant was the cause of the
upset, which was the gist of the action.-Lee v.
Emery, 10 Minn. 187, (Ġil. 151.)
42. The statute authorizing street commission-
ers of a city to let contracts for grading, etc., after
advertising for proposals, provided that "due no-
tice shall be given of the time and place of letting
such contract." Held, that an allegation in the
complaint, in an action on such a contract, that
the commissioners advertised for bids for doing
the work, was not a sufficient allegation that they
gave the notice required, and that, defendant hav-
ing set up affirmatively in the answer the fact that
no such notice was given, and that allegation not
having been controverted, judgment was properly
ordered for defendant on the pleadings.-Nash v.
City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 174, (Gil. 110.)
43. Where in action on a contract to pay plain-
tiffs $5,000, if they "consummate a sale" of land to
a third party, when defendants receive their
share ($23,000) of the purchase money, the com-
plaint alleges that defendants have received their
$12,000, it states a cause of action, and is an alle-
share in money and notes amounting to more than
gation that defendants have received their share,
and not that they have only received $12,000.-
Olson v. Jodon, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 485.
38 Minn. 466.
44. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an
agreement that they should buy land from a third
defendant; and that he should then convey a part
person; that the deed therefor should be made to
of it to plaintiff. The purchase was made, but
defendant refused to convey to plaintiff. The
latter filed a complaint setting out the above facts,
and defendant moved to dismiss it as stating no
cause of action, as the agreement was oral, though
for the conveyance of land. Held, that this mo-
tion was properly overruled, as the complaint at
least states a cause of action for the recovery of
the money paid by plaintiff.-Pressnell v. Lundin,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 161.
44 Minn. 551.
45. Under a statute prescribing specified condi-
tions, to be performed before a right of action shall
accrue, a complaint is insufficient which merely
alleges that the plaintiff has performed all of the
acts required by the statute. The facts showing
compliance with the law should be set forth.-Bi-
ron v. Board of Water Com'rs, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 482.
41 Minn. 519.
to constitute a cause of action, where it shows on
46. A complaint does not state facts sufficient
its face that the cause of action is barred by lim-
Minn. 306.
itation. -Millette v. Mehmke, 3 N. W. 700, 26
47. A statement of facts in one cause of action
will not help the statement in another cause of
action in the same complaint, except so far as it
is referred to in, and by such reference made
part of, the statement in such other cause of ac-
tion.-Gertler v. Linscott, 1 N. W. 579, 26 Minn. 82.
48. A party may allege and prove as many prom-
they are valid, separate, and distinct undertakings.
ises as he may have, to pay the debt sued for, if
-Walsh v. Kattenburgh, 8 Minn. 127, (Gil. 99.)
49. A complaint alleged that defendant, during
a certain time, leased, hired, and rented from plain-
tiff, and was in the possession and occupancy, as
tenant of plaintiff, of, certain premises, and that
"said premises were worth and of the value of the
that, no objection to the form of pleading having
sum and agreed price of $25 per month.” Held
upon proof of a tenancy either under a lease or by
been made by defendant, plaintiff might recover
permission.--Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190, (Gil.
176.)
50. Query, whether a complaint can be properly
drawn, so as to permit a recovery for false war-
ranty or for deceit, as the evidence may establish.
-Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn. 109, (Gil. 99.)
Anticipating defenses.
51. If the complaint show, prima facie, a right
in plaintiff to recover, it is sufficient, and need
not negative a possible defense, nor state matter
1493
1494
PLEADING, II., III.
more properly coming from the other side.-
Jones v. Ewing, 22 Minn. 157.
Filing copy of account.
52. Under Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 105, the fail-
ure of plaintiff to file a copy of his account in an
action thereon, can only be taken advantage of by
objection to proof of the account at the trial, and
not by answer.-Henry v. Bruns, 45 N. W. 444, 43
Minn. 295 Butts v. Moorhead Manuf'g Co., 45 N.
W. 444, 43 Minn. 296; Woolfolk v. Bruns, Id.
Allegation of damage.
58. In an action for damages for the wrongtul
conversion of personal property it is not necessary
that the complaint allege the value of the property,
if it contain a proper allegation as to the amount
of plaintiff's damages. Brunswick-Balke-Collen-
der Co. v. Brackett, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 214.
Prayer for relief.
37 Minn. 58.
54. If a complaint is otherwise sufficient, the
mere fact that relief is asked on a wrong ground,
and claim is made for more than the party is enti-
tled to, will not defeat a recovery.-Cressey v.
Gierman, 7 Minn. 398, (Gil. 316.)
55. A complaint setting up a single state of
facts, although it asks alternative relief thereon,
is sufficient, if the facts entitle the plaintiff to any
relief. That it does not ask for the proper relief, or
asks for inconsistent relief, is not ground for de-
murrer.-Connor v. Board of Education of City of
St. Anthony, 10 Minn. 439, (Gil. 352.)
56. It is not ground for demurrer to a complaint,
which shows that plaintiff is entitled to certain re-
lief, that it does not ask for the proper relief, or
asks for inconsistent relief.-Metzner v. Baldwin,
11 Minn. 150, (Gil. 92.)
57. The complaint alleged that plaintiff was
a railroad company, and as such had been in the
possession and enjoyment of certain lines of rail-
road, the necessary equipments for operating the
same, and a sum of money arising from the tolls
and income of such lines; that defendants had
unlawfully dispossessed it of all of this property,
and had refused to surrender it; and that they
were operating the roads and receiving the tolls,
and were allowing the value of the property to
depreciate for want of repairs. It prayed that
defendants be compelled to surrender to plaintiff
the roads with their appurtenances, and the sum
of money mentioned; to account for the tolls re-
ceived by them; and to pay the balance, after
deducting operating expenses; and that a receiv-
er be appointed to take charge of the property
pending the suit. Held
Held that, though the com-
plaint demands more extensive relief than the
facts warrant, this does not render it demurrable
as failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.-First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co. v. Rice, 25 Minn. 278.
III. ANSWER.
Matters in abatement.
58. Pleading to the merits waives a plea in
abatement of an unpaid judgment for costs. Per
FLANDRAU, J.-Gerrish v. Pratt, 6 Minn. 53,
(Gil. 14.)
|
59. Pendency of former action is matter in
abatement, and is waived if not pleaded.—Will-
iams v. McGrade, 18 Minn. 82, (Gil. 65.)
60. Matters in abatement may be united with
other defenses in the same answer.-Page v. Mitch-
ell, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 896.
37 Minn. 368.
61. In an action for the conversion of a building,
defendant pleaded in abatement that the conver-
sion was caused by the alleged obstruction of a
drain, and that, at the commencement of this ac-
tion, another was pending between the same
parties "in which the claim for recovery is based
upon the same alleged obstruction," and that the
conversion for which this action was brought
"grew out of and was part and parcel of the in-
jury resulting from" the obstruction complained
of in the prior action. Held, that the plea was de-
murrable as failing to allege the character of the
prior cause of action, and that it was identical with
the second.-Wilson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 909.
44 Minn. 445.
62. An answer pleading as a defense a defect
of parties plaintiff must distinctly set up such
defense, and specifically show wherein the de-
fect consists, and who should have been joined
as parties.-Davis v. Chouteau, 21 N. W. 748, 32
Minn. 548.
Sufficiency of denial.
63. An answer which alleges that defendant
'states and shows" that he denies each and every
allegation, etc., is sufficient as a denial, though
expressed in superfluous terms.-Moen v. Eldred,
22 Minn. 538.
64. A denial of "each and every allegation in the
complaint, except so far as the court may construe
the statements in the answer as admissions," is
bad, as being indefinite and uncertain.-Starbuck
v. Dunklee, 10 Minn. 168, (Gil. 136.)
Distinguished in Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn. 518, (Gil.
427.)
65. A denial of "each and every statement and
averment, and every part of the same, in said
amended complaint contained, as therein stated or
otherwise, save as hereinafter admitted or quali-
fied," where what is afterwards stated, admitted,
or qualified is unambiguous, is sufficient, and can-
not be stricken out as indefinite and uncertain.
WILSON, C. J., dissenting.-Kingsley v. Gilman,
12 Minn. 515, (Gil. 425.)
Distinguishing Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190, (Gil. 176;)
Starbuck v. Dunklee, 10 Minn. 168, (Gil. 136.)
66. A denial in an answer of each and every
"material" allegation of a complaint is insuffi-
cient. - Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 384, (Gil.
278;) Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 114, (Gil. 105.)
67. In an action on a promissory note plaintiff
alleged that the same had been sold, indorsed,
and delivered to him. Defendant merely denied
that plaintiff was the owner of the note. Held
a denial of a conclusion of law averred in the
complaint, and therefore insufficient to raise an
issue.-Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil.
219;) Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 493, (Gil. 470.)
But compare Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 N. W. 352, 38
Minn. 392.
1495
1496
PLEADING, III.
68. A general denial of all matters alleged touch-
ing the transfer and ownership of the note sued
on, is sufficient to put in issue the transfer thereof
to plaintiff, and his title thereto.-Nunnemacker
v. Johnson, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 351.
38 Minn. 390.
Overruling Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil. 219.)
69. A complaint upon a promissory note alleged
that, by such note, defendants promised to pay to
the plaintiff or order, etc. Two of the defend-
ants, answering separately, denied that "by the
promissory note in the complaint mentioned the
defendants in the action, or either of them, ever
promised to pay the plaintiffs or their order the
sum alleged in the complaint, or any sum what-
ever. Held, that the denial included all the de-
fendants, and raised a material issue.-Bennett
v. Crowell, 7 Minn. 385, (Gil. 306.)
">
70. Where the time of delivery of notes sued
on is immaterial, an allegation in the answer
that they were not delivered till after the time
stated in the complaint raises no material issue.
-McMurphy v. Walker, 20 Minn. 382, (Gil. 334.)
71. The complaint in an action to cancel a bond
executed by B. for a conveyance of land showed
title in B., and alleged a sale by B. to plaintiff.
The answer denied the sale by B. to plaintiff, and
denied that plaintiff became the purchaser. Held,
that the title was put in issue.-Hill v. Edwards, 11
Minn. 22, (Gil. 5.)
72. In an action upon a contract plaintiff
averred, as consideration therefor, the perform
ance of certain valuable and meritorious services
The answer set up a different contract, ad.
mitted the performance of nominal services there-
under, but denied the services set up in the com.
plaint. Held sufficient to raise a substantial is-
sue, requiring proof of the services alleged in the
complaint.-Becker v. Sweetzer, 15 Minn. 427,
(Gil. 346.)
General and specific denials.
73. A general denial, inconsistent with special
matters alleged, will be considered as qualified
thereby.-McClung v. Bergfeld, 4 Minn. 148, (Gil.
99;) Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 119, (Gil. 85;) Scott
v. King, 7 Minn. 494, (Gil. 401.)
74. A general denial, of all allegations not ex-
pressly admitted or qualified, is inapplicable where
specific answers are also made.-Davenport v.
Ladd, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 622.
38 Minn. 545.
|
|
|
that the property is of the value as alleged is a
mere negative pregnant.-Burt v. McKinstry, 4
Minn. 204, (Gil. 146;) Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn.
184, (Gil. 128;) Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190,
(Gil. 176.)
The case of Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190, (Gil. 176,) was
disapproved by MITCHELL, J., in Stone v. Quaal, 29 N.
W. 327, 36 Minn. 49, and overruled in German-American
Bank v. White, 38 N. W. 862, 38 Minn. 472.
77. In an action where the value of property
is material and is alleged, a denial of "each and
every allegation" in the complaint is a mere neg-
ative pregnant, and admits the value as alleged.
Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 51, (Gil. 38;) Pott-
gieser v. Dorn, 16 Minn. 204, (Gil. 180;) Moul-
ton v. Thompson, 1 N. W. 836, 26 Minn. 120;
Coleman v. O'Neil, 1 N. W. 846, 26 Minn. 123.
Overruled in German-American Bank v. White, 38 N.
W. 361, 38 Minn. 471.
78. In an action on a promissory note the com-
plaint averred that before maturity the note was
transferred, etc., to plaintiff. The answer denied
that before maturity such note was sold, trans-
ferred, and delivered to plaintiff. Held, a mere
negative pregnant, raising no issue as to the fact
of transfer.-Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288,
(Gil. 219.)
See Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 N. W. 352, 38 Minn. 392.
79. A general denial is the same in effect as a
specific denial of each of the allegations in the
whole or in the part of the pleading so denied, and
is a negative pregnant only where a mere specific
denial would be.-Stone v. Quaale, 29 N. W. 326, 36
Minn. 46.
Disapproving (MITCHELL, J.) Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn.
190, (Gil. 176.)
Declared in Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 N. W. 352, 38
Minn. 392, to overrule Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288,
(Gil. 219.)
80. A general denial is a negative pregnant, as
applied to an allegation that the use of premises
was and is reasonably worth the sum of $100 per
month," and therefore amounts to an admission of
such an allegation.-Steele v. Thayer, 30 N. W.
758, 36 Minn. 174.
But see German-American Bank v. White, 38 N. W. 361,
38 Minn. 471.
81. In an action for unliquidated damages, an
A
allegation of their amount is not traversable.
general denial puts in issue every allegation in the
pleading which it denies and can never be con-
strued as a negative pregnant. Overruling Dean
v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190, (Gil. 176,) and cases fol-
75. A complaint charged that the two defend-lowing it.-German-American Bank v. White,
ants, as partners, had received certain money. (Minn.) 38 N. W. 361.
The separate answer of one of the defendants con-
tained a general denial. It also contained, in con-
nection with allegations of a certain transaction be-
tween him individually and the plaintiff, a specific
denial that "he" had received such money. Held,
that the latter denial did not modify the effect of
the general denial.-Brandt v. Shepard, (Minn.) 40
N. W. 521.
39 Minn. 454.
Negative pregnant.
76. In an action where the value of property
is material and is alleged, a denial in the answer
38 Minn. 471.
Denial of knowledge or information.
82. A denial of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to an averment in
the complaint alleging plaintiff's copartnership
raises an issue for the consideration of a jury.-
Irvine v. Myers, 4 Minn. 229, (Gil. 164.)
83. Where a judgment is pleaded, a denial of
any knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to such judgment, made by one not a
party thereto, is good.-Mower v. Stickney, 5
1497
1498
PLEADING, III., IV.
Minn. 397, (Gil. 821;) Same v Same, 5 Minn. Inconsistent defenses.
407, (Gil. 330.)
84. The complaint charged defendant with re-
ceiving a certain quantity of wood for transporta-
tion, and the answer admitted receiving a large
quantity, but denied knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the quantity so re-
ceived. Held, that this denial was insufficient, as
it failed to show any reason for a want of such
knowledge, which defendant must be presumed to
possess.-Starbuck v. Dunklee, 10 Minn. 168, (Gil.
136.)
85. In an action against a carrier to recover for
goods lost while in defendant's care, a specific de-
nial of any knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the value of all or any of the
said goods raises an issue as to value.-Ames v.
First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 12 Minn. 412, (Gil.
295.)
86. A denial of any knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief, makes an issue while it
remains in the answer, even though, because the
matter is of record, easily accessible to the party,
it might be struck out as sham upon motion.-
Smalley v. Isaacson, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 352.
40 Minn. 450.
Admissions.
87. Where the complaint avers a fact qualified
by a particular intention the answer may admit
the fact and deny the intention.-Kingsley v. Gil-
man, 12 Minn. 515, (Gil. 425.
88. In an action against a railroad company the
complaint averred that the defendant was a cor-
poration, etc., and was the owner of a certain
railroad, etc. The answer admitted the owner-
ship of the road, and denied all other allegations.
Held an admission of the corporate character.
Woodson v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 60.
89. An averment in an answer that an agent
had no authority to employ an attorney except in
case of vacancy is an admission of authority to
employ in case a vacancy occurred.-Horn v.
Western Land Ass'n, 22 Minn. 233.
90. Pleading a license in an action for injury
to realty, where there is also a denial of plain-
tiff's title, is not an admission of such title.-
Booth v. Sherwood, 12 Minn. 426, (Gil. 310.)
Special defenses.
91. A special defense is something in the nat-
ure of release, accord, or offset; something
which does not deny wholly the transaction al-
leged, but seeks to avoid it by what took place
subsequently, or by some legal difficulty which
exists to a recovery.-Bond v. Corbett, 2 Minn.
248, (Gil. 209.)
Several defenses.
92. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 81, which
provides that the "defendant may set forth by an-
swer as many defenses as he has," defendant may
plead more than one separate defense to the same
cause of action; the only_restriction being that
they shall be consistent.-Booth v. Sherwood, 12
Minn. 426, (Gil. 310;) Conway v. Wharton, 13
Minn. 158, (Gil. 145.)
93. A plea of license from plaintiff to do the act.
complained of as an injury to land is not inconsist
ent with a denial of plaintiff's title.-Booth v.
Sherwood, 12 Minn. 426, (Gil. 310.)
94. In an action for the price of fruit trees,
defenses that the trees were never delivered,
and that the order therefor was obtained by
plaintiff from defendant by fraudulent represen-
tations that the trees were raised in Mankato,
whereas they were in fact raised in Lake City,
on which account they were less valuable, etc.,
904, 28 Minn. 43; Same v. Moses, 8 N. W. 904,.
are not inconsistent.-Roblee v. Secrist, 8 N. W.
28 Minn. 44.
Separate answer by codefendant.
95. A defendant who answers in a case cannot.
assert the rights of one who does not answer,
where he fails to show that he has any interest in
sustaining the rights of such non-answering de
fendant.-Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 45, (Gil.
24.)
Prayer for relief.
96. An answer, good as to plaintiff, is not
vitiated by asking relief which cannot be granted
for want of proper parties.-Campbell v. Jones,
25 Minn. 155.
IV. REPLY.
When requisite New matter in an-
swer.
97. When the complaint in an action upon a
promissory note alleges that it has not been paid,
an averment of payment in the answer is not a
statement of new matter, necessitating a reply.
-McArdle v. McArdle, 12 Minn. 98, (Gil. 53.)
98. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 15, requiring a reply to
to the municipal court of St. Paul; the rule for
an answer containing new matter, does not apply
that court being specially prescribed by Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 64, § 90, which require a reply only
where the answer sets up a counter-claim.-Webb.
v. O'Donnell, 10 N. W. 140, 28 Minn. 368.
99. A complaint alleged that on a certain day
plaintiff was lawfully and peaceably in possession
of a certain hotel building, and that on that day
defendant entered the house and forcibly and un-
lawfully ejected her therefrom, and beat her, and
threw her goods into the street. The answer de-
that defendant was, at the time referred to, the
nied all the allegations of the complaint, and alleged
described in the complaint; that plaintiff was in
owner and in the actual possession of the premises.
the house by permission of plaintiff as a lodger on-
ly; that, at the time mentioned in this complaint,
plaintiff forcibly and unlawfully attempted to evict.
defendant from his premises, and to take posses-
sion thereof, and in so doing plaintiff committed
an assault and battery on defendant, who in de-
fending himself therefrom used no more force than
was necessary for that purpose. Held, that the
new matter in this answer did not constitute a.
complete defense to the action, so as to entitle de-
fendant to a judgment on the pleadings for want.
of a reply.-Craig v. Cook, 9 Ñ. W. 712, 28 Minn.
232.
1499
1500
PLEADING, IV.
106. A reply, in terms denying specifically each
and every allegation of new matter in the answer,
is not so uncertain as to warrant the court in dis-
regarding it at the trial.-Peterson v. Ruhnke,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 768.
46 Minn. 115.
100. Where the complaint alleges that plaintiff | counter-claim for a breach of warranty of the
signed and gave to her husband a blank mortgage goods, including certain articles specifically
on his representations that it should be filled out, mentioned. Held, that a denial in the reply that
and used only if he could compromise with all his plaintiff warranted all of the several articles men-
creditors, which, with defendants' knowledge, tioned in the words of the allegations in the an-
and in their interest, was unlawfully and fraudswer, stated conjunctively, was bad, and raised
ulently diverted, an answer alleging the husband's no issue.-Pullen v. Wright, 26 N. W. 394, 34
indebtedness to certain of the defendants, its as- Minn. 314.
signment to another of them, and the giving of
certain notes, and denying the allegation of the
complaint, states no new matter requiring a reply.
-Conway v. Elgin, (Minn.) 38 N. Ŵ. 370.
38 Minn. 469.
101. In an action to recover commissions earned
by plaintiff as agent in the sale of defendant's land,
the complaint set out that defendant gave plain-
tiff exclusive sale of a tract of land, and agreed to
give him certain commission in case of sale. De-
fendant answered that he had signed a written
signed a written
instrument relying on plaintiff's representations
that it was a mere memorandum containing a de-
scription of the land, and the price; and that, if
the instrument was in fact a contract, it had been
obtained fraudulently. On the trial defendant
moved for judgment on the pleadings for failure
of plaintiff to reply to the new matter relating to
fraud. Held, that the motion was properly de-
nied, because the allegations of the answer were
insufficient to connect that instrument with any-
thing alleged in the complaint.-McAllister v.
Welker, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 107.
39 Minn. 535.
102. A complaint alleged that a certain assign-
ment of a note and mortgage was without consid-
eration and for the purpose of collection. The an-
swer alleged that it was upon a sale for a valua-
ble consideration. Held, that the allegation in the
answer was not new matter requiring a reply.-
Engel v. Bugbee, (Minn.) 42 N. W 351.
Sufficiency of denials.
40 Minn. 492.
103. A pleading alleged that a certain convey-
ance conveyed all the property of the grantor
not exempt from execution. The reply denied
that such conveyance conveyed the grantor's prop-
erty not exempt from execution. Held, that such
denial was too broad to be available.-Truitt v.
Caldwell, 3 Minn. 364, (Gil. 257.)
104. The complaint in an action for goods sold
and delivered alleged several sales in separate
counts. The answer admitted the several sales,
and alleged that they were made on an open run-
ning account, and that plaintiff had recovered
judgment for an indivisible part of the same cause
of action, and that the whole of the account was
due when the former action was brought. The
reply admitted the recovery in another action of
a judgment for the amount stated in the answer;
that the debts on which the present action was
brought were due when the former action was
commenced; and denied generally, except as ad-
mitted, the allegations of the answer. Held, the
answer was in the nature of a confession and avoid-
ance, the matter of which was put in issue by the
reply, and the court properly refused defendant's
motion for a nonsuit.-American Button-Hole,
Overseaming & Sewing Machine Co. v. Thornton,
10 N. W. 425, 28 Minn. 418.
105. In an action on a promissory note for the
price of a stock of goods the answer set up a
Construction of allegations.
107. In an action between two who had been co-
partners, defendant offered in evidence the ledger
of the firm, testifying that certain accounts were
in plaintiff's handwriting, and that defendant re-
ceived none of the money from them, or, if he did,
he turned it over to plaintiff. Held, that the fact
that plaintiff's reply alleged that "this book and
others" showed the money received by plaintiff
was not equivalent to an admission that "such
ledger" showed the money received by the plain-
tiff, or of the fact that entries were in plaintiff's
handwriting, and that it was error to refuse to al-
low plaintiff to cross-examine defendant as to such
matters.-Thayer v. Barney, 12 Minn. 502, (Gil.
406.)
108. The want of material averments in the
complaint cannot be cured by the reply. -Bern-
heimer v. Marshall, 2 Minn. 78, (Gil. 61;) Tul-
lis v. Orthwein, 5 Minn. 377, (Gil. 305;) Webb
v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
Departure from complaint.
109. To constitute a departure in pleading the
party must quit or depart from the case he has
first made, and have recourse to another. It is
the legal and not the natural identity that is to
be preserved.-Estes v. Farnham, 11 Minn. 423,
(Gil. 312.)
110. A complaint alleged a cause of action for
the agreed price of logs sold defendants in the
fall of 1860 at $3 per 1,000, and 25 per cent. addi-
tional if the lumber from them netted over $7
per 1,000 at the mill; the amount to be paid in
full before the spring of 1863. The answer al-
leged-First, an absolute bill of sale of the logs for
$2,000, the receipt whereof was acknowledged
in it; second, a written agreement reciting a sale
of the logs in the fall of 1860, and containing stip-
ulations by which F. (defendant) agreed to pay
$3 per 1,000 for the logs, and, in case the lumber
manufactured should net over $7 per 1,000 at the
mills, $3.25 per 1,000; and, out of the amount the
said logs should come to, to pay A., B. & Co. a
certain sum; the balance, after deducting the
amount due defendant and F. & Co., to be paid
plaintiff in the summer, fall, and winter after
the date of the contract; defendant to pay for
scaling the logs, and all expenses on the logs up
to March to be borne by plaintiff. The plaintiff,
in reply, admitted the contracts as set out, and
alleged the second was a memorandum of the
terms of sale alleged in the complaint. Held,
that there was no departure in the pleading.
Estes v. Farnham, 11 Minn. 423, (Gil. 312.)
1501
1502
PLEADING, IV., V.
Grounds of, generally.
111. The complaint in an action on contract | 41 N. W. 1034, 40 Minn. 291; Prendergast v. Same,
alleged full performance of the contract accord- 41 N. W. 1036, 40 Minn. 295.
ing to its terms. The answer pleaded a counter-
claim upon an alleged failure to perform in time.
The reply alleged matter of excuse for such fail-
ure. Held, that such allegations in the reply,
being a departure from the complaint, could not,
if objected to, aid plaintiff to recover, but he
might plead and prove such matter of excuse as
a defense to the counter-claim.-Trainor v. Wou-
man, 25 N. W. 401, 34 Minn. 237.
112. In an action for damages for breach of con-
tract, the answer set up as the contract between
the parties a writing signed by plaintiff, which
differed in its terms from the contract alleged in
the complaint. The plaintiff in reply admitted
signing this writing, but alleged that it was not
the actual agreement between the parties; that it
was drawn up by the defendant, who induced
plaintiff, who could not read, to sign it, by false
and fraudulent representations that it was such a
contract as they had agreed on, and such as al-
leged in the complaint. Held, that this reply was
not a departure from the complaint, but supported
it by avoiding the new matter set up in the an-
swer.-Rosby v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.)
33 N. W. 698.
37 Minn. 171.
V. DEMURrer.
To whole or part of pleading.
113. In an action of replevin the answer alleged
that defendant had a lien for carrier's charges,
and also a lien for warehouse charges for receiv-
ing and storing the goods replevied. Held, that
the claims for the two liens were distinct de-
fenses, and, though not separately stated, as
required by Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, $ 69, plaintiff
might reply as to one and demur to the other,
under the amendment of section 75 by Laws 1852, 8
26, allowing a plaintiff to demur to one or more
of several defenses, and reply to the residue.
Bass v. Upton, 1 Minn. 408, (Gil. 292.)
114. A demurrer will only lie to a whole pleading,
and not to a portion of a single cause of action or
defense.-Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 158, (Gil.
105;) Armstrong v. Hinds, 9 Minn. 356, (Gil.
341;) Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 N. W. 366,
38 Minn. 459.
Who may demur-Joint demurrer.
115. The fact that the summons in an action had
not been served upon one of several co-defend-
ants affords no ground for another defendant to
demur to the complaint.-St. Paul Land Co. v.
Dayton, (Minn.) 34 Ñ. W. 335.
37 Minn. 364.
116. A joint demurrer by several defendants to
a complaint for insufficiency is bad, where the
complaint states a cause of action against any one
of the defendants.-Clark v. Lovering, (Minů.) 33
N. W. 776.
37 Minn. 120.
117. Where a complaint states a good cause of
action against one of several defendants, a com-
mon demurrer alleging such defect must be over-
ruled.-Petsch v. St. Paul Dispatch Printing Co.,
118. The rule that a demurrer puts to the test
of legal sufficiency all prior pleadings in the
cause, is retained under Minn. Code, but its
strictness as to form is relaxed; and if a plead-
ing set forth a valid cause of action or defense,
the fact that it also contains unnecessary, imma-
terial, or redundant statements will not make it
demurrable, but the proper course is by motion
to strike out the improper or insufficient matter.
-Loomis v. Youle, 1 Minn. 175, (Gil. 150.)
119. Indefiniteness in pleading cannot be reached
by general demurrer.-Dewey v. Leonard, 14 Minn.
153, (Gil. 120.)
To complaint-For want of jurisdiction.
120. To justify a demurrer to a complaint on the
ground that the court has not jurisdiction of the
subject-matter, such want of jurisdiction must af-
firmatively appear; otherwise, the objection must
be taken by answer.-Powers v. Ames, 9 Minn.
178, (Gil. 164;) Dorman v. Ames, 9 Minn. 180, (Gil.
164.)
121. The fact that an action is commenced in a
wrong county is not fatal to the jurisdiction, and
cannot be reached by demurrer. - Nininger v.
Board of County Com'rs Carver County, 10 Minn.
133, (Gil. 106.)
122. An objection that the county designated is
not the proper place of trial cannot be taken by
a demurrer. -Gill v. Bradley, 21 Minn. 15.
For want of legal capacity to sue.
123. Want of legal capacity in a plaintiff to sue
must appear affirmatively in the complaint, to
authorize a demurrer upon that ground.-State
of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 272; Minnea-
polis Harvester-Works v. Libby, 24 Minn. 327.
124. In an action for a penalty authorized by
statute to be brought by the director of a school-
district, or by any freeholder in the district, the
objection that the person prosecuting the action
has not the legal capacity to sue cannot be raised
by general demurrer, as the objection does not
affect the cause of action.-Soule v. Thealander,
17 N. W. 373, 31 Minn. 227.
For want of leave to sue.
125. Omission to obtain leave to sue an as-
signee for benefit of creditors is not ground of
demurrer to the complaint in the action against
him. Lenthold v. Young, 19 N. W.
652, 32
Minn. 122.
For duplicity or improper joinder
of causes of action.
126. A general demurrer will not reach duplic.
ity or improper joinder of causes of action. It
can only be sustained where the pleading does
not state any cause of action.-Smith v. Jordan,
13 Minn. 264, (Gil. 246.)
127. Where the facts stated in a complaint con-
stitute a single cause of action, a prayer for in-
consistent forms of relief will not render the
1503
1504
PLEADING, V.
pleading demurrable for misjoinder of causes of | make it demurrable, as not stating facts_suffi-
action. The remedy is by motion.-Caulstrom cient to constitute a cause of action. -First Divis-
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 18 N. W. 94, ion St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Rice, 25 Minn. 278.
31 Minn. 367.
To complaint-For defect or misjoinder
of parties.
139. Where the facts alleged in a complaint
show a cause of action for the possession of cer-
tain personal property without an accounting,
the fact that an accounting is prayed for is not
ground for a general demurrer.-Lenthold v.
128. Demurrer for defect of parties under the
Minnesota statutes is not a substitute for the com-Young, 19 N. W. 652, 32 Minn. 122.
mon-law plea in abatement.-Porter v. Fletcher,
25 Minn. 493.
129. Where a complaint in an action brought by
one shows a cause of action belonging to himself
and others jointly, demurrer for non-joinder will
lie, although it does not appear from the com-
plaint that the others are alive. -Porter v. Fletch-
er, 25 Minn. 493.
130. Where there is an improper joinder of
parties defendant the objection may be raised by
demurrer by the party improperly joined; but
the remedy, if any, by one who is a proper
party defendant, is by motion to purge the rec-
ord.-Lewis v Williams, 3 Minn. 151, (Gil. 95.)
131. Improper joinder of defendants cannot be
taken advantage of by a general demurrer on
the part of all.-Goncelier v. Foret, 4 Minn. 13,
(Gil. 1.)
132. Mere excess of parties is no ground of de-
murrer by those properly joined.-Mitchell v. Bank
of St. Paul, Minn. 252, (Gil. 192.)
133. An excess of parties is not a ground of de-
murrer for "defect of parties," under Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 92, subd. 4.-Hoard v Clum,
17 N. W. 275, 31 Minn. 186.
For failure to state cause of ac-
tion.
134. The fact that the complaint shows that the
subject-matter of the action has been previously
conclusively adjudicated may be taken advantage
of by demurrer on the ground that the complaint
does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action.-Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn. 234, (Gil.
176.)
135. A general demurrer, on the ground that the
complaint does not state facts sufficient to consti-
tute a cause of action, need not specify the partic-
ular defects.-Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn. 234, (Gil.
176.)
136. Where a complaint shows a party entitled
to some relief, a general demurrer to the pleading,
as a whole, will be overruled.-Lockwood v. Bige-
low, 11 Minn. 113, (Gil. 70.)
137. A demurrer to a complaint on the ground
that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action cannot be sustained merely be-
cause the action is in its nature equitable, while
an adequate remedy of a legal kind is open to
plaintiff.-Canty v. Latternar, 17 N. W. 385, 31
Minn. 239.
For failure to ask proper relief.
138. If the complaint shows a plaintiff entitled
to some relief, the fact that he claims more re-
lief than he shows himself entitled to will not
140. In an action to compel specific performance
tiff to act as her agent, a general demurrer is prop-
of a contract by which defendant employed plain-
tiff to act as her agent, a general demurrer is
erly overruled, where the complaint states facts
entitling plaintiff to recover for services per-
formed and money expended for defendant, and
the fact that the wrong relief is asked is no
ground of demurrer. Alworth v. Seymour,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 1030.
42 Minn. 526.
141. On demurrer to a complaint in an action to
enforce a mechanic's lien it appearod that,
although the complaint failed to show a valid
lien, it stated a cause of action for specific per-
formance of a contract. Held, that the demurrer
should be overruled.-Dye v. Forbes, 24 N. W.
309, 34 Minn. 13.
To complaint of intervener.
142. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 131, pro-
viding that "an intervention shall be by com-
plaint, which must set forth the facts on which
the intervention rests, and all the pleadings
therein shall be governed by the same principles
and rules as obtain in other pleadings," the com-
plaint of an intervener may be demurred to for
its failure to state a cause of action or ground of
intervention.-Shepard v. Malhoit, (Shepard v.
Murray County,) 24 N. W. 291, 33 Minn. 519.
To answer.
143. Where an answer denies all the allegations
in a complaint, except such as it admits, which
allegations admitted are insufficient to constitute
a cause of action, and then sets up special defenses,
a general demurrer to the answer will be overruled,
though the special defenses are insufficient, since
the denials alone constitute a good defense.-First
Nat. Bank v. Nathan, 9 N. W. 626, 28 Minn. 150.
144. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 100, which
only authorizes a demurrer to "an answer con-
taining new matter, an answer consisting only
subject to demurrer.-C. N. Nelson Lumber Co.
of a denial of a portion of the complaint is not
v. Carney, (C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Pelan,)
25 N. W. 406, 34 Minn. 243.
want of proper parties, contain a counter-claim,
145. The objection that an answer does not, for
may be raised by demurrer.-Campbell v. Jones,
25 Minn. 155.
146. Upon demurrer to an answer the defendant
may attack the complaint, and, if the complaint
is so defective that it would not be aided by the
verdict, he is entitled to judgment in his favor,
and the same rule is applicable on motion to
strike out an answer. -Smith v. Mulliken, 2
Minu. 319, (Gil. 273;) Yoss v. De Freudenrich,
6 Minn. 95, (Gil. 45.)
1505
1506
PLEADING, V., VI.
147. On a demurrer to the answer, the sufficiency
of the complaint will be considered, and, if the
complaint is insufficient, judgment will be given
for defendant, though the answer is also defective.
First Nat. Bank v. Nathan, 9 N. W. 626, 28 Minn.
150.
To reply.
148. Upon a demurrer to a reply the complaint
may be attacked for failure to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action.-Lockwood v. Bige-
low, 11 Minn. 113, (Gil. 70;) Bausman v. Wood-
man, 24 N. W. 198, 33 Minn. 512.
149. Under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 44, § 2, provid-
ing that "if a reply to any new matter set up in
the answer is insufficient, the defendant may de-
mur thereto," it is no objection to such a de-
murrer that the reply might have been stricken
out on motion.-Bausman v. Woodman, 24 N. W.
198, 33 Minn. 512.
150. A reply which is not responsive to the an-
swer, but merely attempts to aid the complaint,
is demurrable.-Bausman v. Woodman, 24 N. W.
198, 33 Minn. 512.
Effect.
151. Where, in an action on a promissory note,
defendant demands an assessment of damages, and
then afterwards demurs to that part of the com-
plaint alleging the damages to be assessed, such
demurrer is an abandonment of his demand for
such assessment.-Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn.
158, (Gil. 105.)
152. A general demurrer only admits traversa-
ble facts, not mere inferences or conclusions of
law.-Griggs v. City of St. Paul, 9 Minn. 246, (Gil.
231.)
Judgment on demurrer-Pleading over.
153. In equitable actions, where the nature of
the case is such that proof should be made of
facts alleged in the complaint, it is error for the
court to require, upon demurrer to the complaint
being overruled, that final judgment be entered
thereon without such proof.-Deuel v. Hawke,
2 Minn. 50, (Gil. 37.)
154. Where a demurrer to an answer is over-
ruled, and no time allowed to answer over, the
case stands as if no answer had been interposed,
and the plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment on
his complaint. -Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 158,
(Gil. 105.)
155. In its decision on demurrer the court need
not find the facts admitted by the pleadings.
--Dickinson v. Kinney, 5 Minn. 409, (Gil. 332.)
156. After a demurrer to a complaint was sus-
tained, it was stipulated that plaintiffs might have
30 days to amend; but, before its expiration, plain-
tiffs informed defendant they did not wish to
amend, and requested him to enter judgment.
Held a waiver of their right to amend, and a no-
tice of entry of judgment, served before the expi-
ration of the 30 days, for the entry of judgment
thereafter, was not improper, and the judgment
entered in pursuance thereof was regular.-Etna
Ins. Co. v. Swift, 12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 326.)
V.2M.DIG.-48
|
157. Where a party, after his demurrer is over-
ruled by the court below, pleads issuably, he
thereby waives the error, if any, committed in
overruling such demurrer.-Coit v. Waples, 1
Minu. 134, (Gil. 110.)
158. Error in sustaining a demurrer to an orig-
inal answer is waived by putting in an amended
311, (Gil 243.)
answer. -Becker v. Sandusky City Bank, 1 Minn.
VI. VERIFICATION.
Of complaint.
159. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 64, § 90, provides
that in actions brought in the municipal court
of St. Paul,
of St. Paul, "no summons shall issue until the
complaint in the action shall be made and filed, ”
and that pleadings in said court shall be verified
as in justices' courts. Held, that failure to ver-
ify the complaint is not a jurisdictional defect,
for which the action will be dismissed after the
summons is issued thereon and duly served.
McMath v. Parsons, 2 N. W. 703, 26 Minn. 246.
Of denial of execution of written in-
strument.
160. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
73, § 89, that "every written instrument, pur-
porting to have been signed or executed by any
person, shall be proof that it was so signed or
executed, until the person by whom it purports
to have been signed or executed shall deny the
signature or execution of the same by his oath
or affidavit," applies only to an instrument on
which an action is brought. against the maker
thereof, or upon which a counter-claim or defense
against the maker thereof is founded.-Mast v.
Matthews, 16 N. W. 155, 30 Minn. 441.
161. A general denial in the answer, though it
be verified, is not such a denial of the signature
or execution of a written contract, the execution
of which is alleged in the complaint, as is re-
cific, to make proof of the execution necessary
quired by the statute. The denial must be spe-
at the trial.-Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark,
15 N. W. 252, 30 Minn. 308; Cowing v. Peterson, 30
N. W. 461, 36 Minn. 130.
By attorney or agent.
162. Under Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, § 73, as
amended by Laws 1856-57, pp. 6, 7, which provides
that, where a pleading is verified by a person
other than a party, the affiant's knowledge
or ground of belief, and the reason why the veri-
fication is not made by a party, shall be set
forth; and that when the cause of action or de-
fense is founded on a written instrument for the
payment of money only, in the possession of the
agent or attorney, affidavit of the fact of such
possession shall be sufficient, -the written instru-
ment referred to is some instrument, the creature
of the contracting parties, containing stipulations
for payment of money, and does not include judg-
ments.-Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn. 319, (Gil.
273.)
163. An affidavit of merits may be made by the
attorney for the party, if he have personal knowl-
edge of the facts.-Frankoviz v. Ireland, (Frank-
oviz v. Smith,) 28 N. W. 508, 35 Minn. 278.
1507
1508
PLEADING, VI., VII.
Effect.
164. A verification of an insufficient pleading
will not aid it.-Farrington v. Wright, 1 Minn.
241, (Gil. 191.)
Defective verification.
165. Under Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, § 73, as amend-
ed by Laws 1856-57, pp. 6, 7, which provides that
when a pleading in a case is verified all subse-
quent pleadings must be verified, a pleading that
is defectively verified may be treated as entirely
unverified.-Smith v. Mulliken. 2 Minn. 319,
(Gil. 273.)
VII. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS.
Amendment-To conform to statutory
requirements.
166. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 105, permitting
the amendment of a proceeding which fails to
conform to statutory requirements, does not ap-
ply to a proceeding taken under no statute what-
ever, as in replevin where plaintiff proceeds by
writ issued under Gen. St. 1866, c. 66, §§ 114-117,
repealed by Laws 1868, c. 76, which requires the
request of plaintiff's attorney to take the prop-
erty to be indorsed on the affidavit.-Castle v.
Thomas, 16 Minn. 490, (Gil. 443.)
Of complaint.
167. The trial court may, in its discretion, per-
mit an amendment to a complaint at the trial, and
allow further testimony to be given under the
amendment after a party has rested.-Caldwell v.
Bruggerman, 8 Minn. 286, (Gil. 252.)
168. In an action for injury to a city lot, de-
scribed in the complaint by number, the court
may allow an amendment, at trial, correcting
a mistake in the number, if defendant is not
misled by it.-Rau v. Minnesota Val. R. Co., 13
Minn. 442, (Gil. 407.)
169. A complaint averred that plaintiffs owned
an interest in a certain judgment, which defendant
undertook to collect; that defendant had acknowl-
edged satisfaction of such judgment, and directed
his attorneys to satisfy the same; and that it was
satisfied of record. The evidence showed that de-
fendant had given his attorneys a writing stating
that the judgment was paid, and requesting them
to satisfy the same, but failed to show that it was
satisfied. At the close of his case the plaintiff
moved to amend, to make the pleadings conform to
the proof. Held, that this was a case of failure
of proof, and not of variance, and therefore the
motion to amend was made to the discretion of the
court, under Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 94, and its de-
nial, and the dismissal of the action, were no abuse
of such discretion, and were not subject to review.
-White v. Culver, 10 Minn. 192, (Gil. 155.)
170. The Minnesota statutes have abolished the
formal distinction between proceedings at law
and proceedings in equity, and in furtherance of
justice a court may allow an amendment of a
complaint praying pecuniary damages by substi-
tuting a prayer for equitable relief which the
facts_alleged show that complainant is entitled
JO.
-Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 221, (Gil. 141.)
171. In an action of foreclosure, about nine years
the judgment was satisfied by the sale of the mort-
after judgment, over eight years and a half after
gaged premises, and over eight years after the sale
had been confirmed, an order was made on plaintiff's
motion, (no sufficient excuse being given for her de-
lay in making application,) allowing her to amend
the allegation of her complaint as to the date of the
delivery of the mortgage, and directing that the
question as to the date of such delivery be deemed at
issue between the parties, and that issue be placed
on the calendar for trial; and that, if it should be
decided in favor of defendants, they should have the
right to apply to the court to have the judgment, and
all proceedings thereunder, and the final decree, va-
cated. Held, that the making of such an order was,
under the circumstances, an abuse of discretion,
both because the proceedings proposed to be had
under the order were useless and frivolous, and
because an amendment to a pleading, so long after
judgment, ought not, under the circumstances, to.
have been allowed.-North v. Webster, 30 N. W.
429, 36 Minn. 99.
172. At the trial of an action against a corpora-
tion organized and existing under the laws of the
United States, an amendment of the complaint
was allowed at the trial, by which the claim for
damages was increased from an amount less to
an amount greater than $500. Held, that the
amendment would not be regarded as an abuse
of the discretion of the trial court, as compelling
defendant to submit to a trial in the state court
in a case where the amount was sufficient for a
removal to a United States court, without his
having an opportunity to remove the cause; there
being nothing to indicate that the proceeding
was a device or artifice to prevent such removal.
---Austin v. Northern Pac., F. F. & B. H. R. Co.,
26 N. W. 607, 34 Minn. 473. Affirmed in
United States supreme court, 10 S. Ct. 758, 135
U. S. 315.
Of answer.
173. On the trial of an action for the price of a
wagon, the court properly exercised its discretion
in refusing to allow the answer, which set up a
counter-claim for a breach of warranty of the
wagon, to be amended so as to apply to a wagon
sold before the one in suit. -Iverson v. Dubay,
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 159.
39 Minn. 325.
174. An amendment to an answer proposed on
the second day of a trial, withdrawing an admis-
sion in the original answer in favor of the plain-
tiff, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and
its refusal is not error.-Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co.. (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1040.
40 Minn. 273.
trial, to amend the answer so as to lay a founda-
175. The denial of an application, made at the
tion for a reformation of the written contract
sued on, in respect of matters alleged to have
been omitted therefrom by mistake, is within
the discretion of the court.-Morrison v. Love-
joy, 6 Minn. 319, (Gil. 224.)
Proceedings for leave to amend.
176. A party asking leave of court to amend his
pleadings must inform the court in what particu-
Îar he desires an amendment, otherwise there is
1509
1510
PLEADING, VII., VIII.
nothing for the court to exercise its discretion
upon.-Barker v. Walbridge, 14 Minn. 469, (Gil.
351.
177. It is not necessary that an order granting
leave to amend a complaint should be served on
the adverse party. Holmes v. Campbell, 12
Minn. 221, (Gil. 141.)
178. The refusal of the court to strike out an
amended pleading, which was allowed on default
of the adverse party to appear and oppose its al-
lowance, is not error. Bruns v. Schreiber,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 120.
Imposing conditions.
179. It is not an abuse of discretion for the court,
on allowing an amended answer to be put in, con-
taining two inconsistent defenses, to compel the
party to elect upon which he will rely, or to im-
pose a condition that the same should be considered
at issue without service of a written reply.-Cald-
well v. Bruggerman, 8 Minn. 286, (Gil. 252.)
Effect of amendment.
180. The effect of amendments to an answer
cannot be confined to the parts of the original
answer amended, but must be considered in con-
nection with the whole of the original answer.
-Hanscom v. Herrick, 21. Minn. 9.
181. An amended answer, after it has been al-
lowed to be filed, is a substitute for the original,
and the only answer in the case.-Oleson v. New-
ell, 12 Minn. 186, (Gil. 114.)
Supplemental complaint.
182. If the original complaint is wholly defect-
ive, it cannot be sustained by a supplemental
one; but if sustainable, and the supplemental
complaint only enlarges its extent and changes
the kind of relief, the latter may be sustained.-
Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil. 166.)
183. Where an original complaint is wholly de-
fective, but a supplemental complaint sets up
matter accruing subsequent to the commencement
of the action, so that the two establish a valid
cause of action, objection to such supplemental
bill cannot be taken for the first time at the tri-
al, by objecting to evidence thereunder.-Lowry
v. Harris, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil. 166.)
184. A proposed supplemental complaint set
forth facts going to show that a prior settlement
and dismissal of the cause was made under a
mistake of fact, praying that it might be abro-
gated, and the relief originally prayed be
granted. Held, that it stated a new cause of ac-
tion, and leave to file it in the original suit was
properly denied.-Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls
Water-Power Co., 17 Minn. 48, (Gil. 31.)
185. If a complaint states no cause of action, it
cannot be sustained by a supplemental pleading
setting up matters that have occurred after the
commencement of the suit. The office of a supple-
mental complaint is merely to enlarge or change
the relief to which a party may be entitled upon a
cause of action existing at the time of the com-
mencement of the suit.-Meyer v. Berlandi, (Minn.)
40 N. W. 513.
39 Minn. 438.
|
VIII. MOTIONS RELATING TO PLEADINGS.
Motion to strike out-In general.
186. A motion to strike out an answer and for
judgment need not be made within 20 days
from its service. If the answer is entirely bad,
such motion may be made even after trial..
Freeman v. Curran, 1 Minn. 169, (Gil. 144.)
187. In an action to set aside a conveyance of
land entered as a town-site under Act Cong. May
23, 1844, the answer recited that "these defendants
deny all that part of the complaint included in the
following words: 'That neither of the defendants
nor any of them occupied or improved the said
blocks, *
** and the said plaintiff alleges that
neither of the said defendants has any right,
title, or interest in or to the said lots,
any one thereof."" Held, that this portion of the
answer was properly stricken out, as being too
large as a traverse and a denial of a negative alle-
gation.-Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
*
or
188. In an action upon a justice's judgment,
rendered in another state, even though the law
be that the recital in the record that defendant
controverted, that fact is no justification for
was personally served with process could not be
striking out, before trial, an allegation in de-
fendant's answer "that he never was served with
process, and never appeared in said action in
any way whatever."-Bryan v. Farnsworth, 19
Minn. 239, (Gil. 198.)
189. A party is not deprived of his right to have
matter stricken out of a defense in which it is
badly pleaded, because it is made part of a sub-
sequent defense by reference to the former.
Palmer v. Smith, 21 Minn. 419.
As indefinite or uncertain.
190. Defendants, who have answered a complaint
without objection, cannot afterwards attack it for
indefiniteness or uncertainty.-Cathcart v. Peck,
11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
191. Under Rev. St. c. 70, 76, as amended by
Laws 1852, p. 9, providing that the court may
strike out a pleading for indefiniteness or uncer-
tainty, or require it to be amended, the moving
party may produce proof outside of the pleading
itself to show that the allegations are intended
to evade a direct averment, which the pleader
cannot in conscience make.
cannot in conscience make.-Colter v. Greenha-
gen, 3 Minn. 126, (Gil. 74.)
192. A motion to strike out certain portions of a
complaint as indefinite and uncertain, or to have
the same made more definite and certain, may
properly be denied where the general allegations
objected to are narrowed and made more specific
and definite by subsequent averments, so that the
complaint is thereby made as definite as could
reasonably be expected, and sufficient to inform
defendant with reasonable certainty of what
plaintiff complains. -Fraker v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 14 N. W. 366, 30 Minn. 103.
193. On a motion to strike out a pleading, or w
require it to be made more definite and certain,
the particular allegations objected to should be
specifically pointed out in the motion papers.
Truesdell v. Hall, 29 N. W. 72, 35 Minn. 468.
1511
1512
PLEADING, VIII.
Motion to strike out-As irrelevant, re-
dundant, etc.
194. An irrelevant pleading is one which has
no substantial relation to the controversy be
tween the parties to the suit.-Morton v. Jack-
son, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
195. Allegations which simply plead matters of
evidence, or deny immaterial matter, legal con-
clusions, or negative averments, are bad, and may
be stricken out.-Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 45,
(Gil. 24.)
-
196. Plaintiffs alleged that they had, as attor-
Leys at law, recovered a judgment for a client
against defendant, and that, pending an appeal
from that judgment, defendant had settled with
the client, and thereby deprived plaintiffs of any
means of compensation for their labor. Defend
ant answered, setting up matters going to show
that the original judgment was fraudulently ob-
tained against it. Held, that such matter was
properly stricken from the answer as irrelevant
and immaterial.-Brisbin v. American Exp. Co.,
15 Minn. 43, (Gil. 25.)
197. The complaint, in an action for injuries
received by plaintiff while coupling cars in de-
fendant's employ, alleged as negligence on de-
fendant's part that the draw-bars of the coupling
appliances "were not properly fastened, and
were loose, defective, and insufficient, and, on
account thereof, would not and did not remain
in their proper places when the cars were driven
together, as usual and necessary in making said
coupling. Held, that a motion to strike out the
words "defective and insufficient" as irrelevant
and redundant, or that as to them the complaint
be made more definite and certain, was properly
overruled. Tierney v. Burlington, C. R. & N.
overruled.—Tierney
Ry. Co., (Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co.,) 17 N. W. 377, 31 Minn. 234.
198. Upon a motion to strike out allegations as
redundant, etc., the sufficiency of the complaint
is not in question. - Brisbin v. American Exp.
Co., 15 Minn. 43, (Gil. 25.)
Answer or defense as sham.
199. A motion to strike out an answer or de-
fense as sham may be entertained by the court,
in its discretion, at any time before trial.-
Barker v. Foster, 12 N. W. 460, 29 Minn. 166.
200. A sham answer is one setting up new mat-
ter, the falsity of which is clear and indisput-
able.-Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
201. An answer consisting only of a general
denial, setting up no new matter, and verified,
cannot be stricken out as sham.-Morton v. Jack
son, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
Overruled in C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Richardson, 17
N. W. 388, 31 Minn. 267.
202. Where inconsistent defenses are set up, the
answer cannot, for that cause, be stricken out;
the proper course is to require defendant to elect
upon which defense he will rely.-Conway v.
Wharton, 13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 145.)
203. In an action upon a negotiable promissory
note, the answer admitted facts constituting in
law a delivery of the note, but denied a delivery in
fact. Held, that the admission should prevail,
and the denial be stricken out as a sham, or as ir-
relevant. WILSON, C. J., dissenting.-Hayward
v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165 (Gil. 154.)
204. The fact that an answer is. verified will not
prevent its being stricken out as a sham.-Con-
way v. Wharton, 13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 145;) Hay-
ward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154.)
205. An answer or defense consisting of new
matter affirmatively pleaded may be stricken out
upon satisfactory evidence clearly establishing
its falsity, although it be verified.-Barker v.
Foster, 12 N. W. 460, 29 Minn. 166.
206. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 99,
which provides that sham answers and defenses
may be stricken out, an answer may be so stricken
out, although it contains only a general denial,
and notwithstanding it is verified.-C. N. Nelson
Lumber Co. v. Richardson, 17 N. W. 388, 31 Minn.
267.
Overruling Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
207. Although part of an answer is sham and
frivolous, if it contains a general denial not
shown to be sham, and allegations of the com-
plaint material to the relief sought by plaintiff
are not specifically admitted, the whole answer
cannot be stricken out.-Schmitt v. Cassilius, 16
N. W. 453, 31 Minn. 7.
208. A verified answer should not be stricken
out as sham merely on the affidavit of the plain-
tiff denying the fact alleged as a defense, al-
though the averment is not supported by addi-
tional affidavits on the part of the defendant.
City Bank v. Doll, 24 N. W. 300, 33 Minn. 507.
209. When the allegations of an answer or de-
fense are fairly supported by the affidavits of the
defendant and others against affidavits on behalf
of plaintiff, such answer or defense should not
be stricken out as sham, unless under very ex-
traordinary circumstances.-Jewell v. Wright,
24 N. W. 299, 33 Minn. 505.
210. On a motion to strike out an answer as
sham, affidavits on behalf of defendants fairly
supported the answer, and negatived the charge
of bad faith in interposing it. Held, that the
motion should be denied.-Smith v. Betcher, 25
N. W. 347, 34 Minn. 2.8.
211. Where, on a motion to strike out an an-
swer as sham, the affidavits on the part of plain-
tiff make out a clear prima facie case, calling
for some explanation by defendants not afforded
by the answer, and no affidavits or other proof
are supplied by defendant in support of the an-
swer, the motion should be granted.-Van Loon
v. Griffin, 26 N. W. 601, 34 Minn. 444.
212. In an action by a mortgagee of personal
property to recover the same, the defendant an-
swered by general denial. On motion to strike
out as sham, defendant made affidavit that she
had purchased the property with actual notice of
the existence of the mortgage, but on the repre-
sentation by the mortgagor that the mortgage
would never be enforced. Held, that a motion to
strike out the answer as sham was properly sus-
1513
1514
PLEADING, VIII.
tained.—Stevens v. McMillan, (Minn.) 35 N. W. under Gen. St. 1866, c. 66, § 88, which provides
372.
37 Minn. 509.
213. A complaint on a promissory note alleged
that defendant, for value, executed a contract in
writing to pay the note previously made by a third
person, and the answer was a general denial. On
a motion to strike out the answer as sham, it ap-
peared that the contract was not a specific agree-
ment to pay the note, but the partnership and in-
dividual debts of the maker thereof, not exceeding
a sum certain. Held, that defendant, under the
general denial, might show that the agreement
had already been otherwise satisfied, and did not
include plaintiffs' claim, and hence it did not in-
disputably appear that answer was sham or inter-
posed in bad faith.-McDermott v. Deither, (Minn.)
41 N. W. 544.
40 Minn. 86.
Frivolous defense or demurrer.
214. Under Rev. St. Minn. 1851, § 76,
as
amended by Laws 1852, p. 9, $ 70, which author-
izes the striking out of sham answers and de-
fenses, and frivolous demurrers, an answer may
be stricken out as frivolous.-Morton v. Jackson,
2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
215. A frivolous answer is one which, if true,
does not contain any defense, and the insuffi-
ciency of which is so glaring that the court can
determine it upon a bare inspection without ar-
gument. --Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil.
180.)
216. The frivolousness of a demurrer is to be de-
termined from the pleading and demurrer alone,
and if from a mere inspection it can be deter-
mined that the pleading is good, the demurrer will
be stricken out as frivolous.-Hurlburt v. Schu-
lenburg, 17 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5;) Perry v. Rey-
nolds, 42 N. W. 471, 40 Minn. 499.
217. In an action for the price of fruit trees al-
leged to have been sold and delivered by plain
tiff to defendant, a defense that plaintiff obtained
the order for the trees by fraudulent representa-
tions that they were raised in Mankato, whereas
they were in fact raised in Lake City, on which
account they were less valuable, etc., is not friv-
olous.-Roblee v. Secrist, 8 N. W. 904, 28 Minn.
43; Same v. Moses, 8 N. W. 904, 28' Minn. 44.
|
218. A demurrer should not be stricken out as
frivolous unless it be manifest from mere inspec-
tion, and without argument, that there was no
reasonable ground for interposing it, and hence
that it was presumably put in in bad faith, for
mere purposes of delay. It should not be struck
out where there is such room for debate, as to the
sufficiency of the pleading demurred to, that an
attorney of ordinary intelligence might have in-
terposed a demurrer in entire good faith.-Hatch
& Essendrup Co. v. Shusler, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 782.
46 Minn. 207.
for a bill of particulars only in an action on an
account; and, if the allegations in the complaint
are not sufficiently specific, defendant's remedy
is by motion to make the complaint more definite
and certain. -Board County Com'rs Mower Coun-
ty v. Smith, 22 Minn. 97.
220. On a motion that a complaint be made
more definite and certain as to certain general
allegations contained therein, it appeared that
plaintiff had pleaded specifically the facts with-
in his knowledge, and that he possessed no
knowledge or information of additional facts to
sustain the general allegations objected to.
Held, that such allegations should be stricken
out. -Pugh v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 13 N.
W. 189, 29 Minn. 390.
221. The complaint, in an action for damages
for personal injuries to plaintiff while in the em-
ploy of defendant as brakeman on a railway
train, in setting out defendant's negligence,
mingled specific and general charges of the de-
fective condition of defendant's track from which
juries. Held, that an order directing such gen-
the train was thrown, causing plaintiff's in-
eral allegations to be made more definite and cer-
tain, and, in default thereof, to be stricken out,
being within the reasonable discretion of the
court, would be susta.ned on appeal, although
several of such allegations did not appear to be
especially objectionable; it not appearing that
the complaint could not be so corrected without
injustice or embarrassment to plaintiff.-Madden
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry, Co., 15 N. W. 203,
30 Minn. 453.
222. The complaint in an action against a rail-
way company charged, in substance, that at a
certain highway crossing defendant's railroad
was so located and constructed that a train or
engine approaching thereon could not be seen by
a person on the highway until so near that it
was difficult or impossible to avoid being struck,
and that it was negligent in defendant to so lo-
cate and construct it; also, that at the crossing
the railroad was insufficiently constructed, in
bad order, in ruinous condition, difficult, un-
safe, and dangerous for teams and vehicles to
cross, and that defendant was negligent in run-
ning an engine and train of cars across the high-
way with great velocity, and without warning of
allegations more definite and certain should not
its approach. Held, that a motion to make these
be granted.-Lehnerttz v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 17 N. W. 376, 31 Minn. 219.
223. The complaint in an action against a cor-
poration alleged that, at a specified date, plain-
tiff was injured through the negligence of de-
fendant in leaving unguarded in its yard a recep-
tacle for boiling water, into which plaintiff fell
while he was lawfully upon the premises, by in-
vitation of defendant, to obtain employment.
Held, that a motion to make the complaint more
definite and certain by stating how such invita-
Making complaint more definite and tion was extended to plaintiff, and the name and
certain.
219. In an action by the board of county com-
missioners against a defaulting county treasurer,
for the funds converted by such treasurer, the
defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars
occupation of the person representing the defend-
ant who extended it, was properly denied; there
being no uncertainty as to what was alleged,
but only as to the particular evidence which
plaintiff would produce to sustain it.-Lee v.
1515
1516
PLEADING, VIII., IX.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 399, 34 | proceedings are regular, and that he takes no
Minn. 225.
more than the law and practice entitle him to. If
such order is a final one, it may be corrected by
224. The indefiniteness or uncertainty to be re-writ of error.-Farrington v. Wright, 1 Minn.
lieved against on motion, is only such as appears 241, (Gil. 191.)
on the face of the pleading itself, and not an un-
certainty arising from extrinsic facts as to what
particular evidence may be produced to support it;
following Lee v. Railway, 34 Minn. 225, 25 N. W.
399.—Todd v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Có., (Minn.) |
35 N. W. 5.
87 Minn. 358.
225. In an action by a locomotive fireman against
a railroad company, the complaint alleged that the
locomotive was so defective and the engineer man-
aged it so carelessly that the smoke-stack became
choked so that quantities of steam, smoke, and fire
were forced into the cab, where plaintiff was at
work, and injured him. Held, that the allegations
were sufficient to inform defendant, with reason-
able certainty, of what plaintiff complains and a
motion to make the complaint more definite was
properly denied.-Orth v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.Co.,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 151.
43 Minn. 208.
Compelling election.
226. Where, in an action for services, a special
contract price is alleged, and also the value of
such services, the court may, in its discretion,
compel the party to elect on which allegation he
will proceed. Hawley v. Wilkinson, 18 Minn.
525, (Gil. 468,) followed.-Plummer v. Mold, 22
Minn. 15.
227. In an action for work and labor done, etc.,
in grading a certain street, the answer averred
a partnership between plaintiff and defendant in
such grading, and that the labor, etc., were for
such partnership. It also set up various counter-
claims growing out of other matters not affected
by the partnership, which were denied by the re-
ply. Held, that a motion to compel defendant to
elect between the counter-claims and partnership
theory was properly denied.-Clonan v. Thorn-
ton, 21 Minn. 380.
228. Where a complaint unites several causes of
action which may properly be joined, but fails to
state them separately, a motion will not lie to com-
pel plaintiff to elect on which cause of action he
will rely; but the remedy is by motion to make
more definite and certain, or to compel a separate
statement of the several causes of action.-Craig
v. Cook, 9 N. W. 712, 28 Minn. 232.
❘
231. A plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
pleadings admits whatever is well pleaded in the
answer.-Stewart v. Erie & Western Transp. Co.,
17 Minn. 372, (Gil. 348.)
232. On plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
pleading, the answer cannot be attacked for mere
indefiniteness and uncertainty.-Stewart v. Erie
& Western Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372, (Gil. 348.)
233. Upon a motion for judgment on the plead-
ings by defendant at the trial and after answering,
the complaint will be liberally construed. Follow-
ing Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146; Dunham v.
Byrnes, 36 Minn. 106, 30 N. W. 402; Malone v.
Stone, 36 Minn. 325, 31 N. W. 170.-McAllister v.
Welker, (Minn.) 41 N W. 107.
39 Minn. 535.
234. A motion by defendant for judgment on
the pleadings, on the ground that the complaint
assumes to set forth an equitable cause of ac-
tion, but fails to state some facts essential there-
to, should not be granted if a cause of action of
any character is set forth.-Greenleaf v. Egan,
15 N. W. 254, 30 Minn. 316.
IX. PLEADING AND PROOF-VARIANCE.
Issues-Admissions and denials.
235. The fact that defendant's denial was insuffi-
cient to raise an issue cannot be taken advantage
of by him to exclude evidence offered by plaintiff
on such issue. - Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184, (Gil.
128.)
236. In an action for the conversion of a promis-
sory note, plaintiff alleged that the note set out in
the complaint was given by H. to S., and by S. as-
signed to plaintiff. The answer denied ownership
by S., and alleged that defendant came into pos-
session "of said note" on a certain day from H.,
who had title thereto. Held, that the identity of
the note was admitted by the answer.
answer.-Nininger
v. Banning, 7 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
237. In an action to set aside a conveyance as
fraudulent, plaintiff alleged inadequacy of consid-
eration as evidence of fraud. Defendant answered
that the present value of the premises, rendering
the consideration paid by him apparently inade-
229. In a suit to recover the price of a harvester,quate, was due to improvements made by him of
a defense that plaintiff warranted the machine to
the value of $500. Plaintiff replied, denying the
be equal to the sample, and to do good work, and making of the $500 improvements by defendant be-
that it failed to do so, is not inconsistent with an-
fore notice of plaintiff's claim. Held, an admis-
other defense that plaintiff warranted the machine sion of the improvements and their value, and of
to be made of good material, and to work in any
the adequacy of the price paid by defendant.-
grain, and alleging breach of this warranty, and Durfee v. Pavitt, 14 Minn. 424, (Gil. 319.)
defendant will not be compelled to elect between
them.—Gammon v. Ganfield, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 125.
42 Minn. 368.
Motion for judgment on pleadings.
230. Upon a motion for judgment, notwith-
standing the answer, plaintiff is, on default of
defendant, entitled to have the motion granted;
but he takes it at his peril, and must see that his
corporation. The answer denied each and every
238. A complaint alleged that defendant was a
allegation not admitted, qualified, or modified,
and then alleged acts done by defendant without
averring that they were done in a capacity other
than that stated in the complaint. Held, that
the allegation of the incorporation stood admit-
ted.-St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co. v. King
Bridge Co., 23 Minn. 186.
1517
1513
PLEADING, IX.
admitted the return of the horse to defendant,
but alleged the agreement to have been that de-
fendant should pay thereon to plaintiff the amount
already repaid only. Held, that the issue as to
the warranty and breach was immaterial, the real
issue being whether the new contract was to re-
pay the plaintiff the whole of the price paid, or
only the part already repaid to him.-Ĝross v.
Deller, 23 N. W. 837, 33 Minn. 424.
239. In an action against a sheriff for taking | sale, but denied the warranty and breach. It
and detaining certain personal property on prem-
ises occupied by A., the complaint alleged plain-
tiff's ownership and right to possession, défend-
ant taking the same under a writ of attachment
against A., service of notice of plaintiff's claim,
and affidavit setting forth his title, the value of
the property, and his ground of title, demand on
the sheriff before suit, and refusal to return the
property. The answer denied plaintiff's owner-
ship and right of possession; averred the com-
mencement of an action against A.; the filing of
an affidavit, giving bond for and issuance of a
writ of attachment therein on the ground that
A. had fraudulently assigned, secreted, and dis-
posed of his property with the intent to defraud
his creditors; the taking of said property under
said writ as A.'s property; and that such prop
erty, at the time of such taking, was the proper-
ty of A. Held, the character of the sale of such
property from A. to plaintiff was not put in issue,
and the rejection of evidence and refusal to
charge, upon the theory that it was, was proper.
-Livingstone v. Brown, 18 Minn. 308, (Gil. 278.)
240. In an action for the price of intoxicating
liquor the complaint alleged that plaintiff was
duly licensed to sell the same, and this allega-
tion was not denied in the answer. Held, that
Held, that
evidence to show that plaintiff was so licensed
was not necessary to a recovery by him.-Olson
v. Hurley, 21 N. W. 842, 33 Minn. 39.
241. In an action for the value of services, when
the answer was insufficient as a denial of the
value as alleged in the complaint, unless it be con-
strued as admitting a fact averred in the nature of
evidence of value, there was a recovery by plain-
tiff, although no proof of the value was offered.
Held, that the admission in the answer of such
evidential fact stands in the place of evidence,
for the purposes of the case.-Dexter v. Moody,
(Minn.) 30 Ñ. W. 667.
36 Minn. 205.
242. An admission, in an answer, of a cause of
action in favor of the plaintiff, wholly different
from that alleged in the complaint, does not en-
title the plaintiff to a recovery under such com-
plaint.-Brandt v. Shepard, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 521.
39 Minn. 454.
243. Defendant in his answer pleaded a settle-
ment. Plaintiff in reply denied the allegation of
settlement of "all claims except in the manner
herein set forth," and then set forth at length the
circumstances of the settlement, but omitted the
essential elements of a defense of fraud and deceit.
Held, that the admissions in the reply controlled
the denial, and thus confessed the answer by fail-
ing to properly set up matter in avoidance. De-
fendant therefore was entitled to judgment on the
pleadings.-Gaffeny v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 35 N. W. 728.
38 Minn. 111.
244. A complaint alleged a sale of a horse by
defendant to plaintiff with a warranty, and a
breach thereof, the return of the horse to defend-
ant, and that he received and retained it, and re-
paid to plaintiff part of the price, and that he
promised to pay the remainder, the recovery of
which was demanded. The answer admitted the
245. Where there is no answer in an action, the
relief granted to plaintiff cannot exceed that
specifically prayed for in his complaint.-Minne-
sota Linseed Oil Co. v. Maginnis, 20 N. W. 85,
32 Minn. 193; Prince v. Farrell, 20 N. W 234, 32
Minn 293.
Evidence admissible-General issue.
246. On a general denial by defendant, plain-
tiff is bound to prove all he alleges in his com-
plaint, and the defendant may prove anything
that tends to directly controvert such allega-
tions.-Bond v. Corbett, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209.)
nial, the plaintiff is only required to prove, and the
247. Where the answer consists merely of a de-
defendant permitted to controvert, the facts al-
leged in the complaint.
leged in the complaint.-Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn.
194, (Gil. 179.)
248. Under a general denial a party may show
anything that tends to directly disprove the alle-
gations of the complaint. Thus, where a com-
plaint avers the transfer of certain personal
property to plaintiff, under a general denial, de-
fendant may show that the property was never
in fact delivered.-Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4
Minn. 270, (Gil. 190.)
249. The complaint alleged the drawing of a
check by one partňer and acceptance by the firm.
The answer denied the allegations of the com-
plaint. Held, that evidence that the check was
for the individual benefit of one partner, and that
plaintiff had notice thereof, was, under the
pleadings, incompetent.-Bank of Commerce v.
Selden, 1 Minn. 340, (Gil. 251.)
250. Under a general denial of the execution of
a contract, evidence merely in avoidance thereof
is not admissible.-Brown v. Eaton, 21 Minn.
409.
251. A party cannot, under a general denial, in
an action for work and labor performed and ma-
terials furnished, avail himself of an express con-
tract for arbitration as to the price to be paid,
but such contract must be specially pleaded.
Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267.
252. Under a general denial of a complaint alleg-
ing that defendant hired plaintiff to work, and
agreed to pay him, defendant may prove that he
made the contract of hiring as agent, and disclosed
his principal to plaintiff.-Scone v. Amos, (Minn.)
35 N. W. 575.
38 Minn. 79.
253. Under an answer denying the plaintiff's al-
leged title to the property which is the subject of
the action, defendant may show that the property
was given by plaintiff's intestate to another.
Beard v. First Nat. Bank, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 7.
41 Minn. 153.
1519
1520
PLEADING, IX.
254. Where an answer alleged that plaintiff
"violated the terms and broke the conditions" of a
certain chattel mortgage, without specifying in
what particular or by what act, and on the trial
proves certain acts of plaintiff in support of such
allegation, the latter may, under a general denial
in his reply, show, by any evidence, that such acts
were not a violation of such terms or conditions.-
Ellingsen v. Cooke, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 747.
37 Minn. 400.
Evidence admissible
pleaded.
|
moval to another warehouse of the goods stored
by plaintiffs, by reason of which removal a pol-
icy of insurance which had been issued to plain-
tiffs on the goods had become void, the answer
merely alleged that after such removal, and be-
fore the goods were destroyed by fire, plaintiffs
knew of the removal, and could have had the
policy changed to cover them; also that the in-
surance company after the removal promised de-
fendants to fix the insurance. Held, that defend-
ants could not, under the pleadings, show that, by
New matter not reason of the withdrawal of one of the members
from plaintiff's firm, the policy had become for-
feited, and that plaintiffs were therefore not
damaged by defendants' failure to notify them
of the removal.-Brigham v. Wood, (Minn.) 51
N. W. 228.
255. Any evidence which bears directly upon an
issue raised by the pleadings is admissible
without being pleaded.-Siebert v. Leonard, 21
Minn. 442.
256. Proof of ratification of a payment made to
an agent who had no authority to receive it is
admissible under an allegation in the pleading
of authority of such agent to receive the pay-
ment.-Janney v. Boyd, 15 N. W. 308, 30 Minn.
319.
257. The defense of fraud cannot be made, un-
less set up in the answer. -Daly v. Proetz, 20
Minn. 411, (Gil. 363.)
258. In an action for damages for breach of a
contract by defendants to erect a building, de-
fendants offered to show that the land was in-
sufficient to sustain the building, by reason of
which it fell when partly erected, and that the
plaintiffs agreed to keep the foundations drained,
and that a second fall resulted from their neg-
lect so to do. Held, that the evidence offered,
being not pleaded in the answer, and inconsist
ent with facts pleaded, was properly excluded.
-Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 494, (Gil. 448.)
259. In an action for work, labor, and materials,
the answer was a general denial. On the trial
there was proof of an agreement that the price
was to be determined by the arbitrament of a
third person, whose decision was to be final.
Held, that such contract, constituting new mat-
ter, could not be availed of as a defense with.
out being pleaded.-Lautenschlager v. Hunter,
22 Minn. 267.
260. In an action on a note given as part of the
consideration for the deed of a patent-right, de-
fendant in his answer set up certain parol war-
ranties contemporaneous with the deed. On the
trial he offered to prove warranties made subse-
quent to the delivery of the deed, and on objec-
tion thereto failed to ask leave to amend his an-
swer to conform to the offer. Held, that the evi-
dence was properly excluded. -Jones v. Alley,
17 Minn. 292, (Gil. 269.)
261. In an action against a railroad company for
the death of a child, where the answer alleges con-
tributory negligence on the part of the child and
his playmates, evidence is not admissible to show
negligence on the part of the child's mother, in
allowing him to play on defendant's grounds.-
O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45
N. W. 440.
43 Minn. 289.
262. In an action against warehousemen for
failing to notify plaintiffs, as agreed, of the re-
263. Evidence offered by plaintiff to establish
a joint ownership in certain matters of counter-
ing alleged in the reply, should be rejected.—
claim set up by defendant, such ownership not be-
Clonan v. Thornton, 21 Minn. 380.
264. Where defendant pleads new matter as a
defense, all the material allegations of which are
put in issue, it is not error for the court to charge
that the burden of proof is on defendant to prove
the defense in all its particulars.-Day v. Raguet,
14 Minn. 273, (Gil. 203.)
Variance.
265. The absence of an allegation, indispen-
sable to the maintenance of an action, is not cured
by the provisions of Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, §§ 86-
88, in regard to variance, nor can a decree be
founded upon the proof of such fact without the
allegation.-Loomis v. Youle, 1 Minn. 175, (Gil.
150.)
266. A complaint, whether on contract or oth-
erwise, need set out no facts but those material to
the plaintiff's cause of action, and the fact that
will not constitute a variance.—Rollins v. 3.
the contract contains other matter, not alleged.
Paul Lumber Co., 21 Minn. 5.
267. A complaint alleged a contract for collect-
ment with one partner, who said that when his
ing and rafting logs. The proof showed an agree-
absent partner returned, "if he was not satisfied
with it, he could fix it to suit himself. Held,
that there was no variance between the proof and
the allegations of the complaint.-Short v. Mc-
Rea, 4 Minn. 119, (Gil. 78.)
"}
268. The contract alleged was one terminable
at the will of either party; that proven was by
its terms to continue for more than one year.
Held a fatal variance.-Cowles v. Warner, 22
Minn. 449.
269. Under a complaint alleging the making
by defendant to plaintiff of a promissory note
described therein, an instrument in writing was
offered in evidence, bearing the date and express-
ing the promise or contract alleged, but also con-
taining certain other terms of agreement re-
specting the title and possession of certain per-
sonal property. Held that, it not appearing that
defendant was prejudiced, the variance might be
disregarded under Gen. St. Minn. c. 65, § 34, pro-
viding that a variance between the evidence and
the pleadings shall be disregarded as immaterial
1521
1522
PLEADING, IX., X.
·
unless the court is satisfied that the adverse | If no objection is taken either by demurrer or
party is prejudiced thereby.-Johnston Harves-
ter Co. v. Clark, 15 N. W. 252, 30 Minn. 308.
270. In an action to recover the value of goods
alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant,
where there is only proof of a sale by plaintiff to a
third party, and of a subsequent contract between
such third party and defendant, whereby the lat-
ter agreed to pay to plaintiff the original price of
the goods sold, the variance is fatal.-Benson v.
Dean (Minn.) 42 N. W. 207.
40 Minn. 445.
271. In a suit for the price of cattle alleged to
have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to
the defendant, the proof being that the plaintiff
delivered the cattle to the defendant in perform-
ance of an executory contract made with another,
and by him assigned to the defendant, there is a
failure of proof and not a mere variance.-Dennis
v. Spencer, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 795.
45 Mina. 250.
272. In an action to recover monthly rent al-
leged to be due for the month of October, where
the complaint alleges that the term began
August 1st, proof that it began September 1st,
and that the rent for September had been paid,
is an immaterial variance.-Erickson v. Schuster,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 914.
44 Minn. 441.
273. Under an allegation that the owner of per-
sonalty, by an instrument signed by him, duly
sold, assigned, and transferred the same to plain-
tiff, proof of a voluntary assignment by himself
and wife, for the benefit of creditors, is not a
variance.-Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4 Minn. 270,
(Gil. 190.)
274. Where a pleading alleges attachments in
suits in which A., B. & Co., D., C. & Co., E., F. &
Co., creditors of the defendant, were plaintiffs,
without designating the plaintiff in each action,
no material variance arises by showing at the trial
who were the respective plaintiffs.-Blackman v.
Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326, (Gil. 299.)
275. Under an answer which only sets up act-
ual fraud as a defense the defendant cannot prove
mere mistake.-Leighton v. Grant, 20 Minn. 345,
(Gil. 298.)
answer, the defect will be deemed waived. Gen.
St. Minn. c. 66, §§ 74, 77, 78.-Lowry v. Har-
ris, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil. 166;) McRoberts v.
Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 108. (Gil. 91;)
Blakeley v. Le Duc, 22 Minn. 476; Baldwin v.
Canfield, 1 N. W. 261, 26 Minn. 43; Densmore
v. Red Wing Lime & Stone Co., (Densmore v.
Shepard,) 48 N. W. 528, 681, 46 Minn. 54;
Christian v. Bowman, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 663.
279. The provisions of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
66, §§ 92, 94, 95, that where there is a defect of
parties appearing on the fact of the complaint
the objection may be taken by demurrer, if it
does not appear on the face of the complaint, it
may be taken by answer, and, if not taken either
by demurrer or answer, defendant is deemed to
have waived it, apply to a defect of parties plain-
tiff in actions ex contractu. Hence, where a
member of a partnership is not joined as plaintiff
in an action on a demand due to the firm, if ob.
jection is not taken to the defect by answer, it is
not ground for a motion for nonsuit at the trial
for variance or failure of proof.-Davis v. Chou-
teau, 21 N. W. 748, 32 Minn. 548.
280. The objection that there is a defect of par
ties defendant by reason of the non-joinder of one
member of a partnership in an action upon a prom-
issory note, made by another member thereof in
the firm name, must appear upon the face of the
pleadings, or it is waived.-Sandwich Manuf'g
Co. v. Kimberly, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 782.
37 Minn. 214.
281. An objection that plaintiff is a married wo-
man, and wife of one of the defendants, is an ob-
jection to the legal capacity of the plaintiff to sue,
which must be raised by answer or demurrer, and
when not so raised will be deemed waived, under
Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, § 64.-Tapley v. Tapley, 10
Minn. 448, (Gil. 360.)
282. A complaint to recover proceeds of a
sale on execution alleged the issuance of an exe-
cution from the supreme court to, and levy upon
the sale of lands in, a particular county. Held
that, defendant failing to answer, it would be
presumed that the judgment was duly docketed
in such county, and that other steps preliminary
and necessary to the validity of such sale were
taken. -Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 221, (Gil.
141.)
276. In an action of damages for an assault and
battery, an allegation in the complaint that plain-
tiff expended moneys to be cured of his wounds
is not sustained by proof that he simply in-plaint
curred liability therefor.-Ward v. Haws, 5
Minn. 440, (Gil. 359.)
277. Where essential facts stated in a com-
plaint have been proved, failure to prove imma-
terial facts averred will not preclude the right
to recover. The War Eagle v. Nutting, 1 Miun.
256, (Gil. 201.)
X. WAIVER OF DEFECTS-AIDER BY VERDICT.
Failure to demur or answer.
278. A defect of parties appearing on the face
of the complaint should be taken advantage of
by demurrer, and, if not so appearing, by answer.
283. Misjoinder of causes of action in a com-
plaint must be taken advantage of by demurrer
or answer, or it will be deemed waived.-James
v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 305; Densmore v. Red
Wing Lime & Stone Co., (Densmore v. Shepard,)
48 N. W. 528, 681, 46 Minn. 54.
Answering to the merits.
284. A defendant does not, by answering, waive
the objection that the court has no jurisdiction of
the subject-matter of the action, or that the com-
plaint does not state a cause of action.-Stratton
v. Allen, 7 Minn. 502, (Gil. 409.)
285. An objection in an action by a partnership
that one of its members, joined as a plaintiff by
a corporate name, is not proved to be a corpora-
tion, and that the names of the persons represent-
1523
1524
PLEADING, X.
ed by it should have been used, being a mere question to a witness bearing on such issue, but
objection for misnomer, cannot be taken after which was also competent under the issues act-
pleading to the merits and going to trial.-Sand-ually made.-O'Neil v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
wich Manuf'g Co. v. Donahue, (French v. Dono- Co., 24 N. W. 192, 33 Minn. 489.
hue,) 12 N. W. 354, 29 Minn. 111.
286. An admission or averment in the answer
of a material fact omitted from the complaint
will cure the defect arising from such omission.
-Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn. 326, (Gil. 216;)
Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308,
(Gil. 284;) Warner v. Lockerby, 8 N. W. 879,
28 Minn. 28.
287. A complaint, after alleging a contract for
the driving of certain logs, alleged that plaintiff
had driven certain quantities of logs, without
averring that they were all that were agreed to
be driven. Held that, as the complaint was not
objected to before the answer, and the answer
admitted that the quantities stated in the com-
plaint were all that were agreed to be driven, the
defect must be disregarded. Bennett v. Phelps,
12 Minn. 326, (Gil. 216;) Shartle v. Minneapolis,
17 Minn. 308, (Gil. 284,) followed.-Rollins v.
St. Paul Lumber Co., 21 Minn. 5.
Retention of defective pleading.
288. Pleadings containing defect of form mere-
ly must be returned within a reasonable time.
A defect in a verification of a pleading will be
deemed waived if it is retained without ob-
jection.-Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn. 319, (Gil.
273;) Folsom v. Carli, 5 Minn. 333, (Gil. 264;)
Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154.)
289. Pleadings served after time, insufficiently
verified or defective in matters of form, must be
returned within a reasonable time, (24 hours is
the rule in New York,) or the defects will be
deemed waived.-Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn.
319, (Gil. 273.)
Trial of issues not properly raised.
290. Where a pleading substantially alleges a
sale to have been fraudulently made, and issue is
joined thereon, and evidence is introduced by both
parties at the trial on the questions of fraud, an
objection made for the first time when the court
comes to instruct the jury, that the fraud is insuffi-
ciently pleaded, is too late to be available. - How-
land v. Fuller, 8 Minn. 50, (Gil. 30.)
294. Evidence pertinent to the issues made by
the pleadings cannot be considered upon an issue
not made therein, although it would have been
pertinent to such issue if it had been made. The
fact that such evidence was received without ob-
jection implies no consent by the opposite party to
try any such issue, especially when inconsistent
with the admissions of the pleadings themselves.
-Payette v. Day, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 592.
37 Minn. 366.
295. A claim by a defendant that there was a
fatal variance between the pleadings and the
proof, will not be considered where the point was
not made in the trial court, and it appears that on
the trial defendant admitted that if plaintiff
proved the alleged contract he would be entitled to
recover.-Cummings v. Petsch, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
789.
41 Minn. 115.
296. An objection to a variance between one of
the allegations of a complaint and the proof of-
fered to sustain it, not made until application for a
new trial, was held to be too late.-Johnson v.
Avery, 43 N. W. 340, 41 Minn. 485.
Defects cured by verdict.
297. Defects of substance in the pleadings may
be cured by verdict.-Daniels v. Winslow, 2
Minn. 113, (Gil. 93.)
298. Where the sense of a pleading is clear, a
verdict will not be set aside for an error in its
punctuation.-Hemphill v. Holley, 4 Minn. 233,
(Gil. 166.)
299. Where a complaint is defective in not alleg-
ing, in express terms, particular matter, and yet
contains general allegations sufficient to compre-
hend such matter in fair and reasonable intend-
ment, which allegations are such as to require
proof of the particular matter in order to entitle
verdict in his favor.-Hurd v. Simonton, 10 Minn.
plaintiff to recover, the defect will be aided by
423, (Gil. 340.)
300. An allegation in a complaint that plaintiff
on a certain day caused certain described lands to
291., Where a case has been tried by the parties, be duly surveyed, marked, and platted by a com-
and submitted to the jury by the court without ob-petent surveyor, according to the statute in such
jection, upon a certain construction of the plead- case made and provided, and the plat to be re-
ings, such construction will be conclusive on the corded, is, at least after judgment, a sufficient al-
parties.-Keyes v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., legation of a legal platting.-Cathcart v. Peck, 11
(Minn.) 30 N. W. 888.
Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
36 Minn. 290.
292. While the defense of "former recovery" is
new matter and ought to be pleaded, where both
parties have tried the case and allowed it to go to
the jury on the theory that this defense was in is-
sue, they will be bound by the result as they would
be had the defense been properly pleaded.-Bowe
v. Minnesota Milk Co., (Minn.) 47 Ñ. W. 151.
44 Minn. 460.
293. The consent of a party to litigate an issue
not raised by the pleadings cannot be inferred
from the fact that no objection was made to a
lish either a cause of action for false warranty, or
301. Where a complaint is so drawn as to estab-
for deceit, defendant's remedy is by motion to
strike out, or to make the complaint more definite,
or to compel plaintiff at the trial to elect on which
cause of action he will rely. The objection is not
available after judgment.-Marsh v. Webber, 13
Minn. 109, (Gil. 99.)
302. A complaint cannot be attacked after judg-
ment for mere indefiniteness or uncertainty; and,
unless it is clearly and radically defective, it will
be sustained.-Rich v. Rich, 12 Minn. 468, (Gil. 369.)
1525
1526
PLEADING, X.-PLEDGE.
303. Failure of a complaint to state facts suffi-
cient to constitute a cause of action is not cured
by a verdict for plaintiff.-Lee v. Emery, 10 Minn.
187, (Gil. 151.)
304. The objection that the complaint is insuffi-
cient to make out a cause of action may be made
at any time, but such objection will not reach
indefiniteness or uncertainty, or any defect not
substantial and necessarily fatal: and when
made after judgment the most liberal construc-
tion is to be adopted, if the proceedings can
thereby be sustained. Holmes v. Campbell, 12
Minn. 221, (Gil. 141.)
Je Mag
PLEDGE.
By warehouseman, see Warehousemen, 13–17.
Cigars pledged not subject to stamp tax, see In-
ternal Revenue, 1.
In fraud of creditors, see Fraudulent Convey-
ances, 70.
Interest of pledgor subject to levy of execution,
see Execution, 33.
5. A tender having been refused without suffi-
cient reason, the pledgee loses his right to retain
the pledge as against another creditor of the
pledgeor who has, subsequent to the making of the
pledge, acquired rights in the property, although
the pledgeor did not keep his tender good.-Norton
v. Baxter, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 865.
41 Minn. 146.
Redemption.
6. N. conveyed an undivided half interest in
a mine to defendants, part of the purchase mon-
Defendants were to have
ey being paid in cash.
the option, after an examination, to complete
the purchase, or to be repaid the sum paid by
them, in which case the mine was to be turned
over to them, to be worked until they should
repay themselves from the product. A corporation
was then formed by the parties, and the proper-
ty was conveyed to it. Afterwards defendants.
elected not to complete the purchase, and entered
into a contract by which they were to pay off
debts which were standing against the property,
and all the stock of the corporation when is-
sued was to be transferred to them, and the
possession and control of the property was to
be turned over to them, with power to work and
certain purposes. N. and plaintiff, to whom
he had conveyed a part, and afterwards trans-
Of corporate stock, see Corporations, 112.
Recovery by pledgee of note, see Negotiable In- develop it, and to sell stock to raise money for
struments, 224.
What constitutes-Necessity of posses- ferred all, of his interest, were to have the
sion.
1. To constitute a pledge, the pledgee must
take possession, and to preserve his pledge he
must retain possession; if he relinquishes pos-
session the pledge is extinguished.—Combs v.
Tuchelt, 24 Minn. 423.
2. A manual delivery or manual taking pos
session by pledgee of pledged property is not es-
sential to the validity of a pledge; it is sufficient
if the property, being present, is committed by
the pledgor to the exclusive control and charge
of the pledgee.-Combs v. Tuchelt, 24 Minn. 423.
3. Unstamped cigars in the rear room of a
cigar factory, which could not be removed under
the revenue laws of the United States, were de-
livered by the cigar-makers to one of their clerks
as a pledge or security for a debt of the firm.
The clerk took possession of the cigars, made an
inventory of them, and thereafter none of the
cigars were sold by the makers except by the
consent of the clerk, who in case of each sale re-
ceived the proceeds thereof, and applied the same
on the debt secured. The clerk left the firm, and
went to Milwaukee, but returned to look after
the cigars, took an inventory of the unsold re-
mainder, and notified a receiver of the property
of the firm of his title. Held, that the evidence
was sufficient to show retention of possession on
the part of the clerk, and that he was entitled
to hold the cigars as against the receiver.-Combs
v. Tuchelt, 24 Minn. 423.
Discharge of lien-Tender.
4. A sufficient tender of payment of a debt, al-
though made after maturity, the same being re-
fused without good reason, discharges the lien of
the creditor upon property held in pledge as secu-
rity for the debt.-Norton v. Baxter, (Minn.) 42 N.
Baxter, (Minn.) 42 N.
W. 865.
41 Minn. 146.
right, at their election before a certain time, up-
ants had theretofore or might thereafter expend
on the payment of all the money that defend-
to N., to have all the unsold stock assigned to
on the property, including the cash paid by them
them. Plaintiff did not exercise the option,
and, after it had expired, sued defendants for
that, even if the contract was a pledge, and
an accounting and to redeem the stock. Held
fendants should be credited with the cash pay-
not a sale with an option to repurchase, de-
ment made by them to N., and with all claims
against the property paid by them, and all dis-
bursements in operating the mine, with interest
thereon, and to be charged with their receipts
from the mine, with interest.-Newton v. Van
Dusen, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 820.
Negligence of pledgee.
47 Minn. 437.
7. In the absence of express stipulation, the
duty of the pledgee is to exercise ordinary care,
and he is liable only for neglect of such care.
Cooper v. Simpson, 42 N. W. 601, 41 Minn. 46
Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co. v. Betcher, 44 N.
W. 5, 42 Minn. 210.
8. A creditor to whom a negotiable promis-
sory note is pledged as collateral security is bound
to exercise ordinary diligence in preserving its
value, and collect the same when due, and its
loss, when caused by his negligence, is a good de-
fense to the principal debt.-Lamberton v. Win-
dom, 12 Minn. 232, (Gil. 151.)
9. A creditor, to whom a negotiable promis-
sory note is pledged as collateral security, is not
liable for its loss from the insolvency of the
maker, unless such loss occurred through the
negligence of such creditor in failing to take act-
ive measures for the collection thereof while the
maker was solvent. It is not sufficient that at
the date of its maturity the maker had a large
1527
1528
PLEDGE-POOR AND POOR-LAWS.
amount of real and personal property, if he was
in fact insolvent.-Lamberton v. Windom, 18
Lamberton v. Windom, 18
Minn. 506, (Gil. 455.)
10. Loss or depreciation in value of the thing
pledged, through negligence of the pledgee, does
not operate to extinguish, pro tanto, the debt se-
cured.-Cooper v. Simpson, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 601.
41 Minn. 46.
Rights of judgment creditors.
11. If the maker of a pledged note pay it to the
pledgee, after levy upon the pledgor's interest,
and notice of such levy, he is not thereby dis-
charged as to the balance above the debt for
which it was pledged.-Mower v. Stickney, 5
Minn. 397, (Gil. 321;) Same v. Same, 5 Minn.
407, (Gil. 330.)
Sale by pledgee.
without labeling it "Poison," etc., a druggist is
liable for damages for the death of a person who
purchased from the druggist's clerk poison which
was unlabeled, and partook of the poison in igno-
rance of its deadly qualities.-Osborne v. McMas-
ters, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 543.
40 Minn. 103.
Police Power.
See Constitutional Law, 179–182.
Policy.
Of insurance, see Insurance.
Public, see Contracts, 41–46.
12. Where property is pledged as collateral, See Bigamy.
the general property remains in the pledgor, and
the special property created by the pledge cannot
be transferred by the pledgee as a right separate
from the debt. The chose in action cannot be
owned by one and the lien by another. Van
Eman v. Stanchfield, 13 Minn. 75, (Gil. 70.)
C
13. A pledgee, where there is no agreement
as to the manner of sale in case of enforcement
of pledge, can exercise his power of sale only
after reasonable notice to the debtor to redeem,
and of the time and place of sale.-Goldsmidt v.
Trustees of First Methodist-Episcopal Church, 25
Minn. 202.
14. A purchaser of pledged promissory notes,
from a pledgee having a general power of sale,
he knowing them to be pledged, is not relieved
from the effect of failure to give notice to the
debtor to redeem, and of the time and place of
sale, by the fact that they were indorsed by the
pledgor in blank.-Goldsmidt v. Trustees of First
Methodist-Episcopal Church, 25 Minn. 202.
15. The pledgeor cannot make it the duty of
the pledgee to sell within a specified time, mere-
ly by directing or requesting him so to do.-
Cooper v. Simpson, 42 N. W. 601, 41 Minn. 46;
Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co. v. Betcher, 44 N.
W. 5, 42 Minn. 210.
16. A merely colorable and pretended sale of
pledged property by the pledgee after default does
not affect the rights of the pledgeor as against one
not standing in the position of a bona fide pur-
chaser.-Norton v. Baxter, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 865.
41 Minn. 146.
17. It seems that where there are no facts or
circumstances to show that an unindorsed note
transferred by delivery, after maturity, as collat-
eral security for a debt, could not have been fully
realized on by action at law, the pledgee will not
be permitted to dispose of the note by sale.-White
v. Phelps, 14 Minn. 27, (Gil. 21.)
POISON.
Sale without label.
Under the Minnesota statutes, (Laws 1885, c. 147,
$14; Pen. Code, § 329,) forbidding the sale of poison
Polygamy.
POOR AND POOR-LAWS.
Power to remove pauper, see Constitutional Law,
174.
Liability for support-Settlement.
1. In an action by one county against another
to recover moneys expended for the support of a
sick pauper alleged to be a resident within the
defendant county, it appeared from an agreed
statement of facts that such pauper had resided
in that county nine months. Held, that he had
not gained "a legal residence and settlement"
in that county within Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 15,
§ 4, requiring for that purpose a residence of one
year in the county for any person other than cer-
tain excepted classes, to none of which such
pauper belonged; and that, therefore, defendant
county was not liable for the expenses incurred.
-Board County Com'rs of Lyon County v. Board
County Com'rs of Murray County, 13 N. W. 43,
29 Minn. 240.
2. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
15, § 3, making the support of the poor a charge
upon the county in which they have a legal res-
idence and settlement, was repealed, as to Free-
born county, by Sp. Laws 1875, c. 74, providing
that each township in that county should take
care of and bear the expense of its own poor;
and, as the act of incorporation of the city of
Albert Lea, formerly part of a township of that
county, which was passed subsequently, made
no provision for the support of paupers resident
within that city, their support and maintenance
is not a charge upon the county of Freeborn. -
Fenholt v. Board County Com'rs of Freeborn
County, 12 N. W. 458, 29 Minn. 158.
3. Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 74, requiring each
town in Freeborn county to bear the expense of
its own poor in the same way as was provided
for counties taking care of the poor, and making
the township boards of supervisors supervisors
of the poor in their respective towns, to the ex-
clusion of the county commissioners of that coun-
ty, includes incorporated cities under the term
"town;" and the city of Albert Lea, in that
county, incorporated by Sp. Laws 1878, c. 1, is
liable for the support of its own poor, although
1529
1530
POOR AND POOR-LAWS-POWERS.
its act of incorporation is silent on the subiect.
-Odegaard v. City of Albert Lea, 23 N. W 526,
83 Minn. 351.
4. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 90, declaring
the support of the poor in villages in Wright coun-
ty a village charge, and making the provisions of
chapter 215, Sp. Laws 1878, applicable to villages,
the support of existing paupers devolved upon the
village in which they had a legal residence or set-
tlement at the time of the passage of the act.-
Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
930.
41 Minn. 136.
Distinguishing State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn. 404;
City of Winona v. School-Dist. No. 82, 41 N. W. 589, 40
Minn. 13.
5. And every person, at that time receiving aid
from a town, and being maintained elsewhere than
in the place of his actual residence at the time of
becoming a pauper, is to be deemed to have a legal
settlement in the village in which he actually re-
sided when first making application for public
support. --Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 930.
41 Minn. 136.
Contract for medical attendance.
6. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 15, § 12, which au-
thorizes a single county commissioner to make an
order for the allowance of a limited sum of mon-
ey to a pauper in need of temporary relief, con-
fers no authority on a commissioner to bind the
county, by contract with a physician other than
the county physician provided for by section 10,
for professional attendance upon a pauper. -Bent-
ley v. Board County Com'rs, Chisago County, 25
Minn. 259.
Possession.
Adverse, see Adverse Possession.
Change of possession, see Chattel Mortgages, 25-
40; Fraudulent Conveyances, 42-47.
Constructive notice, see Vendor and Purchaser,
140-149.
Evidence of title, see Adverse Claim, 40; Mort-
gages, 110.
Mortgagee in possession, see Mortgages, 97-102.
Of pledge, see Pledge, 1-3.
policy, see Insurance, 11.
stolen property, see Larceny, 30–34.
Recovery by landlord, see Landlord and Tenant,
77-95.
mortgagee without foreclosure, see Mort-
gages, 84, 85.
Right to possession of dead body, see Torts, 2.
To sustain action for partition, see Partition, 2-7.
for trespass, see Trespass, 1-4.
of ejectment, see Ejcctment, 1-3.
of replevin, see Replevin, 6-12.
to determine adverse claim, see Adverse
Claim, 3-10.
to quiet title, see Quieting Title, 16-19.
to try tax title, see Taxation, 268, 269.
Post-Office.
Presumption of receipt of letter mailed, see Evi-
dence, 23, 24.
POWERS.
Execution of deed by attorney, see Deed, 7, 8.
In trust, see Trusts, 2.
Of sale in mortgages, see Mortgages, 156-159.
Powers of attorney by Indian half-breeds, see
Reformation in equity, see Equity, 27.
Public Lands, 105,106.
To sell or mortgage-In general.
1. A general power to sell and convey real
estate does not confer power to mortgage, and a.
mortgage executed under such power is void.-
Morris v. Watson, 15 Minn. 212, (Gil. 165.)
2. A real-estate firm having dissolved, one
member thereof conveyed his interest in the
firm's lands to his copartner, with "full power to
grant and convey said premises, and mortgage
the same, as he may see fit," in consideration of
the latter's "being trustee of said estate, and of
his having increased liabilities therefor, and of
the necessity of his having fuller power for the
proper settlement of the affairs" of the firm.
Held, that this gave the grantee power to mort-
gage the property to secure a debt, without any
showing outside of the conveyance that he in-
curred "increased liabilities. "-Wilson v. Bell,.
17 Minn. 61, (Gil. 40.)
3. A finding of fact that R. and C. authorized
H. to use their real estate to extricate the latter
from his financial embarrassments, will be con-
strued to mean that they gave him valid legal au-
thority to sell or mortgage.-Baker v. Byerly,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 395.
40 Minn. 489.
Testamentary powers to sell and con-
vey.
4. A will provided that when the executor
"shall deem it best for the interests of my estate,
he may sell the whole or any part of the real estate
belonging to me in block 16. " The only mention
of the other real estate of testator was that "it
age.
*
is my desire that no division of the balance of
my real estate shall be made amongst my children.
until the youngest child shall become of lawful
* When my youngest child shall be-
come of lawful age, all the rest and residue of
my real estate and personal property, wheresoev-
er situate, shall be equally divided between my
wife and our children, share and share alike."
Held, that the executor had no authority, under
the will, to sell any real estate other than that.
included in block 16. Following Simpson v.
Cook, 24 Minn. 180.-Officer v. Simpson, 6 N. W.
488, 27 Minu. 147.
5. A will devised all the testator's real estate,
and gave the executors power to convey "any real.
estate that may come into their possession and
control under this will," the will not otherwise
expressly giving them possession or control of any
real estate. Held, that the power applied to all
the real estate. -Ness v. Davidson, (Minn.) 48 N.
W. 10; Jaggar v. Same, Id.
45 Minn. 424.
Powers of attorney-Construction.
6. A power of attorney authorized the attor-
ney to sell real estate, or any part thereof, for
1531
1532
POWERS.
such sum and on such terms as to him should
seem meet. Held, that the power authorized a
sale on credit, or for consideration other than
cash, or of an undivided interest, and also to re-
ceive payments when credit was given.-Carson
v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78, (Gil. 58.)
7. A power of attorney authorized the attor-
ney to enter upon and take possession of all such
lands, tenements, hereditaments, and real estate
whatever in the county of Fillmore, territory of
Minnesota, to or in which the grantor was or
might be in any way entitled or interested.
Held that, though the grantor, at the time of the
power, lived in another state, and Fillmore coun-
ty was then entirely unsurveyed, and belonged
to the United States, as he might have had some
interest in some lands in that county, the power
was valid. EMMETT, C. J., dissenting.-Carsou v.
Smith, 5 Minn. 78, (Gil. 58.)
8. A naked power of attorney, given to convey
certain land about to be platted as an addition to a
town, "in lots, as surveyed by B.," does not au-
thorize a conveyance of an unplatted portion
thereof by metes and bounds, and the fact that the
owner, in a subsequent conveyance of another
portion of such land, referred to such deed, so made
under the power, to indicate a boundary line, does
not estop him from disaffirming the action of the
attorney.-Rice v. Tavernier, 8 Minn. 248, (Gil.
214.)
9. A power of attorney to sell, convey, etc.,
lands in which the grantor "might be in any way
entitled or interested," does not authorize the
making of a contract to convey lands in which the
maker of the power has no interest at the execu-
tion of the power; and his subsequently obtaining
title will not give force to the deed.-Carson v.
Smith, 12 Minn. 546, (Gil. 458.)
10. A power of attorney "to enter into and take
possession" of all lands, tenements, etc., to or in
which the grantor is or may be "in any way en-
titled or interested," and to grant, bargain, and
sell the same, does not authorize the making of a
contract to convey land in which the grantor has
an unfounded claim under the town-site act, nor
will subsequently obtaining title give force to the
contract to convey; and the grantor may show, in
defense of an action for specific performance, that
he had no interest in the property at the date of
the execution by the attorney of the contract to
convey.-Carson v. Smith, 12 Minn. 546, (Gil. 458.)
11. Such defense is unaffected by an allegation
that he claimed the land under the town-site act,
other facts, appearing in the answer, showing that
such claim was then unfounded, notwithstanding
he afterwards proved his claim before the judge,
and received a conveyance, and subsequently exe-
cuted deeds of the lands to others.-Carson v.
Carson v.
Smith, 12 Minn. 546, (Gil. 458.)
12. A power of attorney, in addition to a general
power to buy and sell goods, wares, and merchan-
dise, and give notes therefor, and do all things
necessary to a general merchandise, trading,
money-loaning, and other lawful business, author-
ized the agent to buy and sell real estate in the
name of the principal, and receive and execute all
necessary contracts therefor. Held, that it gave
him no authority to transfer real estate purchased
by the principal prior to, and his title to which
was on record at the date of, the power, but only
land purchased by the agent; and this construc-
tion was not extended by a recital, in a subsequent
revocation by the principal, describing the agent
as "my attorney, for me, and in my name, to sell
and convey lands belonging to me."-Greve v.
Coffin, 14 Minn. 345, (Gil. 263.)
13. A power of attorney authorized the attor-
ney to enter into possession of, and to grant and
convey, "all such lands and real estate, wherev-
er situated, " etc., "in or to which the donors of the
and "all such lands and real estate belonging to
power are or may be entitled or interested,"
torney might thereunder convey and give valid
or that may belong to them." Held, that the at-
Minn. 287.
title to after-acquired lands. -Berkey v. Judd, 22
14. A letter of attorney authorizing the attor-
ney to sell and convey "all and any lands" owned
by the principal in a certain city, and to release
and discharge "all mortgages upon all and any
real estate" held by the principal in said city,
includes lands and mortgages acquired after the
execution of the letter of attorney.-Williams v.
Livingston, 9 N. W. 31, 28 Minn. 57.
>>
15. A power of attorney authorized the attor-
ney to sell certain land described, and "to do, ex-
ecute, and perform, as largely and aniply, to all
intents and purposes, as the grantor might do if
personally present, generally, every act, thing,
and devise in the law necessary to be done in the
premises, giving to the attorney the grantor's
"full and whole power in and about the prem-
ises. " Held, that the attorney was authorized
to execute a proper conveyance on a sale of the
real estate. -Farnham v. Thompson, 26 N. W. 9,
34 Minn. 330.
""
16. A power of attorney "to grant, bargain, sell,
and convey any and all personal or real property,
gives authority to sell and convey, by assignment
of the certificate of sale, the interest of a purchaser
at a mortgage sale during the period of redemp-
tion.-Cooper v. Finke, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 469.
38 Minn. 2.
17. Two persons jointly executed a power of at-
torney, which by its terms authorized C. to sell
land "to which we are entitled, " and to make deeds
thereto "for us and in our names." Held, that
this power did not authorize C. to convey a tract
owned by one of his principals as her separate
property.-Gilbert v. How, (Minn.) 47 N. Ŵ. 643.
45 Minn. 121.
Powers of attorney
parol.
Modification by
18. An attorney in fact, acting under a power
to sell land which did not authorize a convey-
ance of the land, and a verbal direction from his
principal to convey, sold the land and executed
a deed, as such attorney, and subsequently re-
ported the sale to his principal, who verbally ap-
proved the same, and accepted the consideration
paid. Held, that the verbal direction to sell,
under the power, did not enlarge such power, or
confer authority to sell independent of the power,
and that the subsequent acts of ratification by
the principal would not affect the rights of one
claiming bona fide, and without notice, through
a deed from the principal, executed and deliv-
1533
1534
POWERS-PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES, I.
ered after the deed by the attorney, and before
the acts of ratification.-Allis v. Goldsmith, 22
Minn. 123.
19. Husband and wife executed a power of at-
torney to an agent, authorizing him to sell their
lands at such prices as he might approve, and to
convey the same. Afterwards the wife, by writ-
ing not under seal, directed him to convey part of
the land which belonged to her, without considera-
tion, to D., which was done. Held, that these di-
rections modified only the power to sell, which
might be changed by parol, and the deed was not
void.-Dayton v. Nell, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 231.
43 Minn. 246.
Execution-Ratification.
20. A deed purporting to be that of a principal,
executed by an attorney in fact, designated
therein by name, and executed by such attorney
by affixing thereto the name and seal of the prin-
cipal alone, is sufficient, though not signed by the
attorney.-Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287.
21. A ratification by a principal of a deed by
his attorney, executed under a power so defect-
ive as to acknowledgment as not to be entitled
to record, relates back to the time of such con-
veyance.-Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil.
166.)
22. Where one claiming through a deed exe-
cuted under a defective power relies, as against
another claiming through a subsequent convey-
ance, directly from the principal, upon a ratifica-
tion of the deed under the power, the burden of
proof is upon the claimant under the defective
power to show that the facts amounting to such
ratification existed before the execution of the
second deed. -Allis v. Goldsmith, 22 Mino. 123.
PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES,
I. DISMISSAL, 1–20.
man v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co., 17
Minn. 48, (Gil. 31.)
2. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 262, enumerates
the modes of dismissing actions, among which is
an agreement of the parties. Section 263 provides
that in every case other than those mentioned in
section 262 judgment shall be entered on the mer-
its. Held, that a written stipulation, before trial,
that an action be dismissed, without costs, did not
authorize the entry of a judgment as on the merits,
so as to bar a subsequent action for the same cause.
Rolph v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 40
N. W. 267, 39 Minn. 398; Rolfe v. Same, 40 N.
W. 268, 39 Minn. 400.
On submission to arbitration.
3. The submission of a pending case to arbi-
tration, being not one of the modes of dismissal
prescribed by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 242, which
further provides that "all other modes of dismiss-
ing an action, by nonsuit or otherwise, are abol-
ished," will not operate as a discontinuance of
the action, though followed by an award.-Huns-
den v. Churchill, 20 Minn. 408, (Gil. 360.)
By plaintiff before trial.
4. Where matters of defense are pleaded as a
counter-claim, plaintiff cannot dismiss the action
of his own motion.-Griffin v. Jorgenson, 22
Minn. 92.
5. In an action against a railroad company to re-
cover land on which it had built its road, the an-
swer set up title in defendant, but alleged, pur-
suant to Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, §§ 33-38, which
provide that a judgment for plaintiff in such case
shall be for the compensation to which he is enti-
tled, and not for the land, its readiness and willing-
ness to pay plaintiff for the land, provided on the
trial he established his right to recover. Held,
that the relief demanded in the answer was not
"affirmative," within the meaning of Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 262, giving plaintiff the right
to dismiss his action at any time before trial, “if a
II. NOTICES, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND DOCKETS, provisional remedy has not been allowed, or coun-
21-44.
III. STIPULATIONS, 45–52.
IV. FILING Papers, 53-56.
V. SERVICE OF PAPERS, 57–61.
VI. PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERs, 62.
ter-claim made, or affirmative relief demanded in
the answer. "-Koerper v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 656.
40 Minn. 132.
6. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 262,
the plaintiff at any time before trial," plaintiff is
subd. 1, allowing the dismissal of an action "by
not entitled to dismiss after the trial has com-
menced, before the submission of the case to the
court or jury, as subdivision 3 provides for a
dismissal "upon the trial. "-Bettis v. Schreiber,
See, also, Abatement and Revival; Appeal and
Error; Appearance; Attachment; Case and
Bill of Exceptions; Certiorari; Continuance;
Costs; Counter-Claim and Set-Off; Courts:
Damages; Deposition; Discovery; Eminent
Domain; Execution; Garnishment; Injunc-17 N. W. 863, 31 Minn. 329.
tion; Interpleader: Judgment; Jury; Justices
of the Peace; Mandamus; New Trial; Parties; Power of court.
Pleading; Quieting Title; Reference; Removal
of Causes; Replevin: Summons; Trespass;
Trial; Venue in Civil Cases; Witness.
On stipulation.
I. DISMISSAL.
1. Compromising an action, and filing a stip-
ulation that it is settled, and thereby discontin-
ued as between the parties, takes it out of court,
so that no ground remains upon which either can
take proceedings therein against the other.-East-
granted to it by Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 262, to dis-
7. The exercise by the court of the power
miss an action at any time before trial, upon tho
application of either party, and sufficient cause
shown, will not be interfered with where the rec-
ord does not disclose what showing was made up-
on the application for the dismissal.-Mathews v.
Taaffe, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 850.
44 Minn. 400.
8. Where plaintiff fails to appear at the trial,
and the answer sets up no counter-claim, thé
1535
1536
PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES, I., II.
court may dismiss the action on the application of
defendant. A trial and judgment upon the merits
are not authorized in such case.-Keator v. Glas-
pie, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 52.
44 Minn. 448.
9. Although a trial court may dismiss an ac-
tion as to a defendant, or direct the jury to find
a verdict in his favor, the court has no authority
to order a judgment, not of dismissal, for a party,
unless he is entitled to it on the pleadings alone;
it cannot be done on the pleadings and testimony.
Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 17 N. W. 387, 31
Minn. 268.
10. In an action to establish and enforce a me-
chanic's lien, defendants asserted the invalidity
of the lien in their answer, and demanded that
it be declared void, and be canceled. Held, that
the right of the court to dismiss the action upon
trial on plaintiff's application was within its dis-
cretion. Althen v. Tarbox, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 828.
For failure of proof.
11. In an action based upon alleged false and
fraudulent statements and representations, the
answer under the rules of pleading technically
admitted their falsity. Plaintiff's evidence in
chief, however, showed that such statements, etc.,
were true. Held, that it was not error for the
court to dismiss the action at the close of plain-
tiff's testimony.-Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn.
316, (Gil. 285.)
12. Defendant may move to dismiss the action
on plaintiff's failure to prove a cause of action,
notwithstanding he has set up a counter-claim
in his answer. -Slocum v. Minneapolis Millers'
Ass'n, 23 N. W. 862, 33 Minn. 438.
13. A motion by defendant in an action, made
upon plaintiff resting his case, for dismissal on
the ground that the cause of action set forth in
the complaint is equitable and that some fact is
wanting in the proofs to make the cause of action
equitable, should not be granted where the
proofs make out any cause of action, legal or
equitable, within the allegations of the complaint.
-Greenleaf v. Egan, 15 N. W. 254, 30 Minn. 316.
14. In an action triable by the court some of
the issues were submitted to the jury in the form
of specific questions, an affirmative answer to the
first of which was essential to a recovery by
plaintiff. Held that, if at the close of plaintiff's
case the affirmative of such first question was not
established, the court might properly dismiss
the action.-Sloan v. Becker, 18 N. W. 143, 31
Minn. 414.
15. Where the decided preponderance of evi-
dence was for defendant, though there was not
such lack of proof on part of plaintiff as would
have justified the court in taking the case from
the jury, defendant's motion to dismiss the action
for failure of proof was properly denied.-Farrell
v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.. (Minn.) 38 N. W. 100.
38 Minn. 394.
For neglect to comply with order.
16. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 242,
subd. 3, which provides that an action may be
dismissed before the final submission of the case
where the plaintiff fails to establish his cause
of action, an action to remove a cloud may be
dismissed upon failure to comply with an order
requiring defendant's grantee to be made a par
ty to the suit, although the proofs of the respect-
ive parties have been submitted to the court.
Johuson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 170, (Gil. 153.)
For neglect to enter judgment.
17. Under Rev. St. Minn. 1851, c. 70, § 162, as
amended by Laws 1852, p. 10, which provides that
an action may be dismissed without a final de-
termination of its merits, for sufficient cause
shown, if a plaintiff unreasonably neglects to
enter a judgment to which he is entitled, de-
fendant may move to dismiss the cause. -Deuel
v. Hawke, 2 Minn. 50, (Gil. 37.)
Where plaintiff is entitled to nominal
damages.
18. When a party has established a cause of
action for nominal damages, it is error to dis
miss the case, where the recovery of nominal
damages would carry costs.-Potter v. Mellen,
30 N. W. 438, 36 Minn. 122; Farmer v. Crosby,
45 N. W. 866, 43 Minn. 459.
Reinstatement.
19. A cause, having been called for trial, was
dismissed upon motion, before any evidence had
been introduced; but the court subsequently,
deeming such dismissal erroneous, granted a new
trial. Held proper practice, under Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 66, § 253, which provides that "a verdict,
report, or decision may be vacated, and a new trial
granted," for "irregularity in the proceedings of
the court, jury, referee, or prevailing party, or any
order of the court
by which the moving
party was prevented from having a fair trial. ".
Dunham v. Byrnes, 30 N. W. 402, 36 Minn. 106.
*
*
*
Time for bringing new action.
20. On dismissal of an action, the court has no
authority to extend the time for bringing a new
action for the same cause beyond the time limited
by the statute.-Humphrey v. Carpenter, (Minn.)
39 N. W. 67.
39 Minn. 115.
II. NOTICES, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND DOCKETS.
Notice of trial.
21. The "term" for which a notice of trial
may, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 200, be
given, includes a special term, at which the ac-
tion might, under Gen. St. c. 64, § 15, be prop-
erly tried, as well as a general term.-Colt v. Veù-
der, 19 Minn. 539, (Gil. 469.).
22 In the computation of time upon service of
notice of trial in the district court, under Gen. St.
Minn 1878, c. 66, § 218, requiring it to be served
"at least eight days before the term," the day of
service is excluded, and the first day of the term
included.-State v. Weld, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 561.
39 Minn. 426.
23. Defendant's right to have a cause stricken
from the calendar of the district court, because the
notice of trial required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
63, § 218, was not given, is not waived by his pro-
1537
1538
PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES, II.
ceeding to trial after the court has denied his mo-
tion to strike.-Mead v. Billings, (Minn.) 45 N. W.
223.
43 Minn. 239.
24. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 61, § 8, providing
that issues once placed upon the calendar of a
term, if not tried at the term for which notice was
given, need not be noticed for a subsequent term,
but must remain on the calendar until finally dis-
posed of, a subsequent amendment of the plead-
ings of a cause at issue, which has been duly no-
ticed and placed upon the calendar, does not ren-
der another notice of trial necessary.-Stevens v.
Curry, 10 Minn. 316, (Gil. 249.)
|
judgment should not be opened, and they have
leave to answer, fixing the time and place for
hearing such motion. The hour designated was
1 o'clock P. M. The copy served stated it at 10
o'clock, and a notice of hearing was also served for
1 o'clock. The hearing was at 1 o'clock. Plain-
tiff's attorney being present, and taking no part,
the motion was granted. Held, that by being
present and hearing papers read, without objec-
tion, he waived the objection to the discrepancy
as to the hour of hearing. -Marty v. Ahl, 5 Minn.
27, (Gil. 14.)
Hearing and determination of motion.
31. Under Pub. St. Minn. c. 61, § 44, provid-
trict court judge in vacation, he shall appoint a
day for the hearing, the appointment by the judge
of the time of hearing at the place designated in
the notice is essential to the protection of the
opposing party, whether heard on notice or order
to show cause. -Marty v. Ahl, 5 Minn. 27, (Gil.
14.)
25. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 218, requires no-ing that, where a motion is made before a dis-
tice of the trial of a cause to be given, and that,
where a cause is placed on the calendar, and not
tried at the term for which notice was given, it
need not be noticed for a subsequent term, but
shall remain on the calendar until finally disposed
of. A new trial was granted in a certain cause,
and an appeal taken from the order, pending which |
proceedings were stayed. Held, that the cause,
pending its decision in the supreme court, did not
remain on the calendar of the district court within
the meaning of the statute, and upon affirmance
notice is necessary before a trial can be had.—Mead
v. Billings, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 228.
Note of issue.
43 Minn. 239.
26. In an action by Frederick H., his attorneys
filed a note of issue in the cause entitled Jacob
H. against the defendant, and the cause was so
entered on the calendar. Jacob H. was alleged
in the answer to be the owner of the property
in controversy, but there was no case pending
between him and defendant; and defendant ad-
mitted that he was not misled. Held, that a mo-
tion to strike the case from the calendar was
properly denied.—Homberger v. Brandenberg, 29
N. W. 123, 35 Minn. 401.
Notice of motion.
27. A notice that a motion will be made at the
"next special or adjourned term" of the district
court for Olmsted county, "to be held, " etc., "on the
28th day of January, 1867," contains a sufficient
designation of the term.-Blake v. Sherman, 12
Minn. 420, (Gil. 305.)
Order to show cause.
28. Under Pub. St. Minn. c. 72, § 17, requiring
eight days' notice of motions, but allowing the
court or judge to prescribe a shorter time by order
to show cause, such an order will be presumed to
have been made in a proper case, and in the exer-
cise of suitabie discretion.-Goodrich v. Hopkins,
10 Minn. 162, (Gil. 130.)
29. An order to show cause, in matters proper
for the consideration of the court in vacation, but
not for the judge at chambers, was made return-
able before the proper judge at chambers. Held,
that it was not for that reason invalid, and the
language should be taken as merely designating
the place for holding the court, where no surprise
or injury is shown.-Yale v. Edgerton, 11 Minn.
271, (Gil. 184.)
30. Defendant's attorney procured an order,
in the nature of an order to show cause why a
V.2M.DIG.-49
32. Where a motion is made in a district ad-
joining the one in which an action is pending, it
is not necessary that it be made to appear that
the place at which the motion is to be heard is:
no further from the county-seat of the county
where the action is pending than is the residence.
of the judge of the district in which such action.
is pending, in compliance with the provisions of
Laws Minn. 1867, c. 67, § 4, or that such motion
is made in time; for, if nothing appears to the
contrary, the necessary jurisdictional facts will
be presumed.-Johnson v. Higgins, 15 Minn. 486,
(Gil. 400.)
33. Where the affidavits offered in opposition to
a motion show the moving party entitled to the re-
lief prayed, though on grounds not stated in the
moving papers, he may take advantage of the
grounds thus shown.-Richards v. White, 7 Minn..
345, (Gil. 271.)
34. Parties have no right, after submission of
a motion, to introduce additional affidavits or
evidence, except by leave of court and upon notice
to the other side.-Dunwell v. Warden, 6 Minn.
287, (Gil. 194.)
35. Upon a notice of a motion asking for spe-
cific relief, and such other or further relief in the
premises as to the court shall seem meet and
with the facts; care being taken that the opposite
proper, the court may grant any relief compatible
party is not taken by surprise by such further re-
lief.—Landis v. Olds, 9 Minn. 90, (Gil. 79.)
Renewal of motion.
36. An order which unconditionally denies a
motion for the vacation of a previous order is,
while it remains unchanged, a bar to any sub-
sequent application for the same relief.-Griffin
v. Jorgenson, 22 Minn. 92.
37. The denial of a motion "without prejudice,"
does not bar the renewal of it.-Minneapolis Ry.
Terminal Co. v. Minneapolis U. Ry. Co., (Minn.)
36 N. W. 105.
38 Minn. 157.
38. Where a motion is once denied for any
cause, technical or on the merits, the defeated
1539
1540
PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES, II.-IV.
party must obtain leave of court before he can
renew the motion on the same state of facts.-
Irvine v. Myers, 6 Minn. 558, (Gil. 394.)
39. Where an application to remove the default
of a garnishee, and permit him to disclose, has
been denied, the subsequent granting of an order
to show cause why such application should not be
granted is sufficient consent by the court to a re-
newal of the application.-Goodrich v. Hopkins, 10
Minn. 162, (Gil. 130.)
Order by court or judge.
40. An order by a district judge, fixing the
time and place of hearing, on application to set
aside a judgment and for leave to answer, is a
chamber order, and may be made by a judge out
of the district. The addition of the words "by
the court" does not change its character.-Mar-
ty v. Ahl, 5 Minn. 27, (Gil. 14.)
41. An order setting aside a stipulation for dis-
missal of an action is one that must be made by
the court, and cannot be made by a judge at cham-
bers; but, the consent of the opposite party to
such dismissal having been obtained, under Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, p. 484, § 242, subds. 2, 5, providing
that either party may dismiss an action with the
written consent of the other, if the order be signed
by the judge of the proper court, it will, in the ab-
sence of special circumstances, even if application
is heard at chambers, be regarded as the order of
the court.-Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333,
(Gil. 256.)
42. An order of reference, made in open court
and entered in the minutes, is sufficient without
being signed by the judge. -Leyde v. Martin, 16
Minn. 38, (Gil. 24.)
43. There is a distinction between an order and
a direction for an order; and a decision, under
Gen. St. Minn. 1866, p. 482, c. 66, § 226, providing
that a decision may be made out of term, may con-
sist either of an order or merely a direction for an
order that may be entered by the clerk.-Etna
Ins. Co. v. Swift, 12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 326.)
Vacating order-Time of application.
>>
44. Under Gen. St. 1866, c. 66, § 105, authoriz-
ing the court, "in its discretion, at any time with-
in one year after notice thereof, to relieve
a party from a judgment, order, etc., taken
against him through his mistake, etc., the time
for making an application to vacate an order on
the grounds stated cannot be extended beyond
one year by the fact that subsequent proceedings
have been had, based upon such order.-Griffin v.
Jorgenson, 22 Minn. 92.
Validity.
III. STIPULATIONS.
45. A stipulation by an attorney that the action
shall abide the event of another action pending,
binds his adult clients, unless it be improvidently,
fraudulently, or collusively made; but such stipu·
lation does not bind an infant party unless ap-
proved and ratified by the court upon a showing
that it is not prejudicial to the interest of the in-
fant, and that the matters in controversy in the
two actions, so far as they affect the infant, are
precisely the same, and that he is represented in
the two actions by the same guardian ad litem.
Eidaш v. Finnegan, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 933.
"Ei-
46. The spelling of plaintiff's name as
dem," instead of "Eidam," in a stipulation by the
attorneys in a case, is not a misnomer; and, even
if it were, it would be immaterial, as the court be-
fore acting on the stipulation could ascertain if it
were intended to be one in the case.-Eidam v.
Finnegan, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 933.
Construction and effect.
47. Where it is stipulated that a motion shall be
heard upon certain papers, it is error to allow
others to be read.-Shaw v. Henderson, 7 Minn.
| 480, (Gil. 386.)
48. A stipulation admitting that, for the pur-
pose of the trial, certain facts in issue shall be
deemed to exist, is binding.-Bingham v. Board
of Sup'rs Winona County, 8 Minn. 441, (Gil. 390.)
49. The court cannot control the stipulation of
the parties; and, where it is stipulated, in an
equitable action, that certain costs shall abide
the event of the suit, and defendant is really the
prevailing party, though judgment is entered in
favor of plaintiff, the court cannot require the
defendant to pay them.-Dorr v. Steichen, 18
Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
50. In an action for damages for breach of a
contract for the exchange of lands, where the an-
swer prays a decree for specific performance in
case plaintiff's title is adjudged marketable,
where the parties stipulated that all questions in-
volved, except the value of the lands, should be
tried, and, if the court should hold plaintiff en-
titled to recover, they might, at a subsequent day,
submit evidence as to the value of the lands and
having been first tried, it was proper for the court
measure of damages, and such other questions
to make and file its findings and decision on those
questions, and, the matter of the measure of dam-
ages being afterwards tried, to make and file its
findings and decision on that issue.-Mealey v.
Finnegan, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 207.
Setting aside.
46 Minn. 507.
51. A stipulation by an attorney for the dis-
missal of an action cannot be set aside on the
ground of mistake, if the mistake be one which
Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333, (Gil. 256.)
ordinary care would have prevented.-Rogers v.
52. The fact that a former county attorney
stipulated as to a certain statement of facts, in
a case against the county, and thereby waived
all but one of four separate defenses, is no reason
for setting such stipulation aside.-Bingham v.
Board of Sup'rs of Winona County, 6 Minn. 186,
(Gil. 82.)
IV. FILING Papers.
Time of filing pleadings.
53. The fact that a complaint is not filed with
the clerk on or before the second day of the term
at which the action is heard and determined, as
provided by Laws Minn. 1867, c. 62, § 3, will not
affect the judgment, and has no application to a
case where the defendant is in default and cause
:
1541
1542
PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES, IV.-VI.-PRESUMPTION.
is not noticed for trial.-Young v. Young, 18 and "precluded from giving evidence thereof.”—
Minn. 90, (Gil. 72.)
Tuttle v. Wilson, (Minn.) 44 N. W 10.
42 Minn. 233.
Of order.
54. The effect of Sp. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 21, § 3,
relating to pleadings and proceedings in the mu-
nicipal court of the city of Minneapolis, which
provides that certain titles of Gen. St. c. 66, shall
apply thereto "so far as they are applicable, ex-
cept that the time to demur and reply shall be 10
days," is to make 10 days the uniform period in
which to serve answers to such pleadings, whether
original or amended.-Keyes v. Clare, (Minn.) 41
N. W. 453.
40 Minn. 84.
What constitutes filing.
55. The delivery of a complaint for filing to
the clerk of the court outside of his office, and
the making of an indorsement of filing by the
clerk thereon, do not constitute a filing of the
complaint in his office, the paper not being de-
posited there, nor any entry of a filing made
there.-Schulte v. First Nat. Bank, 24 N. W. 320,
34 Minn. 48.
56. On the question whether a complaint was
filed in the office of the clerk, a distinct finding
of fact by the court that it was "never filed or
on file in the office of said clerk" until a certain
date, must control a finding that it was handed
to the clerk as he was passing from his office in-
to the court-room; and the latter cannot be inter
preted as a finding that it was delivered to the
clerk in his office.-Schulte v. First Nat. Bank,
24 N. W. 320, 34 Minn. 48.
Pleadings.
V. SERVICE OF PAPERS.
57. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, § 51, provid
ing that where a summons without a complaint is
served, if the defendant appear within ten days
after such service, the complaint must be served
three days after the appearance, "and the defend-
ant shall have at least ten days thereafter to an-
"the defendant in such case has the same
swer,
time to answer the complaint after it is served
upon him that he had of unexpired time when he
served his notice of appearance. Swift v.
Fletcher, 6 Minn. 550, (Gil. 386.)
60. The service of a copy of an order of the
court before the same is filed is at most an irregu-
larity that may be waived or cured; and an admis-
sion of "due service by copy of within order," in-
dorsed on the original order, and signed by the at-
torney of the party against whom it is made, oper-
denying the validity of such service. Etna Ins.
ates as such waiver, and estops the party from
Co. v. Swift, 12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 326.)
Of case.
61. Plaintiff's attorney admitted due service of
a proposed case by defendant after the time for
serving it had elapsed. Held, that the objection to
the time of service was waived, and that manda-
mus would issue to the judge to settle and allow
the case.-State v. Baxter, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 108.
38 Minn. 137.
VI. PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERS.
Order-When vacated.
62. An order for the production of certain doc-
uments for plaintiff's use at the trial (Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 88) was properly vacated
when such documents were found to contain
hearsay evidence only, and that they could not
be used in evidence on the trial by either party.
-Powell v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 48 N.
W. 907.
46 Minn. 249.
Pre-emption.
Of public land, see Public Lands, 1-4, 77–83, 92,
93, 136-146.
Preferences.
Of creditors, see Assignment for Benefit of Cred-
itors, 11; Fraudulent Conveyances, 23-26; In-
solvency, 45-71.
Prescription.
Presumption.
See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions.
58. Plaintiffs' attorneys lived at St. Cloud, defend-Easements by, see Easements, 8.
ant's at Moorhead. Personal service of summons Highways by, see Highways, 9–11.
was made November 17th, and, on December 7th,
defendant's attorneys mailed their answer at St.
Paul, directed to plaintiffs' attorneys at St. Cloud,
who received it the following day. Held, that the
service was not good, as the answer was not mailed
from the place of residence of defendant's attor-
neys, as provided in Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 75,
relating to service by mail.-Van Aernam v. Wins-
low, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 381.
37 Minn. 514.
Copy of account-Demand.
59. A stipulation by the parties to an action
that a copy of the items of an account, pleaded
generally in the defendant's answer, should be
given to the plaintiff within a stated time, dis-
penses with the necessity for a demand; and, upon
failure to furnish the account as stipulated, the de-
fendant is subject to the statutory consequence,
See Evidence, 19-24; Pleading, 20-22.
As to boundaries of land, see Boundaries, 9.
law of other state, see Statutes, 73.
liability of carriers, see Carriers, 9, 61, 62,
146.
service of summons, see Summons, 52.
Of chastity, see Seduction, 15.
death, see Death, 1.
delivery of deed, see Deed, 58-61.
jurisdiction of court, see Courts, 16; Judg-
ment, 92-97.
marriage, see Marriage, 5, 6.
negligence in scattering fire from railroad loco-
motive, see Railroad Companies, 282-294.
premeditation of homicide, see Homicide, 1-11.
1543
1544
PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, I.
Of title, from possession, see Adverse Claim, 40. |
validity of tax, see Taxation, 48.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 407-441;
Criminal Law, 171-174.
Principal and Accessory.
See Criminal Law, 13-15, 62; Homicide, 12, 18.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
ligations, is sufficient to establish prima facie the
fact of and authorize the agency.-Neibles v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. R. Co., (Minn.) 33 N. W. 332.
37 Minn. 151.
5. Authority to sell, or to contract for the
sale of, real estate may be conferred by parol,
and, if the agent acts within the scope of the au-
thority conferred, the principal will be bound.
-Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24.)
6. In an action to recover the purchase price
of land paid by plaintiffs to L., as agent of defend-
ants, it appeared that the land was described in the
I. APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF AGENTS, 1-9. contract of sale as in H. & M.'s addition, and de-
II. POWERS OF AGENTS, 10-45.
III. RATIFICATION, 46-56.
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES INTER SE, 57-71.
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PER-
SONS, 72-98.
VI. ACTIONS, 99-106.
See, also, Factors and Brokers; Master and Serv-
ant: Powers.
Action against undisclosed principal, see Action, 5.
Agency of husband for wife, see Husband and
Wife, 34-37.
of wife for husband, see Husband and
Wife, 5.
Agents of banks, see Banks and Banking, 23.
of corporations, see Corporations, 31-54.
Authority to sue, see Action, 43.
fendants denied the agency, and that they were
interested in the addition, etc. There was evi-
dence that one of defendants went to L. with
H., and gave him a list of the property in the ad-
dition for sale; that after the making of the agree-
ment with plaintiff, L. told defendants that he had
sold the land and they said that they had already
learned so from H.; that they, with H., listed oth-
er property in the addition with other agents; that
they participated in selecting a name for the addi-
tion; that one of defendants acknowledged that
he was the M. designated in the name given to the
addition; and that the other defendant acknowl-
edged that he had an interest in the addition, and
said that he would see that plaintiffs got an ab-
stract of title. Held, that there was sufficient ev-
idence of the agency of L. to submit to the jury.-
Contract of shipment in name of agent, see Car-Jensen v. Weide, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 688.
riers, 32.
Declarations of agent as evidence against princi-
pal, see Evidence, 75-85.
Estoppel of principal by acts of agent, see Estop
pel, 38-41.
Fraud of agent, see Telegraph Companies, 3.
Insurance agents, see Insurance, 107-123.
Notice to agent, see Vendor and Purchaser, 137.
Pleading acts of agent, see Pleading, 25-27.
Public agent, see Office and Officer, 13, 14; States
and State Officers, 4–8.
Town agents, see Towns, 8, 9.
Usury in loan through agent, see Usury, 8-10.
1. APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF AGENTS.
When relation exists.
1. A single act by an agent, and adoption
thereof by the principal, may, if sufficiently posi-
tive, unequivocal, and comprehensive, be enough
to establish an agency to do other similar acts.
-Wilcox v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24
Minn. 269.
2. Proof merely that one is "acting" for another,
without proof of his authority to so act, does not
show the relation of principal and agent.-Walsh
v. Culbertson's Estate, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 631.
39 Minn. 23.
3. Where there was evidence that a son lived on
the farm with his father, and had the principal
management of his business, and sold the cattle in
question for him, a verdict for the father in an ac-
tion for the price will not be disturbed. -Dennis
v. Knight, (Minn.) 39 N. W, 304.
39 Minn. 149.
4. Evidence that one had acted for two or three
years as an agent for a corporation, settling its ob-
42 Minn. 59.
Duration and termination of agency.
to sell windmills for defendant, provided that when
7. A contract by which plaintiff, as agent, was
plaintiff should have "collected for all of the goods
as above, and the aforesaid notes shall be paid for
each year's business," then defendant would pay
plaintiff a certain amount for each mill "sold that
Afterwards it was agreed that the busi-
year.
ness should "be continued" under the previous con-
tract, and that the parties should check up ac-
counts during the month of January of each year,
and as much oftener as they might desire during
the continuance of the business under said con-
tract. Held, that either party had the right to
terminate the contract at any time.-Hoover v.
Perkins Windmill & Axe Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W.
866.
41 Minn. 143.
Extension of agency.
8. Where plaintiffs appointed defendant their
agent for three days to sell certain land at a
named price, and on the last day of the agency de-
fendant represented that he could not sell the land
for the sum specified, but that he could sell the
land for a less sum, and plaintiffs authorized de-
fendant to make the sale at the price which he
said he could obtain, there was an extension of
the agency.-Hillis v. Stout, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 982.
42 Minn. 410.
Revocation of agency.
9. M., the agent of an insurance company, re-
signed his agency, and asked the appointment of
his son in his place, saying that the work of the
latter would be under his immediate supervision.
Another agent, through whom this was communi-
cated to the company, added that the business
1545
1546
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, I., II.
would run the same as before, but that he, M.,
"desires his son to learn the business, and have
some responsibility, and takes this method." The
son was thereupon appointed. Held, that the evi-
dence justified the finding that M. had still author-
ity to act for the company.--Ganser v. Fireman's
Fund Ins. Co., (Minn.) 35 N. W. 584.
38 Minn. 74.
II. POWERS OF AGENTS.
Contract of agency-In general.
10. Defendant, who was general manager of a
printing company, made a contract retaining plain-
tiff's services as editor, in which, however, his prin-
cipal was not mentioned. He afterwards indorsed
on it an acceptance by the company, but no ex-
press consent thereto on the part of the company
was shown. Held, that the indorsement did not
bind the company, since an agent cannot bind his
principal by a contract which is in effect with him-
self. Williams v. Journal Printing Co., (Minn.) 45
N. W. 1133.
43 Minn. 537.
11. Where real estate is placed in the hands of a
person to sell as agent for the owner, although the
price and terms of sale are fixed by the owner
himself, yet it is incompatible with the agent's
duty to his principal to accept any employment as
agent also of the purchaser, which would render
it to his interest to sell only to those who would
give him such double employment, to the exclusion
of other persons.-Webb v. Paxton, (Minn.) 32 N.
W. 749.
36 Minn. 532.
Extent of authority, generally.
12. It is competent for a principal appointing
a special agent to show what his instructions to
such agent were, in order to prove the extent of
the agent's authority.-Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn.
140, (Gil. 110.)
13. Where agency is to be inferred from the
conduct of the principal, such conduct is the only
evidence of the extent, as well as the existence,
of such agency.-Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn.
298, (Gil. 196.)
14. Authority to bind a principal as maker of a
promissory note would create no inference of au-
thority to bind him for the payment of the note
and mortgage of a third person.-Humphrey v.
Havens, 12 Minn. 298, (Gil. 196.)
15. In establishing a specific act of agency the
general custom of an agent in transacting his prin-
cipal's business is immaterial.-Ames v. First Div.
St. P. & P. R. Co., 12 Minn. 412, (Gil. 295.)
16. Authority of the agent to bind the princi-
pal may be inferred from the habit and course of
dealing of principal and agent, but not of the
agent alone, though done in the name of the
principal. Lawrence v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
15 Minn. 390, (Gil. 313.)
17. An agent employed to solicit orders for coal
cannot bind his principal by an agreement that
the price shall be applied to his own indebtedness
to the purchaser. Talboys v. Boston, (Minn.) 48
N. W. 688.
46 Minn. 144.
18. The mere fact that one is an agent for sev-
eral persons interested in a particular enterprise,
as the establishment of a town, does not authorize
him to conduct the business for them under a com-
mon name, so as to make them severally liable,
under Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 38, providing that
any one of such joint associates may be sued for
the obligations of all.-Cooper v. Breckenridge, 11
Minn. 341, (Gil. 241.)
Implied powers-Apparent authority.
19. An implication of authority in an agent to
do a certain act cannot be created by the fact
that the principal had ratified a previous act of
the agent of an entirely different character, but
outside the scope of the employment.-Humphrey
v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298, (Gil. 196.)
20. An agent, who was intrusted with goods
to be delivered to defendant, and by him sold on
commission, represented to defendant that he
was a member of the firm to whom such goods
belonged, and subsequently the defendant, with-
out notice that such was not the case, in good
faith paid the agent money on account of such
goods. Held, in an action by the owners, that
ment.-Lough v. Thornton, 17 Minn. 253, (GİL
defendant was entitled to credit for such pay-
230.)
21. A request by the owner of land to a person
living near it, to direct any person examining it
to C., as his agent to sell, will not justify a per-
son informed of such request in assuming that
C.'s authority to sell was unlimited, nor excuse
him from ascertaining such authority.-Dayton
v. Ruford, 18 Minn. 126, (Gil. 111.)
22. Defendant transmitted money to persons to
invest in real estate, taking title in his name, build
houses thereon, sell and convey; they to have a
share in the profits, when the land was sold, and
guarantying the return of the money sent. Held,
that an attorney, having no knowledge of the con-
tract, could sue the principal for services rendered
in lawsuits and examining titles, relying upon the
apparent authority of his agents.-Mason v. Tay-
lor, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 474.
38 Minn. 32.
23. Where an agent, by the authority of his
principal, acts generally for him in a particular
department of his business, or assumes so to act,
with the knowledge and consent of his principal,
in dealing with third persons, who are thereby in-
duced to rely on the authority of the agent, the
principal is bound by his acts.-Tice v. Russell,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 886.
43 Minn. 66.
24. Defendant, by its general manager, con-
tracted with plaintiff for the publication in its
paper of certain matter by a given date; the mat
ter to be furnished, and the details of the publica-
tion to be looked after, by defendant's passenger
agent. The agent failed to furnish the matter un-
til after the date named in the contract for pub-
lication. As soon as the matter was furnished,
plaintiff published it in accordance with the con-
tract, except as to time. Held, that the plaintiff
had a right to assume that the delay of the agent
was authorized by defendant.-American Graphic
Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 143.
44 Minn. 93.
1547
1548
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, II.
Authority to sell-Contract for sale of manufacturers, by which he agreed to receive
land.
25. Defendant, on being informed by his agent
that his lands might be sold for $3 to $3.50 per
acre, authorized such agent to sell for $3 per
acre cash, or half down, and balance in one or
two years, secured by notes and mortgage bear-
ing 9 per cent. interest. Held not to authorize
the agent to sell such lands for $3.40 per acre,
one half in 30 days, upon the delivery of a deed,
and balance in 2 years from that time, with
interest at 10 per cent. per annum, though_ap-
parently more favorable than the terms author-
ized, and the purchaser could not enforce such
contract.-Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 126, (Gil.
111.)
26. An agent, authorized to sell certain land
subject to a lease thereof, executed an agree-
ment for a conveyance by his principal "in fee-
simple, and with a 'perfect title, free from all in-
cumbrances." Held, that this was unauthorized,
and not enforceable against his principal.-
Thomas v. Joslyn, 15 N. W. 675, 30 Minn. 388.
""
27. Where an agent is authorized to sell land,
"one-half payable on or before one year, a con-
tract to sell, "one-half payable in one year," is in
pursuance of the authority; the legal rights of the
vendor being the same in either case.-Deakin v.
Underwood, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 318.
37 Minn. 98.
Distinguishing Jackson v. Badger, 26 N. W. 908, 35
Minn. 52.
28. The nature, effect, and interpretation of
correspondence between the owner of land and
his agent in relation to the sale of the land is a
question of fact for the jury.-Dayton v. Buford,
18 Minn. 126, (Gil. 111.)
the machine ordered under the warranty, and to
make payment for it as therein stated. The
manufacturers, acting on the order, supplied the
machine, and subsequently attempted to repair it,
and also accepted and collected the note given
therefor. Held, that the manufacturers were
bound by the terms of the warranty.-Melby v.
D. M. Osborne & Co., 24 N. W. 253, 33 Minn. 492.
Authority to employ subordinates.
33. The chief engineer of a railway company,
employed to survey and establish its line of road,
has, as such, apparent authority to employ, on
behalf of the company, such subordinates, and
to incur such expenses, as are reasonably suita-
ble to that end; and the company is liable to one
rendering services and making expenditures in
pursuance of such employment by him, notwith-
standing an undisclosed limitation of the en-
gineer's apparent authority.-Gillis v. Duluth,
N. S. & S. W. R. Co., 25 N. W. 603, 34 Minn.
301; Coats v. Same, 25 N. W. 642, 34 Minn. 301.
Authority to make loans.
34. Where an agent, intrusted with the entire
management of his principal's business of making,
negotiating, and collecting loans, exacts, for the
benefit of the principal, a bonus in excess of legal
interest, which is included in the amount of the
securities, there being no evidence that it was
done without the authority or consent of the prin-
cipal, the act of the agent must be held, as a mat-
ter of law, to be the act of the principal.-Lewis
v. Willoughby, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 439.
13 Minn. 307.
Contract for sale of personal prop-collecting money, under a general authority, upon
erty.
29. An agent selling furnaces for a specific use,
to be shipped by the vendor in detached parts, has
implied authority to contract for putting the fur-
naces together, and for putting them into the build-
ings where they were to be used.-Boynton Fur-
nace Co. v. Clark, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 121.
42 Minn. 335.
30. An agent for the sale of a machine, with
no restriction of his authority, may make a con-
tract for a sale if the machine on trial shall
work to the satisfaction of the purchaser, and
may deliver the machine to him to make such trial.
-Deering v. Thom, 12 N. W. 350, 29 Minn. 120;
Oster v. Mickley, 28 N. W. 710, 35 Minn. 245.
31. A local agent intrusted with farm machiu-
ery for the purpose of sale, no restrictions ap:
pearing, may be presumed to be authorized to sell
with warranty.-Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co.,
22 N. W. 440, 33 Minn. 98; McCormick v. Kelly,
9 N. W. 675, 28 Minn. 135.
32. Manufacturers of harvesting-machines
which were sold through agents, with a warranty
thereof, issued blank orders for the machines,
containing such warranty, which were furnished
to customers, to be filled up and signed and de-
livered to the agents. Such an order was signed
by plaintiff, directed to particular agents of the
35. Where a non-resident is engaged in the
regular business of loaning money through a resi-
dent agent, to whose discretion he intrusts the en-
tire management of the business of loaning and
such security and terms as the agent may deem
proper, the acts of his agent in conducting such
business, and in exacting and including in con-
tracts unlawful rates of interest or bonuses, will
bind his principal, and such contracts will be held
usurious as to him.-Adamson v. Wiggins, (Minn.)
48 N. W. 185.
45 Minn. 448.
Authority to borrow money.
36. An authority from principal to agent "to
use money remitted, in my name and as my agent,
at your own discretion, either in the purchase of
real estate or loaning, as you or your adviser may
think may be the most profitable for me in the
end," does not authorize the agent to borrow
money or use the credit of the principal in his
transactions.-Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298,
(Gil. 196.)
Execution of power-By one of several.
37. An authority conferred upon several as
agents must be executed by all, and an attempt-
ed execution by a less number is not binding on
the principal.-Rollins v. Phelps, 5 Minn. 463,
(Gil. 373.)
38. The rule that, when an authority to do an act
is conferred upon several agents, all must join in
its execution, has no application where the author-
ity is conferred upon a partnership. In such case,
1549
1550
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, II., III.
:
each partner may execute, and the act of one is
the act of the firm, and in strict pursuance of the
power.-Deakin v. Underwood, (Minn.) 33 N. W.
318.
37 Minn. 98.
Signing name of principal.
39. A duly-authorized agent may sign the name
of his principal without indicating that the signa
ture was made by an agent.-First Nat. Bank v.
Loyhed, 10 N. W. 421, 28 Minn. 396.
40. An agreement in writing, executed by an
agent in transacting the business of his prin-
cipals, referred to their business, and purported
to be one of the terms of a contract of sale
which he was making for them. It was signed
by him in his own name, with the word "agent"
added. Held that, although it was prima facie
his contract, the circumstances warranted the
jury in finding that it was intended and under-
stood to be a part of the contract of sale made by
him for his principals, and binding on them as
such. Following Bingham v. Stewart, 13 Minn.
106, and 14 Minn. 214; Pratt v. Beaupré, 13 Minn.
187.-Deering v. Thom, 12 N. W. 350, 29 Minn.
120.
41. Where a contract that need not be under
seal is executed by an agent under seal, who
has authority to make the contract as a simple
contract, but not under seal, the seal will be re-
jected as surplusage, and the instrument held
valid as a simple contract. Following Minor v.
Willoughby, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.) -Dickerman
v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 538.
42. An agent, having authority by certain
letters only to sell land, affixed a seal to his
agreement for the sale thereof. Held, that the
seal might be rejected as a separable excess of
authority, and the agreement stand as a simple
contract.-Thomas v. Joslyn, 15 N. W. 675, 30
Minn. 388.
Using agent's name only.
43. An agent, to bind his principal, must con-
tract in the latter's name.-Sencerbox v. Mc-
Grade, 6 Minn. 484, (Gil. 334.)
44. In a contract for rafting logs the parties
of the one par, four in number, were described
as agents, authorized by the log-owners. It was
signed by three of them, with the addition of
"agent" after their signatures. Held that, there
being no principal disclosed, and it being signed
by three only of those designated as agents, it
must be deemed the contract of the parties sign-
ing it.-Rollins v. Phelps, 5 Minn. 463, (Gil. 373.)
Distinguishing Sanborn v. Neal, 4 Minn. 126, (Gil. 83.)
Excess of authority.
45. Mere excess of authority in some one par-
ticular, in the making of a contract by an agent,
will not make it void as to the remainder, which
was within his authority.-Reed v. Seymour, 24
Minn. 273.
III. RATIFICATION.
What subject to ratification.
46. An attempted lease by an agent, which is
absolutely void, cannot be made valid by ratifi-
cation.-Sanford v. Johnson, 24 Minn. 172.
47. Where a person acting as an insurance ad-
juster has no authority to act for an insurance
company, and does not profess to act for it, the
subsequent assent of the company to be bound
as principal does not bind it, since a ratification
is only effectual when the act ratified was done
by a person professedly acting as agent.-Mitchell
v. Minnesota Fire Ass'n, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 608.
What constitutes ratification-In gen-
eral.
48. Ratification of the acts of an agent, to be
effectual, must be with a full knowledge of all the
material facts of the transaction ratified-Hum-
phrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298, (Gil. 196.)
49. The fact that one who is sued for the specific
performance of a contract for the conveyance of
land, in a letter written after the transaction in
question, to one who had assumed to act as his
agent, does not deny such agent's authority, is not
sufficient evidence of ratification. - Stillman v.
Fitzgerald, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 564.*
37 Minn. 186.
50. An agent was authorized by his principal to
sell lands on certain terms. The written contract
of sale made by him varied from these in certain
particulars. He notified his principal, a non-resi-
dent, of the sale, and sent him a deed for execu-
tion, and also a purchase-money mortgage, with
notes, ready for execution by the purchaser, show-
ing the terms of the purchase as agreed on for his
inspection. These were received and acknowl-
edged by the principal, who made no objection to
the modification in the terms of payment, and
promised to return them after submission to his
counsel. While he held the papers, the purchaser
notified the agent that he would accept the title,
and that he was ready to complete the purchase.
The vendor subsequently refused to proceed fur-
ther under the contract. Held, that the contract
as made was ratified by him, and the purchaser
was entitled to a specific performance.-Dana v.
Turlay, 35 N. W. 860, 38 Minn. 106.
51. A mere effort on part of the principal, after
knowledge of the unauthorized act of the agent, to
avoid loss thereby, will not amount to ratification
so as to relieve the agent from liability.-Triggs
v. Jones, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1113.
46 Minn. 277.
Acceptance of benefits of agent's
acts.
52. Subsequent ratification of the acts of an
assumed agent is binding on the principal as if
such acts had been done by previous authority,
and an acceptance of a benefit by the principal
will estop him from denying the authority of the
agent.-Woodbury v. Larned, 5 Minn. 339, (Gil.
271.)
the knowledge of the fact does not reach the prin-
53. Where an agent exceeds his authority, and
cipal until it is out of his power to restore what is
received through the transaction, he is not bound,
as a condition of his repudiation of the agent's ac-
tion, to make restoration, nor if such restoration
would be but a mere formality, without practical
value.-Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298, (Gil
196.)
1551
1552
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, III., IV.
}
What constitutes ratification-Delay in persons of responsibility and good reputation,
repudiating unauthorized acts.
54. Where a principal desires to dissent from
an unauthorized act of an agent, he must act
within a reasonable time after he has notice of
such act, otherwise he will make it his own.-
Stearns v. Johnson, 19 Minn. 540, (Gil. 470.)
55. Defendant, residing in Minnesota, had in
his hands, as agent for the plaintiff, residing in
Massachusetts, $4,500 in cash, and a note for
$1,500, falling due March 18, 1867. November 1,
1866, a person assuming to act as agent for the
plaintiff, but in fact unauthorized, settled with
defendant, agreeing to take $3,800 in United
States bonds, in full, and allow defendant to
keep the note as his own. Notice of the arrange-
ment was at once given to the principal by the
assumed agent, but no notice of repudiation of the
transaction was given until after the maturity of
the note. Held, that such repudiation was not
within a reasonable time, and that the fact that
the delay may have arisen from the fear that de-
fendant, being insolvent, would, to prevent re.
covery of the note, transfer the same before ma-
turity to a third person, was immaterial.-Stearns
v. Johnson, 19 Minn. 540, (Gil. 470.)
Necessity of writing.
56. Where the original' authority of an agent
to do a particular act is required to be in writing,
a ratification of such an act, done by an agent
not so authorized, must be in writing.-Judd v.
Arnold, 18 N. W. 151, 31 Minn. 430.
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES INTER SE.
Liabilities of agent-Care of principal's
property.
57. Money intrusted by principals to their
agents for a specific purpose was placed by the
agents in the same safe drawer with their own
money, and was stolen therefrom, without their
fault. Held, that the agents were not liable to
the principals therefor, as having converted the
money, it appearing that the fund had remained
intact.-Furber v. Barnes, 19 N. W. 728, 32 Minn.
105.
*
58. A contract between a principal and agents,
relating to property delivered to the agents by
the principal for sale, required the agents to
"take out a policy or policies of insurance *
in the name and for the benefit" of the princi-
pal, and to pay the expenses thereof. It provid-
ed that any such property unsold eight months
after shipment to the agents was to be subject to
the order of the principal. Held, tnat the agents
were not required to keep the property insured
during all the time it might remain in their pos-
session, but only to insure it for a reasonable
time, not exceeding eight months; and that they
were not liable for property destroyed by fire,
without their fault, three years after its delivery
to them under the contract.-Milburn Wagon Co.
v. Evans, 14 N. W. 271, 30 Minn. 89.
Price of goods sold.
59. By a contract of agency for the sale of
machines manufactured by the principal, a cor-
poration, the agents agreed to sell them only to
and having property of a specified amount, and
to require a statement from such persons as to
their property, and, upon failure to do so, to in-
dorse on the notes given by such persons a guar-
anty of collection thereof; and that, should any
notes turned over to the corporation without in-
dorsement prove uncollectible, 23 per cent. of the
amount due thereon might be charged to, and
would be paid by, the agents. Held that, if the
corporation, on a note being turned over to it,
did not then require the guaranty by the agents,
their liability thereon under the contract was ex-
clusively fixed by the 23 per cent. clause; and that
this, as a special provision for a particular case,
controlled any general provisions of the contract
which might otherwise embrace the liability of
the agents for a failure to comply with their
agreement.-Minneapolis Harvester Works
Smith. 16 N. W. 462, 30 Minn. 399.
V.
60. An agent was authorized to sell to responsi
ble parties only, yet upon final settlement, by the
terms of his contract, might take in payment of his
commissions promissory notes received from pur-
chasers "proving doubtful on examination." Held,
that, the principal could not hold the agent liable
by suit instituted two years after receiving from
him certain uncollectible notes, and retaining them
during that period without objection. Plano
Manuf'g Co. v. Buxton, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 668.
36 Minn. 203.
61. In a contract of agency for the sale of ma-
chinery, it was stipulated by the agent that he
would not deliver possession to any purchaser or
other person, or permit the use of any machinery
intrusted to him until the same was paid for in
cash or notes, and in case he did so that he would
be responsible for the payment of the price. Held,
that on a breach of such contract by the agent a
cause of action arose in the principals' favor for
the contract price of machinery so delivered, and
on payment therefor to the principals by the
agent the agent might be subrogated to the rights
of the principals in respect to such machinery.
Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Wadsworth, 42 N. W.
541, 40 Minn. 547.
Profits made by agents.
they had the refusal of a tract of land which could
62. Defendants represented to plaintiffs that
be purchased for $20,000 and no less, and plaintiffs
employed them to make the purchase. They con-
cealed from plaintiffs the fact that they were also
agents of the land-owner to effect a sale, and
bought the land for a less sum than that repre-
sented to plaintiffs. Held, that plaintiffs are en-
titled to recover the difference, as the defendants
cannot be permitted to make profit out of their
agency.--Crump v. Ingersoll, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
141.
44 Minn. 84.
Failure to perform duty.
63. An agent to rent lands, and collect the rent
thereon as it falls due, is not liable for failure to
perform his duty, although he assumes entire con-
trol of the premises, where it is not shown that he
could, with reasonable diligence, have rented the
land, or collected the rent thereon.-Burpe v. Van
Eman, 11 Minn. 327, (Gil. 231.)
1553
1554
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, IV., V.
46 Minn. 513.
Application of moneys collected-Set-
off.
Liabilities of agent-Fraud on principal. | principal may be shown.-Turnbull v. Northwest-
ern Terra Cotta Co., (Minn.) 49 N. W. 229.
64. The owner of a piece of land authorized C. to
sell it so that it should bring a specified net sum to
her; he to have for making the sale all above that
sum for which he might sell. Held, that it was
his duty, upon afterwards learning of a fact in the
condition of the land increasing its value, and of
which she was ignorant when she authorized him
to sell it, to inform her of the fact; and a sale by
him on the basis of the sum fixed, without so in-
forming her, was a fraud.-Hegenmyer v. Marks,
(Minn.) 32 N. W. 785.
37 Minn. 6.
65. Plaintifs, the principals, were defeated in
an action on a contract for sale of machinery made
in their behalf by defendant as their agent, on the
ground of his alleged fraud in procuring the con-
tract, such contract appearing on its face to be in
conformity with plaintiff's instructions. Held
that, if the allegations of fraud are true, such con-
tract also operated as a fraud on the plaintiffs, and
rendered defendant liable to them for the costs
and damages sustained in consequence thereof;
but that in an action therefor against defendant,
the latter not being a party to the former suit, the
allegations of fraud must be established by plain-
tiffs, as well as the fact that the issue thereon was
litigated and determined in the former suit, and
that the judgment record therein was only evi-
dence, as against defendant, of the fact of the re-
covery, and the amount thereof, and the issues
raised by the pleadings in that action.-Nichols,
Shepard & Co. v. Wadsworth, 42 N. W. 541, 40
Minn. 547.
66. Une who turns over money to others to in-
vest, as his agents, in land to be held and sold
on his account, is entitled to repudiate their ac-
tion, and recover the money, if, after purchas-
ing the land and taking a deed thereof, they
mortgage it without his knowledge and consent.
-Friesenhahn v. Bushnell, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 597.
47 Minn. 443.
67. One who turns over money to others to
invest, as his agents, in land to be held and
sold on his account, is entitled to repudiate a
purchase by them, and recover the money, if
they conceal from him the fact that they are the
owners of the land in which they invest. -Friesen-
hahn v. Bushnell, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 597.
47 Minn. 443.
Conversion.
68. An agent in whose hands money is placed
by the principal, to be invested in the name of such
principal, is guilty of conversion if he invests it
in his own name.-Farrand v. Hurlburt, 7 Minn.
477, (Gil. 383;) Cock v. Van Etten, 12 Minn.
522, (Gil. 431.)
Compensation of agent.
69. Upon the question whether the agency is
general, the agent having the exclusive right to
make sales of the principal's wares within certain
territory, so as to entitle him to compensation for
sales within the territory made by himself or the
principal, or a limited agency, the agent to make
such sales as he could, and receive pay for such as
he made, where the direct evidence is conflicting,
the acts of the agent known to and acted on by the
70. Defendant, after he had been, by an in-
strument in writing, authorized by the owner of
land to collect rents and make a certain disposi-
tion thereof, accepted an order by such owner
directing him to pay a specified portion of the
accruing rents to the payee therein. Held a
modification of the original agreement, and bind-
ing upon defendant, though he might otherwise
have been entitled to apply such rent to the sat-
isfaction of claims held by him.-Gray v. Barge,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 1014.
47 Minn. 498.
Indemnity to agent.
71. Where a servant of a railway company pre-
cording to his employer's orders, and, in so doing,
vents another company from crossing its road ac-
violates an injunction of which he had no knowl
edge, the employer, thus knowingly exposing him
nify him for any damages suffered on account of
to punishment for contempt of court, must indem-
his acts in obeying its orders, and such liability is
in no wise dependent on the final determination of
the court in regard to the injunction.-Guirney v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 46 N. TV. 78.
43 Minn. 496.
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PER-
SONS.
Liabilities of principal
goods by agent.
Purchase of
chased by his agent without authority, real or ap-
72. A principal is not liable for goods pur-
parent, and applied to the payment of the prin-
cipal's debt, where the agent has been provided
with funds for the payment of such debt.-Eckart
v. Roehm, 45 N. W. 443, 43 Minn. 271.
Sale of goods by agent.
ing as agent of a third person, it is presumed that
73. Where one purchases of another, who is act-
the fact of the agency was communicated to the
vendee.-Durfee v. Pavitt, 14 Minn. 424, (Gil. 319.)
74. Defendant having on the same day author-
ized two agents to sell the same tract of land,
one of them on that day effected a sale, which
ly the other agent, without notice of the previ-
was consummated by a conveyance. Subsequent-
ous sale, contracted with plaintiff for a sale of
the land to him. Held, that the sale by one
agent precluded the other, without any notice,
and that plaintiff in dealing with the agent took
the risk of revocation of his agency.-Ahern v.
Baker, 24 N. W. 341, 34 Minn. 98.
75. In replevin, defendants claimed to be own-
ers under purchase from plaintiff's agent, who
was in possession of the property. The agent was
the local agent of plaintiff for the sale of farm
machinery, and the property consisted of castings
adapted and intended to supply the place of parts
broken or worn out in plaintiff's machines. They
were listed by plaintiff to the agent at the price
1555
1556
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, V.
at which they were to be sold by him for a certain
commission, and those remaining unsold were to be
returned to plaintiff. The agent sold goods, val-
ued at $465, to defendants for $100, appropriated
the proceeds, and left the state. Defendants
claimed to be purchasers for value, and without
notice. The defendants were not engaged in sell-
ing farm machinery. One of defendants lived
with the agent, and presumably had some knowl-
edge of his business, and knew that the agent was
about to leave the state, and had heard that the
agent had had some difficulty with plaintiff. The
defendants afterwards removed the property from
the state, and only returned it on threat of crimi-
nal prosecution. Held, that a verdict for defend-
ants was not justified by the evidence.-Warder-
Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Rublee, (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 569.
42 Minn. 23.
Liabilities of principal-Fraud of agent.
76. Where a married woman employs her hus-
band to negotiate a sale of her land, and in such
negotiation he makes false representations, and
she afterwards completes the sale by making a
deed, the representations will be held as though
made by herself, since she cannot retain the ben-
efits of his negotiations, and repudiate the means
by which they were obtained.-Knappen
Freeman, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 533.
47 Minn. 491.
v.
transaction of any facts which might affect the
honesty or validity of the transfer.-Bowers v.
Mayo, 20 N. W. 186, 32 Minn. 241.
80. Knowledge of a fact received by an agent at
a time when he is not acting as such, if actually
had in mind by the agent when he subsequently
acts for his principal, will, as respects that trans-
action, be imputed to the principal.—Wilson v.
Minnesota Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, 30 N.
W. 401, 36 Minn. 112.
81. The rule that a principal is affected by no-
tice to or the knowledge of his agent does not jus-
tify a legal imputation of actual malice in the con-
duct of a principal merely because of facts known
only to his agent.-Reisan v. Mott, (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 691.
42 Minn. 49.
Liabilities of agent-Personal warranty.
82. Plaintiff, having agreed with agents of the
manufacturers of a harvesting machine to pur-
chase the machine and pay for it in secured notes,
being unable to furnish such notes, for which alone
the agents were authorized under their contract
with the manufacturers to deliver the machine,
they agreed to accept from him his notes to them-
selves and a larger cash payment than originally
stipulated; and, on his insisting upon his right
to have the machine "set up and proved, so that
he could see if it would work," they assured him
that it was proved already, and "guarantied it
one of the best in the market;" whereupon he
executed the notes, and they agreed to set up the
notice by him. Held, that evidence of these facts
machine, and put it in good running order, upon
was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury of
a personal warranty of the machine by the
agents.-Rondquist v. Higham, 24 N. W. 190, 33
Minn. 490.
77. A special agent, D., authorized to sell lot
5, fraudulently showed plaintiff lot 7 (a lot of
greater value) as being lot 5. Relying on the
representation as true, plaintiff purchased and re-
ceived a deed of lot 5, believing it to be the lot
pointed out to her by the agent. The principal
neither knew of, authorized, nor ratified this fraud.
Plaintiff never demanded a rescission of the con-
tract and restitution of the purchase money. Held,
that plaintiff could not maintain an action against
the principal to recover the difference in value be-
tween the two lots, as damages for the fraud of Money paid over to principal.
the agent in effecting the sale; that her only rem- 83. An agent to whom money is paid for his
edy against him was to demand a rescission of the principal by mistake is not liable to the party pay-
contract, and repayment of the purchase money.-ing it if he has paid it over to the principal before
Davies v. Lyon, (Minn.) 31 N. Ŵ. 688.
notice of the mistake, and that he is required not
to pay it over.-Shepard v. Sherin, (Minn.) 45 N.
W. 718.
36 Minn. 427.
Knowledge of or notice to agent.
78. Knowledge of an agent acquired previous
to the agency, but appearing to be actually pres-
ent in his mind during the agency, and while
acting for his principal in a particular transac-
tion or matter, will, as respects such transaction
or matter, be deemed notice to the principal.
Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Hallenbeck, 13 N. W. 145,
29 Minn. 322.
79. In an action for the taking, under attach-
ments against one G., of goods claimed by plain-
tiff, plaintiff's husband testified, on his direct
examination, that at the time of the levy of the
attachments he had received and was holding
possession of the goods as agent for his wife on
a sale thereof made to her through him by G.
Held, that it was proper, on his cross-examina-
tion, to inquire into all the circumstances of the
transfer tending to show its fraudulent character
and purpose, and the fraudulent nature of his
possession, as plaintiff would be affected with
any notice or knowledge acquired by him in the
43 Minn. 382.
84. The notice need not be formal, but must be
made by one having an interest in the matter, and
must apprise him of the mistake, and that the
party intends by reason of it to reclaim the money.
-Shepard v. Sherin, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 718.
43 Minn. 382.
Undisclosed principal.
85. Where a written contract is claimed to
have been made by an agent, it must, in order
to relieve such agent from liability, appear upon
its face to have been made on behalf of the prin-
cipal. It is not sufficient that he simply signed
it as agent.-Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 578,
(Gil. 412.)
86. Where one who has signed a contract and is
prima facie liable thereon seeks to change such
liability on the ground of agency, the fact of agen-
cy must first be shown.-Pratt v. Beaupre, 13 Minn.
187, (Gil. 177.)
1557
1558
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, V., VI.
87. One who procures a real estate broker to ob-
tain a loan on land, without disclosing the name of
the owner of the land, for whom the loan is in fact
intended, is himself liable for the value of the
broker's services.-Bacon v. Rupert, (Minn.) 40 N.
W 832.
39 Minn. 512.
88. An agent, without disclosing his agency,
contracted with a stranger. Held, in an action
brought by the real principal upon such contract,
such stranger might set up any equity existing
in his favor against the agent prior to notice of
plaintiff's rights.-Lough v. Thornton, 17 Minn.
253, (Gil. 230.)
Wrongful assumption of authority.
89. One who acts as agent without authority
makes himself personally liable.-Pratt v. Beau-
pre, 13 Minn. 187, (Gil. 177.)
90. Where one without authority executes an
instrument in the name of another, adding his
own as agent merely, he cannot be treated and
sued as a party thereto, unless it is shown that
he was the real principal.-Sheffield v. Ladue, 16
Minn. 388, (Gil. 346.)
91. One who, without authority, executes a
contract for and in the name of another, adding
his name as agent to the name of the assumed
principal, cannot be sued on the contract; but
an action in the nature of an action on the case
lies against him.-Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn.
388, (Gil. 346.)
92. Defendant, wrongfully assuming to be the
authorized agent of the owner of certain land for
the sale thereof, induced plaintiff to enter into a
compact for the purchase of the land, which
provided that plaintiff should build a house
thereon within three months. Held, that plain.
tiff might recover from defendant, in addition to
damages for the loss of the bargain, the ex-
penditures in making improvements on the prop-
erty in pursuance of the contract.-Skaaraas v.
Finnegan, 19 N. W. 729, 32 Minn. 107.
93. An action against an agent for falsely as-
suming to act as such will not lie in behalf of a
third person if the assumed principal ratify the
act of the agent, provided that the making the
ratification relates back, and places such third
person in no worse position than he would other-
wise have occupied.—Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn.
388, (Gil. 346.)
94. The failure of the agent to give notice of
the ratification of his unauthorized act will not
make him liable, unless facts are shown impos-
ing on him a duty to give such notice, and dam-
age resulting from his neglect so to do.-Sheffield
v. Ladue, 16 Minn. 388, (Gil. 346.)
False representations.
|
Liabilities of agent-Conversion.
96. An agent or servant, who, acting solely for
his principal or master, and by his direction, and
without knowing of any wrong, or being guilty of
gross negligence in not knowing of it, disposes
of, or assists the master in disposing of, property
which the latter has no right to dispose of, is not
thereby rendered liable for a conversion of the
property:-Leuthold v. Fairchild, 27 N. W. 503,
28 N. W. 218, 35 Minn. 99.
Trespass.
97. An agent acting under instructions is not
liable as trespasser unless his principal would
also be so liable.-Strong v. Colter, 13 Minn. 82,
(Gil. 77.)
Rights of principal and third persons
as creditors of agent.
98. A mauufacturing company domiciled in
another state entered into a contract with an
agent for the establishment of a branch of its
business in this state, under which he carried
on the business in his own name, with the knowl-
edge and consent of the company, and contracted
a large amount of indebtedness. Afterwards he
made an assignment for the benefit of his cred-
not entitled to a preference over the creditors of
itors. Held, that a creditor of the company was
such agent because moneys received from the
company were used in his business, or in the pur-
chase of the assigned property before the indebt-
edness to such creditors accrued.-Mackellar v.
Anchor Manuf'g Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 616.
VI. ACTIONS.
Between principal and agent-Pleading
-Judgment.
99. In an action to recover money alleged to have
been collected by defendant for plaintiff, an an-
swer by defendant that he had received the claim
from one H., who told him he could retain all col-
lected above a certain sum, is insufficient in not al-
leging that H. was the agent of plaintiff or author-
ized to act in her behalf.-Davenport v. Ladd,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 622.
38 Minn. 545.
100. The complaint in an action by a principal
against his agent charged specific acts of con-
versions of the principal's property, and also made
out a
case for, and demanded, an accounting.
The court found that defendant had appropriated.
to his own use, and had not accounted for, cer-
tain items of money and goods of the principal.
Held, that judgment might be ordered for the
amount and values of such items, without a gen-
eral statement of the accounts between the par-
ties. If such a statement would show that de-
fendant had accounted for those items, it was.
for him to show it.-Greenleaf v. Egan, 15 N.
W. 254, 30 Minn. 316.
By agent-Trustee of express trust.
101. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 28, authorizes
the trustee of an express trust to sue without join-
95. Where an agent of the owner of property |
makes representations as to its character and con-
dition, which are relied on by a purchaser, to his
prejudice, and which are in fact false and fraudu-
lent, and unqualifiedly made by such agent as of
his own knowledge, the purchaser may maintaining with him the person for whose benefit the ac-
an action against him for damages.--Clark v. Lov-
ering, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 776.
37 Minn. 120.
tion is prosecuted, and provides that "a person
with whom, or in whose name, a contract is made
for the benefit of another, is a trustee of an express
1559
1560
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, VI.-PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, I.
AND
Set-off in favor of surety, see Counterclaim and
Set-Off, 36, 37.
trust within the meaning of this section." Held | Limitation of actions, see Limitation of Actions,
that, where a contract for the sale of land is taken
31.
by an agent in his own name for the benefit of his
principal, the agent may sue in his own name for
non-performance.-Cremer v. Wimmer, (Minn.) 42
40 Minn. 511.
N. W 167.
102. An agent having taken in his own name a
mortgage of chattels, he may sue therefor in tro-
ver as the trustee of an express trust.-Close v.
Hodges, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 335.
44 Minn. 204.
Evidence.
103. Where a transaction relied upon as detense
to an action on a note was had with an agent,
the authority of the agent must be shown.-Bray-
ley v. Kelly, 25 Minn. 160.
104. The authority of an agent to act for his
principal cannot be proved by the former's acts
and declarations.-Sencerbox v. McGrade, 6 Minn.
484, (Gil. 334.)
105. On a question as to the authority of one
who acted as an agent, it is proper to charge
that the party seeking to bind a person by the
acts of an agent must affirmatively prove to the
satisfaction of the jury that the agent was fully
authorized to perform the act, and that the agent's
own statement that he was authorized is not suffi-
cient of itself to prove his authority.-Newman
v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 17 Minn.
123, (Gil. 98.)
106. Defendant had in his hands, as agent for
the plaintiff, $4,500 in cash, and a note payable
to bearer for $1,500 more. Five or six months
before the maturity of the note, the son of the
plaintiff, assuming to act as agent for his father,
but without actual authority, settled with the
defendant, taking $3,800 in United States bonds
for the whole claim. Plaintiff, though promptly
notified of the arrangement, did not repudiate
the same until after maturity of the note, when
he brought suit to recover its possession. Held,
that evidence in such suit that defendant, before
settling, took legal advice as to whether a crim-
inal action could be brought against him for re-
fusing to pay over the funds in his hands, and
that he stated that plaintiff had attempted to
commit a rape upon his daughter, and he meant
to make him pay roundly for it, was properly
excluded as immaterial.-Stearns v. Johnson, 19
Minn. 540, (Gil. 470.)
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
1. SURETYSHIP IN GENERAL, 1-7.
II. RELEASE AND DISCHARGE OF SURETIES, 8-23.
III. REMEDIES, 24-31.
See, also, Bonds; Guaranty; Indemnity.
Liability on appeal bonds, see Appeal and Error,
760-762.
40-45.
on bonds of county treasurer, see Counties,
on bonds of executors and administrators, see
Executors and Administrators, 14, 15.
on promissory notes, see Negotiable Instru-
ments, 108-114.
on replevin bonds, see Replevin, 92.
Subrogation of surety, see Subrogation, 2-4, 11-13.
1. SURETYSHIP IN GENERAL.
When relation exists.
1. A surety is any person who, being liable to
pay a debt, is entitled, if it is enforced against him,
to be indemnified by some other person who ought
himself to have paid it before the surety was
compelled to do so. Parties who contract a debt
as partners may, by reason of subsequent arrange-
ments or transactions, become, as between them-
selves, principal and surety.-Wendlandt v. Sohre,
(Minn.) 33 N. W 700.
37 Minn. 162.
2. The partnership between plaintiff and defend-
ant having been dissolved, a full accounting, ad-
justment, and settlement was had, as was supposed,
of all the partnership business, both as between
the firm and third persons, and as between the
partners themselves. But by inadvertence one
debt contracted by the firm was overlooked and
left unpaid. When it became due, plaintiff paid
debt contracted by the firm was overlooked and
one-half of it, and, upon defendant's refusal to pay
the other half, brought an action against him for
indemnity, and to compel him to pay it. Held that,
as between the plaintiff and defendant, the former
bore the relation of surety for the payment of the
remaining half of the debt, and as such could main-
tain the action.-Wendlandt v. Sohre, 33 N. W.
700, 37 Minn. 162.
Fraud.
3. The fact that county commissioners knew,
when they accepted the treasurer's bond for a
second term, that he had converted funds during
the prior term, does not avoid the bond.-Pine
Countv v. Willard, (Minn.) 39 N. W. 71.
39 Minn. 125.
Scope of contract-Successive terms of
office.
4. A treasurer, on surrendering his office dur-
ing his second term, failed to account for or pay
over all the funds then chargeable to him. Held,
that the sureties for the second term were prima
facie liable, and that, to exonerate themselves, the
burden was on them to show that this deficiency
occurred during the former term.-Pine County v.
Willard, (Minn.) 39 N. W. 71.
39 Minn. 125.
5. The sureties for the second term would be
responsible for money coming into the treasury
during that term, though it was placed there
merely to cover a previous defalcation, and also
if public money received during the second term
were misapplied to cover a previous delinquency.
Pine County v. Willard, 39 N. W. 71, 39 Minn.
125.
Transfer of interest of principal.
6. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, § 3, two
ontractors for the erection of a building gave a
bond, the condition of which was that they "shall
pay all just claims for work done and to be done,
and all materials furnished. One of the con-
1561
1562
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, I., II.
tractors assigned the contract to the other, who | Payment by creditor to principal debtor.
erected the building. Held, that the sureties on 12. Where the contractors for grading the
the bond were liable for materials furnished with-streets of a city execute a bond to the city condi-
out notice of the assignment.-Abbott v. Morris-
sette, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 416.
46 Minn. 10.
Application of payments.
7. A. made his promissory note, which, by its
terms, bore interest after its maturity at the rate
of 4 per cent. per month. A. and B. joined in a
mortgage on the estate of B. to secure the same.
After maturity, A. made a payment on the note,
which was applied by him and the holder as inter-
est after maturity. Held, that B. was bound by
such application.-Allen v. Jones, 8 Minn. 202, (Gil.
172.
II. RELEASE AND DISCHARGE OF SURETIES.
Consideration.
8. The fact that a surety on a note refrained
from taking from the maker security to indemnify
him from liability, at the request of the holder,
and in reliance on the latter's promise that if he
would so refrain he should be released from lia
bility, constitutes a sufficient consideration for
the promise to release, where but for such re-
quest and promise the surety would and could
have obtained the indemnity.-Heitsch v. Cole,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 235.
47 Minn. 320.
Change of principal's contract.
9. An unsigned memorandum, stipulating for
a change of the rate of interest to 3 per cent. per
month, though indorsed upon the note to which it
refers, is not an agreement in writing, within Pub.
St. Minn. c. 30, § 1, is not binding, and will not dis-
charge the surety.-Allen v. Jones, 8 Minn. 202,
(Gil. 172.)
tioned upon the payment of all claims for labor
and materials furnished to the contractors, the
sureties in such bond are not discharged by pay-
ment to the principals of all money due them from
the city upon the completion of their contract.
City of Duluth v. Heney, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 7.
43 Minn. 155.
Formal release by creditor in insol-
vency.
the discharge of the insolvent is a discharge by
13. Under the Minnesota insolvent act of 1881,
operation of law, and the execution of the formal
release by a creditor, in pursuance of the statute,
as a condition of sharing in the assets, does not.
operate to release the sureties of the insolvent.
debtor.-Ames v. Wilkinson, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 696.
47 Minn. 148.
Extension of time.
14. An extension of time given by a creditor to
the principal debtor, without the consent of the
sureties, releases the sureties, though the debt.
was due when the extension was given. —Wheat-
on v. Wheeler, 8 N. W. 599, 27 Minn. 464.
15. Where two persons are sued on a promis-
sory note, one as surety, an allegation by him
that after maturity the holder, at the request of
the principal debtor, for a valuable and sufficient
consideration, extended the time of payment, con-
stitutes a good defense, though neither the time
of extension nor nature of the consideration is-
stated.-Huey v. Pinney, 5 Minn. 310, (Gil. 246.)
16. In an action on a promissory note against.
the maker and a surety there was evidence that
a person in possession of the note, assuming to
act for the payee, at maturity accepted from the
maker a new note, including the interest on the
original note for six months in advance, and that
the payee thereafter expressed himself as dissat-
isfied, stating that the surety considered him-
self released, and requested such person to sue
the notes, and upon his refusal took them into
his own possession. Held, that this was suffi-
cient to show a ratification by him of the trans-
action, which discharged the surety.-Woodbury
v. Larned, 5 Minn. 339, (Gil. 271.)
10. Plaintiffs furnished building material to cer-
tain contractors, used in a house erected by them
for G. under a contract with him, and were sure-
ties for the faithful performance of the contract
by them. After the work was commenced, and
the first installment paid, and before such building
materials were furnished by plaintiffs, G. so far
departed from the terms of the contract that pay-
ments were made by him to divers persons on the
order of the contractors, without reference to the
state of the work or the terms of the contract, and
in some instances to an amount exceeding the in-will not discharge the surety, where the relation of
stallments due as stipulated therein, and in anti-
cipation thereof. Held, that plaintiffs were there-
by discharged from their obligation as sureties,
and therefore not estopped to enforce their claims
for a lien upon such building.-Simonson v. Thori,
(Minn.) 31 N. W. 861.
36 Minn. 439.
11. The rights of those furnishing labor or ma
terial, the real obligees in bond given by a con
tractor under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, § 3, condi-
tioned to pay all claims and prevent a lien from
attaching against the building, cannot be affected
by any agreement or act of the principal obligor
and nominal obligee. An extension of the time for
completing the building does not affect the obliga
tion of the sureties.-Šteffes v. Lemke, 41 N. W.
302, 40 Minn. 27.
17. Extending time of payment to the principal
principal and surety does not appear on the face of
the contract, and it is not alleged or proved that
notice of such relation was communicated to the
creditor at the time of such extension.-Agnew v.
Merritt, 10 Minn. 308, (Gil. 242.)
18. Mere neglect to bring suit, or take active
efforts to collect the note of the principal maker
at the request of the surety, is insufficient to dis-
charge the latter.-Benedict v. Thoe, 35 N. W.
10,* 37 Minn. 431.
19. A member of a partnership who has agreed,
after dissolution of the partnership, with his co-
partners, to personally pay a partnership debt, has
no authority to give a partnership note therefor;
and if the creditor, knowing such facts, accepts
such a note, extending the time for payinent, he
1563
1564
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, II., III-PRIVILEGE.
thereby discharges the partners not consenting
thereto, since they have the rights of sureties.
Leithauser v. Baumeister, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 660.
47 Minn. 151.
Release of levy.
20. Where one recovers a judgment against sev-
eral parties, some of which are liable as sureties
only, and levies upon property of one of the par-
ties primarily liable, sufficient to satisfy the judg-
ment, a release of such levy, without the consent
of those whose liability is that of surety, oper-
ates as a satisfaction as to such sureties. Willis
v. Davis, 3 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1,) approved.-Moss
v. Pettingill, 3 Minn. 217, (Gil. 1-15.)
21. But where a creditor recovers judgment
against a principal debtor and his sureties, and
Levies upon property belonging to such debtor and
another, as partners, and afterwards releases the
levy for the reason that the liabilities of the
partnership were greater than the assets, such re-
lease will not operate to discharge the sureties of
the principal debtor.-Moss v. Pettingill, 3 Minn.
217, (Gil. 145.)
Release of collateral security.
22. A surety upon a promissory note is not
discharged by the release of collateral security,
where such release was given at his instance
and with his consent.-Pence v. Gale, 20 Minn.
257, (Gil. 231.)
Use of collateral security for other pur-
poses.
23. Where a creditor who has received collater-
al security from the debtor allows the debtor to
use such collateral for other purposes than the pay-
ment of the debt, he thereby releases, pro tanto,
one who was surety for such debt.-Nelson v.
Munch, 9 N. W. 863, 28 Minn. 314.
III. REMEDIES.
Action against surety-Pleading.
24. In an action on a bond executed and de-
livered, an answer by the surety that he and the
principal agreed that the bond should not bind
him unless another surety was obtained on it,
and that the obligee had notice of such agree-
ment, is bad, since it does not allege that the
obligee had such notice before the bond was de-
livered.-Farrell v. Fabel, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 303.
47 Minn. 11.
Evidence.
25. The acts and transactions of the makers of
a promissory note in reference to the considera-
tion, are competent evidence upon the issue as to
whether they were both principals, or one was
surety; and it appearing that they were partners,
and the note was given to purchase property
turned over to the firm, the firm books are com-
petent to show that one, as principal, was cred-
ited with same, and when so credited.-Strong
v. Baker, 25 Minn. 442.
26. Partnership books are competent to show
that the relation of the partners to a certain joint
note was that of principal and surety.-Strong v.
Baker, 25 Minn. 442.
|
|
|
27. Evidence that plaintiffs delayed for some
time to enforce a lien on a building securing a
debt due them, and that in the mean time the
building was destroyed by fire, was properly ex-
cluded in an action against sureties for the debt,
it not appearing that plaintiffs were under any
contract to enforce the lien in a given time, or that
defendants had requested such enforcement.
Bardwell v. Witt, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 983.
42 Minn. 468.
Action by surety to compel payment
to creditor.
28. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 72, § 35, provid-
ing that an action may be brought by one against
two or more persons for the purpose of compel-
ling one to satisfy a debt due to the other, for
which plaintiff is bound as surety, a surety on a
promissory note cannot require the holder to
bring suit and enforce his debt against the prin-
cipal debtor, as he has himself the right to sue
to compel the maker to pay the holder.
holder.-Huey v.
Pinney, 5 Minn. 310, (Gil. 246.)
Action by surety for reimbursement.
29. A surety who has paid the debt of his prin-
cipal may sue the principal for reimbursement,
though the payment was made on a judgment re-
covered by the creditor against both principal
and surety, and the surety is entitled to the ben-
efit of the judgment, and may enforce it against
the principal by execution.-Kimmel v. Lowe, 9
N. W. 764, 28 Minn. 265.
Contribution between co-sureties.
debt, recovers a judgment therefor against the
30. A co-surety, who, after having paid the
principal and a garnishee, but by neglect loses
the remedy against the latter, by reason of his
insolvency, cannot maintain an action for con-
tribution against his co-surety.-Schmidt v. Coul-
ter, 6 Minn. 492, (Gil. 340.)
31. Defendants, by an instrument under seal,
guarantied to the amount of $2,000 the perform-
ance by P. of a contract into which he had en-
tered.
strument under seal, guarantied to the amount
Afterwards plaintiff, by a separate in-
of $1,000 the performance by P. of the same con-
tract.
by reason of P.'s failure to fulfill his contract.
Plaintiff was compelled to pay the $1,000
Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to contribu-
tion from defendants, as co-sureties with him.
Young v. Shunk, 16 Ń. W. 402, 30 Minn. 503.
Priorities.
•
Grants of land in aid of railroads, see Public
Lands, 72-76.
Liens, see Chattel Mortgages, 83-87; Execution,
41-43; Judgment, 185-191; Mechanics' Liens,
108-115; Mortgages, 46-50.
Privilege.
From service of process, see Summons, 23, 24.
Of witness, see Witness, 60-66.
Privileged communications, see Libel and Slan-
der, 32-41; Witness, 10-15.
1565
1566
PRIVITY-PROHIBITION, WRIT OF.
Privity.
See Adverse Possession, 28; Assignment, 25.
Probable Cause.
See Malicious Prosecution.
Probate.
Admission of will to probate, see Wills, 33–42.
Probate Courts.
See Courts, 14–17.
Appeal from, see Appeal and Error, 681-690.
Constitutional provisions as to jurisdiction, see
Constitutional Law, 42, 43.
Power to compel performance of contract, see
Specific Performance, 6.
to make partition, see Partition, 1.
Process.
See Execution; Search-Warrant; Summons.
Failure to execute, see Sheriffs and Constables,
5-8.
Garnishee summons, see Garnishment, 27.
Powers of officer, see Sheriffs and Constables, 2.
Presumptions as to service, on appeal, see Appeal
and Error, 408, 409.
Service by publication, see Attachment, 73; Con-
stitutional Law, 156, 157.
Production of Books and Papers.
See Practice in Civil Cases, 62.
PROHIBITION, WRIT OF.
When granted.
1. A writ of probibition will not be issued
by the supreme court unless it clearly appears
that the inferior court or tribunal is about to
proceed in some matter over which it has no juris-
diction.-Prignitz v. Fischer, 4 Minn. 366, (Gil.
275.)
2. The office of the writ of prohibition is to re-
strain courts from going beyond their jurisdiction,
and, if granted against other bodies or offices, can
only be in restraint of judicial powers.-Home Ins.
Co. of St. Paul v. Flint, 13 Minn. 244, (Gil. 228;)
Dayton v. Paine, 13 Minn. 493, (Gil. 454.)
3. The writ of prohibition is issued to arrest
proceedings, and cannot be used as a remedy for
acts already completed.-Dayton v. Paine, 13 Minn.
493, (Gil. 454.)
4. The statutes of Minnesota, (Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 80, tit. 11.) confirming the use of the writ
of prohibition, do not limit or change its common-
law use and application.- Home Ins. Co. of St.
Paul v. Flint, 13 Minn. 244, (Gil. 228.)
5. The writ of prohibition will not lie to the
judge of a probate court and to an administrator
to examine into the legality of proceedings had by
the administrator before the judge, and to restrain
the administrator from making sales of real estate
belonging to his intestate.-Dayton v. Paine, 13
Minn. 493, (Gil. 454.)
6. The supreme court will, on the relation of
a purchaser at administrator's sale, after a con-
firmation of such sale, prohibit the probate court,
which confirmed the sale, from proceeding to
vacate the same. -State v. Probate Court of Ram-
sey County, 19 Minn. 117, (Gil. 85.)
7. A writ of prohibition may be granted to
prevent the exercise by a judge of the legislative
power of incorporating a village, under å statute
assuming to confer on him such power; the pro-
ceedings being, in many of their features and re-
sults, quasi judicial, and conducted under judi-
cial forms, and there being no other adequate
remedy.-State v. Simons, 21 N. W. 750, 32 Minn.
540.
8. The powers vested in justices of the peace
by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 1, §§ 49, 50, 51, to take
testimony in cases of contest of election to
either house of the legislature, not being judi-
cial, a writ of prohibition will not be issued to
restrain justices so acting, unless they assume
functions beyond those conferred on them, and
judicial in their character. -State v. Peers, 21
N. W. 860, 33 Minn. 81.
title of a de facto judicial officer to the office.-
State v. McMartin, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 572.
42 Minn. 30.
9. A writ of prohibition will not lie to test the
Existence of other remedy.
10. Prohibition will be granted to restrain the
excess of jurisdiction, in subordinate tribunals,
in proceedings other than ordinary actions, al-
though there may be a remedy by appeal, and the
question of jurisdiction has not been raised in the
inferior court;
the
especially where, from
action taken by the court, it may be presumed
that it passed upon the question of jurisdiction.
State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143.
11. A writ of prohibition will be granted to
restrain proceedings by a judge of probate
against a county treasurer, as for contempt in
refusing to pay a judgment entered by the pro-
bate court against a county, for the fees and ex-
penses of a proceeding for the commitment of an
though an appeal lies from the action of the pro-
insane person to the asylum for the insane,
bate judge in the premises. -State v.. Wilcox, 24
Minn. 143.
Distinguished in State v. Municipal Court of St. Paul,
2 N. W. 167, 26 Minn. 163.
12. In an action brought in the municipal court
of the city of St. Paul to obtain restitution of real
estate, as provided by Gen. St. Minn. c. 84, de-
fendant filed an answer setting forth what he
contended was an equitable defense. Gen. St.
Minn. c. 64, § 82. provides that, "where any
* * * is interposed, *
equitable defense
said [municipal] court shall immediately cause
an entry of the fact to be made of record, and
cease all further proceedings in the cause,
"and
certify it to the district court. Held, that pro-
hibition would not lie to the municipal court to
*
:
1567
1568
PROHIBITION, WRIT OF-PUBLICATION.
certify the district court, the remedy being by I though by trespass and without right, are his
appeal or certiorari.-State v. Municipal Court
of St. Paul, 2 N. W. 166, 26 Minn. 162.
Distinguishing State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143.
13. Where it is alleged, in an ordinary action
in the district court, that the court has not juris-
diction of the person of defendant, the proper
remedy is to obtain the decision of the court on
the question of jurisdiction, and review the same
on appeal from the judgment; and, where the
remedy by appeal is adequate, prohibition will
not lie.-State v. District Court for Ramsey Co.,
2 N. W. 698, 26 Minn. 233.
Limiting Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 13 Minn. 278,
(Gil. 256.)
property after they are gathered, and he may re-
cover for the destruction thereof by the negli-
gence of another.-Lindsay v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 13 N. W. 191, 29 Minn. 411.
Distinguished in Caruer v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 45 N. W. 713, 43 Minn. 376.
Grass grown on land of railway com-
pany.
2. An owner of land adjoining a railway
who cuts grass growing on land belonging to the
railway company, is not, as against the company,
the owner of the hay made from the grass, and
cannot recover for its destruction by the negli-
gence of the railway company.-Lindsay v. Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co., 13 N. W. 191, 29 Minn.
411.
14. On a question of the jurisdiction of the
municipal court of St. Paul to try issues pre-
sented in an action of forcible entry and detainer
by an answer setting up fraud and usury, a writ
of prohibition should not issue; the remedy by
appeal being open to the relator.-State v. Cory, See District and Prosecuting Attorneys.
28 N. W. 217, 35 Minn. 178.
Procedure.
15. Const. art. 6, § 2, having declared that
there shall be no trial by jury in the supreme
court, that court will not issue a writ of prohi-
bition in a form to entitle the parties to join issue
upon the return triable by a jury, but will only
issue it in the first place as an order to show
cause.-Prignitz v. Fischer, 4 Minn. 366, (Gil.
275.)
16. Where a writ of prohibition is issued to an
officer, he is required to make a return, upon which
issue is joined. If issued to a court and prosecut-
ing party, the party is not required or allowed to
make return, but may be allowed to adopt that of
the court. The question is whether the court
should be restrained, and, if it cannot, the party
cannot be restrained; and his acts, except as relat-
ing to the prosecution of the suit, are immaterial,
and not a subject of inquiry.-Dayton v. Paine, 13
Minn. 493, (Gil. 454.)
Promissory Notes.
See Negotiable Instruments.
PROPERTY.
Animals estray, see Animals, 7.
Conflict of laws as to title, see Conflict of Laws, 1.
Corporate stock, see Corporations, 86–115.
Finding lost property, see Larceny, 7-9.
Literary property, see Copyright; Literary Prop-
erty.
Logs, see Logs and Logging, 35–38.
Of partnership, see Partnership, 19–26.
religious corporation, see Religious Societies,
1, 2.
Riparian property and water rights, see Riparian
Rights; Waters and Water-Courses.
Taking for public use, see Eminent Domain.
Taxable property, see Taxation, 18–34.
Crops grown on land of state.
1. Wheat and oats sowed and harvested by
an individual on land belonging to the state, al-
Prosecuting Attorneys.
Protest.
For nonpayment of promissory note, see Negotia
ble Instruments, 122–149.
Proximate.
Cause, see Negligence, 34–50.
Damages, see Damages, 1-10.
Public.
Agent, see Office and Officer, 13, 14; States and
State Officers, 4–8.
Improvements, see Municipal Corporations, 211–
Lands, see Public Lands.
Laws, see Statutes, 54.
306.
Nuisance, see Nuisance, 4, 5.
Officers, see Office and Officer.
Policy, see Contracts, 41-46.
Use, see Eminent Domain, 9–18.
Ways, see Highways.
PUBLICATION.
In newspaper, see Newspapers.
Of advertisement for bids, see Municipal Corpo-
rations, 105-107.
city ordinance, see Municipal Corporations,
19-21.
notice of foreclosure of mortgage, see Mort-
yages, 231-236.
delinquent tax list, see Taxation, 99.
libel, see Libel and Slander, 27–30.
notice to redeem from tax sale, see Taxation,
199-202.
statutes, see Statutes, 9, 10.
Service of process by, see Constitutional Law,156,
157; Judgment, 33-36, 207; Summons, 29-52.
Sufficiency—Affidavit of publication.
1. Where a notice is required to be published
once in each week for 10 successive weeks, an
affidavit that it was published 10 weeks, without
1
1569
1570
PUBLICATION-PUBLIC LANDS, I. a., b.
showing that is was published once in each week, | no fraud or surprise being shown, that the award
is insufficient.-Ullman v. Lion, 8 Minn. 381,
(Gil. 338.)
2. An affidavit of publication of notice, not
made by the printer of the paper, or his foreman
or principal clerk, as required by Comp. St.
Minn. c. 84, § 60, and which does not state that
the notice annexed was taken from the paper, is
insufficient.-Ullman v. Lion, 8 Minn. 381, (Gil.
338.)
PUBLIC LANDS.
I. ENTRIES UNDER FEDERAL LAWS, 1-53.
a. Pre-emptions, 1-4.
b. Homestead Entries, 5-10.
c. Timber Culture, 11-14.
d. Town Sites, 15–53.
was properly made, under the above act, as the
pre-emption could only be made by one, and that
the grantee took the land subject to no trust or
equity in favor of plaintiff by virtue of such
agreement or otherwise.-Warren v. Van Brunt,
12 Minn. 70, (Gil. 36.)
Abandonment.
3. In June, 1863, defendant built a shanty on
his claim then made, dug out a spring, and hauled
lumber on the land, which plaintiff removed.
Defendant's shanty was then removed, whereup-
on he posted notices offering a reward for the
discovery of the trespasser. Prior to June, 1864,
defendant did not remove his family, consisting
of a wife and several small children, to the
claim, owing to the illness of the wife, of which
she died in 1865, and his controversy with plain-
tiff, who threatened to use force to eject defend-
II. GRANTS IN AID OF RAILROADS AND OTHER ant from the claim. In May, 1864, defendant
ROADS, 54-91.
III. SCHOOL LANDS, 92-98.
IV. INDIAN HALF-BREED SCRIP, 99–108.
V. SURVEYS, 109.
VI. PATENTS, 110, 111.
VII. SALE AND LEASING OF STATE LANDS, 112-114.
VIII. LAND OFFICE, 115-119.
IX. RELIEF AGAINST FRAUD AND MISTAKE, 120-
124.
X. RELIEF OF BONA FIDE SETTLERS, 125, 126.
XI. CONTRACTS RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS,
127-152.
Adverse claims to land after issue of patent, see
Adverse Claim, 2.
Conveyance of Indian title, see Indians, 3.
Indian reservations, see Indians, 2.
Patents bounded on streams and waters, see
Boundaries, 1–4.
Replevin of Indian half-breed scrip, see Replevin,
61.
Taxation, see Taxation, 20, 21.
L ENTRIES UNDER FEDERAL LAWS.
a. Pre-emptions.
Certificate of settlement and entry.
dug a cellar on the claim, and in June of that
year moved thither with his family, and contin-
ued to reside there until the death of his wife.
Held sufficient evide.ce that defendant had not
abandoned the claim. Kelley v. Wallace, 14
Minn. 236, (Gil. 173.)
4. An agreement by a pre-emptor to abandon
his rights in, occupancy of, and improvements on
the land pre-empted, so that another may enter
upon and pre-empt it, is not a violation of Rev.
St. U. S. § 2263, declaring, in relation to pre-
emptions, that "all assignments and transfers of
the right hereby secured, prior to the issuing of
the patent, shall be null and void. "-Olson v. Or-
ton, 8 N. W. 878, 28 Minn. 36.
b. Homestead Entries.
What subject to.
5. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 2258, government
lands included within the limits of any incorporated
town are not subject to pre-emption or homestead
entry, and hence the land department has no juris-
diction to allow such entries under any circum-
stances, and a patent issued upon a homestead
entry of land included within that class is void.-
Burfenning v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 444
46 Minn. 20.
1. Certificates by the register or receiver of a
United States land-office, showing a pre-emption
settlement and entry of public land, made, by Relinquishment-Rights of wife.
Gen. St. Minn. c. 73, §§ 91, 92, prima facie evi-
dence of title in the person named therein, are
evidence that his pre-emption right commenced
at the date of settlement, and was consummated
at the date of entry, stated therein.-Winona &
St. P. R. Co. v. Randall, 13 N. W. 127, 29 Minn.
223.
Joint claim.
2. Prior to Act Cong. Aug. 4, 1854, extending
the right of pre-emption to unsurveyed lands in
Minnesota, plaintiff and B. squatted upon certain
lands, making a joint claim, and agreeing to di-
vide the lands in accordance with a certain line.
Both made improvements upon a certain quarter-
quarter_section, through which the agreed line
ran, and, in the fall of 1854, both made applica-
tion to enter and purchase the same; and, upon
contest being had, it was finally awarded by the
general land-office to B. 's administratrix. Held,
Held,
V.2M.DIG.-50
6. In an action by a wife to recover possession
of a homestead entered by her husband under
the laws of the United States, which has been
fraudulently and collusively relinquished by the
husband, and entered by defendant, it is error to
charge that a homestead cannot be relinquished
without the consent of the wife, as that principle
depends upon a state law which has no applica-
tion to homestead entries of United States lands.
Michaelis v. Michaelis, (Minn.) 44 N. W 1149.
43 Minn. 123.
7. Where a husband relinquishes a homestead
claim theretofore entered by him, and deserts his
wife, leaving her in possession, and the land de-
partment has recognized her right to contest the
subsequent entry of such land by one having no-
tice of such facts, she may recover possession
from him, pending the contest, with damages for
his dispossessing her and destroying improve-
1571
1572
PUBLIC LANDS, I. b.-d.
ments left upon the premises, which improvements
he claims by a sale from the husband that is
shown to be collusive.-Michaelis v. Michaelis,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 1149.
43 Minn. 123.
Rights of heirs and devisees.
8. Upon a homestead entry in Minnesota, under
the law of the United States, the father and mother
dying, leaving children under 21 years of age, a
patent subsequently issued by the land-office,
granting the land so entered to "the minor heirs"
of the father, passes the title to the persons de-
scribed in section 2292, Rev. St. U. S., to-wit, the
children under 21 years of age, though' by the law
of that state some of them were not minors.-An-
derson v. Peterson, Minn.) 32 N. W. 861.
36 Minn. 547.
9. When a settler upon public lands, under the
homestead law of the United States, dies before
acquiring title, having devised the homestead, the
devisee perfecting his title, pursuant to section
2291 of the Revised Statutes, acquires the land ex-
empt from liability for prior debts, as provided in
Coleman v. McCormick,
Rev. St. U. S. § 2296.
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 556.
37 Minn. 179.
Cancellation of entry for fraud.
10. A homestead entry of public lands of the
United States may be canceled for fraud by the of-
ficers of the land department, even after final
proof has been made, but before the issuing of
the patent.-Judd v. Randall, 29 N. W. 589, 36
Minn. 12.
Distinguishing Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 450, (Gil. 359.)
c. Timber Culture.
Right to crops and trees.
|
make the new entry for defendant, defendant
gave plaintiff his note for $200. Held, that such
note was supported by a sufficient consideration.
-Thompson v. Hanson, 11 N. W. 86, 28 Minn. 484.
14. The written relinquishment of a timber
culture claim, provided for by 21 U. S. St. at
Large, c. 89, p. 140, which gives to the holder
the advantage of securing the claim for himself,
by simultaneous entry in his own right, although
the transfer which the nature of the case permits,
not strictly a conveyance or assignment, being all
is included in an award directing the holder to
"convey, set over, assign, and deliver" certain
personal and real property mentioned, particu-
larly designating such claim; and the mere con-
sent of the holder to the other party taking pos-
session of the claim, without such written relin-
quishment, is not a compliance with the contract.
-Palmer v. March, 24 N. W. 374, 34 Minn. 127.
d. Town Sites.
Entry-Right of, and validity.
under the act of congress, even where a plat has
15. A right to have lands entered as a town-site
been made and recorded, may be so lost by aban-
donment of occupancy that other persons may be-
come entitled to have them entered for their bene-
fit.-Weisberger v. Tenny, 8 Minn. 456, (Gil. 405.)
16. Before any portion of the surveyed public
lands of the United States can be entered under
the town-site act, they must be actually settled
upon and occupied as town-site. Platting the land
as a town is not enough.-Carson v. Smith, 12
Minn. 546, (Gil. 458.)
17. To constitute one an occupant and benefi-
ciary under the town-site act, he must be in posses-
sion of the premises in person, or by improvement,
land into lots and blocks will not constitute posses-
tenant, or agent. Merely surveying and platting
11. One who enters land under the "Timber Cult-
ure Act," and who has complied with its condi-
tions, is, during the term required to perfect hission or occupancy under such act. —
right to a patent, the owner of hay made from the Smith, 12 Minu. 546, (Gil. 458.)
grass which he cuts on the land, and of trees
standing thereon; and he can recover for the de-
struction thereof caused by fire set by a locomo-
tive.-Carner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 713.
43 Minn. 375.
12. The fact that, after the destruction of the
trees, he surrendered his claim, does not affect his
right to recover.-Carner v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 713.
43 Minn. 375.
Carson v.
18. On a question as to the validity of a cer-
tain town-site entry, letters addressed by the
commissioner of the general land-office to a cer-
tain person described therein as the attorney of
the proprietors are admissible in connection with
the proofs of entry and of the action of the de-
partment upon the application for entry.-Village
of Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
19. When a town-site company settles upon
and occupies land so that it is not subject to pre-
emption, such company is entitled to have a trust
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
Distinguishing Lindsay v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 13 established and declared in its favor.-Village of
N. W. 191, 29 Minn. 411.
Relinquishment and transfer.
Conclusiveness and effect.
13. Plaintiff, to whom one H. had delivered a 20. Under the town-site act of congress of
certificate of entry on a timber culture, issued to May 23, 1844, the land-officers of the United
H., with his surrender written thereon, filed the States are the sole judges as to whether an entry
same, with the consent of H., in the land-office for has been properly or improperly made, and their
cancellation, and thereby, under Rev. St. U. S. 8 allowance or disallowance of such entry is con-
2478, became entitled to notice of cancellation, clusive.-Leech v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448, (Ġil. 332.)
which gave him an opportunity to secure priority
as to a new filing for himself, or such person as he 21. The duplicate of the record in the proper
might direct. In consideration of plaintiff's agree-land-office, on entry of land as a town-site, un-
ment on receiving notice of the cancellation to der Act Cong. May 23, 1844, is conclusive evi-
1573
1574
PUBLIC LANDS, I. d.
dence in the state courts that the lands described | sociation, or company of persons," to be filed,
therein have been settled upon and occupied as
a town-site in accordance with the law. -Leech
v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448, (Gil. 332.)
22. The state courts have nothing to do with
questions with regard to the entry, but may in
a proper case determine who were occupants.
Leech v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448, (Gil. 332.)
23. The action of the federal land-officers in
entering a town-site on the application of a land
company is conclusive as to the competency of
the company to take a town-site. -Village of Man-
kato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
24. The fact that the settlement and occu-
pancy of the town-site of Mankato was prior to
the extinguishment of the Indian title, and the
survey by the United States, cannot, after proof
of settlement and occupancy are accepted by the
by the
federal land-officers, invalidate the title claimed
by virtue of such settlement and occupancy.
Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78, (Gil. 58,) followed.
followed.
-Village of Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265
(Gil. 243.)
Rights of occupants.
25. Under Act Cong. May 23, 1844, relating to
the entry of town-sites, the entry, as a matter of
law, relates back to the date of the proof en-
titling the applicant to entry, and a settler upon
the land after such proof does not thereby ac-
quire any rights as occupant.-Leech v. Rauch,
3 Minn. 448, (Gil. 332.)
26. The rights of occupants, under the town-
site act, are fixed at the date of submitting proofs
upon which the entry is allowed, though the
entry may be delayed by appeal or otherwise.
The title, when granted, relates back, and occu-
pancy and improvement after submission of
proofs will confer no rights.-Castner v. Gunther,
6 Minn. 119, (Gil. 63;) Same v. Echard, 6 Minn.
149, (Gil. 92;) Same v. Lowry, Id.
27. The rights of occupants of the town-site of
Mankato became fixed on March 21, 1856, the day
of application for entry and submission of proofs,
and neither the act of congress of March 3, 1857,
granting the right of way over the public lands
to railroads then contemplated, nor the territorial
act of May 22, 1857, disposing of the land grant,
gave the railroad any right of way over such
town-site.-Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 17 Minn. 215, (Gil. 188.)
28. The rights of the occupants of the town-
site of Mankato became fixed and settled at the
time of application by the judge to enter the
same, on March 21, 1856.-Village of Mankato v.
Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
29. By the entry of the town-site the judge of
the district becomes seised as trustee for the
occupants of such town-site, according to their
respective interests as they then exist. -Vil-
lage of Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265. (Gil.
243.)
Filing of claims.
30. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 42, § 4, requiring
a claim to lands in a town-site by "a person, as-
has no application to a claim by a village for
lands dedicated for streets, etc., in a town-site.
-Village of Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 13,
(Gil. 1.)
31. The owner of a lot in a town-site died be-
fore receiving a patent therefor, and his widow
filed a statement under Territorial Act Minn.
March 3, 1855, § 4, claiming the land, and the
trustee afterwards gave her a deed therefor.
Held, that the trustee took the title in trust for
the heirs of deceased, and the widow and her
grantees, with constructive notice of the rights
of such heirs, also took the title as trustees for
such heirs, and that the general words of said
section 4 of the act, requiring claimants to lands
to file claims thereto within 60 days, or be for-
ever barred, did not apply to minors, and they
were not barred from asserting their rights by
reason of failure to file such claim.-Coy v. Coy,
15 Minn. 119,
15 Minn. 119, (Gil. 90.)
Distinguished in Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 47
N. W. 454, 45 Minn. 69.
32. Territorial Act Minn. March 3, 1855, re-
quiring claimants of town-site lots to sign and
deliver to the town-site trustee a statement of
the nature and extent of their claims within 60
days after publication of notice of entry by the
trustee, does not apply to the infant heirs of such
claimant so as to bar a recovery by them in case
of default by them in making such statement.-
Coy v. Coy, 15 Minn. 119, (Gil. 90.)
Trial of adverse claims.
33. Under 5 U. S. St. at Large, p. 657,
and Laws Minn. Terr. 1855, c. 7, p. 29, which
provide for the determination of conflicting
claims to land, plaintiff claimed upon a written
acknowledgment by defendant's grantor, in which
he was described as an equal partner in the land,
but no consideration was expressed nur terms
disclosed by the writing. Held, that it was in-
cumbent upon plaintiff to establish affirmatively
the consideration of and causes for the partner-
ship; and it appearing that he had abandoned the
claim, or at least so neglected the arrangements
on his part as to ruin the project, his claim
should not be allowed.-Foster v. Bailey, 1 Minn.
436, (Gil. 310.)
34. In an action under Pub. St. Minn. c. 33, re-
lating to town-sites, defendant cannot deny plain-
tiff's title unless he also shows a good title in
himself.-Castner v. Gunther, 6 Minn. 119, (Gil.
63;) Same v. Echard, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil. `92;)
Same v. Lowry, Id.
35. The sufficiency of proofs of entry, acted
upon by the secretary of the interior, in allow-
ing an entry under the town-site act, cannot be
inquired into by the claimants under such entry,
in proceedings between themselves. -Castner v.
Gunther, 6 Minn. 119, (Gil. 63;) Same v. Echard,
6 Minu. 149, (Gil. 92;) Same v. Lowry, Id.
36. In an action brought under Act Minn.
March 3, 1855, prescribing rules and regulations
for the execution of the trust arising under the
town-site act, the supreme court must, on the
request of either party, pass upon all questions of
fact, and make final disposition of the case, ex-
cept in the single instance where the questions
1575
1576
PUBLIC LANDS, I. d.
of fact have been passed upon by a jury, when a
new trial in the court below may be awarded.-
Castner v. Gunther, 6 Minn. 119, (Gil. 63;) Same
v. Echard, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil. 92;) Same v.
Lowry, Id.
44. Defendant claimed title to lands entered
as a town-site, through grantors having a deed
from the district judge as trustee of the town-
site, and who claimed as occupants, but whose
occupancy did not commence until after date of
entry. Held, that it was not error to charge
37. In an action brought under Pub. St. Minn. that the jury should examine into the occupancy,
c. 33, to determine conflicting claims to lands en- and see if the acts necessary to constitute occu-
tered pursuant to the act of congress as a town-pancy had been done by the grantors, and to re-
site, an answer which merely denies plaintiff's fuse to charge that if the deeds from the trustee
right is bad. Facts showing defendant's right to and the deeds to defendant purported to convey
be superior to that of plaintiff should be set out. the fee, defendant must be considered as the
-Weisberger v. Tenny, 8 Minn. 456, (Gil. 405.) owner of the lands.-Village of Mankato v. Mea-
gher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
Agreements relating to town sites.
38. The act of congress of August 4, 1854, (10 U.
S. St. at Large, p. 576,) extended the right of pre-
emption and town-site settlement to unsurveyed
lands of Minnesota; and agreements relating to
the entry and location of town-sites on unsurveyed
lands are not illegal. Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 89,
(Gil. 58,) followed.-Wood v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 594,
(Gil. 365.)
Conveyance by claimant.
39. An occupant of lands under Act Cong
May 23, 1844, relating to town sites, has an in-
terest, within the meaning of the recording act,
and a subsequent deed to a bona fide purchaser
for a good consideration, and without notice of
his interest, first recorded, will take precedence
over a prior unrecorded conveyance.-Davis v.
Murphy, 3 Minn. 119, (Gil. 69.)
40. A claimant under a town-site act may have
a valuable possessory right in unsurveyed lands,
-an interest in real estate,-which he may con-
vey by deed. Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78, (Gil.
58,) followed.-Village of Mankato v. Meagher,
17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
|
Distinguished in Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 47
N. W. 454, 45 Minn. 69.
45. Where the judge who holds land under the
United States town-site act, in trust for the occu-
pants, executes an official deed for a part of it, the
presumption obtains that he did his duty in all re-
spects by compliance with all the statutory pre-
requisites, and that he conveyed it to a proper par-
ty; and one not a beneficiary of the trust, but a
mere stranger to the title, cannot litigate or call
in question the validity or regularity of the deed
in those respects.-Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 47 N. W. 453, 45 Minn. 66; Lamm v. Chicago,
St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 47 N. W. 455, 45 Minn. 71.
Distinguishing Coy v. Coy, 15 Minn. 119, (Gil. 90;) Vil-
lage of Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
46. But it must appear that the judge was
trustee, that is, had already entered the land
fact in the deed itself is not evidence as against a
when he executed the deed, and a recital of that
stranger to the instrument.-Taylor v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W. 453.
45 Minn. 66.
47. As soon as the land is entered, the trustee
Conveyance by trustee-Rights of ben- may proceed to execute the trust by giving deeds
eficiaries.
41. A purchaser from the trustee of lands en-
tered as a town-site under Act Cong. May 23, 1844,
who relies in part upon the original settlement of
an occupant, who has platted such town-site, and
dedicated a portion thereof to public use, takes
subject to such dedication, where the plat and sur-
vey are also recognized by the trustee's deed.-
City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 119, (Gil. 75.)
42. A town-site occupant, who receives a deed
from the trustee of the town-site, takes the legal
title to land occupied for streets adjoining his
lots, subject to the public easement, the same as
in ordinary cases of conveyances of land adjoin-
ing a highway.-Harrington v. St. Paul & Š. C.
R. Co., 17 Minn. 215, (Gil. 188.)
43. A trustee of a town-site, under the act of
Minnesota of March 3, 1855, at the request of an
occupant of lands within the town-site, entitled
to a deed thereof, executed such deed to another
person, and received from the occupant a mort-
gage in the name of such person, executed by
the occupant as attorney, to secure the fees of
the trustee, which mortgage was void because
unauthorized. Held, that the deed and mort-
gage could not be considered as one transaction,
so as to make the validity of the deed depend
upon the validity of the mortgage. - Morris v.
Watson, 15 Minn. 212, (Gil, 165.)
to the beneficiaries, although the patent from the
United States has not been yet issued, and the
patent when issued relates back to the date of the
entry, and no further deed from the trustee is
necessary to vest title in such beneficiaries.—Tay-
lor v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. Ŵ.
453.
45 Minn. 66.
48. A county may acquire title in fee to land un-
der the "town-site act," (Act Cong. May 23, 1844.)
Board of County Commissioners of Blue Earth
County v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 11 N. W. 73, 23
Minn. 503.
49. A plat of land entered under the "town-site
act," (Act Cong. May 23, 1844,) contained one
square marked "Court-House." The county took
possession of the premises so designated and
erected county buildings thereon. Afterwards the
town trustees conveyed the premises to the coun-
ty There was no evidence that the county en-
tered under any dedication. Held, that the county
was the absolute owner in fee-simple of the prem-
ises in question.-Board of County Commissioners
of Blue Earth County v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
11 N. W. 73, 28 Minn. 503.
50. Occupants of government land caused the
same to be platted as a town-site, with a street
along the shore of a navigable lake. Thereafter
}
1578
1577
PUBLIC LANDS, I. d., II.
this town-site was entered and purchased, and
title thereto obtained by a judge of the district
court, as provided by act of congress of May 23,
1844. In the execution of his trust said judge
conveyed to one of the beneficiaries a lot front-
ing upon the street before mentioned, describing
the same in accordance with the town plat.
Held, that the fee title, subject to the public
easement, to the entire street to low-water
mark, including all riparian rights, and not
merely to the middle of the street, passed to the
grantee, and on a conveyance by him by the same
description passed to his grantee.-Wait v. May,
(Minn.) 51 Ñ. W. 471.
Distinguishing Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23
Minn. 114.
Action to set aside conveyance.
51. Where town authorities, who have entered
lands as a town-site under Act Cong. May 23,
1844, have wrongfully conveyed a part of such
land, to which a party was entitled, such party
can maintain an action against the authorities and
their grantee to vacate such conveyance, and com-
pel a conveyance to himself, without first paying
or tendering a just proportion of the sum ex-
pended in entering the land, etc., as required by
Pub. St. Minn. c. 33, §§ 11, 12.-Cathcart v. Peck,
11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
52. In an action by a claimant, under the town-
site act of congress of May 23, 1844, to enforce a
conveyance to him, a complaint alleged that at the
time of the making of the survey and plat and the
record thereof he was the occupant of certain
land, occupying and improving the same as a
town-site; that at the date of application to enter
said lands, and at the entry and purchase thereof,
he was the sole and exclusive occupant of the lots,
blocks, etc., enumerated in his statement in writ-
ing addressed to the town council, occupying and
improving the same for the purpose of erecting
and building a town thereon, and that defendant
never occupied any portion thereof. Held, that
this complaint sufficiently shows acts of improve-
ment and occupancy by plaintiff. - Cathcart v.
Peck, 11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
53. In an action to set aside a conveyance of
land entered as a town-site under Act Cong. May
23, 1844, a defendant who does not show any title
in himself cannot, by a mere denial, compel the
plaintiff to establish his title.-Cathcart v. Peck,
11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
II. GRANTS IN AID OF RAILROADS AND OTHER
ROADS.
Construction in general.
54. A legislative grant of lands to aid in the
construction of a railway is to be construed, not
merely as a grant, but also as a law, and such
effect must be given to it as will carry out the
intent of the legislature.-Nash v. Sullivan, 12
N. W. 698, 29 Minn. 206.
55. Nothing will pass by legislative grant ex-
cept what is clearly and manifestly intended.
St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 24 Minn. 517.
56. Sp. Laws 1863, c. 4, granting lands to aid
in the construction of the St. Paul & Pacific
| Railroad, on the branch road from St. Paul to
Winona, is a valid contract, whether considered
as a present grant or an executory promise to
convey on conditions stated; and the company,
having complied with the conditions, may supply
deficiencies within the prescribed limits by se-
lections from any lands belonging to the state at
the time the right to make the selection is per-
fected.-St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 24
Minn. 517.
57. Sp. Laws Minn. 1873, c. 107, extends the
time "for the grading and completion" of a rail-
road, in order to entitle the company to a grant
pleted," within the meaning of the act, when
of public lands. Held, that the road is "com-
made ready for the running of trains, though not
actually equipped with rolling stock. -De Graff
v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 23 Minn. 144.
58. The effect of the act of congress of March
3, 1855, (10 St. at Large, 683,) as to the right of
way of rail and plank roads or macadamized
turnpikes, was simply to extend the provisions
of the act of Aug. 4, 1852, (10 St. at Large, 28,)
with all its restrictions as to the lands through
which the right was granted, so as to operate in
the territories the same as in the states.-Simon-
son v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 450.
59. Act Cong. March 3, 1857, (11 St. at Large,
195,) granted land in aid of the construction of
a railroad, within certain limits of the line of
such road. Act Cong. March 3, 1865, (13 St. at
Large, 526,) granted additional land to such rail-
road, and provided that no land should become
attached to the grant until indicated by the sec-
retary of the interior. Held, that such provis-
ion applied only to the land granted by the act of
1865, and did not affect the grant of 1857.-Wino-
na & St. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
6 N. W. 461, 27 Minn. 128. Affirmed in United
States supreme court. 5 S. Ct. 334, 112 U. S.
720.
60. Act Minn. May 22, 1857, containing no ex-
press grant of right of way to the Transit Railway
Company, but referring, for the power and author-
ity of the company, to the act of March 3, 1855, in-
corporating it, and the latter act containing an ex-
press grant of right of way, such a grant must be
taken upon the terms prescribed by the act of 1855.
-Radke v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 967.
42 Minn. 61.
Extent of grant.
61. The grant of right of way for railroads
through public lands, by act of congress of Au-
gust 4, 1852, (10 U. S. St. at Large, p. 28,) did
not extend to the town-site of Mankato. -Har-
rington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215,
(Gil. 188.)
62. Act March 6, 1863, which grants to the
St. Paul & Facific Railway Company 7 miles of
swamp lands "on each side of said line" for a
certain distance, is a grant of 7, and not 14, full
sections per mile. -St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v.
Brown, 24 Minn. 517.
63. Act Cong. March 3, 1865, (13 St. U. S.
526,) extending the time for the completion of
certain land-grant railroads, regranted to the
1579
1580
PUBLIC LANDS, II.
state of Minnesota the grant of March 3, 1857,
(11 St. U. S. 195,) of six sections per mile, tó
aid in the construction of the St. Vincent branch
of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, after it had
been released by the state by acceptance of the
terms of the joint resolution of congress passed
July 12, 1862, (12 St. U. S. 624,) substituting a
branch road to Lake Superior for the branch to
S. Vincent, and increased such grant to 10 sec-
tions per mile. Held, that these provisions |
operated as an affirmative grant of such 10 sec-
tions per mile, and not merely as an increase of
the former grant, to take effect if such former
grant should be subsequently restored by con-
gress; and that Act Cong. March 3, 1871, (16 St.
U. S. 588,) authorizing a change of part of the
line of that branch, in consideration of a relin-
quishment of lands, did not require a release to
the United States of all the lands along the en-
tire branch, but only the lands along the aban-
doned part of the line.-Nash v. Sullivan, 12 N.
W. 698, 29 Minn. 206.
64. Sp. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 56, appointed cer-
tain persons to survey, locate, and construct a
road, and provided that, on completion of the
survey, 10,000 acres of swamp lands of the state,
within six miles of the road as located on either
side thereof, should be conveyed to them. Held,
in case of a deficiency in quantity of swamp lands
within the prescribed limits, that the parties had
no claim on the state for other lands to make up
such deficiency.-Goodwin v. Rice, 1 N. W. 257,
26 Minn. 20.
Vesting title.
65. Act Minn. March 2, 1865, (Sp. Laws 1865,
c. 6,) granted to the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Company all lands granted, or which might
thereafter be granted, by congress to the state to
aid in the construction of the lines of that com...
pany. Held, that conveyances to the company
by the governor of the state, in accordance with
the act, of lands so granted to the state by Act
Cong. March 3, 1865, were valid and operative,
although the state had no title thereto on March
2, 1865, when it made the grant to the company.
-Nash v. Sullivan, 12 N. W. 698, 29 Minn. 206
66. The Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company,
under the act of congress of March 3, 1857, (11
St. at Large, 195,) and the act of the territorial
legislature of May 22, 1857, (Laws 1857, Ex. Sess.
c. 1,) was authorized to appropriate a right of way
through the public lands of the United States for
the lines of its road, and after the location of
such right of way any one purchasing from the
United States, with notice thereof, took subject
thereto.-Simonson v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 450.
67. When act Cong, March 3, 1857, commonly
known as the "Land-Grant Act," was passed,
the title to the government sections 16 and 36,
within the territory of Minnesota, and the right
to dispose thereof, still remained in the United
States. Under that act and the act of assembly
passed May 22, 1857, the Minnesota & Pacific R. Co.
acquired a right of way over the even sections not
disposed of before the location of its line, includ-
ing school sections 16 and 36. Following Simonson
v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 455.—Coleman v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 36 N. W. 633.
38 Minn. 260.
68. The grant of the right of way over sections
16 and 36 (school sections, so called) of the public
domain, acquired by the Transit Railway Com-
pany, under act Cong. March 3, 1857, and the act
of the Minnesota territorial législature, passed
May 22, 1857, was not a grant in præsenti, but in
futuro, the route along which the right of way
was granted being described only in a very general
way, and there being no express intention that the
right should attach before the road was located; a
private right, acquired before appropriation un-
der the above acts will compel the road to proceed
by condemnation to acquire its right of way.-
Radke v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 39 N.
W. 624.
39 Minn. 262.
69. The certificate of the secretary of the in
terior provided by section 3 of the act of congress
of July 13, 1866, entitled "An act relating to lands
granted to the state of Minnesota, to aid in con-
structing railroads," certifying to the state the
lands granted to it by the congressional land-grant
act of March 3, 1857, and by the act of congress of
March 3, 1865, entitled "An act extending the time
for the completion of certain land-grant railroads
in the states of Minnesota and Iowa, and for other
purposes," has the force and effect of a patent,
and its effect in passing the title to particular
lands cannot be questioned by one not interested.
-Minnesota Land & Investment Co. v. Davis,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 299.
40 Minn. 455.
70. The act of congress of March 3, 1875, grant-
ing to railroads the right of way through the
public lands of the United States, is intended to
prescribe the only rule governing the subject,
and is in the nature of a general offer, which
takes effect and becomes operative as a grant to a
particular company only when the company ac-
cepts its terms by a compliance with the condi-
tions precedent prescribed in the act, and as of
the date of such compliance.-Red River &
Lake of the Woods R. Co. v. Sture, 20 N. W.
229, 32 Minn. 95.
71. In ejectment brought by a railroad com-
pany, claiming the land under the grant by Act
Cong. March 3, 1865, (13 St. U. S. 526,) plaintiff
produced in evidence a copy, certified by the
state auditor, of a certificate from the interior
department, certifying to the state a list of lands,
embracing that in controversy, granted to the
state by that act, to aid in the construction of
plaintiff's road; a deed by the governor of the
state, conveying the land in contest to plaintiff,
and containing full recitals showing plaintiff's
performance of all things requisite to authorize
its execution; and a copy, certified by the reg-
ister of deeds of the county in which the land
was situated, of a list of lands received by plain-
tiff from the state, including that in dispute,
which list was certified by the state auditor,
and filed in said register's office, pursuant to
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 41, making such a
list, so certified and filed, prima facie evidence
of the title of the railroad company to the lands
therein described. Held, that this was prima
facie evidence of title in plaintiff as of March 3,
1865, the date when the title passed out of the
United States. -Winona & St. P. R.
Randall, 13 N. W. 127, 29 Minn. 283.
Co. v.
1
1581
1582
PUBLIC LANDS, II.
Conflicting grants-Priorities.
72. Swamp lands appropriated to certain char-
itable and educational institutions, under Sp.
Laws 1865, c. 5, authorizing the setting apart of
such lands "not otherwise disposed of prior to
the passage of the act," could only be lawfully
set apart to such institutions from the surplus of
such lands, after grants made by the state prior
thereto had been filled.-St. Paul & C. Ry. Co.
v. Brown, 24 Minn. 517.
73. Act Minn. March 5, 1869, (Sp. Laws 1869, C.
Db,) granted to plaintiff, to aid in the construction
of its railroad, 10 sections to the mile of any swamp
lands belonging to the state, without restriction
as to locality. Act March 9, 1875, (Sp. Laws 1875,
c. 54,) granted to intervenor, for a like purpose, 10
sections to the mile of swamp lands, to be selected
within 10 miles on each side of its road, providing
that if there was not enough of such land within
those limits the deficiency might be made up from
any swamp lands in three named counties. Held,
that the grant to plaintiff was a float, the right of
selection belonging to the state; so that before
such selection was made the state had the right to
grant any lands to intervenor, provided only that
it retained enough to satisfy the prior grant to
plaintiff.-Minneapolis & St. C. R. Co. v. Duluth &
W. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W. 464.
45 Minn. 104.
74. The provision in the grant to intervenor
"that no lands shall accrue to the said company
under this act, until all grants of swamp lands
previously made shall be fully satisfied," was not
intended to postpone the appropriation of any land
to intervenor's grant until all prior grants had
been actually filled by the selection of specific lands
to their full amounts, but merely to provide that
in case there were not enough lands to fill all the
grants, including intervenor's, the prior grantees
should have their full amounts, and intervenor
stand the shortage.-Minneapolis & St. C. R. Co.
v. Duluth & W. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W. 464.
45 Minn. 104.
75. There not being enough swamp lands in the
three counties named to fill intervenor's grant, and
there being enough outside these counties to fill
plaintiff's grant, the state has no right to appro-
priate to the latter lands in these counties, at least
after intervenor's grant had, by selection, attached
specifically to such lands.-Minneapolis & St. C.
R. Co. v. Duluth & W. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W.
464.
45 Minn. 104.
76. In an action by a railroad company to re-
strain defendant from receiving a deed to public
lands, whereof the legal title is in plaintiff, it is
no defense to aver that another railroad company
is the owner of the beneficial interest in such
lands, and such allegation will, on motion, be
stricken out as immaterial and irrelevant.-Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
23 Minn. 359.
Prior homestead or pre-emption.
77. Under the act of congress of July 4, 1866,
(14 St. U. S. 87,) granting to the state of Minne-
sota, in aid of the construction of a railroad,
land within certain limits, but providing that,
"in case it shall appear" that the right of pre-
emption or homestead settlement has attached to
the same, other public land equal thereto shall
be selected in place thereof, lands of which there
is a homestead entry of record, valid upon its
face, although in fact void, are excepted from
27 N. W. 69, 34 Minn. 538.
the grant.-Hastings & D. Ry. Co. v. Whitney,
27 N. W. 69, 34 Minn. 538.
3, 1857, granting land to Minnesota in aid of cer-
78. The congressional land-grant act of March
tain railroads, was in itself a grant conveying to
within its operation. The certification of lands
the state the legal title of the lands found to fall
to the state by the secretary of the interior under
the law of 1854 did not affect the legal title of
such lands.-Weeks v. Bridgman, 43 N. W. 81,
41 Minn. 352; Id., 49 N. W. 191, 46 Minn. 390.
of railroad referred to in the grant, by filing maps
79. Only upon the definite location of the lines
thereof in the department of the interior, did the
grant become applicable to particular lands, so
as to prevent the acquisition of vested rights by
pre-emption, which would prevail notwithstand-
ing the grant.-Weeks v. Bridgman, 43 N. W.
81, 41 Minn. 352; Id., 49 N. W. 191, 46 Minn.
390.
80. A definite location of the road is required
to be established in the manner stated, even with
respect to land in the vicinity of places named in
the granting act as defining the route.-Weeks
N. W. 191, 46 Minn. 390.
v. Bridgman, 43 N. W. 81, 41 Minn. 352; Id., 49
81. By implication from the terms of the act,
lands to which the right of pre-emption should
attach before such definite location were excepted
from it.-Weeks v. Bridgman, 43 N. W. 81, 41
Minn. 352; Id., 49 N. W. 191, 46 Minn. 390.
82. Before the definite location of one of the
land-grant roads, under Act Cong. March 3, 1857,
one B. filed his application to pre-empt certain
lands as a mail station under the act of congress
of 1855, allowing pre-emptions by certain mail-
route contractors. The application was refused
by the local officers, and their decision was af-
firmed upon appeal to the commissioner of the
general land office, upon the sole ground that the
mail route of the applicant was not such as the
act of 1855 contemplated.
act of 1855 contemplated. The secretary of the
interior, upon appeal to him, reversed the former
rulings, and decided that the entry should be al-
lowed upon proper proofs being made. This was
long after the definite location of the road within
the limits of whose grant the land was found to
be situated. Held, that the right of pre-emption
attached as early, at least, as the time of the fil-
ing of the application, and so the land was ex-
cepted from the operation of the granting act of
1857; and a subsequent patent to the pre-emptioner
(even though not made upon that pre-emption
claim) conveyed the title. Weeks v. Bridgman,
43 N. W. 81, 41 Minn. 352; Id., 49 N. W. 191,
46 Minn. 390.
83. A settler who has entered public land of
the United States under the homestead law has,
even before patent issued, an inchoate title to
the land, which is property, and, as against him,
a railway company has no right of way over the
land under the act of congress of March 3, 1875,
unless such right was acquired by a compliance
1583
1584
PUBLIC LANDS, II.
with the provisions of the act before his settle- | erative as respects lands then occupied and
ment.-Red River & Lake of the Woods R. Co. | claimed by a qualified pre-emptor. Such lands
v. Sture, 20 N. W. 229, 32 Minn. 95.
Indemnity or deficiency lands.
84. Under Acts Cong. June 3, 1856, and May 5,
1861, granting to a state, to aid in the construction
of a certain line of railroad, the odd-numbered
sections for a prescribed width on each side of a
line of road, and providing that if, when the line
of road should be definitely fixed, any of the speci-
fied sections, or parts of sections, should have been
sold, or rights of pre-emption attached thereto, an
agent of the governor might, to make up such de-
ficiencies, select, subject to the approval of the
secretary of the interior, from the lands of the
United States outside of said prescribed limits and
within other prescribed limits, the title to specific
lands between the two limits does not pass until
selection and approval.-Musser v. McRae, (Minn.)
38 N. W. 103.
38 Minn. 409.
are not affected by the withdrawal, so that, if
subsequently abandoned, they will, until a selec-
tion made by the railway company, be deemed
still open for homestead settlement. -St. Paul
& S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 401.
47 Minn. 40.
initely fixed the route of its road, a valid home-
89. Where, before a railroad company has def-
stead right has attached to land within the in-
demnity limits, and the occupant has in all
things complied with the provisions of the hone-
stead law, he will be deemed to have acquired
vested rights in the tract so occupied, which
final refusal of the land department to allow him
the courts will recognize and protect upon the
to enter the land, because subsequently selected
by the railroad company as part of its indemnity
lands. Upon making his final proof in due form,
his right to the land becomes complete, and the
naked legal title held by the United States or
its assignee, the railroad company, is insufficient
to warrant a judgment in ejectment against him.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, (Minn.) 49
N. W. 401.
47 Minn. 40.
S5. Where an act of congress granting lands to
the state of Wisconsin in aid of railroads provid-
ed that it should be lawful for agents appointed by
the railway company entitled to the grant to select
subject to the approval of the secretary of the inte-
rior, from the public lands of the United States,
"deficiency" lands within certain defined indem- Forfeiture-Regranting.
nity limits, the issuance of a patent by the United
States directly to the railway company for lands
so selected was evidence that the company had
complied with all the conditions of the grant, and
was entitled to the lands described therein, and
that the title passed from the United States at the
date thereof.-Musser v. McRae, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 673.
44 Minn. 343.
86. Where, after certain deficiency lands had
been earned by a railway company, under an act
of congress granting land to the state of Wiscon-
sin in aid of railroads, and had been so selected
and duly certified to the general land-office, but,
prior to the issuance of the patent, timber had
been wrongfully cut and removed therefrom by
trespassers, the title acquired by the patent relates
back to the selection of the lands, so as to save to
purchasers to whom the lands had been granted
by the company, before the trespasses, a right of
action for the timber wrongfully removed from the
land, or its value.-Musser v. McRae, (Minn.) 46
44 Minn. 343.
N. W. 673.
87. Act Cong. March 3, 1857, granted alternate
sections of land along the line of a proposed rail-
road in aid of its construction, and provided for
the selection of indemnity lands to compensate the
road for such of the granted sections as had been
pre-empted before "the line or route of said road
was definitely fixed." Held, that the route of
the railroad did not become "definitely fixed"
until the map of its location was filed in and ac-
cepted by the land-office; and that consequently
the railroad company could make no valid selec-
tion of indemnity lands before that time. -St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, (Minn.) 49 N. W.
90. Lands were granted to a railroad company
to aid it in the construction of its two lines of
road known as the "Brainerd Branch," and the
"St. Vincent Extension, " both of which were to
be completed within a certain time under penalty
of forfeiture. The lines of road not having been
completed within the time required, Sp. Laws
Mian. 1877, c. 201, § 1, declared the land grant,
franchises, etc., appertaining to the Brainerd
branch forfeited to the state, and provided that
the same should be regranted to any company
which would undertake to complete such line,
subject to the provisions of the act. Section 9
provided that "one-half of all the land, up to 200,-
000 acres in quantity, which shall be first ac-
quired on account of the construction of the pres-
ent uncompleted" Brainerd branch, "and one-
half of all the lands, up to 400,000 acres, which
nall be first acquired on account of the present
uncompleted" St. Vincent extension, should be
reserved by the state for the payment of claims
incurred for work and materials furnished in the
construction of such lines by the first company,
and directed the governor to sell the lands so re-
served, pay the claims, and to convey any residue
that might remain "to the company which shall
have completed the portions of railroad to which
the lands comprising such residue shall apper-
tain.
*
The land so reserved shall be applied to
the purposes for which reservation is made, in
the manner following: The governor, attorney
general, and railroad commissioner
shall * *
and adjust and ascertain the amount remaining
* examine into the claims,
* * for work or materi-
owing and unpaid *
als, or for both, furnished in the construction of
said extension lines of railroad; and they shall
file in the state auditor's office a compiled state-
ment of the amounts so ascertained by them to
be owing and unpaid upon said claims. "
88. An order of the land department, with that, as against a company accepting the provis-
drawing the odd-numbered sections within the ions of the act of 1877, the lands reserved were
indemnity limits of a railroad land grant, is inop-applicable to the claims allowed under section 9,
401, 47 Minn. 40.
Held
1585
1586
PUBLIC LANDS, II.-IV.
without regard to the branch in the construction | Rights of purchaser.
of which they were incurred.-Western R. Co.
v. De Graff, 6 N. W. 341, 27 Minn. 1.
96. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 38, §§ 7, 9,
requiring interest upon any unpaid balance of
the purchase price of school lands to be paid an-
nually "by the purchaser, or by any other person
interest is not so paid, the certificate of pur-
claiming under him," and providing that, if the
chase shall be "utterly void," where such inter-
est has in fact been seasonably paid to and ac-
cepted by the state on such a certificate, it is no
ground of attack on a title claimed under the cer-
tificate that the payment of interest was made by
persons other than the purchaser, whether claim-
ing under him or not.-McKinney v. Bode, 20 N.
W. 94, 32 Minn. 228.
91. Act Minn. March 9, 1875, (Sp. Laws 1875,
54,) granted land, on condition' subsequent, in aid
of the construction of the railroad of intervenor.
Act March 9, 1878, (Sp. Laws 1878, c. 246,) passed
before there had been any breach of such condition,
provided that in case of a forfeiture of interven
or's lands the same should go to defendant. There
was afterwards a breach of the condition by the
intervenor, but before any forfeiture was declared
it performed the condition and earned the right to
the lands. Held, that the grant to defendant was
on the condition precedent that intervenor's land
should be revested in the state by a formal decla-
ration of forfeiture for breach of condition subse-paid part of the price, and received the usual
97. A purchaser of school land from the state
quent, and as the state has lost the right to en-
force the forfeiture by intervenor's ultimate per- assigns, etc., to a patent for the land on payment
certificate of sale thereof, entitling him, his heirs,
formance, defendant can take nothing under the of the remainder of the price, interest, and taxes;
grant to it.-Minneapolis & St. C. R. Co. v. Duluth
& W. R. Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W. 464.
in case of failure to make such payments, the
certificate to be void. He went into possession
of the land with his family, built a house on it,
and paid the interest on the portion of the price
unpaid, and remained in possession for about a
He then indorsed on the certificate an as-
signment of it to his wife, and abandoned the
land and his wife and family, and gave.no fur
ther attention to the matter. Subsequently the
interest on the unpaid purchase money and taxes
remained with her, for more than six years, un-
were paid, on account of the wife, by a son who
til her death, and thereafter her administrator
sold the certificate, under license from the pro-
bate court, and the purchaser paid all arrears
and obtained a patent. Held that, although the
assignment of the certificate by the husband to
the wife was void, the husband had no equity to
the land as against the patentee. -McKinney v.
Bode, 23 N. W. 851, 33 Minn. 450.
III. SCHOOL LANDS.
Rights of pre-emptors.
45 Minn. 104.
92. The state took its grant of school and uni-
versity lands subject to the claims of pre-emptors
who had settled thereon prior to the survey and
brought themselves within the pre-emption act.
-State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223, (Gil. 178;)
Same v. Stevens, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil. 416.)
93. The territory of Minnesota, by memorial of
February 26, 1856, requested congress to permit
settlers on lands in sections 16 and 36, which had
been reserved by Act Cong. March 3, 1849, for
school lands, to pre-empt the same, and to have
other lands selected in lieu thereof. By Act Cong.
Feb. 26, 1857, such sections were granted to the
state for school land, but by joint resolution of
March 3, 1857, in response to such memorial, lands
settled upon in such sections were withdrawn from
the grant, and the right given to select other lands
in lieu thereof. The constitution of the state,
adopted October 13, 1857, accepted the school lands
incumbered with such pre-emption rights. Held,
that the state could not thereafter set up its right
to the whole of the school sections, unincumbered
with pre-emption rights of actual settlers prior to
the survey.
-State v. Batchelder, 7 Minn. 121,
(Gil. 79.)
Conditional sale.
94. As the statute authorizing the sale of
school and internal improvement lands of the
state does not provide for conditional sales or
contracts to convey, a sale which is only to be
consummated in the event of a previous certifi-
cate of sale of the lands, regular on its face, be-
ing declared void by the court, is unauthorized
and void.-Wright v. Burnham, 17 N. W. 479 31
Minn. 285.
Payment of price.
year.
98. The holder of school land certificates, who
purchased them for a merely nominal considera-
tion, never paid the taxes levied on the land, and
for more than 10 years failed to pay the annual
interest accruing on the certificates, though by
their terms they were to become utterly void on
a default for more than six days. Held, that
these facts, taken in connection with the fact
that, at the time of the purchase, there was a
tax judgment and tax sale against the land, and
that the time for redemption had expired, justi-
fied a finding that the holder had abandoned all
claim to the lands.-Murphy v. Burke, 49 N. W.
387, 47 Minn. 99; Same v. McGuire, 49 N. W.
388, 47 Minn. 103.
IV. INDIAN HALF-BREED SCRIP.
Assignability.
land under the treaty of September 30, 1854, be-
99. The privilege of each half-breed to select
tween the United States and the Chippewa In-
dians, was a personal right, and the scrip issued
as the evidence of the right was not assignable.
95. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 38, §§ 35, 40, authorizeDole v. Wilson, 20 Mină. 356, (Gil. 308.)
payments for school lands, principal and interest, to
be made to the county treasurer, who is required
to pay the same over to the state treasurer.-Ger-
ken v. Board of County Commissioners, (Minn.) 40
N. W. 508.
39 Minn. 433.
Location.
100. In the location of scrip for land issued to
Sioux half-breeds under Act Cong. July. 17, 1854,
it is not necessary that the holder be in possession
1587
1588
PUBLIC LANDS, IV.-VII.
or occupancy of the land located, but only that no | by scrip issued under Act Cong. July 17, 1854, is
other person be in occupancy.-Sharpe v. Rogers,
12 Minn. 174, (Gil. 103.)
101. By act of the president, in pursuance of
act of congress, (10 U. S. St. 954-959,) in permit-
ting certain bands of Sioux Indians to locate on
lands reserved by the treaty of Mendota of August
5, 1851, consisting of a strip 10 miles wide on each
side of the Minnesota river, and bounded on the
west by Tchaytam bay and Yellow Medicine
river, and on the east by Little Rock river, such
lands were not subject to pre-emption or private
sale, or to the location of scrip thereon, in the
year 1857, and a patent of the United States, is-
sued upon a location of half-breed scrip upon
such land during said year, is void.—Sharon v.
Wooldrick, 18 Minn. 354, (Gil. 325.)
*
102. Act Cong. July 17, 1854, (10 U. S. St. at
Large, 304,) authorizes the president to make an
exchange with the Sioux half-breeds for their res-
ervation on Lake Pepin, by issuing to them
scrip for a certain amount of land, and provides
that said scrip "may be located upon any of the
lands within said reservation,
* * or upon
any other unoccupied lands subject to pre-emp-
tion or private sale, or upon any other unsur-
veyed lands not reserved by government, upon
which they have respectively made improve-
ments." Held, that this provision as to “unoccu-
pied lands" was framed for the protection of oc-
cupants, and that the occupant might waive the
same, so that a valid location of scrip may be made
on his lands, and that the clause, "upon which
they have respectively made improvements,
qualifies the words "other unsurveyed lands,"
but not the words "other unoccupied lands."
Thompson v. Myrick, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
">
103. Article 2, subd. 7, of the treaty of Sep-
tember 30, 1854, between the United States and
the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and the
Mississippi, relating to the selection of land, is
not qualified and limited by the provisions of the
third article of said treaty relating to the re-
striction of the power of alienation.- Dole v.
Wilson, 20 Minn. 356, (Gil. 308.)
Alienation of lands.
form."
104. The treaty of September 30, 1854, between
the United States and the Chippewa Indians,
provides that certain public lands are to be se-
cured to the half-breeds "by patent in the usual
Held that, as such patents contain no
restriction on the power of alienation, the half-
breeds were at liberty to sell and convey the
lands thereby secured.-Dole v. Wilson, 20 Miun.
356, (Gil. 308.)
105. Tn such case, the validity of a contract
for the sale of such lands will not be affected
by the fact that an attempt was made to transfer
scrip representing the right to such lands, though
such scrip was not assignable.-Dole v. Wilson,
20 Minn. 356, (Gil. 308.)
106. A power of attorney to sell land, executed
by a Sioux half-breed, is good until revoked, and
may extend to land subsequently acquired by the
location of half-breed scrip.-Gilbert v. Thompson,
14 Minn. 544, (Gil. 414.)
107. A simple power of attorney, given by a Sioux
half-breed, for the conveyance of land represented
not invalidated by the provision of that act forbid-
ding the transfer of such scrip; and such power
cannot be varied by parol proof to show that it was
intended as a transfer of scrip.-Gilbert v. Thomp-
son, 14 Minn. 544, (Gil. 414;) Thompson v. Myrick,
20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
108. An attorney in fact, authorized to locate
such half-breed scrip, is at liberty, either before
or after such location, to enter into an agreement
to secure the title to a third party.-Thompson v.
Myrick, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
V. SURVEYS.
Conclusiveness and effect.
109. The field-books and plat of a government
survey showed the north and south lines of a
fractional section intersecting the Mississippi
river, a meander post at each intersection, and the
meander line of the river run between such posts;
the course and distances being given. Held, that
the river formed one of the boundary lines of such
subdivision, and that it could not be shown that the
river was in a different place from that stated in
such field-book and plat.-Schurmeier v. St. Paul
& P. R. Co., 10 Minn. 82, (Gil. 59.)
VI. PATENTS.
Effect to pass title.
110. A state's patent to land passes its title, but
does not establish that it had title, so a law of a
state making such patent presumptive evidence of
absolute title in fee in the grantee is of no force in
the courts of another state, so as to make the pat-
ent evidence that the title had passed from the
United States to the state.-Musser v. McRae,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 103.
38 Minn. 409.
Distinguished in Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber Co., 46
N. W. 571, 44 Minn. 352.
Impeaching for fraud.
111. Where lands have been sold by the United
States, the state courts have jurisdiction to try
and determine conflicting claims thereto arising
between citizens, or a citizen and the state, to
the same extent as in any other case; and a pat-
ent from the United States to a citizen may be
impeached in such courts for fraud or collusion
in obtaining it. -State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223,
(Gil. 178;) Same v. Stevens, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil.
416.)
VII. SALE AND LEASING OF STATE LANDS.
Regulation.
112. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 22, to regu-
late the sale and lease of mineral and other lands
belonging to the state, which provides, in section
2, that the state land commissioner should pre-
prescribe and announce such reasonable rules and
scribe the form of application, it is his duty to
regulations as would promote the object of the act,
most fairness among those who desired to avail
encourage honest competition, and insure the ut-
themselves of its terms.-Whiteman v. Severance,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 255.
46 Minn. 495.
1589
1590
PUBLIC LANDS, VII.-X.
113. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 22, "to reg |
ulate the lease and sale of mineral and other lands
belonging to the state," where more than one appli-
cation for a lease of land was on file in the commis-
sioner's office when he acted upon an application,
it was his duty to award the lease to the applicant
who would pay the most for it.-Whiteman v. Sev-
erance, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 255.
46 Minn. 495.
114. But the fact that the officer proceeded irreg-
ularly, by issuing the lease without any competi-
tion between the applicants, and thereafter en-
tered into the contract provided for in section 4,
with the holder of the lease, is not sufficient
ground for the maintenance of an action to have
the holder of the lease and the contract adjudged
to hold the same in trust for another of the appli-
cants, and that the latter be decreed the owner of
each.-Whiteman v. Severance, (Minn.) 49 N. W.
255.
46 Minn. 495.
VIII. LAND OFFICE.
Conclusiveness of decisions.
115. As to all matters confided by law to the
examination and decision of the United States
land-officers, they act judicially, and their de-
cisions are as final as those of the court.-Leech
v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448, (Gil. 332;) State v.
Batchelder, 5 Minn. 223, (Gil. 178;) State v. Ste-
vens, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil. 416.)
116. Where nothing appears to the contrary, ev-
ery intendment must be that the local land-officers
did their duty.-Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 450,
(Gil. 359.)
made through a mistake in the numbers or descrip-
tion on the part of the person entering, the entry
may be transferred to the tract intended, author-
izes such transfer only when the tracts intended
remain unsold; and a purchaser of the tract in-
tended cannot be charged with constructive notice
of a prior application for the transfer.-Manuel v.
Fabyanski, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 208.
Error in issue of patent.
44 Minn. 71.
121. Where the United States land-officers con-
strue an entry of land to have been made by a
party as administrator of a deceased person, on
behalf of the heirs of such person, and that the en-
try was one which could be so made, and a patent
issues accordingly, no one but the United States,
or some one having an interest in the land, can
complain of error or mistake on the part of such
officers.-Dawson v. Mayall, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 12.
45 Minn. 408.
Fraud in procuring patent.
122. After the issue of a patent for public lands
on a pre-emption entry, a hostile claimant may
show that the patent has been fraudulently pro-
cured, and that in equity he is entitled to the
land. And while the action of the officers of the
land department is not conclusive upon the rights
of the parties, it will be presumed lawful until
Wood, 21 N. W. 734, 32 Minn. 509.
the contrary is made to appear.
- Corbett v.
117. The decision of the United States land-01-
ficers upon the location of Sioux half-breed scrip,
issued under the provisions of Act Cong. July 17,
1854, (10 St. U. S. 304,) is final and conclusive.-provements were made by others whose tenant
Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn. 234, (Gil. 176.)
118. When acting within their authority, the
decisions of United States land-officers, in mat-
ters of pre-emption, cannot be impeached for
fraudulent representations and false oaths on the
part of a successful claimant, even as to the fact
of settlement by pre-emptor prior to inception of
an adverse claimant's title, except where such
adverse claimant had no notice of the proceed-
ings before the land-officers until too late to ob-
tain redress before them, and no opportunity to
appear and contest before them. Reversed on this
point, by the supreme court of the United States.
See i Wall. 109. -State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn.
223, (Gil. 178;) Same v. Stevens, 5 Minn. 521,
(Gil. 416.)
Land warrants.
123. In an action to set aside a patent for land,
brought by one claiming under a prior settle-
leged the facts showing such prior settlement,
ment and pre-emption entry, the complaint al-
residence, and improvements on the land. De-
fendant's answer expressly denied these allega-
tions, and also put in issue the good faith of
plaintiff's occupancy, and alleged that his im-
he was, and that his pre-emption entry was
that, upon demurrer to the answer, it could not
fraudulent, and had been duly canceled. Held
him a bona fide settler and occupant, so as to
be implied that plaintiff's tenancy constituted
support his claim by pre-emption.-Corbett v.
Wood, 21 N. W. 734, 32 Minn. 509.
124. In an action for the cancellation of an en-
try of lands, and the patent issued thereunder,
the fraud must be alleged, otherwise evidence
on the ground of fraud, the facts constituting
thereof will not be received.-Kelley v. Wallace,
14 Minn. 236, (Gil. 173.)
X. RELIEF OF BONA FIDE SETTLERS.
Right to purchase land.
119. A land-warrant is not canceled, nor does the 125. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 20, $ 8, pro-
title thereto pass from the locator, until it is ac-viding that all persons who, in good faith, had
cepted in payment for land by the United States. settled on any of the lands thereby granted to
Such acceptance is not consummated until the en- a certain railroad company, "at or prior to the
try is fully confirmed by the general land-office.-time when the line of railroad and branch was
Johnson v. Gilfillan, 8 Minn. 395, (Gil. 352.)
IX. RELIEF AGAINST FRAUD AND MISTAKE.
Erroneous entry.
120. Rev. St. U. S. § 2372, providing that where
an entry of public lands has been erroneously
definitely fixed and located, with a view to pre-
empt," might purchase the same at a certain
price, the location referred to was the prelimi-
nary survey theretofore made, which was the
only location of the line that had been made.-Pe-
terson v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 6 N.
W. 615, 27 Minn. 218.
1591
1592
PUBLIC LANDS, X., XI.
132. A note and mortgage of pre-empted lands
given to secure a loan of money to pay for the pre-
emption are illegal and void under Act Cong. Sept.
24, 1841, § 13, when made in pursuance of an agree-
ment entered into prior to such payment, although
not actually executed until after the issuance of
the duplicate or certificate of pre-emption.--Mc-
Cue v. Smith, 9 Minn. 252, (Gil. 237.)
126. Plaintiff entered on land on August 12, | formance, or to recover the money paid thereon.
1857, built a shanty and dug a well, but did not -St. Peter Co. v. Bunker, 5 Minn. 192, (Gil.
reside on the land, or in any way occupy the 153.)
shanty. During the following winter, he cut
some rails and built fences on the land. He nev-
er slept on the land until 1860. The land was
part of the grant to defendant railroad company,
whose road was located thereon on October 16,
1857. Held, that plaintiff was not a settler in
good faith "prior to the time when the line of
said [defendant's] road and branch was definitely
fixed and located," within Sp. Laws Minn. 1862,
c. 20, § 8, authorizing such settlers to purchase
the land settled at a certain price. -Peterson v.
First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 6 N. W. 615, 27
Minn. 218.
XI. CONTRACTS RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS.
Legislative power to regulate.
127. The state alone has power to regulate con
tracts relating to lands within its limits, be-
tween its citizens and those seeking the aid of
its courts, and can alone prescribe what shall
be deemed evidence of title to such lands.-
Camp v. Smith, 2 Minn. 155, (Gil. 131.)
128. The United States has but a proprietary in-
terest in its unsold lands within the state of
Minnesota, and the right of primary disposal
thereof, and to make such regulations as con-
gress may find necessary for securing title to
bona fide purchasers, and the right of exemption
from taxation by the state. With these excep;
tions, such lands are subject to the same control
by the state government as other lands. When
the United States has sold the lands, and secured
the title to the purchaser, the lands are relieved
from all control of the federal government, ex-
cept such as is incident to the general relation
of the state to the federal Union. Camp v.
Smith, 2 Minn. 155, (Gil. 131,) followed. -State
v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223, (Gil. 178;) Same v.
Stevens, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil. 416.)
Contracts before entry.
129. Under Act Cong. Sept. 24, 1841, § 13, con-
tracts, before entry, for conveyance or mortgage
of lands to be acquired by pre-emption are void.
-St. Peter Co. v. Bunker, 5 Minn. 192, (Gil.
153;) Evans v. Folsom, 5 Minn. 422, (Gil. 342;)
McCue v. Smith, 9 Minn. 252, (Gil. 237;) War-
ren v. Van Brunt, 12 Minn. 70, (Gil. 36.)
130. Money paid upon a contract for the pur-
chase of land, to be acquired under a pre-emption
right, made prior to entry and payment, cannot be
recovered back.—Bruggerman v. Hoerr, 7 Minn.
337, (Gil. 264.)
131. Defendant, a pre-emptor under the act of
congress of September 4, 1841, who had not en-
tered and paid for the land occupied by him,
agreed to convey a portion to plaintiff, on ac-
count of which plaintiff paid him $150. Subse-
quently, for the purpose of enabling him to make
the affidavit, defendant induced plaintiff to sur-
render the evidence of such agreement, promis-
ing verbally to renew it when the entry was com-
plete. Held, that such agreement was void, as
against public policy, and that no action would
lie thereon, either for damages for its non-per-
Overruled in Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 514, (Gil. 424.)
133. A promissory note, the consideration of
which was money advanced to a pre-emptor, upon
an agreement that a portion of the laud to be pre-
empted should be conveyed to the party making
such advance, is not a legal set-off or recoupment
against a valid demand made by the pre-emptor
consideration of the note is illegal. -Ferguson v.
against the party making such advance, for the
Kumler, 11 Minn. 104, (Gil. 62.)
134. Under Act Cong. Sept. 4, 1841, entries by
pre-emption are for the exclusive benefit of the
pre-emptor; and no agreement between the pre-
emptor and another, prior to the entry, that
lands shall be shared between them, can be en-
forced.-Warren v. Van Brunt, 12 Minn. 70, (Gil.
36.)
135. The mere fact that a pre-emptor obtained
the money from a third person with which to pay
for his land, there being no previous contract or
agreement that such third person shall succeed
to any of the rights in such land, will not inval-
idate the pre-emption, and no presumption of an
agreement that any portion of such land shall in-
ure to the benefit of the person so furnishing
money arises from the fact of his furnishing it.
Sharon v. Wooldrick, 18 Minn. 354, (Gil. 325.)
Assignment or conveyance by pre-
emptor or homesteader.
136. Act Cong. Sept. 4, 1841, § 12, which pro-
vides that an assignment by a pre-emptor of his
"right secured" prior to the issuing of the patent
shall be void, prohibits only an assignment of the
right to pre-empt, and a grant of the land, or the
pre-emptor's interest, after entry and payment,
but before the patent issues, inures to the benefit
of the grantee, so as to enable him to secure the
patent in his own name.-Camp v. Smith, 2
Minn. 155, (Gil. 131.)
137. Under Act Minn. July 23, 1858, which
provides that conveyances of pre-empted lands
made before the issuance of the patent shall be
as binding as if made thereafter, the right to as-
sign the lands is complete in the pre-emptor, on
purchase and entry, and when a patent issues,
it inures to the benefit of his grantee.-Camp v.
Smith, 2 Minn. 155, (Gil. 131.)
Distinguished in Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 455, (Gil.
364.)
138. A quitclaim deed of unsurveyed lands of
the United States, in which the party has no
rights, estate, or interest to impart or lose, is in-
operative.-Cole v. Maxfield, 13 Minn. 235, (Gil
220.)
1593
1594
PUBLIC LANDS, XI.
139. An assignment by the occupant of a home certificate; Rev. St. U. S. § 2296, prescribing that
stead, under the United States laws, of all his no lands acquired under the homestead act shall
"homestead right and claim, together with all become liable for debts contracted prior to the
structures, buildings, and improvements put issuing of the patent, not applying to such a case.
thereon," is a good consideration for a promissory-Lewis v. Wetherell, 31 N. W. 356, 36 Minn. 386;
note given therefor.-Lindersmith v. Schwiso, 17 Lang v. Morey, 42 N. W. 88, 40 Minn. 396.
Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
140. The sale and relinquishment by the occu-
pant of a homestead of his homestead rights, and
right to acquire title thereto, and of the improve-
ments thereon, is not against public policy, as
tending to place the land beyond the reach of
taxation for an indefinite period; nor is such
relinquishment void as a fraud upon, or against
the policy of, or prohibited by, the homestead
act.-Lindersmith v. Schwiso, 17 Minn. 26, (Gil.
10.)
141. Act Cong. Sept. 24, 1841, § 13, forbidding
a pre-emptor to make a contract by which the
title to lands pre-empted, to be acquired from the
government, shall inure to the benefit of another
person, will not operate to prevent a pre-emptor
from conveying after the completion of entry,
and before the issuance of a patent.-Woodbury
v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 338, (Gil. 272;) Sharon v.
Wooldrick, 18 Minn. 354, (Gil. 325.)
142. A mortgage of pre-empted lands, executed
by the pre-emptor, after making his proofs, but
before the patent issued, pursuant to an agree-
ment made before the proofs, is void under Act
Cong. Sept. 24, 1841, § 13, forbidding a pre-
emptor to make a contract by which the title to
such land, to be acquired from the government,
shall inure to the benefit of another person.
BERRY, J., dissenting.-Woodbury v. Dorman, 15
Minn. 338, (Gil. 272.)
Overruled in Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 514, (Gil. 424.)
Effect as forfeiture of rights.
attempting to convey land pre-empted before
146. Where a pre-emptor forfeits his rights by
completing his entry, the United States govern-
forfeiture be waived by the government, no one
ment only can enforce such forfeiture; and, if
else can insist upon it.-Woodbury v. Dorman, 15
Minn. 338, (Gil. 272.)
Rights of purchasers.
147. Persons purchasing land of a pre-emptor
subsequent to entry, and prior to the issue of a pat-
ent, take subject to the right and power of the
commissioner of the general land-office and secre-
tary of the interior to vacate such entry, and de-
feat the rights acquired thereunder. Camp v.
Smith, 2 Minn. 155, (Gil. 131,) distinguished.-Ran-
dall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 450, (Gil. 359;) Gray v.
Stockton, 8 Minn. 529, (Gil. 472.)
14.
Distinguished in Judd v. Randall, 29 N. W.590, 36 Minn.
148. Comp. St. Minn. c. 32, § 7, declaring that,
where a grant for a valuable consideration is made
to one person on a consideration paid by another,
no use or trust shall result in favor of the latter,
does not apply to a sale of public lands. Irvine v.
Marshall, 20 How. 558, followed as controlling in
this case, but questioned as to other cases.-Irvine
v. Marshall, 7 Minn. 286, (Gil. 216.)
Contract to arbitrate conflicting claims.
143. A mortgage executed by a pre-emptor, to
149. Plaintiff and defendant B., each claiming to
secure the payment of money advanced to pay for have made improvements and to be entitled to the
the land pre-empted, in pursuance of an agree- United States, entered into an agreement by which
exclusive right to purchase certain lands of the
ment made previous to final proofs of, and pay-
ment for, pre-emption entry, is not invalid under they were each to furnish defendant M. one-half
Act Cong. Sept. 4, 1841, § 13, providing that a
of the purchase money, with which he was to pur-
pre-emptor shall make no contract by which his chase the lands in his own name, and convey the
title, when acquired from the government, shall same according to the decision of five disinterest-
inure to the benefit of any other person. Mc-ed persons. Held that, after the lands were pur-
MILLAN, J., dissenting. McCue v. Smith, 9 Minn.
252, (Gil. 237,) and Woodbury v. Dorman, 15
Minn. 338, (Gil. 272,) overruled.-Jones v. Tain-
ter, 15 Minn. 512, (Gil. 423. )
chased, neither party could abandon or repudiate
the contract, but M. could convey to either or both,
as directed by the five persons chosen under the
contract.-Irvine v. Marshall, 7 Minn. 286, (Gil.
216.)
Distinguished in German Land Ass'n v. Scholler, 10
Minn. 339, (Gil. 266.)
steader.
144. Rev. St. U. S. § 2290, requiring one apply-
ing to make a homestead entry of public land to
make an affidavit that the application is for his ex-
clusive use and benefit, and section 2291, requir-Liability of lana for debts of home-
ing that before the patent shall issue he shall make
an affidavit that no part of the land has been
alienated, do not render invalid an agreement by
such an applicant, after his application, and be-
fore issue of the patent thereon, that he will con-
vey the land as soon as he shall make final proof
of his claim thereto, upon a consideration to be
paid to him at that time.-Townsend v. Fenton,
16 N. W. 421, 30 Minn. 528.
145. A person making an entry under the home-
stead laws of the United States may execute a
valid mortgage upon land so entered, prior to
submitting final proof and receiving the final
150. 12 U. S. St. at Large, c. 75, § 4, (home-
stead act,) providing that lands taken as a home-
stead shall not become liable for debts of the set-
tler contracted prior to the issuance of the pat-
ent, is not in conflict with Const. U. S. art. 4, §
3, which provides that nothing in the constitu-
tion shall be so construed as to prejudice the
claims of any particular state.-Russell v. Lowth,
21 Minn. 167.
151. Const. art. 2, § 3, which prohibits any in-
terference with the primary disposal of the soil
1595
1596
PUBLIC LANDS, XI.-PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
by the United States, is an express inhibition of | shall not become liable for such indebtedness
the state legislature to pass any law subjecting "in any event. "-Russell v. Lowth, 21 Minn. 167.
lands, patented under the homestead act of con-
gress, to levy or sale on execution for any debt
created prior to issuance of the patent.-Russell
v. Lowth, 21 Minn. 167.
Punishment.
See Criminal Law, 124-133; Municipal Corpora
tions, 68, 69; Rape, 23.
152. Lands patented as a homestead to an actual
settler by the United States do not become liable
for any indebtedness existing against the pat-
entee prior to the existence of the patent, though
conveyed by him to another person; as 12 U. S.
St. at Large, c. 75, § 4, provides that such lands See Damages, 14-23.
Punitive Damages.
1597
1598
QUANTUM MERUIT-QUIETING TITLE.
Quantum Meruit.
See Work and Labor, 3–10.
Questions of Law and Fact.
See Trial, 52–119.
Quiet Enjoyment.
Covenant for, see Covenants, 12–19.
QUIETING TITLE.
Q.
See, also, Adverse Claim.
Limitation of action to remove cloud on title, see
Limitation of Actions, 37.
To lands sold for taxes, see Taxation, 257–274.
What constitutes cloud on title.
1. Action to remove a cloud from title cannot
be maintained by a municipality claiming under
a common-law dedication, as against one not dis-
puting the public easement, but may as against
one interfering with such rights.-Village of
Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
2. Where the amount due upon lands sold on
foreclosure is paid to the purchaser before the pe-
riod of redemption expires, and he refuses to exe-
cute the necessary certificate, an action to remove
the cloud upon the title created by the foreclosure
is proper. Donnelly v. Simonton, 7 Minn. 167,
(Gil. 110.)
3. A deed of the land of a corporation, exe-
cuted in his own name by one who owns all the
stock of the corporation, is void on its face, and
does not constitute a cloud on the title to such
land.—Baldwin v. Canfield, 1 N. W.261, 26 Minn.43.
4. A deed of the land of a corporation which
is regular on its face, but which is void because
it was executed without authority, constitutes a
cloud on the title, for the removal of which an
action will lie. Baldwin v. Canfield, 1 N. W.
261, 26 Minn. 43.
5. Where the interest of the grantee in a
deed of land absolute in terms, he having exe-
cuted a simultaneous bond for reconveyance,
duly recorded, is that of a mortgagee simply, and
the land is sold on execution against him, the cer-
tificate of sale issued thereon constitutes a cloud
on the title of the grantor in the deed, to re-
move which he may maintain an action. -But-
man v. James, 27 N. W. 66, 34 Minn. 547.
6. An action to quiet title to land by removing
an alleged cloud cannot be maintained where
plaintiffs have title to the land, and the records
clearly show that the title claimed by defendants
is subordinate to that of plaintiffs, and invalid.
MITCHELL, J., dissenting. - Mogan v. Carter,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 614.
Taxes and assessments, and sales
therefor.
7. In an action to vacate a tax-sale and can-
cel a certificate issued thereon, as a cloud on ti-
tle, defendant objected that, as their invalidity
was apparent, the court could not take cogni-
zance of the action. Held that, as Pub. St. Minn.
c. 9, § 93, provides that a tax-deed issued upon
such certificate shall be prima facie evidence of
the assessment and sale, plaintiff was entitled to
the relief sought. EMMETT, C. J., dissenting.
Weller v. City of St. Paul, 5 Minn. 95, (Gil. 70;)
Morrison v. Same, 5 Minn. 108, (Gil. 83.)
title to land, must be prima facie valid, but in
8. Tax proceedings, to create a cloud upon
fact void.-Scribner v. Allen, 12 Minn. 148, (Gil.
85.)
9. The lien of a tax for a local improvement,
valid on its face, is a cloud on title, to remove
which an action in equity may be maintained.-
Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20 Minn.
468, (Gil. 424;) Ankeny v. Same, 20 Minn. 477,
(Gil. 431;) Sewall v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn.
511, (Gil. 459.)
Distinguished in Albrecht v. City of St. Paul, 50 N. W.
609, 47 Minn. 532.
10. The owner of property charged with a
special assessment, which appears of record to
be a valid lien thereon, but which is shown by
extrinsic evidence to be invalid, is entitled to
equitable relief against it.-Mayall v. City of St.
Paul, 15 N. W. 170, 30 Minn. 294; Armstrong v.
Same, 15 N. W. 174, 30 Minn. 299.
Overruled in Albrecht v. City of St. Paul, 50 N. W. 609,
47 Minn. 533.
11. No cloud upon title for the removal of
which an equitable action can be sustained is
created by assignments made by a county auditor
under tax-sales at which the land was bid in for
the state, where no effect is given by statute
to such an assignment as evidence of the regular-
ity or validity of antecedent proceedings, or of
any right, title, or interest in the land described,
the validity of the tax-sales depends, it appears
and where, from the proceedings upon which
that the court by which the tax judgments were
entered upon which such sales were had had no
jurisdiction to enter the judgment.-Gilman v.
Van Brunt, 13 N. W. 125, 29 Minn. 271.
Jurisdiction-Adequate remedy at law.
12. Neither an action under the statute to qui-
et title, nor to discharge the lien of a mortgage,
can be maintained against a mortgagee by one
whose claim is adverse, and, if valid, paramount
to that of mortgagor.-Banning v. Bradford, 21
Minn. 308.
1599
1600
QUIETING TITLE.
13. An action to remove a cloud upon title is not | the judgment creditors could not maintain a suit
maintainable where the alleged invalidity of the to quiet title against the vendor, upon a com-
instrument complained of is apparent upon its plaint alleging that, by collusion with the ven-
face. MITCHELL, J., dissenting. Maloney v. Fin-dee, he falsely and fraudulently claimed that the
latter owed him "a large amount," and that, un-
negan, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 723.
der the contract, she had forfeited her right in
the land by making default in the payments,
the latter averment being merely a conclusion of
law, not supported by the facts stated; and a fur-
ther averment that complainants had tendered
the vendor the amount due him from the vendee
was immaterial.-Bennett v. Hotchkiss, 17 Minn.
89, (Gil. 66.)
38 Minn. 70.
14. A plaintiff asserting title by a mortgage fore-
closure is not entitled to relief as to a void judg-
ment recovered against the mortgagor after the
recording of the mortgage; the time for enforcing
the judgment by redeeming from the foreclosure
sale having expired, and no apparently valid re-
demption having been made. Maloney v. Finne-
gan, 35 N. W. 723, 38 Minn. 70.
Laches.
15. A complaint to quiét title is not demurrable,
because 15 years have elapsed since the imposition
of the cloud, no other facts appearing to charge
plaintiff with laches.-Sanborn v. Trustees of Ham-
line University, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 338.
Possession of plaintiff.
38 Minn. 211.
16. Actual possession is not necessary to enable
an owner to maintain an action in equity to remove
a cloud from the title to real estate.-Donnelly v.
Simonton, 7 Minn. 167, (Gil. 110.)
17. An owner of real estate, not in possession,
may bring an action in equity against defendants
in possession to cancel a forged deed placed on rec-
ord, and deeds from the grantee therein, and is
not obliged to confine himself to his remedy by
ejectment.-Hamilton v. Batlin, 8 Minn. 403, (Gil.
859.)
18. An administrator who does not show him
self in possession of real estate belonging to the
estate, or that he has obtained a license from the
probate court to sell the same, as required by Rev.
St. Minn. c. 52, § 5, cannot maintain an action to
remove a cloud from the title thereto.-Paine v.
First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 14 Minn. 65, (Gil. 49.)
Distinguishing Banning v. Armstrong, 7 Minn. 40, (Gil.
24.)
23. Plaintiff brought an action to have his ti-
tle to certain premises confirmed, and set out his
chain of title in the complaint, but did not, in
terms, allege any interest in the said premises.
Held that, although the complaint lacked that ex-
plicit averment of plaintiff's interest which good
pleading required, still it should be upheld,
against a motion to dismiss, or an objection to
the reception of evidence upon the ground of in-
sufficiency.-Johnson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 189,
(Gil. 169.)
24. The complaint in an action to set aside a
tax-sale, and the certificate of sale issued there-
on, alleged no facts showing that the sale or cer-
tificate was not valid; the only allegation in that
regard being "that said sale of said land was
made without authority of law, and is void.”
Held, that this was insufficient.-Knudson v.
Curley, 15 N. W. 873, 30 Minn. 433.
25. A complaint does not show a case for an in-
junction to prevent a cloud upon title, if it ap-
pears only by inference, and not by averment,
that acts are threatened or contemplated which
will impose a cloud.-Maloney v. Finnegan, (Minn.)
35 N. W. 723.
38 Minn. 70.
26. A complaint which is clearly framed as
one to remove a specified cloud upon title, if de-
fective as such, cannot be sustained as a com-
19 An action to remove a cloud on title may be
maintained by one out of possession against one in
possession of the land. Bausman v. Kelley,
36 N. W. 333, 38 Minn. 197; Sanborn v. Trus-plaint in an action under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
tees of Hamline University, 36 N. W. 338, 38
Minn. 211.
Parties.
20. In an action to remove a cloud from a
title, when the premises have been conveyed by
the defendant before the suit was commenced,
the defendant's grantee is a necessary party.-
Johnson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 170, (Gil.” 153.)
21. In an action to remove a cloud, persons claim-
ing other lands on whose title the same cloud rests
need not be made parties.-Sanborn v. Trustees of
Hamline University, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 338.
38 Minn. 211.
Pleading-Complaint.
22. Under a contract of sale, the vendee of
lands went into possession and made some pay.
ments. Afterwards certain third persons ob-
tained a judgment against him for the sale of his
interest, and declaring him a trustee for them of
his interest in the land to the extent of their
claim, and decreeing a sale thereof. Held, that
75, $§ 2, 3, to determine an adverse claim, al-
though it states facts showing that plaintiff
might have brought and maintained such a stat-
utory action.-Walton v. Perkins, 10 N. W. 424,
28 Minn. 413; Knudson v. Curley, 15 N. W. 873,
30 Minn. 433.
Supplemental complaint.
27. The complaint in an action to quiet title
to lands set up title under deeds so defective as
to pass the equitable title only. Held, that a
supplemental complaint might be filed, setting
up a legal title under deeds made since the com-
mencement of the action to cure the defects in
the prior deeds.-Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 255,
(Gil. 166.)
Counter-claim.
28. In an action to quiet title by removing the
cloud of defendant's judgment and execution
levied on plaintiff's land, defendant set up the
defense that plaintiff held under a fraudulent
conveyance, executed to hinder defendant in the
1601
1602
QUI TAM AND PENAL ACTIONS-QUO WARRANTO.
collection of his judgment. Held, that the matter
alleged by defendant, though constituting a
complete defense to the action, might also be
pleaded as a counter-claim, and that, it having
been so pleaded, plaintiff was not entitled to
dismiss the action. -Griffin v. Jorgenson, 22 Minn.
92.
QUI TAM AND PENAL AC-
TIONS.
Right of appeal by informer.
No appeal lies in an action for a penalty,
under Comp. St. c. 63, § 33, against a justice of
the peace for not setting up in his office a table
of his fees, from a verdict of acquittal, though
brought by an informer, to whom the law awards
such penalty.-Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. 235,
(Gil. 155.)
Quitclaim Deed.
See Deed; Dower, 4; Mortgages, 141, 142, 184;
Vendor and Purchaser, 86, 93, 135, 148, 149.
QUO WARRANTO.
Jury trial, see Constitutional Law, 149.
When proper-Against officers.
1. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 79, § 3,
which provides that the attorney general may
bring an action in the nature of a quo warranto
"when any person usurps, intrudes into, or unlaw
fully holds or exercises, any public office, * *
or any office in a corporation created by the au-
thority of this state," quo warranto will lie to
determine whether the office held by defendant,
which is one recognized by law in organized
counties, exists in the unorganized county where
he assumes to hold and exercise it.-State v.
Parker, 25 Minn. 215.
2. Leave to file an information in the nature
of a quo warranto to determine the title to a
public office, especially on the application of a
private person, is discretionary, and should not
be granted where the law furnishes another rem-
edy, unless under special and exceptional circum-
stances.-State v. Dowlan, 24 N. W. 188, 33 Minn.
536.
Against corporations.
3. The object of proceedings by quo warranto
against a corporation being to protect public in-
terests, to warrant a forfeiture of corporate fran-
chises for misuser the misuser must be such as to
work or threaten a substantial injury to the pub-
lic.-State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co.,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 1020.
40 Minn. 213.
4. Where a corporation is charged with taking
up with its own stock the stock and indebtedness
of an insolvent company, at fictitious values, and
with the unlawful purchase and retirement of part
of its own stock, as the unauthorized acts affect
merely stockholders and creditors who have an ad-
equate legal remedy, the state will not interfere.
V.2M.DIG.-51
State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co.,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 1020.
+
40 Minn. 213:
5. Quo warranto is a proper proceeding to try
the right of a foreign corporation to carry on its
corporate business in Minnesota.-State v. Fidel-
ity & Casualty Ins. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W 108.
39 Minn. 538.
6. Proceedings by information in the nature
of quo warranto, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 63, con-
ferring on the supreme court over to issue writs
of quo warranto, etc., to corporations, and to in-
dividuals, will lie directly against a de facto or
pretended municipal corporation for the usurpa-
tion of corporate franchises, or to oust it from
the enjoyment of the privileges thereof.-State
v. Tracy, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 613.
Jurisdiction.
7. Under the provision of Const. Minn. art.
6, § 2, that the supreme court shall have "orig-
inal jurisdiction in such remedial cases as may
be prescribed by law," the legislature may con-
fer on the court jurisdiction to issue writs of quo
warranto; and the exercise of such jurisdiction,
conferred by the act of 1876, is not affected be-
cause other adequate remedies in cases falling
within the scope of the writ are furnished by
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, cc. 76, 79, which were in
force when that act was passed.-State v. St.
Paul & S. C. Ry. Co., 28 N. W. 245, 35 Minn. 222.
Who may sue.
for an action by the attorney general in the nat-
S. Under Rev. St. c. 80, § 5, which provides
unlawfully exercises any public office, two dis-
ure of quo warranto against one who usurps or
similar interests may be united,-one on the part
functions, and the other on behalf of the claim-
of the territory, to prevent the exercise of official
ant, to establish his right to the office, and to
recover damages for the usurpation.-Territory
v. Smith, 3 Minn. 240, (Gil. 164.)
9. Quo warranto will not issue, without the
consent of the attorney general, on the informa-
tion of a private person, to try the right of an
incumbent to an office, unless the person applying
for the quo warranto has an interest in the
question distinct from that of the public, such
as a right in himself to the office.—In re Bar-
num, 8 N. W. 375, 27 Minn. 466.
10. In a proceeding in the nature of quo war-
ranto, charging respondents with usurping a cor-
porate franchise, it cannot be objected that rela-
tor actively acquiesced in the exercise of the fran-
chise so as to estop himself to proceed against
respondents; since the attorney general institutes
and conducts the proceeding as the representa-
tive, not of relator, but of the people.-State v.
Sharp, 6 N. W. 408, 27 Minn. 38.
11. Quo warranto proceedings under Gen. St.
1878, c. 63, against a municipal corporation to
test its right to exercise corporate franchises,
cannot be prosecuted on the relation and at the
instance of private persons, but must be prose-
cuted by the attorney general on behalf of the
state; and it is not sufficient that it be prose-
cuted by private persons with the formal approval
of the attorney general.-State v. Tracy, (Minn.)
51 N. W. 613.
1603
1604
QUO WARRANTO.
Parties.
12. Proceedings in the nature of quo warranto,
when instituted for the purpose of restraining a
corporation from an unlawful exercise of fran-
chises, must be against the corporation, and not
merely against its officers and agents.-State v.
Somerby, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 689.
42 Minn. 55.
Procedure-Burden of proof.
13. A proceeding by information in the nature
of quo warranto, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 63,
§ 1, is governed by the rules of the common
law, and not by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 79; and
the burden is on respondents to show the exist-
ence of the corporate franchise which they are
charged with usurping.-State v. Sharp, 6 N. W.
408, 27 Minn. 38.
14. In quo warranto against a de facto or pre-
tended municipal corporation for the usurpation
of corporate franchises, or to oust it from the
enjoyment of the privileges thereof, the lawful
existence of the corporation is not admitted by
the fact that the information is brought directly
against it, and it is mentioned by its corporate
name.-State v. Tracy, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 613.
1605
1606
RAILROAD COMPANIES, I.
RAILROAD COMPANIES.
I. CHARTER AND FRANCHISES, 1-12.
II. REGULATION BY STATE, 18–20.
III. CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, 21-61.
IV. MUNICIPAL AID, 62-90.
V. LEASE, CONSOLIDATION, And Sale, 91–100.
VI. TAXATION, 101–140.
VII. BONDS AND MORTGAGES, 141–153.
VIII. LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, 154-312.
a. In General, 154-157.
b. Lessor and Lessee, 158, 159.
c. Accidents to Trains, 160–166.
d. Accidents at Crossings, 167–210.
R.
e. Injuries to Persons on Track, 211–229.
f. Stock-Killing Cases, 230-281.
g. Fires, 282-312.
See, also, Carriers; Horse and Street Railroads.
Condemnation of right of way, see Eminent Do-
main.
Contracts for construction of railways, see Con-
tracts, 85, 86.
Elevators for receiving and delivering grain, see
Carriers, 4, 5, 13, 14.
Land grants, see Constitutional Law, 119, 120;
Public Lands, 54-91; Taxation, 22, 23.
Liability for injury from turntable, see Negli-
gence, 9-11.
Liabilities for injuries to employes, see Master
and Servant, 42–51, 82–92, 104–111, 123–138, 160-
164, 166.
Mandamus to railroad company, see Mandamus,
24, 25.
Powers of railroad commissioners, see Constitu-
tional Law, 35.
Regulation of franchise, see Constitutional Law,
105-107.
Remedies on mortgage bonds, see Abatement
and Revival, 5.
Requiring fencing of roads, see Constitutional
Law, 181, 182.
Right to use union depot, see Union Depot Com
panies.
State railroad bonds, see Constitutional Law, 30,
112.
Statutes authorizing actions for damages, see
Constitutional Law, 73, 74.
Taking highway for use of railroad, see Eminent
Domain, 29-33.
I. CHARTER AND FRANCHISES.
Nature of franchise.
1. A right to make and maintain a railway,
and receive tolls or fare for transportation, is a
prerogative of the sovereign power, and in the
hands of a subject is a franchise that can only be
exercised under a grant by legislative authority.
-Blake v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418,
(Gil. 362.)
tion, and owes the public the duty of exercising
its power with reference to the general and com-
mon interest. -Stewart v. Erie & Western Transp.
Co., 17 Minn. 372, (Gil. 348.)
3. It is the right, as well as the duty, of every
railroad corporation, so far as its authority per-
mits, to use all usual and customary ways to in-
crease its business, and to furnish the public
with all needful facilities for safe, cheap, and
speedy transportation.-Stewart v. Erie & West-
ern Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372, (Gil. 348.)
Power to operate ferry.
4. Act Minn. Terr. March 2, 1855, did not au
| thorize the Southern Minnesota Railroad Com-
pany to operate boats on the Mississippi river to
and from a road running to the Mississippi river,
but to operate boats to and from Hokah, via the
canal authorized to be constructed, to the main
channel of the Mississippi river; Hokah being
the "eastern terminus" of the road, which the
company was not allowed to change.-McRoberts
v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 108, (Gil. 91.)
5. Under Act Minn. May 22, 1857, the South-
to transport persons and property on the Missis-
ern Minnesota Railroad Company was authorized
sippi river from any point to which its road con-
structed on the line authorized might run to or
connect with the river, and on a road running
Up the west bank to La Crescent it could, (not
interfering with prior ferry rights,) at pleasure,
along said bank, construct depots or run boats
in connection with its road.-McRoberts v. South-
ern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 108, (Gil. 91.)
6. By Laws Minn. Ex. Sess. 1857, p. 22, c. 3,
§ 10, the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company
was authorized to transport persons and property
on any navigable water which its road might run
to, on condition that it should build its road with-
in a certain time, and in a certain place and man-
ner. Held that, unless the road as constructed
by the company was authorized by the act, it had
no right to operate a ferry from a connection
with the Mississippi river, and a person holding
an exclusive ferry franchise within a certain ter-
ritory could contest the right of the road to oper-
ate a ferry within such territory.-McRoberts v.
Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 108, (Gil. 91.)
Change of name.
"
7. On March 19, 1867, after the adoption of
Sp. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 1, which authorized the
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company to change
the name of any of its branches, its board of di-
rectors passed a resolution naming that portion
of its road extending from St. Paul to Winona
the "St. Paul & Chicago Railway Company,
which was duly filed with the secretary of state.
Hela, that such resolution did not purport to,
and could not, create a distinct corporation, and
that the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
could not be sued, by the name of the St. Paul
2. A railroad company, though denominated & Chicago Railway Company, for materials fur-
a private corporation, is a quasi public corpora-nished such Winona branch before the change of
Powers and duties, in general.
1607
1608
RAILROAD COMPANIES, I., II.
name.-Morris v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 19 riers, and creating the railroad and warehouse
Minn. 528, (Gil. 459.)
Forfeiture-Dissolution of corporation.
8. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1864, c. 1, subc. 2,
§ 5, and Laws 1865, c. 15, § 4, attaching to the
grant of franchises thereby made to a railway
corporation the condition that it should construct
and equip its road and branches within a fixed
time, and that, upon failure to do so, all unbuilt
portions thereof, "with the properties, rights,
and franchises appertaining thereto, shall be ab-
solutely forfeited," etc., such failure to construct
one of its branches is not cause of forfeiture of
its corporate franchise, or of its franchise to
maintain and operate the constructed portion of
its road. The forfeiture is restricted to the un
built portion.-State v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry.
Co., 25 N. W. 245, 35 Minn. 222.
9. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 228, author.
izing the sale and conveyance by the St. Paul &
Sioux City Railroad Company to another company
named of all its railroads, and the appurtenances
and equipments thereof, and the franchises and
corporate rights necessary to the use of the prop-
erty, but expressly excepting other franchises
and powers which had been conferred on the com-
pany, such sale and conveyance, and the conse-
quent suspension by it of all its business as a
railroad company, did not operate as a forfeiture
of its corporate franchise.-State v. St. Paul &
S. C. Ry. Co., 28 N. W. 245, 35 Minn. 222.
10. Where, in a proceeding by the attorney gen-
eral in behalf of the state for the dissolution of a
railroad corporation, under a statute which ex-
pressly provides for a judgment of dissolution of a
railroad corporation which for one year suspends
its lawful business, the facts clearly bring the case
within its terms, it is mandatory upon the court to
deciare a forfeiture.-State v. Minnesota Cent.
Ry. Co.. (Minn.) 30 N. W. 816.
36 Minn. 246.
11. The statute (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 76, § 11)
provides that the suspension of its lawful business
by a railroad company for one year shall be a
ground of forfeiture "of its privileges and fran-
chises acquired under the laws of this state." But
the corporation is not to be deemed dissolved un-
til such forfeiture is judicially ascertained and de-
clared.-State v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co., 30 N.
W. 816, 36 Minn. 246.
12. The duty of a railroad corporation to main-
tain and operate its road is a public duty, and the
chief end of its creation and existence, and the
consideration on which it receives its grants and
franchises from the state; and the suspension of
such duties is a suspension of its lawful business
within the meaning of the statute, and a cause for
forfeiture, though the corporation also possess,
and continue to exercise, other subordinate and
secondary franchises, unless such forfeiture is
waived, or the right to continue to exist as a cor-
poration after such suspension of its business is
sanctioned by the state. State v. Minnesota
Cent Ry. Co., 30 N. W. 816, 36 Minn. 246.
II. REGULATION BY STATE.
Statutory provisions.
13. Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 10, § 3, sub. a, of
the act entitled "An act to regulate common car-
commission of the state of Minnesota, and defining
the duties of such commission in relation to com-
mon carriers," and providing that railroads should
furnish proper transfer facilities at intersections,
is inconsistent with and so far supersedes section
1, c. 14, Gen. Laws 1887, known as the "Freedom
of Traffic Act," relating to the same subject, and
approved by the governor two days before chapter
14, as to operate as a repeal of said section.--State
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Rỹ. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 21.
40 Minn. 353.
Regulation of rates-Penalties for vio-
lation.
14. Where the legislature has granted a fran-
chise to make and maintain a railway, and to
receive tolls thereon, it may regulate the use of
such franchise, and limit the amount of tolls
that it shall be lawful for the railroad or holder
of such franchise to take, unless it has, by con-
tract, deprived itself of the power so to do.-
Blake v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418,
(Gil. 362.)
15. The legislature, having the power to fix
the maximum rates of toll that may be charged
by a railroad company, have also the right to
affix a money penalty for a violation of such reg-
ulation or a charge in excess of such maximum
R. Co., 19
rates.-State v. Winona & St. P.
Minn. 434, (Gil. 377.)
Railroad commissioners-Powers.
16. The Minnesota railroad and warehouse com-
transportation by common carriers in another
mission has no authority to prescribe rates for
state, nor to fix rates between two points within
the state, over a route extending across a neigh-
boring state.-State v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1047.
Appeal from orders.
40 Minn. 267.
17. Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 10, creating the rail
road and warehouse commission, and defining its
duties does not authorize an appeal to the district
court from an order of the commission prescribing
rates to be charged by common carriers.-Railway
Transfer Co. v. Railroad & Warehouse Commission,
(Minn.) 39 N. W 150.
39 Minn. 231.
18. No appeal lies to the district court from an
order of the railroad and warehouse commission
appointed under Laws Minn. 1887, c. 10, relating
to the mode of operating a railway so as to pro-
mote the safety and convenience of the public.
Objections to such an order can only be made by
way of defense to an action brought to enforce it.
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Board of Rail-
road Com³rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 559.
44 Minn. 336.
Enforcement of regulations.
19. By section 8, of the railroad and warehouse
commission act, (Laws Minn. 1887, c. 10,) the su-
preme court is vested (concurrently with the dis-
trict court) with original jurisdiction of all pro-
ceedings by mandamus, to compel compliance
with the regulations of the commission with ref-
erence to transportation rates, as provided there-
in.-State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,.
1609
1610
RAILROAD COMPANIES, II., III.
37 N. W. 782, 38 Minn. 281.
States supreme court, 10 S.
418.
Reversed in United
Ct. 462, 134 U. S.
20. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 10, § 8, the
determination of the railroad and warehouse com-
mission as to what are usual and reasonable fares
and rates for the transportation of persons and
property by a railway company is conclusive;
and, in proceedings by mandamus to compel
compliance with the tariff of rates recommended
and published by them, no issue can be raised
or inquiry had on that question.-State v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 37 N. W. 782, 38
Minn. 281; State v. Minneapolis E. Ry. Co., 41
N. W. 465, 40 Minn. 156.
III. CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD.
Location of route-Change of location.
21. Where the charter of a railroad does not
expressly direct to the contrary, the exercise of
such discretion in the location of its route, inci-
dent to an ordinary survey, made with reference
to the nature of the country and obstacles en-
countered or avoided, is to be implied as author-
ized. Southern Minn. R. Co. v. Stoddard, 6 Minn.
150, (Gil. 92.)
22. Sp. Laws Minn. 1864, c. 1, granted the
Southern Minnesota Railroad Company certain
property rights, privileges, franchises, etc., on
condition that it should construct a certain piece
of road, 20 miles of which was graded, from La
Crescent up the Root River valley, "on the pres-
ent located line thereof, except so far as it may
be necessary to change the same for engineering
purposes, in coming up the valley of the Root,
river. ""
Held, that "present located line" meant
that upon which said road was already partly
constructed, and that the only change allowed
was the adoption of such route, in coming up the
valley of the Root river, from La Crescent, on
which it could be built, operated, and kept in
repair in the best, cheapest, and safest manner.
-McRoberts v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn.
108, (Gil. 91.)
23. The charter of a railway corporation (Laws
Minn. 1857, Ex. Sess. c. 1, subc. 1) authorized the
company "to survey, locate, construct, complete,
alter, change the location of, reconstruct, main-
tain, and operate a railroad," and to take land
"for the purposes contemplated herein." Held,
that the power granted to exercise the right of
eminent domain was not exhausted by the orig-
inal location of the line, and might be again em-
ployed for the purpose of relocating it; and that
Sp. Laws 1862, c. 20, limiting the times within
which specific portions of the road should be
built, did not place any limit on the time within
which the right to relocate it might be exercised.
-Hewitt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 N.
W. 255, 35 Minn. 226.
Duty to build-Compelling construc-
tion.
24. Under Act Cong. March 3, 1857, granting
land to Minnesota to aid in the construction of a
railroad "from La Crescent" up the valley of the
Root river, and Act Minn. May 22, 1857, (Sp.
Laws 1864, c. 1; Sp. Laws 1865, c. 1,) enacted to
| execute such trust, the Southern Minnesota Rail-
road Company, "authorized and empowered" to
build such road, cannot be compelled to build
the road to La Crescent, no such duty being im-
posed upon it either expressly or by implication.
State v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 40,
(Gil. 21.)
Connecting with and crossing other
railroads.
25. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 185, the A.
company was authorized to cross the tracks of any
other company, whenever necessary for the exercise
of the power granted in that act to the A. company
to extend its lines. Held that, under this act, the
A. company might cross the tracks of the B. com-
pany, in order to make connection with the C.
company, and that the objection that the connec-
tion was for the benefit of the C. company, and pro-
ceedings should have been instituted by that com-
pany, was without merit, as the court would pre-
sume the connection to be equally beneficial to both
companies.-In re Minneapolis & St. P. Ry. Co.
V. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 N. W. 556, 36
Minn. 481.
26. Under the provisions of section 4 of the same
act, authorizing the court to which the petition is
presented to prescribe the location and manner of
crossing, such location and manner of crossing are
to be determined. upon the evidence produced and
showing made before the trial court as questions
of fact; and in reviewing the decision thereon, the
supreme court will only inquire whether there are
legal errors in the proceedings, or any abuse of
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M.
discretion on the part of the trial court. In re
R. Co., (Minn.) 32 N. W. 556.
*
36 Minn. 481.
27. In proceedings for the condemnation for rail-
road purposes of land situated on the main line of
the railroad, it is immaterial to inquire as to the
validity of a consolidation attempted to be effected
by the petitioner with cer ain connecting roads,
even if such consolidation is averred in the peti-
tion. In re Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. St.
Paul, M. & M. R. Co., (Minn.) 32 N. Ŵ. 556.
36 Minn. 481.
amended by Gen. Laws 1879, c. 35, § 3,) a railway
28. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 47, (as
company has no absolute right, at its own mere
election, to a crossing over the railroad of another
company. The court to whom the application for
the appointment of commissioners is made is first
to determine whether the crossing sought is nec-
essary and required by public interests. The pro-
visions of section 17, in that regard, are applicable.
-In re St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 33 Ñ. W. 701.
37 Minn. 164.
29. Under the Minnesota statute authorizing the
district court to prescribe a location for the cross-
ing of one railroad by another, the place and man-
ner of the crossing must be so ordered as to be as
little injurious to the former as is consistent with
the accomplishment, in a reasonable manner, of
the purposes contemplated; regard being had for
the interests and necessities of both corporations,
and of the public.-In re Minneapolis & St. C. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 39 N. W. 65.
39 Minn. 162.
1611
1612
RAILROAD COMPANIES, III.
30. An agreement which, by its terms, gives the
exclusive right of way to a railway corporation in
or through a certain tract of land, in so far as it
attempts to exclude other railway corporations
from acquiring a right of way over the same tract,
upon land not appropriated or required for its
use by the covenantee, is against public policy,
public_policy,
and void.-Kettle River R. Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 469.
41 Minn. 461.
31. A third party, not interested in lands taken
for a right of way by a railway company, canuot
raise the objection that the corporation has no
power under its charter to acquire the specific
lands for railway purposes.-Kettle River R. Co.
v. Eastern Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 469.
41 Minn. 461.
Occupation of highways-Crossing
highways.
32. The charter of a railway company, (Laws
Minn. 1857, Ex. Sess. c. 1, subc. 1, § 7,) author-
izing the company to construct its railroad "upon
and along, across, under, or over any private or
public highway, road, street, " etc., if necessary,
required that the company should "put such
highway, road, street, " etc., "in such condition
and state of repair as not to impair or interfere
with its free and proper use." Held, that the
duty thereby imposed was a continuing one, and
was not fulfilled by simply putting the street, at
the time the railroad was built, in such condi-
tion as not to impair or interfere with its free
and proper use at that time, nor even by main-
taining it in such condition as would have accom-
plished that end had the circumstances and con-
ditions originally existing continued; and that
when, by reason of the increase in the number
of tracks and the railway traffic at a street cross-
ing, and the increase of the travel on the street,
it became necessary to carry the street under the
railway by a viaduct, whatever structures were
necessary for the purpose must be erected and
maintained by the railway company wholly at
its own expense, including necessary approaches
to such viaduct; that the expense of making com-
pensation to owners of abutting property injured
by a change of grade of the street in making such
approaches must also be borne by the company
and that the company had power to condemn land
for that purpose, as a part of the enterprise au-
thorized by the charter.-City of Minneapolis v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (State v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 28 N. W. 3, 35 Minn. 131.
33. Sp. Laws Minn. 1853, c. 66, incorporating a
railroad, and providing that when it crosses a
street or highway it shall put such highway in
such condition and state of repair as not to impair
its usefulness to the owner or public, imposes a
continuous duty to restore public streets to use-
fulness, by bridging or otherwise, when neces-
sary.-State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 39 N. W. 153.
39 Minn. 219.
34. St. Minn. 1887, c. 15, relating to highway
crossings by railroads, does not authorize all
crossings to be at grade, but merely prescribes
how grade crossings shall be constructed.-State
V. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 153,
39 Minn. 219.
35. Upon the laying out of a public highway
across the track and right of way of a railroad com-
pany, the latter is not entitled to compensation for
providing and maintaining cattle-guards and sign-
boards at the new crossing. -State v. District
Court, 44 N. W. 7, 42 Minn. 247; Same v. Shard
low, 46 N. W. 74, 43 Minn. 524.
36. It is entitled to compensation for planking
the road-way where it crosses the railroad tracks,
and for the maintenance of the planking.-State v.
District Court, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 7.
42 Minn. 247.
37. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 15, and Laws 1889, c.
222, which require railroad companies to construct
crossings wherever highways intersect their
tracks, are not unconstitutional because they make
no provision for compensation, since such provis-
ion is made by the general statutes regulating the
laying out of highways. State v. Shardlow,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 74.
43 Minn. 524.
38. In assessing damages to a railroad company
for laying out a highway across its track, benefits
by increase in its traffic or business, arising from
the increased facility for travel which the highway
affords, are not to be taken into account.-State v.
Shardlow, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 74.
43 Minn. 524.
39. Upon an appeal to a justice of the peace un-
der Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 13, § 60, in proceedings
for laying out a highway by supervisors of a town,
the supervisors, by consenting to a continuance
before making any objection to the bond filed pur-
suant to that section, waive any defects in it.-
State v. Shardlow, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 74.
43 Minn. 524.
40. As the legislature has full and paramount
authority over all public highways, where it au-
thorizes and requires a railway company, by its
charter, in constructing its railway across a
street, to put the same in proper condition and
repair, so as not to interfere with public travel,
it is not a trespasser in entering thereon for the
purpose of restoring and improving the same,
is done with reasonable prudence and skill, it
as commanded by its charter, and, if the work
is not liable for consequential damages to own-
ers of abutting land. Robinson v. Great North-
ern Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 384.
Bridges at highway crossings.
41. Where the plan, proposed for the restoration
of a street crossed by a railroad to suitable condi-
tion for public use, includes a bridge over the con-
tiguous tracks of two railway companies, neither
company can be compelled to change its route
further than is reasonably necessary for such pur-
36 N. W. 870.
pose.-State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. (Minn.)
38 Minn. 246.
42. Where the tracks of two companies cross the
same streets so near each other as to require a
continuous bridge over all the tracks, it is proper
to require each company to construct those parts
of the bridges above its own systems of tracks re-
spectively, and approaches on its respective sides,
without other apportionment between them of the
1613
1614
RAILROAD COMPANIES, III.
cost of the entire bridge structures and approaches.
-State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 39
N. W. 153.
39 Minn. 219.
43. The fact that a railroad has once been law-
fully constructed on the grade of a street does not
exempt it from bridging when that becomes neces-
sary.State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 39
N. W. 153, 39 Minn. 219.
4 Where the tracks of two companies cross the
same streets so near each other as to require a
bridge over both systems of tracks if over either,
evidence is admissible in proceedings against one
company as to the extent of the use of the street
crossing by the other company, showing the neces-
sity for a bridge at the place in question.-State
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 153,
39 Minn. 219.
45. Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 185, authorizing the
company to construct branch lines and tracks, and
requiring the city to build the approaches to neces-
sary street bridges, does not apply to the already
existing line of road.-State v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 153, 39 Minn. 219.
Fences.
46. Laws Minn. 1872, c. 25, § 1, which requires
all railroad companies within the state to build
cattle-guards at all wagon crossings and fences
on each side of their roads, repeals Gen. St. c.
34, § 33, which made the duty to fence dependent
on the action of the county commissioners in pre-
scribing rules for building them.-Gowan v. St.
Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 25 Minn. 328.
47. It is within the police power of the state to
regulate the construction and maintenance of
fences, etc., along railroad tracks, and a provision
in the charter of a railroad company declaring what
fences, etc., are necessary to protect life and
property, and when the company shall provide
them, is not sufficient to conclude the state from
a future exercise of such police power.-Gillam
v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 3 N. W. 353, 26
Minn. 268.
48. A railway company is not required to fence
grounds needed and actually used for depot pur-
poses, and required by public necessity and con-
venience to be left open; following former Minne-
sota decisions.-Smith v. Minneapolis & St. L. R.
Co., (Minn.) 33 N. W. 316.*
37 Minn. 103.
49.. The Minnesota statute requiring railways to
be fenced is not a law for line or partition fences,
but a police regulation, the object of which is tó
inclose the roads so that cattle cannot get upon |
them; and when station grounds are required by
public necessity or convenience to be left unin-
closed, a railway company owes no duty to the
owner of abutting land to build a fence between
his land and such station grounds. DICKINSON, J.,
dissenting. Smith v. Minneapolis & St. L. R.
Co., 33 N. W. 316, 37 Minn. 103.
50. The implied exception to Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 34, §§ 54, 55, imposing upon railway com-
panies the duty of fencing their tracks, by which
places necessary and convenient for the use of the
|
|
public may be left open, cannot be extended to a
siding used merely for the loading of ties, wood,
and piling purchased by the company, (there being
no testimony tending to show the amount of such
business,) and for the passing of trains, at a point
where no depot is maintained, no employe sta-
tioned, and where persons desiring to take pas-
sage are obliged to flag the trains themselves.-
Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 40 N.
W. 613.
39 Minn. 485.
Distinguishing Greeley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 22
N. W. 179, 33 Minn. 136; Kobe v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 32
N. W. 783, 36 Minn. 518; Hooper v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 88 N. W. 314, 37 Minn. 52.
51. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 18, § 2, pro-
viding that the wire fence such as therein de-
scribed shall be sufficient, "in all cases where
any law of this state requires to be erected or
maintained any fence or fences for any purpose
whatever," such a fence is a compliance with
Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, § 54, requiring railroad
companies to fence their roads.-Halverson v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 19 N. W. 392, 32
Minn. 88; Wessbecher v. Same, 19 N. W. 393, 32
Minn. 89.
Failure to fence-Damages.
52. A railroad company failing to erect cattle-
guards and fences, as required by Laws Minn.
1872, c. 25, which makes such failure negligence,
and renders the company liable for injuries to
stock resulting therefrom, is not liable for dam-
ages to an adjoining owner committed by cattle
trespassing on the railroad land, and, by reason
of such failure, passing to that of such adjoining
owner; for in such case the owner of the cattle
is alone liable.-Gowan v. St. Paul, S. & T. F.
R. Co., 25 Minu. 328.
53. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 57, pro-
viding that if a railroad company fails to fence
its road it shall be liable for all damages sus-
tained by any person in consequence of such neg-
lect, a railroad company is liable for damages to
an abutting farm caused by a failure to fence its
road.-Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
29 N. W. 202, 35 Minn. 503; 36 N. W. 340, 38 Minn.
215; Nelson v. Same, 42 N. W. 788, 41 Minn. 131.
54. The measure of damages in such a case is
the depreciation in the rental value of the farm,
which means the value of its use for any purpose
for which it is adapted in the hands of a prudent
and discreet farmer upon a judicious system of
husbandry; and evidence of any fact tending to
show how and to what extent the absence of a rail-
way fence injuriously affected the value of such
use is competent.-Nelson v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 788.
41 Minn. 131.
55. The issue being how much the rental value
of an abutting farm is diminished by reason of a
railway not being fenced, an expert witness may
be asked either what would be the difference be-
tween the rental value with the road fenced, and
with the road unfenced, or, first, what the rental
value would be with the road fenced, and then
what it would be with it unfenced.-Emmons v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Rv. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 789.
41 Minn. 133.
1615
1616
RAILROAD COMPANIES, III., IV.
56. The diminution in the rental value of a
farm through which it passes, caused by its neg-
lect to fence, is a proper item of damage.-Finch
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 48 N. W. 915,
46 Minn. 250.
57. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 57, providing
that "any company or corporation" operating a
line of railroad in that state shall be liable for
damages sustained by any person by reason of its
failure to fence its track, applies to all railroads
in that state, and not merely to such as existed
at the time of the passage of the act.-Finch v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W.
915.
46 Minn. 250.
58. In an action for an animal killed by defend-
ant railroad while being driven across the track
by the side of which it, with others, was herded
by plaintiff, it appeared that defendant had failed
to fence its track. Held, that contributory neg-
ligence on the part of plaintiff is not to be pre-
sumed, but to be proved, the failure to fence be-
ing the proximate cause of the injury.—Vinson v.
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 228.
47 Minn. 265.
Cattle-guards.
59. The term "wagon crossings, "as used in Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 54, requiring railroad com-
panies to build and maintain "cattle-guards," re-
fers to wagon roads used for public travel crossing
railroads, and not to private ways or farm cross-
ings.-Sather v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 458.
|
bound to construct its road, and it is to be built
outside the city limits.-Davidson v. County
Com'rs Ramsey County, 18 Minn. 482, (Gil. 432.)
63. In 1874, the village of C. voted to issue $12,-
000 of bonds to aid in the construction of defend-
ant's railroad. In 1875, the village voted to issue
$8,000 additional bonds to aid in the construction of
the railroad. Neither of such votes was based on
any agreement or proposition on the part of defend-
ant, and no bonds were issued pursuant thereto.
In 1879, the village voted $20,000 of bonds to defend-
ant, based on the written agreement of defendant to
build its road, etc., in consideration of the issue
of such bonds, and the bonds were issued accord-
ingly. Held,' that defendant waived its right un-
der the votes of 1874 and 1875, so that an issue of
only $20,000 of bonds was authorized, and Const.
Minn. art. 9, § 14b, restricting the amount of the
issue of bonds by a municipal corporation to 10
per cent. of the value of the taxable property
within the same, was not violated, the taxable
property in the village of C. amounting to $330,-
000.-Coe v. Buell. 6 N. W. 621, 27 Minn. 197.
Ordinances, resolutions, and agreements
-Validity and effect.
64. Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 35, authorized the
city council of the city of Red Wing to provide
by ordinance for the issuing of certain railroad
bonds, and to specify therein the times, terms,
and conditions of such bonds; and provided that
such ordinance should not take effect until the
same had been submitted for approval to the
qualified voters of the city. Held, that such
times, terms, and conditions could not be sub-
sequently waived or altered by the city council
after the said ordinance had been properly sub-
mitted to and approved by the legal voters of
60. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 54, requiring the city; and that the act by which the issue of
railroad companies to fence their roads and to
the bonds was authorized did not become functus
build cattle-guards at wagon crossings, applies
within the limits of incorporated cities and vil-officio by the submission to such voters of a void
lages; no exception thereof being made by the Co., 20 Minn. 48, (Gil. 36.)
ordinance.-Hodgman v. Chicago & St. P. Ry.
statute. -Greely v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
22 N. W. 179, 33 Minn. 136.
40 Minn. 91.
61. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 54, requiring
railroad companies to fence their roads and to
build cattle-guards at wagon crossings, when
construed in the light of other provisions against
obstructing highways, etc., allows an exception
where the company has no legal right to fence,
as where a fence would obstruct public streets
or other public grounds. And an exception is to
be implied as to places required to be left open
by public necessity or convenience, such as sta-
tion or depot grounds. But mere difficulty or in-cago & St. P. Ry. Co., 20 Minn. 48, (Gil. 36.)
65. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 35, author-
izing the city of Red Wing to issue bonds in aid
of the St. Paul & Chicago Railway Company,
the agreement contemplated by section 3 of such
chapter, as to the times, terms, and conditions
sion of the ordinance for the issuance of such
of issuing such bonds, must precede the submis-
bonds to the voters; and an ordinance submitted
before such agreement is void, and will not pre-
vent the submission of a second ordinance after
the making of such agreement. -Hodgman v. Chi-
convenience to the company creates no exception,
and will not relieve it from liability for a failure
to comply with the law.-Greely v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 22 N. W. 179, 33 Minn. 136.
66. Sp. Laws 1869, c. 34, authorized a city at
any time prior to August 1, 1870, by the action
of a majority of the council, ratified by a vote of
the people, to create and issue certain bonds in
Distinguished in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 aid of a railroad; the question of the issue to be
N. W. 614, 39 Minn. 486.
IV. MUNICIPAL AID.
Authority to grant.
62. The legislature may authorize a municipal
corporation to issue its bonds to a railway com-
pany as a donation to secure the construction of
a railroad, and to levy and collect taxes to pay
the same, though the company may already be
submitted to the voters before August 1, 1870,
and, if by them approved, the council to make
such agreement with the company as they saw
fit relating to the disposal of the bonds. Held,
that an ordinance authorizing such bonds, and
prescribing the terms and conditions upon which
they should be issued, among others, that none
should be issued until after the completion of
the work, which was subsequent to August 1,
1870,-duly adopted by the council, and ratified
1617
1618
RAILROAD COMPANIES, IV.
by the voters in May, 1870, was a proper exer-
cise of power on the part of the council, and
and
that the bonds, being authorized before August
1, 1870, might be issued and delivered after-
wards.--Warsop v. City of Hastings, 22 Minn. 437.
67. The town of Lime, under the authority of
Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 46, adopted a resolution
directing its supervisors issue to a railroad
company certain bonds Held, that the adoption
of such resolution was a statutory obligation,
binding upon the town upon a compliance by the
company with the condition imposed, and that
no written agreement or formal acceptance by
the company was essential to give it validity.-
State v. Sup'rs Town of Lime, 23 Minn. 521.
65. The adoption by a municipal corporation
of an ordinance authorized by law, obligating it
self, upon the performance of certain conditions
by a railroad company, to issue its bonds in aid
thereof, and the performance of such conditions
by such company, constitutes a valid and bind.
ing obligation to issue them in accordance with
such ordinance. State v. Town of Lime, 23 Minn.
521, followed.--State v. City of Lake City, 25
Minn. 404.
10 days prior" to such meeting, notices posted on
May 13th, of a meeting to be held on May 23d, are
sufficient.-Coe v. Buell, 6 N. W. 621, 27 Minn.
197.
73. Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, provides that
certain villages and towns in certain counties
may vote to issue bonds "to aid in the construc-
tion of any railway running into, or proposed to
be built through, either of the counties aforesaid. "
Held, that such villages and towns may hold
several elections and vote several issues of
bonds.-Coe v. Buell, 6 N. W. 621, 27 Minn. 197.
74. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, which
provides that certain towns may hold an elec-
tion to vote on the question of issuing bonds in
built through the same, the fact that one elec-
aid of a railroad running into or proposed to be
tion has been held at which the issue of such
bonds was refused does not preclude the town
from holding another election for the purpose.
Hoyt v. Braden, 8 N. W. 591, 27 Minn. 490.
75. An agreement entered into between a rail-
way company and the authorities of a town, upon
petition of a majority of the tax-payers in pursu-
ance of the provisions of section 7, c. 106, Laws
Minn. 1877, for the issuance of the bonds of such
69. An agreement by a town, under Laws town, but which was not submitted to a vote as re-
Minn. 1877, c. 106, § 7, (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, quired by section 5, is invalid, and imposes no
$ 98,) to issue bonds to aid in the construction of legal obligation upon the town, by reason of the
a railroad, must, to be binding upon such town, unconstitutionality of the statute; and if the com-
be arrived at and perfected before the construc- pany procures officers of the town to issue the
tion of the road, or piece of road, the construc-bonds, the town is not estopped to resist the enforce-
tion of which the agreement is to aid.-State v. ment of the bonds; and if they are negotiated by the
Town of Highland, 25 Minn. 355.
company, and enforced against the town, it may
recover from the company the amount of the bonds
Donation of land-By recording plat.
with interest. Following Harrington v. Town
70. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 29, § 5, provides that, of Plainview, 6 N. W. 777, 27 Minn. 224.-Town
when a plat is made out and recorded as required of Plainview v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 32 N.
by the statute, every grant or donation to the pub. 32 N. W. 749, 36 Minn. 517. Writs of error dis-
pub. 745, 36 Minn. 505; Town of Elgin v. Same,
lic or to any corporation, marked or noted on such
plat, shall be sufficient, in law and equity, to vest missed in United States supreme court, 12 S. Ct.
the fee-simple of such land "as therein expressed, 530, 143 U. S. 371.
etc. On a town plat was shown a strip of land
Time.
undivided into lots, on which were the words,
76. Act Minn. March 6, 1868, (Laws 1868, c.
"Reserved for right of way, line of S. M. R. R."
Held, that the intent to donate to the railroad com- day specified, to aid in the construction of a rail-
15,) authorized the issuance of bonds, prior to a
pany was not sufficiently shown.-Watson v. Chi-way, the vote of officers providing for such issue
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1129.
46 Minn. 321.
Issuing bonds-Elections.
"
71. A city ordinance providing, subject to
ratification of the voters of the city, pursuant to
statutory authority, for the issue of bonds of the
city in aid of a railroad, was an ordinance
adopted May 3d, and designated May 15th as
the day of the election, and directed 10 days'
notice of such election to be given. The ordi-
nance was first published, together with the first
publication of the notice of election, on May
5th. Held, the ordinance taking effect on first
publication, that such notice was not invalid be-
cause published simultaneously with the first
publication of the ordinance.-Warsop v. City
of Hastings, 22 Minn. 437.
72. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, requir-
ing notice of the time, place, and object of a
meeting to vote on the question of issuing bonds
by a village to aid in the construction of a rail-
road to be posted in three public places "at least
to be ratified by a vote of the people, at an elec-
tion therefor to be held before such day, and
provided that no bonds should issue until after
such ratification, after which they might be is-
sued and disposed of in such way as the parties
might agree upon. Held, that it was not essen-
tial that such bonds be issued and delivered prior
to the final day named for ratification. Warsop
v. City of Hastings, 22 Minn. 437, followed.
State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn. 404.
Demand.
77. The agent of a railroad company, empow
ered by his principal to demand the issue of cer-
tain municipal aid bonds, made such demand, to
which the mayor of the city, by instruction of
the city council, replied that they declined to is-
sue the bonds, on the ground that all questions
respecting the validity of such bonds had not
been decided by the supreme court. Held, a
waiver by the city of objections to the sufficiency
of the demand, and the authority of the agent
and his principal to make the demand. -State v.
City of Hastings, 24 Minn. 78.
1619
1620
RAILROAD COMPANIES, IV.
25 Minn. 445.
Issuing bonds-Conditions.
a railway to said city from the city of St. Paul,
78. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1876, c. 55, author- provided that the company should build and
izing the issuance of bonds by certain municipal-equip such railway, to connect at Winona, "by
ities to aid in the construction of the Minnesota bridge or ferry," with the L. C., T. & P. Rail-
road. A subsequent clause, inserted in the orig-
Midland Railway, a mere vote of a town does
not entitle the company to the issuance of such inal draft of the contract before its execution,
bonds; but the agreement between the company provided that in no case should said bonds, or any
and such town, contemplated by section 4 of said part thereof, be delivered to said construction
act, fixing the conditions on which the bonds are company until a truss railroad bridge should be
to be delivered, is essential, as is also perform-constructed across the Mississippi river at Wi-
ance of its conditions.-State v. Town of Ruscoe, W. & St. P. Railroad with the L. C., T. & P.
nona, connecting the St. P. & C. Railway or the
Railroad at the terminus of the last-named road.
Held, that such subsequent clause deprived the
construction company of its privilege of making
the connection by ferry, but left it optional with
the company to build the St. P. & C. Railway
over the bridge, and form a junction with the
L. C., T. & P. Railroad, or to build the St. P.
& C. Railroad to any point in the city of Winona,
and then connect with the L. C., T. & P. Rail-
road by means of the W. & St. P. Railroad, up-
on which the company would be entitled to the
bonds. -City of Winona v. Thompson, 24 Minn.
199.
*
*
79. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, which
authorizes certain villages and towns in cer-
tain counties "to issue bonds
* to aid in
the construction of any railway running into, or
proposed to be built through, either of the coun-
ties aforesaid," the voters of such villages may
impose, as a condition of the issue of the bonds
voted by them, that the depot of the railway
proposed to be aided shall be at a certain place.-
Coe v. Buell, 6 N. W. 621, 27 Minn. 197.
*
80. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, which
authorizes certain villages and towns in certain
counties "to issue bonds * * to aid in the
construction of any railway running into or pro-
posed to be built through either of the counties
aforesaid," the voters of such village or town
may impose, as a condition of the issue of the
bonds voted by them, that the bonds shall be pay-
able at a place designated, on or before the
expiration of 20 years, though the statute pro-
vides that such bonds "shall be payable in not
less than 10 nor more than 20 years."-Hoyt v.
Braden, 8 N. W. 591, 27 Minn. 490.
81. An ordinance authorizing the issue of
inunicipal bonds to aid in the construction of a
railway provided that the bonds should not be
issued until the railway should be fully com-
pleted from St. Paul by the way of the cities of
Hastings, Red Wing, and Lake City, and from
thence to some point of connection with a rail.
road leading to Milwaukee and Chicago, with
the cars running thereon. Held, that the words
"a railroad leading to Milwaukee and Chicago"
should not be restricted to a road whose line
reached Milwaukee and Chicago, but embraced a
road connecting, either directly, or by the way
of another railroad or railroads, with one whose
line reached said points.-State v. City of Hast-
ings, 24 Minn. 78.
82. A resolution of the town of Lime author-
ized the issuance of $4,000 of the bonds of said
town to a railroad company on the following
terms: One-half of the bonds to be delivered
when the first 12 miles of the road should be
completed; the other half when the remainder of
the road should be completed: provided, that the
second half of the bonds should never be deliv-
ered, unless the whole road should be completed
before August 1, 1872. Held that, upon grading
and bridging the first 12 miles of said road, the
company became entitled to the first installment
of bonds, though such grading and bridging were
not completed until after August 1, 1872.-State
v. Sup'rs Town of Lime, 23 Minn. 521.
83. A contract between the city of Winona and
a construction company, in regard to bonds of
the city to be issued to aid the construction of
84. Municipal bonds were voted in aid of a
railroad on condition that the road should be
ready for the transportation of passengers and
freight by a certain time. Before that time the
company, in pursuance of authority conferred by
special act, contracted with another railroad
company for the use of about one-half mile of the
road of the latter, to reach one of the termini of
the former, by which means the first company
was enabled to have its road ready for the trans-
portation of freight and passengers at the speci-
fied time. Held a sufficient compliance with
such condition to entitle the company to the
bonds. State v. Town of Clark, 23 Minn. 422.
85. Municipal bonds were agreed to be issued
in aid of railroad construction, upon condition
that the company should fully construct, equip,
and put its road into successful operation by a
specified time. Held, that the construction of a
bridge across the Mississippi at a point on the
proposed route, instead of the provision of other
means, usual and customary under like circum-
stances in railroad transportation for crossing
the stream, was not essential to the company's
right to the bonds.-Hodgman v. St. Paul & C.
Ry. Co., 23 Minn. 153.
* * *
86. The provision of Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 182,
authorizing the issue, by the city of Minneapolis,
of its bonds to a certain railroad company to aid
the building of specified lines of railroad, the
delivery of the bonds to begin "when the track is
laid and the cars are running on a section of not
less than 10 consecutive miles of said railroad,
beginning at Minneapolis:
provided
the eastern terminus, general offices, and head-
quarters of said railroad shall be at Minneapo-
lis," requires that not only the general offices,
but the operating headquarters, should be estab-
lished and permanently maintained in the city
of Minneapolis. The establishment of such of-
fices and headquarters was, under the statute, a
condition precedent to the issue of the bonds,
and there was a continuing obligation on the
part of the railroad company, if it availed itself
of the benefit of the contract, to maintain such
offices and headquarters in that city; and the pro-
*
1621
1622
RAILROAD COMPANIES, IV., V.
curing, by the railroad company named in the
act, of the building of a line of railroad by an-
other company, connecting with the other lines
of the latter company, and operated and managed
from its own headquarters and general offices in
the city of St. Paul, while the former company,
although having its general offices in Minneap-
olis, never built or owned or operated any rail-
road, was not a compliance with the statute.
State v. City of Minneapolis, 21 N. W. 722, 32
Minn. 501.
87. Where a stipulation, by virtue of which
a railroad company is, on performance, to be-
come entitled to certain bonds, is substantially
performed within the required time, any subse-
quent misconduct of the company in operating
such road will not affect the company's right to
demand the bonds.-Hodgman v. St. Paul & C.
Ry. Co., 23 Minn. 153.
88. Upon an issue as to whether a railway
company had fully constructed and equipped its
road for the carriage of freight by a certain date,
so as to entitle itself to demand a delivery of aid
bonds, the court properly admitted evidence that
the company after that date shipped all of its
heavy freight over another line under its control.
-Hodgman v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 23 Minn.
153.
Registration of bonds.
89. County commissioners may provide for
paying the interest of bonds issued in aid of rail-
road companies, although such bonds are not reg-
istered with the state auditor, as required by
Laws 1871, c. 17, which was not intended to re-
quire a registration of the bonds as a condition
of the holder's right to demand the interest.
Board County Com'rs St. Louis County v. Net-
tleto, 22 Minn. 356; Same v. Smith, Id.
Agreement by railroad to transfer aid.
90. A railway company agreed to transfer to
a construction company "all gifts, donations,
bounties, or aid in any form or shape, which
have been, or may hereafter be, made or given
by any person, corporation, municipality,
state, to aid in the construction of said railway.
Held to pass the right of the railway company to
avail itself of a standing offer by a municipal
corporation to issue its bonds in aid of such rail-
way, upon certain terms and conditions, none of
which had been complied with at the time of
such agreement.-State v. City of Hastings, 24
Minn. 78.
V. LEASE, CONSOLIDATION, and Sale.
Power to make-Validity.
or
"
lines are continuous or connected with its own.
Section 106 provides that "any railroad * *
organized under the laws of the state of Iowa is
hereby authorized to extend and build its road into
the state of Minnesota, and such railroad company
shall have and possess all the powers, franchises,
and privileges, and be subject to the same liabili
ties, of railroad companies organized and incorpo-
rated under the general laws of this state: provid-
ed, such non-resident company shall first file a true
copy of its article of incorporation with the secre-
tary of this state." Held, that a Minnesota com-
pany cannot lease its road to an Iowa company un-
til the latter has complied with the provisions of
section 106.-Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. L. R.
Co., 10 N. W. 594, 23 Minn. 443.
ing the M. & St. L. Ry. Co. power to lease "the
93. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1871, c. 71, § 1, giv-
whole or any part of its railroad and franchises to
railroad company may lease rights which it has
any other railroad company of this state," such
acquired by condemnation since the passage of
said chapter 71.-State v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co.,
11 N. W. 80, 28 Minn. 488.
94. A railway corporation, endowed with land
grants by the state, disposed of the entire interest
and control of the road to another railroad, reserv-
ing the granted lands and certain corporate rights,
but ceasing to do ordinary railroad business. Held
that, as such separation of franchises was not au-
railroads, on quo warranto proceedings on behalf
thorized by the legislative acts incorporating the
tion of both corporations was authorized.-State
of the state, judgment of forfeiture and for dissolu-
v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 30 N. W. 816.
36 Minn. 246.
Construction and effect.
95. One railroad corporation leased to another
the right to build, maintain, and operate a rail-
road upon land of the former, the track to be lo-
cated, built, and the grade established, under the
direction and control of its superintendent. Held
that, after the track had been located and built,
the parties might, by oral agreement, change its
location within the limits specified in the lease;
that, even if the agent making such an agreement
on the part of the lessor had not authority to do
so, acquiescence for six years in the change of
track was a ratification. -Minneapolis & St. T.
Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 N. W.
705, 35 Minn. 265.
96.Such lease was, in terms, to the lessee cor-
poration, its successors and assigns, forever, and
also provided that each and every covenant,
promise, and agreement should bind the succes-
Sors and assigns of the respective parties as if
they had been specially named; but another
clause provided that none of the rights or priv-
91. Sp. Laws Minn. 1871, c. 71, § 1, which pro-
vides that a certain railroad company may lease
its road "to any railroad company of this state, "ileges thereby granted should be transferred, as-
does not authorize a lease to a foreign company.-
Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 10 N. W.
594, 28 Minn. 443.
*
92. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 69, provides that
any railroad company incorporated "under the pro-
vision of this title, or by special charter, * *
may lease or purchase any part or all of any rail-
road constructed by any other corporation whose
signed, or sublet to or permitted to be used or
enjoyed by any other corporation. Held, that
the last clause applied only to an assignment or
transfer of the right granted separate from or in-
dependent of the railroad of the lessee, but did
not prevent such right passing to an assignee of
that railroad, as a part thereof.-Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28
N. W. 705, 35 Minn. 265.
1623
1624
RAILROAD COMPANIES, V., VI.
97. A deed by the St. Paul, Minneapolis &
Manitoba Railway Company, conveying to the
St. Paul Union Depot Company certain premises
as a site for a union passenger depot in the city
of St. Paul, contained a reservation to the rail-
way company of the exclusive use and control of
certain tracks in such depot, and of platform
·
room for its business, "and the business of such
other railroad company or companies as the said
party of the first part is now, or itself, its suc-
cessors or assigns, shall at any time hereafter
be, under obligation to furnish or provide with
passenger depot accommodations at the city of
St. Paul. " Held, that this language, especially
when construed with reference to the whole deed
and to other contemporaneous contracts, part of
the same transaction, and to the surrounding
facts and circumstances, reserved the use of such
tracks for any companies with which the grantor
company might thereafter contract to furnish de-
pot accommodations, not merely those to whom
it was, at the time of the execution of the deed,
under obligations to furnish such accommoda-
tions; that the reservation covered, not merely
the right to the use of the tracks, but the right
to general depot accommodations; that such right
of the grantor company and its tenants was sub-
ject only to the payment of rents and charges,
and to such rules and regulations as were com
mon to other companies using the depot; and
that such reservation or exception was not repug-
nant to the grant, nor in conflict with public
policy, nor prejudicial to the interests of the de-
pot company.-St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29 N. W. 140, 35 Minn.
320.
Rights and liabilities of successor com-
pany.
98. Where a railroad corporation is organized
under and pursuant to an agreement that it shall
succeed to the powers and franchises of an exist-
ing corporation, authorized and sanctioned by
competent legislative authority, it is bound by a
provision therein making it liable for certain
debts of the original companv, as fully as if they
were contracted by itself.-Welsh v. First Divis-
ion St. P. & P. R. Co., 25 Minn. 314.
99. The St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company,
having become vested with all the rights, powers,
and franchises of the Minnesota & Pacific Railroad
Company, in pursuance of the act of March 10, 1862,
the effect of the arrangement made between it and
the holders of special and preferred stock, under
Sp. Laws 1864, c. 3, and Sp. Laws 1866, c. 1, was to
create a body corporate of the organization there-
in named as the First Division of the St. Paul &
Pacific Railroad Company, and vest in it all the
powers, privileges, and franchises purporting to
be granted by such agreement and Sp. Laws 18€5,
c. 1.-First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Parcher, 14
Minn. 297, (Gil. 224.)
100. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 414, which
authorizes the purchase of the Plainview Railroad
Company by the Winona & St. Peter Railroad
Company, "subject to all claims against the Plain-
view Company," the Winona & St. Peter Railroad
Company succeeded to the liabilities of the latter
company.-Town of Plainview v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co.. 32 N. W. 745, 36 Minn. 505; Town
of Elgin v. Same, 32 N. W. 749, 36 Minn. 517.
Writs of error dismissed in United States supreme
court, 12 S. Ct. 530, 143 U, S. 371.
VI. TAXATION.
Construction of constitutional and stat-
utory provisions, generally.
101. The amendment to Const. art. 9, § 10, au-
thorizing a loan of $5,000,000 to railroads, is a
particular provision as to particular subject-
matter, and cannot be controlled by Const. Minn.
art. 9, § 1, providing that "laws shall be passed
taxing * * * all real and personal property at
its true value in money. "-State v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 315.
102. Statutes granting exemption of railroad
property from taxation are to be strictly con-
strued.-City of St. Paul v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 23 Mină. 469.
Payment of percentage on gross earn-
ings-Exemption of property.
Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company by section
103. The exemption from taxation granted to the
States, was one that the territorial legislature was
18 of its charter, as to lands granted by the United
competent to grant, and to bind the future state
tion of the provision of the organic act, and was
thereby. Such exemption was not in contraven-
preserved to the company, and, upon foreclosure
of the mortgage given by the company to the
state, the exemption passed to the state, if not as
a franchise, as a right appendant, and was held by
it without merger or extinguishment, and passed
with its grant of the other rights and franchises
of such company to the First Division St. Paul &
Pacific Company. The duty imposed on the com-
pany by its charter to build the road, etc., and pay
a percentage of gross earnings, was a sufficient
consideration for such grant, and the agreement
between the stockholders, by which the last-named
corporation was created, was not a sale of the
lands subjecting them to taxation.-First Div. St.
P. & P. R. Co. v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297, (Gil. 224.)
104. The exemption of the St. Paul & Pacific
Railroad from taxation on payment of a percent-
age of its gross earnings in lieu thereof, pro-
vided by Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 6, was a con-
ditional grant, rather than a personal privilege,
and appurtenant to the several lines of road it
was authorized to build, charging them with the
perpetual burden of annual payment of the sum
specified, dating from the time when any portion
of such lines, equal in extent to 30 miles, should
be completed and in operation.-Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co. v. Pfaender, 23 Minn. 217.
105. Act Minn. March 2, 1865, amending Act
May 22, 1857, which exempted the Minnesota &
Pacific Railroad Company from taxation on pay-
ment of a percentage of its gross earnings, pro-
vided that such percentage should be paid, 1
per cent. for the first three years, 2 per cent.
for the next seven, and 3 per cent. thereafter
from the completion of the first 30 miles of the
road.
road. Held that, for the purpose of ascertain-
ing what amount was due the state on account of
the earnings of any one year, the first 30-mile
section of completed road must be deemed to
have been completed as of the date of the passage
1625
1626
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VI.
of the act.-Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Pfaen- | pay a percentage of its gross receipts.-State v.
der, 23 Minn. 217.
Northern Pacific R. Co., 20 N. W. 234, 32 Minn.
294.
106. Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 6. entitled "An
111. A contract between the St. Paul, Minne-
act to aid and facilitate the completion of the apolis & Manitoba Railway Company and the
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and branches," is
Northern Pacific Railroad Company, giving the
applicable to all lines of railroad authorized to
latter the right to the use, in common with the
be built under the original charter of the Minne- former, for the running of its trains, of the for-
sota & Pacific Railroad Company, granted May
mer's line of railroad from St. Paul to St Cloud,
22, 1857, (Ex. Sess. Laws 1857, c. 1;) and the St.
contained provisions for putting and keeping the
Paul & Pacific Railroad Company having ac-
line in good condition, regulating the division
cepted the provisions and benefits of the act,
of its business, and the rates, apportioning
such company, or other company claiming under
the cost of station service, etc., and the supervis-
it, is estopped to deny the existence of facts ion and direction of the movement of trains.
which the act assumes as to the ownership and Held, that these provisions did not prevent the
control by that company of such lines of railroad contract operating to pass an estate or interest in
and the franchises pertaining thereto.-Chicago, that part of the railroad, and that the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company took such interest sub-
ject to the obligation to pay to the state 3 per
ation of exemption from taxation, by the charter
cent. on the gross earnings, imposed, in consider-
of the former Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Com-
pany, (Laws Minn 1857, Extra Sess. c. 1, subc.
1, § 18,) from which the line of railroad passed
road Company.-State v. Northern Pacific R. Co.,.'
to the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Rail.
20 N. W. 234, 32 Minn. 294.
M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Pfaender, 23 Minn. 217.
107. Under the provision in the charter of the
in the charter of the
former Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company
(Laws Minn. 1857, Extra Sess. c. 1, subc. 1, § 18)
requiring payment by it to the state of 3 per
cent. of the "gross earnings" of the railroad, in
consideration whereof it is exempted from taxa-
tion, the term "gross earnings" does not include
compensation paid to a company which subse-
quently acquired the road, by another company,
for the right to run trains over a portion of the
line.-State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 15 N.
W. 307, 30 Minn. 311.
108.
112. By chapter 201, Sp. Laws Minn. 1877, the for-
feited rights, privileges, and immunities of a rail-
road company were transferred to another railroad
company. Chapter 6, Sp. Laws 1865, amending the
The rights of the state under that provis-original railroad's charter, exempted the road from
ion cannot be affected by a lease or sale of the taxation, on paying 1 per cent. on its gross earn-
railroad.-State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 15 N. ings during three years after completing the first
W. 307, 30 Minn. 311.
thirty miles of road, 2 per cent. during the next
seven years, and 3 per cent. after the next ten
109. The exemption from ordinary taxation, orig-years. Held, that the railroad company succeed-
inally created in favor of the Minnesota & Pacificing to the original railroad's privileges succeeded
Railroad Company, is a franchise, and it passed, to its duties, and that the percentage to be paid on
with the lands to which it was appendant, to its its gross earnings was to be computed on the basis
successors, the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Com- of the date of the construction of the first thirty
pany and the First Division of the St. Paul & Pa- miles of road by the original railroad company.-
cific Railroad Company. The modification of that, State v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 30 N. W.663.
exemption, by act of March 2, 1865, being ineffectual 36 Minn. 207.
because not accepted by the corporation before the
act of March 4, 1865, which protected from tax pro-
ceedings the title remaining in the corporation after
contracting to sell such lands, the latter act is to
be deemed a tender by the state of a new contract,
which upon acceptance became effectual.-In re
County of Stevens, 31 N. W. 942, 36 Minn. 467.
110. Sp. Laws Minn. 1870, c. 65, § 1, provides
that the lands, franchises, etc., of the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company shall be liable to tax-
ation at the same rate and in the same manner,
and shall be exempt from taxation to the same
extent and on the same terms, as was provided
in regard to the Lake Superior & Mississippi
Railroad Company by act of March 3, 1865, (which
provided for a payment to the state of a percent-
age on the gross earnings of that railroad, in full
of all taxation,) with a proviso, "that the gross
earnings of the said railroad company, on which
a percentage is to be paid to the state, shall in-
clude only the earnings of that portion of the
Northern Pacific Railroad constructed and oper-
ated by said company within the limits of this
state." Held, that this did not exempt an inter-
est in another railroad, not then in contempla-
tion, but afterwards acquired and operated by
the Northern Pacific Company, from liability to
113. By the terms of section 1, c. 111, Sp. Laws.
Minn. 1873, (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 12, § 128,) the
St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls Railroad was
to pay to the state 1 per cent. of its gross earnings
for three years after January 1, 1872, 2 per cent. for
the next seven years, and 3 per cent. from and aft-
er the end of ten years after January 1, 1872. Sec-
tion 2 of the same act provided that any railroad
accepting the provisions of the act might become
subject to its provisions, and pay such percentage
in lieu of taxes, to commence from the first day of
March after the completion by the road of 30 miles.
of such line. Held, that the effect of the statute,
as to railroads accepting its provisions, was to pro-
vide a percentage payment on gross earnings, grad-
uated according to lapse of time after completing
30 miles of road, and that the rate of percentage
was not to be computed on the lapse of time after
the date mentioned in section 1, which was re-
stricted except as to showing the intent of the sec
ond section to the St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's
Falls Railroad.-State v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 30 N. W. 663.
36 Minn. 207.
114. Where a railroad has been regarded by the
court as successor to another railroad, and, as such,
1627
1628
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VI.
liable to certain special laws of taxation, it cannot
be regarded as coming under the provisions of a
later law regarding the taxation of railroads.
State v Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 30 N. W.663.
36 Minn. 207.
115. Section 1 of article 9 of the Minnesota con-
stitution, providing for equality of taxation, and
section 3 of the same article, specifying what
property is subject to taxation, have not the effect
of preventing the legislature from modifying the
terms of a provision for the payment by a railroad
company of a percentage of gross earnings in lieu
of other taxation, where that method of taxation
had been established prior to the adoption of the
constitution.-In re County of Stevens, (Minn.) 31
N. W. 942.
36 Minn. 467.
116. The St. Paul Union Depot Company is not
liable to pay, as taxes, a percentage on its receipts
or gross earnings under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11,
§§ 128, 129. Payment of a percentage on their gross
earnings by the railway companies, which own all
the stock and use the terminal facilities of the de-
pot company, constitutes payment of taxes on all
the property of the latter.-State v. St. Paul Union
Depot Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 840.
42 Minn. 142.
Payment of percentage on gross earn-
ings - To what property exemption
extends.
117. Land conveyed in July, before the taxes
for the year are assessed, to a railway company
whose property is exempt from taxation under a
provision of its charter for payment of a percent-
age of its earnings in lieu of taxes, is not taxa-
ble for that year, notwithstanding the provision
of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 105, that "the
taxes assessed upon real property shall be a lien
thereon from and including the 1st day of May
in the year in which they are levied. "--State v.
St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., (Hennepin County v."
|
held for such use in the future, are taxable,
whether leased by the company to individuals
for their private use or wholly unoccupied.-Ram-
sey County v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 24
N. W. 313, 33 Minn. 537.
119.. The charter of a railroad provided for the
payment to the state of a stated percentage of its
gross earnings, in lieu of all taxes and assess-
ments, and that, in consideration of such pay-
ment, the company should be forever exempt from
all assessments and taxes on its stock, franchises,
or estate, real, personal, or mixed. Held, not ap-
plicable to large tracts of timber land purchased
by the corporation, from which to take timber to
be converted into ties and lumber for its use.-
Todd County y. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
36 N. W. 109, 38 Minn. 163. Writ of error dis-
missed in United States supreme court, 12 S. Ct.
281, 142 U. S. 282.
120. Logs cut for sale by the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company upon its lands, exempt from
taxation, under Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, and Sp. Laws
1870, c. 45, § 1, are subject to taxation._ DICKINSON,
J., dissenting.-State v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 635.

39 Minn. 25.
121. A grain elevator standing on the lands of
a railroad company, owned by it, and constituting
a part of its real estate, is not taxable as personal
property of the corporation.-Chicago, M. & St. P.
38 Minn. 531.
Ry. Co. v. Houston County, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 619.
122. Where the company's charter provides for
payment to the state of a certain per cent. of its
that in consideration thereof all stock and estate,
gross earnings in lieu of taxes and assessments, and
real and personal, shall be exempt from taxes,
property bought and held in view of its probable
use by the road is not exempt.-St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co. v. City of St. Paul (Minn.) 38 N. W. 925.
St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co.,) 24 N. W. 196, 33 Minn 39 Minn. 112.
534.
123. An hotel owned by a railroad corporation, and
Distinguished in County of Murray v. Minnesota Land kept by its lessee as an hotel and place of summer
& Investment Co., 41 N. W. 943, 40 Minn. 140.
"}
118. The provisions of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
11, §§ 128, 129, that any railroad company may
accept the provisions of the act for payment of a
percentage of its gross earnings in lieu of taxes,
and that in consideration of such payment "the
railroad, its appurtenances and appendages,
and all other property, estate, and effects of said
corporation, held or used for, in, or about the
construction, equipment, renewal, repair, main-
taining, or operating its railroad, etc., shall
be exempt from taxation, were enacted, not as
a plan for exempting property from taxation,
but as a substituted method of taxation; and the
exemption declared extends, as respects lands,
only to such lands as are held and used for the
proper purposes of the corporation, or to such as,
although not in actual present use, are being
prepared and appropriated to the purposes of
the corporation without unnecessary delay.'
Lands never used for railroad purposes are taxa-
ble, although held for such use, for which it is
probable they will be needed, at some future
time; and lands which have ceased to be so used,
although acquired for such purposes, and still
resort, is not included within the exemption from
ordinary taxation enjoyed by the corporation in
respect to such of its property as is held and used
for railroad purposes.-State v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., (County of Hennepin v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co.,) 44 N. W. 63, 42 Minn. 238.
124. A wharf owned by a railroad company and
leased by it, to be used in selling and shipping
coal, is not exempt from ordinary taxation as
property held and used for railway purposes,
though the lease binds the tenant to ship annu-
ally a certain quantity of coal over the lines of
the company, and to unload from vessels, and
load on the cars of the company, for a stated com-
pensation, all coal offered for shipment over the
lines of the company.-In re Proceedings to En-
force Payment of Delinquent Taxes on Real Es-
tate for St. Louis County, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 334.
45 Minn. 510.
Exemption of lands granted to aid con-
struction.
125. By a judgment of the Minnesota supreme
court in State v. Railway Co., 30 N. W. Rep. 816,
1629
1630
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VI.
entered March 23, 1887, the charter of plaintiff |
company was declared forfeited and annulled.
Section 416, c. 34, Gen. St. Minn. 1878, continued
such corporations for three years for certain pur-
poses, such as disposing of their property, etc.
Held, that lands acquired by plaintiff under the
land-grant act of 1857, and subsequent acts, were
exempt from taxation for three years, unless pre-
viously leased, sold, or contracted to be sold.-
Minnesota Cent. R. Co. v. Donaldson, (Minn.) 35
N. W. 725.
38 Minn. 115.
of an absolute alienation; and that, if the real
purpose of the parties was not in accordance with
the legal import of the agreement, the transac-
tion did not remove the exemption of the land
from taxation. -St. Paul & S. C. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Donald, 25 N. W. 57, 34 Minn. 182.
129. Another railway company, holding lands
granted to it exempt from taxation, under a pro-
vision of Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 9, limiting such
exemption in the same words, entered into a con-
tract with a construction company for the con-
struction and equipment of its road, the effect of
Sale, conveyance, or mortgage of which was to transfer to the construction com
lands.
126. Upon the conveyance, by a railroad com-
pany, of the equitable title of lands exempt from
taxation, while owned by such company, such
right of exemption is destroyed.-State v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 472.
127. The Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company
became entitled to receive certain lands under
the act of May 22, 1857, to aid in the construction
of their road, which were to be exempt from tax-
ation while the property of the company. Before
receiving title from the state, being indebted to
B. and associates, they contracted in writing to
sell, and on receiving such title to convey, a por-
tion of such lands in part payment of such in-
debtedness to B. and associates, they having the
option to leave the lands in the name of the rail-
road company, to be by it sold for their benefit.
Held, that the entire equitable interest being in
B. and associates, the lands were not exempt from
taxation, after conveyance by the state to the
company, under Act May 22, 1857, c. 2, § 4, ex-
empting such lands from taxation "until the
same shall have been sold and conveyed by said
company. "-State v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 21
Minn. 472.
128. Lands granted to a railway company to
to a railway company to
aid in the construction of its road were, by Laws
Minn. 1865, c. 15, exempted from taxation until
Minn. 1865, c. 15, exempted from taxation until
they should be "contracted to be sold, conveyed,
or leased" by the company. Subsequently an
agreement was made between the company and
its stockholders for the declared purpose of pro-
viding means for payment of the debts of the
company by the issue to the stockholders of "spe-
cial stock," and the setting apart of a portion of
such lands for the payment of dividends thereon,
and the final payment and extinction of the stock
itself, by means of a sale of the lands through a
trustee, appointed by the stockholders, who were
to have control of the management of the lands
as well as the sale thereof. Such "special stock"
was not to entitle the holder of it to vote, or in
any manner participate in the business, property,
or management of the corporation, or to receive
any benefit or dividend from any of its property,
except from such lands. A right of redemption,
by payment of any part or all of the stock, was
also reserved to the company; but the holders of
the special stock were empowered, while the
land remained unredeemed, to take land in pay-
ment of their stock, at the value appraised by
the trustee. Held, that the instrument did not,
on its face, confer on the stockholders the legal
or equitable title to the land, but that its terms
gave it the character of a mortgage, or an ap-
propriation of the land as a security, rather than
by
pany the absolute and separate ownership of the
lands, although the transaction was, in form, a
mortgage. Held, that this was, in substance, a
conveyance of the lands, which made them sub-
ject to taxation.-St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Donald, 25 N. W. 453, 34 Minn. 195.
for the holders of "special land stock, "for the pay-
130. A railroad company set apart to a trustee
ment of dividends thereon, land granted under an
act of congress to the road, to aid in its construc-
tion. The land, when granted, was exempt from
taxation. The company also gave a power of at-
torney to sell such land for the purpose of paying
the dividends. Held, that said land had been
"contracted to be sold, conveyed, or leased, by said
company," and was therefore subject to taxation
under Laws Minn. 1865, c. 15, § 5.-St. Paul & S.
C. R. Co. v. Robinson, 42 N. W. 79, 40 Minn. 360,
Same v. Shanks, 42 N. W. 83, 40 Minn. 369.
43 N. W. 327, 41 Minn. 454.
Distinguished in Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Robinson,
131. Plaintiff issued bonds to the amount of $2,-
800,000, to secure funds to build its road, and, to se-
cure the bonds, conveyed about 550,000 acres of
its land grant to trustees. The trust-deed provid
ed that the holders of two-thirds of the outstand-
ing bonds might at any time assume control of the
The
sale of the lands, but that until such control was
assumed, or default was made in the conditions of
the deed, plaintiff should retain control.
holders of the bonds were enabled to convert them
into lands; but the lands were not to be appraised
for such purpose until title thereto was acquired,
and the appraisal was to be made by plaintiff, the
that, when sufficient money should have been re-
trustees concurring. The deed further provided
alized to pay all outstanding bonds, with interest
and expenses, it should be void as to all remaining
lands. The bonds were intended to be sold, and
were actually sold, to persons who had no connec-
tion with the railroad company. The bondholders.
never assumed control of the lands. Held, that
the trust-deed did not amount to a conveyance of
the lands, within the meaning of Gen. Laws Minn.
1865, c. 15, by which lands of a railroad company
become taxable after a contract for their convey-
ance has been made.-Sioux City & St. P. R. Co.
v. Robinson, 43 N. W. 326, 41 Minn. 452; Sioux City
& St. P. Ry. Co. v. King, 43 N. W. 329, 41 Minn.
461.
Distinguished in Re St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., (County
of Chippewa v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,) 44 N. W. 71, 42
Minn. 300.
132. Where a railroad to which lands are granted
by the state to aid in the construction of its road,
to be exempt from taxation until "sold and con-
veyed," sells the lands and receives the considera-
1631
1632
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VI., VII.
|
tion, retaining no lien on nor actual interest in tion until sold and conveyed by such company.
them, though it retains the naked legal title only Held, that the Winona & St. Peter Railroad
as trustee for the purchaser, it has "sold and con- Company, having succeeded to the rights, bene-
veyed" them within the meaning of the exempting fits, privileges, property, franchises, and inter-
clause, though a question in regard to them has to est of the Transit Railroad Company, through the
be settled by the court.-State v. Webber, (Covn-state foreclosure, was entitled to hold such lands
ty of Brown v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,) 37 exempt from taxation, and their attempted taxa-
N. W. 949, 38 Minn. 397.
tion was illegal. First Div. St. Paul & P. R
Co. v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297, (Gil. 224,) followed.
133. The right to hold exempt from taxation-State v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 315.
lands granted to a railroad corporation in aid of its
principal enterprise is a franchise, but ancillary
and subordinate; and the right to exercise such
franchise, and to continue its corporate existence
for such purposes only, cannot lawfully survive
after a sale of its railroad, and the abandonment of
its principal business as a railroad corporation, un-waukee & St. Paul Railway Company, did not
less by the authority of the legislature expressed
or clearly implied. The rights of the state are not
lost by delay merely, nor can they be waived by its
executive officers.-State v. Minnesota Cent. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 30 N. W. 816.
36 Minn. 246.
134. By Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, §§ 6, 24, 105, May
1st is fixed as the date for determining the taxa-
bility of property, and its ownership and value for
the purposes of taxation, and the lands of a rail-
way company, which are exempt from taxation
until "sold and conveyed, "if conveyed before May
1st, are subject to taxation for the current year.-
Martin County v. Drake, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 912.
40 Minn. 137.
Distinguishing County of Hennepin v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 24 N. W. 196, 33 Minn. 534.
138. The conveyance by the Minnesota Central
Railway Company to the McGregor Western Rail-
way Company of its road-way, tracks, equip-
ments, rolling stock, etc., and the conveyance
by the McGregor Western Railway to the Mil-
pass the title to the lands acquired by the Min-
nesota Central Railway Company to aid in its
construction, or subject such lands to taxation.
Minnesota C. Ry. Co. v. Melvin, 21 Minn. 339.
139. Act Cong. March 3, 1857, granted to the
territory of Minnesota certain public lands to aid
in the construction of railroads between certain
points. Laws Minn. T. 1857, (Ex. Sess.,) c. 7,
granted the lands in question to the St. Paul &
S. C. Railroad Company, and declared the lands
have been sold and conveyed" by said company.
"exempt from all taxation until the same shall
Under authority of Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 50, the
St. Paul & S. C. Company transferred to defend-
ant railroad company an unconstructed portion
of its line with the land grant pertaining to such
portion, defendant agreeing to construct and
135. The Southern Minnesota Railroad Com- equip such portion of the line. Held, that the
transfer to defendant was not a sale and convey-
pany, having executed a mortgage on its subsidy ance, within Laws Minn. T. 1857, (Ex. Sess.,) c.
lands to secure certain bonds, afterwards exe-1, exempting the lands from taxation.-County
cuted an instrument appropriating a part of those of Nobles v. Certain Pieces of Land, 3 N. W. 701,
lands as a trust for the satisfaction of certificates
to be issued in exchange for such of its mortgage
bonds as were outstanding; the lands to be sold
by the trustees as needed for the purposes of the
trust. Held, the mortgage remaining unsatis-
fied, that such special trust could not be con-
strued a sale and conveyance of such subsidy
lands, so as to subject the same to taxation..
State v. Trustees Southern Minn. R. Co., 21
Minn. 344.
136. Lands embraced in a railroad land grant,
and exempt from ordinary taxation while held by
the corporation for whose benefit the grant was
made, become subject to taxation, when the entire
beneficial interest of the corporation has been con-
veyed by a trust-deed, to secure a specified charge
upon the lands exceeding their value, and the ces-
tuis que trustent have been empowered, at their
mere election, to take and appropriate the entire
property in satisfaction of their claims upon it, so
as to leave nothing to revert to the grantor.-In re
St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., (County of Chippewa
v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,) 44 N. W. 70, 42 Minn.
295; Id. 44 N. W. 72, 42 Minn. 301; In re Minnesota
Land & Investment Co., Id.
*
Distinguishing Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Robinson,
43 N. W. 326, 41 Minn. 452.
Exemption of lands granted to aid con-
struction-Successor companies.
137. Laws 1857, c. 1, § 4, subd. 2, provided that
the lands granted by that act to the Transit
Railroad Company should be exempt from taxa-
26 Minn. 294.
140. It being established by the admission of the
parties that the respondent succeeded to the own-
ership of certain lands formerly granted to and
held by the Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company
and its successors, and to the exemption from ordi-
nary taxation formerly enjoyed by those corpora-
tions, and pertaining to such lands, held, that the
title remaining in the respondent after it had con-
tracted to sell such lands (the purchase price be-
ing still unpaid, and the conditions of the purchase
being still unperformed) is protected in accord-
ance with the terms of the act of March 4, 1865,
from sale for taxes.-In re County of Stevens,
31 N. W. 942, 36 Minn. 467.
VII. BONDS AND MORTGAGES.
Action on coupons.
141. In an action on overdue interest coupons
of a railroad company it is not necessary to in-
troduce at the trial the bonds from which the
coupons were detached where they are sufficiently
identified by other evidence. -Welsh v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 25 Minn. 314.
142. A railroad company issued its bonds paya.
ble to bearer, with interest; interest coupons, in
the usual form, being attached. The bonds, un-
der a provision contained in the mortgage sécur-
ing them, were, before maturity, declared due.
Action was brought upon the interest coupons
1633
1634
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VII., VIII. a.
for a time subsequent to this, the bonds remain-
ing unextinguished. Held that, as the damages
allowed by law for default in payment of the
principal are at the same rate as the stipulated in-
terest, the holders of the coupons are entitled to
recover. Welsh v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 25 Minn. 314.
143. Where, by the terms of a trust-deed exe
cuted by a railroad company, it is expressly
agreed that all bonds secured thereby shall be
taken and held by the purchasers, subject to the
condition that no proceedings, at law or in
equity, shall be had to enforce the collection
thereof, except after a requisition shall have
been made to the trustee in manner and form as
provided in such trust deed, and until after his
refusal or unreasonable neglect to proceed as
thereby required, the provision is binding upon
all the bondholders with notice thereof, and a
compliance therewith a condition precedent to
an action at law by a bondholder to recover upon
a coupon attached to one of the bonds.-Guilford
v. Minneapolis, S. Ste. M. & A. Ry. Co., (Minn.)
51 N. W. 658.
Rights of mortgagees or bondholders.
144. Const. Minn. art. 9, § 10, as amended
April 15, 1858, which provides that where state
aid is given to railway companies, first mortgage
bonds of the companies, corresponding to the
state bonds issued, shall be transferred to the
state bonds issued, shall be transferred to the
state treasurer, as further security, etc., does
not give the state any priority of lien as to such
bonds over other bonds of the same issue held
by individuals. FLANDRAU, J., dissenting.-Min-
nesota & P. R. Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13, (Gil.
1.)
145. A mortgage of the property of a railroad
company, including the tolls, incomes, rents, is-
sues, and profits of such company, does not give
the mortgagee a right to the income of the road
earned while the mortgagor is in the possession
and control thereof.-De Graff v. Thompson, 24
Minn. 452.
Foreclosure-Appointment of receiver.
146. An article of a railway mortgage author-
ized the trustees, on default, to take possession,
hold, and use the road, "operating the same by
their superintendents, managers, receivers, or
servants, or other attorney or agents. Held,
that the receiver meant was one of the trustees,
and not a technical receiver, to be appointed by
the court.-Rice v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 24
Minn. 464.
147. Where a railroad mortgage provides that
in default of payment of interest the trustees may
take possession of the property, and collect and
receive its incomes and profits, the trustees,
upon such default, have an adequate and com-
plete remedy under the mortgage, by taking pos-
session of the property, and cannot ask to have
the same placed in the hands of a receiver.-
Rice v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 464.
148, Trustees in a railroad mortgage were, by
virtue of charter provisions and stipulations in
the mortgage entitled on default to assume and
take possession of the mortgaged property. Held
that, as the trustees could on default enforce
V.2M.DIG.-52
their right to possession by ejectment, a receiver
of such property, pending foreclosure, would not
be appointed.-Rice y. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 24
Minn. 464.
Power of receiver.
149. In a foreclosure proceeding against a rail-
road company a receiver was appointed, with
power to take possession of its railroad, etc.,
including all goods and chattels owned by it,
and to bring suit to protect or collect the same.
Held, that the receiver had no power to take
possession of lumber and wood sold on execution
against the company before his appointment.—
Mcllrath v. Snure, 22 Minn. 391.
Rights of creditors to earnings of
receivership.
150. One who sold a locomotive to a railroad com-
pany six months before the appointment of a re-
ceiver, was not entitled to a lien upon the earnings
of the receivership, prior to that of the mortgage
bondholders. Manchester Locomotive Works v.
Truesdale, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 301.
Deficiency.
44 Minn. 115.
151. An action to foreclose a railroad mortgage,
given to trustees to secure the payment of nego-
tiable bonds, is a proceeding in rem, and no per-
sonal judgment for deficiency therein can be en-
tered.--Welsh v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 25 Minn. 314.
152. The effect of a judgment, in a proceeding
to foreclose a mortgage given by a railroad com-
pany to trustees to secure an issue of negotiable
bonds, is to determine the amount of the mort-
gage debt, so as to know how much of the securi-
-Welsh
ty will be required to satisfy the same.
v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 25 Minn. 314.
Rights of purchaser.
153. The power to mortgage its corporate fran-
chises, as granted to the Minnesota & Pacific Rail-
road Company by section 21 of its charter, (Laws
Ex. Sess. 1857, c. 1,) as well as by the amendment
to Const. Minn. art. 9, § 10, adopted April 15,
1858, and its mortgage to the state made in pur-
suance of the requirements of said amendment,
covered all its road, all its lands, and all its fran-
chises, including that of a right to be a corpora-
tion; and, upon foreclosure of such mortgage, all
such rights, franchises, and property passed to
and were held by the state as an individual, dis-
tinct from its sovereign capacity, and without any
merger.-First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Parcher,
14 Minn. 297, (Gil. 224.)
VIII. LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE.
a. In General.
Condition of track-Defective crossing.
154. Where a road is openly and notoriously used
by the public as a highway, and a railroad com-
pany, over whose track such road crosses, recog-
nizes it as a highway by assuming to maintain a
public crossing at that point, the railroad company
is obliged to keep such crossing in safe repair,
whether the road is a legal highway or not.-Kelly
v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 9 N. W. 588, 28 Minn. 98.
1635
1630
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. a.-c.
Condition of track-Contributory negli-
gence.
155. It is not negligence per se for a person to at-
tempt to pass over a railroad crossing on a high-
way after he has had notice that the crossing is
unsafe by reason of being out of repair.-Kelly v.
Southern Minn. R. Co., 9 N. W. 588, 28 Minn. 98.
156. A public highway in a village was crossed
by the main track and a side track of defend-
ant's railway, about 30 feet apart. Along-side
the highway between the two tracks was a ditch
about 4 feet deep. Plaintiff's driver, in a sleigh
drawn by two horses, driving along the highway
about 6 o'clock in a morning in December,
crossed the main track just before a train upon
it reached the highway, which he had not seen,
his view being somewhat obstructed, although
it was possible to have seen the train had he
looked. Thinking it not safe for the team to
stand between the passing train and a box-car
on the side track, which obstructed the highway
except for a space of about four feet between the
car and the ditch, which car he had not seen
until he was on the main track, he attempted to
drive around the end of the car, not knowing, or
not recollecting, the existence of the ditch; and,
the ditch being filled with snow, in the darkness
he did not see it, and one of the horses fell into
the ditch and was injured. Held, that it was for
the jury to say whether there was negligence on
the part of the driver contributing to the injury.
-Corey v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 N. W. 479,
32 Minn. 457.
Fencing track-Injury to child.
157. The requirements of Laws Minn. 1876, c.
24, and of Laws 1877, c. 73, appearing, from their
terms and from the character of the fence de-
scribed therein, to have been intended to prevent
domestic animals coming upon railway tracks,
are not applicable to cases of children straying
on an unfenced railroad track; and a breach by
a railroad company of its statutory duty to fence
the line of its road, although it contributes to an
injury to a child straying on the unfenced track,
is not such negligence as to give a right of re
covery.-Fitzgerald v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 13 N. W. 168, 29 Minn. 336.
b. Lessor and Lessee.
Liabilities of lessor-Defective crossing.
158. A railroad company which leases its road to
another company, without the consent of the state
under whose laws it was created, is liable for in-
juries caused by a defective crossing over such
road, though the lessee company is in possession
of the same under the lease.-Freeman v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. R. Co., 10 N. W. 594, 28 Minn. 443.
Distinguished in Crolley v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
16 N. W. 424, 30 Minn. 544.
Liability of lessee-Fire.
159. The liability of a railroad company for its
negligence in setting fire to property by sparks
from its locomotives is not affected by the fact that
it operates its trains over a road leased from an-
other company. Cantlon v. Eastern Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 22.
45 Minn. 481.
c. Accidents to Trains.
Incompetency of locomotive engineer.
160. In an action against a railway company
the alleged liability rested on the grounds that
it employed an engineer upon a locomotive who
was incompetent by reason of old age, near-sight-
edness, and want of acquaintance with the road,
by reason of which he ran the train at too great
a speed, and that one of the brakes on the train
was defective. Held, that proof that such en-
gineer, after the occurrence of the accident com-
plained of, ran his freight train a distance of sev
eral miles without a brakeman, and in returning
ran the engine off the track, was not admissible
and that evidence that the road-bed in general
was in bad condition was not relevant to the is-
14 N. W. 883, 30 Minn. 215.
sue.-Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
Speed of train.
161. In an action against a railway company
for an injury alleged to have been caused by
running a train at too great a speed, one of the
brakemen on the train testified that, at the place
where the accident occurred, the train was run-
ning about as fast as it could go, and that trains
generally went slowly there. Held, that it was
proper to ask him, on cross-examination, if it
was not customary on trains on which he was
employed to run with considerable speed at that
point to overcome the grade.-Ransier v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 14 N. W. 883, 30 Minn.
215.
Injury to building near track.
162. The managing officer of defendant railway
company took the place of an engineer upon one
of its engines, and ran it backward, pushing
a flat-car in advance, through a public street in
a city, at a rate of speed much greater than was
allowed by an ordinance of the city. The car
ran off the track, and into a building on the
street about 12 feet from the track, injuring a
person therein. There was evidence that, if the
speed had been less, or if the steam had been
shut off when the car left the track, it would not
have run into the building. Held, that there was
substantial evidence of negligence on the part
of defendant, which should have been submitted
to the jury.-Mahan v. Union Depot St. Ry. & T.
Co., 24 N. W. 293, 34 Minn. 29.
163. A violation of a city ordinance limiting the
speed of railway trains passing through the city
is evidence of negligence in an action for injuries
caused by the derailment of a train and its col-
lision with a building near the track. -Manan
v. Union Depot St. Ry. & T. Co., 24 N. W. 293,
34 Minn. 29.
Collisions between
negligence.
trains
Imputed
164. Where in a suit for injuries in a collision at
the crossing of two railroads it appears that defend-
ant's train was brought to a stop at the proper
place, and that the train on the other road was not,
and that if defendant's engineer had exercised due
care in looking he would have seen the train on
the other road, and discovered that it was about
to make the crossing without stopping, in time to
stop his own train before reaching the crossing.
1637
1638
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. c., d.
providing he kept it under proper control between |
the stop-board and the crossing, defendant is liable
if its engineer did not stop, and the collision fol-
lowed.-Pratt v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 356.
38 Minn. 455.
165. A passenger on a railroad train, who is in
jured in a collision with another train of a differ-
ent company, may recover of the latter, if negli-
gent, though the collision was partly caused by
those in charge of the train on which plaintiff was
a passenger.-Flaherty v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 160.
39 Minn. 328.
Contributory negligence
jump from train.
Failure to
166. Where, in a collision between a detached
engine and a wild train at a crossing, plaintiff was
the only one of the former's crew injured, the ques-
tion whether his failure to jump was contributory
negligence is for the jury.-Hansen v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 34 N. W. 223.
37 Minn. 355.
d. Accidents at Crossings.
Negligence in management of train-
Rate of speed.
167. Where ordinary care and prudence, in order
to prevent injuries to persons crossing a railroad
track at street crossings, require trains to be run
within the city at a less rate of speed than that lim-
ited by a city ordinance, the railroad company is
bound to exercise such care and prudence.—Sha-
ber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 9 N. W. 575, 28
Minn. 103.
168. In an action against a railroad company for
negligently causing the death of plaintiff's intes-
tate, it appeared that, when decedent approached
defendant's track, a train with a bright head-light
was passing, ringing its bell. There was no flag-
man at the crossing, and the view of the track in
the direction from which the engine that struck
decedent came was obstructed. This engine had
a head-light, but was running backwards, and had
no light in the direction in which it was going. It
was a cloudy night, with a moon nearly new, low in
the west, throwing the shadow of the passing train
on the track on which was approaching, at about 15
miles per hour, from the opposite direction, the en-
gine that struck deceased. A great many engines
were constantly passing the crossing in question.
Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a
finding that defendant was negligent, and that de-
cedent was free from contributory negligence.
Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 9 N. W. 575,
28 Minn. 103.
169. In an action for injuries at a street cross-
ing in a city, the evidence showed that the train
was going at an unlawful rate of speed; that no
signals were given as required by law; that the
crossing was unusually dangerous, and no flag-
man was stationed there; and that a view of the
passing train was obstructed from travelers on
the street by cars left standing on a side track,
extending across the street, with an opening for
passengers on the street. Held sufficient evi-
|
dence to show negligence by defendant. -Kelly
v. St. Paul. M. & M. Ry. Co., 11 N. W. 67, 29
Minn. 1.
170. A railway company cannot be held liable,
as for negligence, for causing the death of a per-
son crossing its track at a highway crossing, up-
on evidence that the train by which he was
struck approached the crossing at the rate of 10
miles an hour, giving the usual signals, there
being no other circumstances tending to show
negligence.-Harris v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 23 N. W. 850, 33 Minn. 459.
Distinguished in Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41
N. W. 1042, 40 Minn. 277.
171. When the circumstances connected with the
accident are shown, including the speed of the
train and the manner in which it was operated, it
is for the jury to say whether, with regard to the
safety of travelers, the rate of speed and the man-
agement of the train were reasonably prudent.-
Bolinger v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 31 N. W.
856.*
36 Minn. 418.
172. The rules of a railroad company do not nec-
essarily determine the legal standard of negligence
in their employes. The failure to stop an engine
at a stop-board is not per se negligence, but a cir-
cumstance to be weighed by the jury.-Hansen v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 34 N, W. 223.
37 Minn. 355.
Signals, watchmen, etc.
173. In the absence of statutory provision, there
is no legal obligation on a railroad company to
sound a whistle or ring a bell as its train ap-
proaches a crossing.-Brown v. Milwaukee & St.
P. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 165.
174. The omission of a railroad company to give
the required signals at a crossing is evidence of
negligence in favor only of persons or animals
lawfully upon its track.-Locke v. First Div. St.
P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
175. The fact that a railroad company spikes
down heavy planks between the rails at a pri-
vate road crossing is not such a recognition of
the public use of the road as will charge it with
the duty of making statutory signals when its
trains approach such crossing.-Locke v. First
Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
176. The charter of a railroad company re-
quired, under a penalty, that trains should ring
a bell or sound a whistle 80 rods from and while
crossing where any road or street crossed its
railroad, and made it liable for damages result
ing from neglect. Held applicable only to the
crossing of a public highway or thoroughfare,
and not to a mere private crossing.-Locke v.
First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil.
283.)
177. Where a city ordinance requires railroad
trains to ring a bell at street crossings, and
prohibits their running at a greater than a cer-
tain speed, their failure to observe such require-
ments will be an act of negligence, making them
liable for damages done at such crossing. - Fritz
v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 22 Minn.
404.
1639
1640
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. d.
178. Although the question whether it is neg-
ligent to run a railway train across a highway
without previously giving warning of its ap-
proach by bell or whistle is ordinarily a ques-
tion for the jury, the running of a neavy train,
which cannot be readily stopped, at a high raté
of speed, and without any signal by whistle,
bell, or otherwise, across a much-traveled pub
lic street in a village, where the crossing is dan-
gerous to travelers on the street by reason of ob-
structions concealing the approach of trains, is
so clearly dangerous, that, no excuse being shown
for the omission, the law imputes negligence,
even though no statute exists requiring the giv.
ing_of_such signals. Loucks v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 18 N. W. 651, 31 Minn. 526.
city, or to use a part of the right of way within
said limits as a footpath, relying on the belief
that the trains will be run not to exceed the
speed fixed by city ordinance.-Studley v. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 115.
Looking and listening.
184. A railroad crossing over a highway, on the
same grade, is a place of danger, and of itself a
warning to one about to go upon it to exercise care
and vigilance, to the extent of his opportunity, in
using his senses of sight and hearing, to discover
an approaching train in time to avoid it. -Brown
v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 165.
185. Where the vision of a traveler crossing a
railroad track is so unobstructed along the track
that he could easily discover an approaching
179. In an action against a railway company train, or the circumstances are such that had he
for injuries to plaintiff while on a public high-listened he would have heard it in time to avoid
way crossing its track, the court instructed the
jury that, under defendant's charter, it was the
duty of the engineer of the locomotive to sound
the whistle or ring the bell at least 80 rods be-
fore reaching the crossing. Held that, even
though no such obligation was imposed by the
charter, as it was not claimed that any signal
was given, and as the circumstances made the
omission to give a signal negligence, as matter
of law, defendant was not prejudiced by the
charge.-Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 18 N. W. 651, 31 Minn. 526.
180. It is for the jury to determine whether the
presence of a watchman at the crossing, or other
precautions, were reasonably necessary for the
safety of the public.-Bolinger v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., (Minn.) 31 N. W. 856.
36 Minn. 418.
46 Minn. 193.
a collision at the crossing, it will, in ordinary
cases of collision, be presumed that he did not
knowledge thus obtained. In either case he would
look or listen, or heedlessly disregarded the
not be entitled to recover for injury sustained.-
Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 22 Minn.
165.
Distinguished in Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. F'. Ry. Co.,
9 N. W. 76, 28 Minn. 73.
186. In an action against a railroad company for
injuries received by a person while attempting to
cross the track at a street crossing, the court
properly refused to charge that it is not necessari-
ly the duty of a traveler to stop and listen before
stepping on a railroad track, but that whether it
is necessary and proper for him to do so depends
on the circumstances of the case.-Shaber v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 9 N. W. 575, 28 Minn. 103.
181. There was evidence that the train which in-
187. At the crossing of two city streets and a
jured plaintiff at a railroad crossing on the princi- railroad, at a point where the railroad was used
pal street of a village was going at the rate of 25 for the almost constant passage of cars between
or 30 miles an hour. Plaintiff's view of approach- two yards of the railroad company, as well as for
ing trains was obstructed by a natural rise in the the passage of regular trains, the railroad con-
ground, as well as by buildings and box-cars. sisted of two main tracks and some side tracks com-
Witnesses testified that on the occasion in questioning into them. The driver of a horse and wagon,
they heard whistles blown at points three-quar- who was familiar with the tracks and the passage
ters of a mile and 1,900 feet from the crossing, but of trains, approached the crossing from the east.
that they did not hear any signal at any other time A flagman kept by the railroad company at the
or place, except a whistle blown just as the engine crossing signaled him that a train was approach-
struck plaintiff. Held, that it was for the jury to ing, and then passed over to the west side of the
say whether the railroad company was not negli- tracks, to signal teams approaching from that side.
gent in the matter of giving signals.-Beanstrom Almost immediately a train passed on the west
v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 778.
main track, consisting of 10 or 11 coaches, which
necessarily intercepted from the flagman's view
the approach of trains on the east main track.
There was nothing,
There was nothing, however, to prevent the
driver of the wagon from seeing an approaching
train on that track before driving upon it, but,
as soon as the train on the west track had passed,
without waiting for any signal from the flagman,
and without looking up the east main track to
see whether any train was approaching, he drove
struck by a train coming on the east track, and
upon the track, and the horse and wagon were
injured. Held, that his going upon the track un-
der the circumstances was so clearly and palpa-
bly an act of negligence that the court was justi-
tified in directing a verdict for defendant.-Ab-
bott v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 N. W.
266, 30 Minn. 482.
Contributory negligence Knowledge
Knowledge
of and reliance upon regulations, cus-
tom, etc.
182. A girl of 17, with good faculties, who at-
tempts to cross a railroad at its crossing with a
public highway, and is killed by a train, will be
held to have been negligent, where the train
could have been seen for some distance before it
reached the crossing, and where she lived near
the crossing, and knew of the passage of trains.
-Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 51
N. W. 115.
183. A traveler has no right to attempt to cross
a railway track in front of an approaching train
at what is nothing more than a common country
crossing, although it is within the limits of a
188. In an action against a railway company for
personal injuries received by being run over by
1641
1642
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. d.
cars at a street crossing at night, plaintiff and
another witness testified that they looked and
listened for approaching cars when about 14
feet from the track, and saw and heard nothing.
Held, that the question whether plaintiff was
negligent was properly submitted to the jury.-
Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 20 N. W.
93, 32 Minn. 214.
189. In an action against a railway company
for personal injuries to plaintiff from the wagon
in which she was riding being struck by defend-
nt's locomotive at a highway crossing of the rail-
road, it appeared that the railroad crossed the
highway at a sharp angle; that plaintiff ap-
proached the crossing from the west, having the
railroad on the left hand, but that the view of it
from the highway was partially obscured by a
cut which terminated about 200 feet from the
crossing. The evidence for plaintiff tended to
show that she and the driver were looking and
listening for indications of danger as they ap-
proached the crossing, having looked several
tines towards the west up the railroad, the last
time when at a point from 50 to 70 feet from the
crossing, and that in the interval of about 10 sec-
onds before reaching the crossing they were list-
ening for signals or indications of a coming
train, their attention being also attracted to an
engine standing below the crossing apparently
ready to move; that they heard no signal and
had no warning of the approach of an engine
from the west, but were unexpectedly overtaken
by a switch-engine from that direction, running
backwards down grade at a high rate of speed,
with steam shut off, and without signals of its
approach, which they did not discover until too
late to avoid a collision. Held, that the question
of plaintiff's contributory negligence was for the
jury, upon consideration of the circumstances and
Inferences of facts therefrom. -Hutchinson v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 21 N. W. 212, 32 Minn.
398.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 30 N. W. 549, 36 Minn. 172.
190. In an action against a railway company for
killing horses, it appeared that plaintiff's servant
was driving northwards up a street parallel to the
railway, and passed an engine going to a turn-table
on a switch track about 600 feet south of the cross-
ing where the accident occurred, and that he knew
the engine would shortly pass up the track over
the crossing. When at a point in the street op-
posite and about 40 feet distant from the crossing,
he turned easterly to drive over it, stopping for "a
minute or two" looking for the engine. At that
place he could see the track on which the engine
must come for 615 feet. Not seeing the engine he
started on towards the crossing, driving "kind of
slow-slow steps," without again looking south-
wards until "right on the track" at the crossing,
where the horses were struck before he could get
them off. The horses were attached to a covered
wagon, so that from the seat the driver could not
see "on the side" without throwing his head and
shoulders forward "a foot or so" to look round the
covering. Held, that the action was properly dis-
missed. Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 30 N. W. 548, 36 Minn. 170.
Distinguishing Loucks v. Chicago. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
18 N. W. 651, 31 Minn. 526; Hutchinson v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 21 N. W. 212, 32 Minn. 398.
|
191. Where deceased drove upon the crossing
without being watchful to discover whether a
train was approaching, such negligence will defeat
a recovery. Harris v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 12.
37 Minn. 47.
192. Plaintiff, injured by defendant's locomotive
while attempting to pass over a crossing in a lum-
ber wagon, had driven his team at a walk for at
least 50 feet before reaching the crossing. He
testified that from a point nearly 600 feet distant
from the crossing he continuously looked and
listened for approaching trains, and that he did
not see nor hear any until he entered upon the
track. There were numerous obstructions to the
view, though there were a number of spaces be-
tween such obstructions through which approach-
ing trains might have been seen from the street.
Held, that the court could not say as a matter of
law that plaintiff should have stopped his team
question of contributory negligence was for the
before entering upon the crossing, and that the
jury.-Beanstrom v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.)
48 N. W. 778.
46 Minn. 193.
193. In an action to recover for the killing of
plaintiff's intestate at a railway street crossing,
it appeared that decedent, familiar with the sur-
roundings, approached the track near a station-
house, on the end of which a bright light was
shining, the night being dark and stormy, and at-
tempted to cross in order to meet an expected
train, which was a few minutes late, and in so
doing was struck and killed. Held, that the ev
idence showed contributory negligence on the
part of decedent, in that he either failed to look
or listen for the approaching train, or, if he saw
it, needlessly attempted to cross the track ahead
of it.-Carney v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 912.
46 Minn. 220.
194. Though the view of a person approaching
a railroad crossing on a public road is obstructed
until he is within six feet of the track, he should
stop then and look for approaching trains, or he
will be held guilty of contributory negligence
that will preclude his recovery for injuries sus-
tained on being struck by a train.-Clark v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 365.
47 Minn. 380.
195. Plaintiff's intestate approached a railroad
grade crossing at night, in a wagon, knowing
that defendant's freight train was due. The
train approached the crossing at the rate of about
20 miles an hour, and there was nothing to ob
struct the view of the engine head-light, which
was thrown 40 rods in front of the engine and 10
rods or more on either side of the track, from the
highway along which intestate was traveling.
Deceased drove over a space of 60 feet covered
by the head-light of the engine, and was struck
by the engine and killed: his horses being neither
frightened nor unmanageable, and there was
nothing to show that he could not have stopped
his team within the 60 feet. Held, that the court
properly instructed the jury that decedent was
guilty of contributory negligence, and that plain-
tiff could not recover.-Brown v. Milwaukee &
St. P. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 165.
1643
1644
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. d.
Contributory negligence-Plaintiff's
view obstructed.
:
196. In an action for injuries at a street cross
ing in a city, the evidence showed that plain-
tiff's view of the train was obstructed by cars
left standing on a side track extending across
the street, with an opening for passage on the
street. Plaintiff, who was driving a span of
horses with a wagon, before going through the
opening, brought his horses to a walk, but did
not stop them, nor leave his wagon and go for-
ward where he could see an approaching train.
He looked and listened for a train, but could not
see or hear any signal of its approach. Held,
that the evidence did not show contributory neg-
ligence.-Kelly v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Čo., 11
N. W. 67, 29 Minn. 1.
197. Plaintiff, driving upon a public street of a
village across a railway track, was struck by a
train of cars, the approach of which he did not
discover until immediately before driving his
horses across the track. The view of the track
from the street before reaching the crossing was
partially obstructed in both directions. There
was evidence tending to show that plaintiff was
mindful of the danger and watchful to avoid it,
according to his reasonable judgment; that at the
time when he might first have seen or heard the
train he had reason, from having looked in that
direction, to suppose that no train was coming
from that direction, while his attention to the
track in the opposite direction was apparently
more necessary; but that the train was then
close at hand, running at a high rate of speed,
and he was in a place where he could not safely
turn his horses, nor hold them before the passing
train. Held, that negligence could not be con-
clusively imputed to him as matter of law, but
that it was a question for the jury whether he
was negligent.-Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 18 N. W. 651, 31 Minn. 526.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 30 N. W. 549. 36 Minn. 172.
198. An engine backing on a down-grade, across
the track of another company, was run into by a
wild train, and plaintiff, a brakeman on the backing
engine, was injured. It appeared that the engine
was stopped above the stop-board, and, when pass-
ing such board, was going at a very slow rate of
speed, and was handled very carefully; that plain-
tiff was informed that the regular train on the
other road had passed; that before reaching the
crossing plaintiff looked and listened, but the view
of track was obstructed. Held, that the question
of contributory negligence was for the jury.-Han-
sen v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 34 N.
W. 223.
37 Minn. 355.
199. Where a highway crosses a double-track
railway, over which trains are liable to run fre-
quently in opposite directions, it is contributory
negligence for a traveler thereon, whose view of
the second track is obscured by the presence of a
passing train on the track nearest to him, to pass
immediately upon the crossing as soon as the way
is clear, without waiting to look or listen for the
approach of a train in the opposite direction on
the second track.-Marty v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 35 N. W. 670.
38 Minn. 108.
200. Plaintiff approached a railroad crossing
having a clear view of the track for a mile, except
for a coal shed and some box-cars. The mules he
was driving were quiet and not afraid of the cars.
Plaintiff looked, but did not see an approaching
train, nor hear the whistle which was blown. At
the place where he testified he looked for the train
there was no obstacle. After he passed the coal
shed and box-cars he was within 22 feet of the
track, but did not see the train, and was run over.
Held, that he was guilty of contributory negli-
gence.-Weyl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 42 Ñ. W. 24.
40 Minn. 350.
Plaintiff's control of his vehicle.
201. Plaintiff, traveling with horses and a sleigh
on a street in a city which intersected, nearly at
right angles, another street on which defendant's
railroad was laid, approached the railroad cross-
ing, driving his horses at a slow trot. His view
in the direction of an approaching train was ob-
structed by buildings, so that he could not see
the train until he passed a building at the corner
of the streets, which stood 53 feet from the cen-
ter of the railroad track. After passing the
building, he saw the train, but, although his
horses were ordinarily easily managed, and had
never been afraid of railroad cars, they became
frightened, so that he could not control them,
and ran across the track ahead of the locomotive,
which struck the sleigh. In an action for the
injuries received thereby, the evidence of plain-
tiff as to whether he looked along the track as
soon as he came where he could do so was con-
fused, and not in all respects consistent, but the
inference might fairly be drawn that he did look
when at the corner mentioned, and that the train
was then very near the crossing. Held, that this
was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the
issue of plaintiff's negligence, and to sustain a
verdict in his favor.-Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 902, 29 Minn. 465.
202. Negligence on the part of plaintiff could
not be conclusively presumed, as matter of law,
from his inability, under the circumstances, to
control his horses, or to prevent their running
away, when they became frightened by the train.
-Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 13 N. W.
902, 29 Minn. 465.
203. In an action against a railway company
by the driver of a street-car injured by a collis-
ion between one of defendant's trains and the
street-car at a crossing, it appeared that plain-
tiff, while driving towards the crossing from a.
point 265 feet to a point 40 feet distant therefrom,
by reason of obstructions to his view, and of
some part of his attention being required in the
opposite direction and in the care of his horse
and car, could not be sure that he would see a
train approaching within such a distance as
would make it necessary for him to stop his car
before reaching the crossing, and also that he
might be prevented from hearing such train by
the direction of the wind and the noise made by
his horse and car, but that at 40 feet distance
he could, by looking, make entirely sure whether
there was or was not a train coming dangerously
near the crossing. Held, that it was contribu-
tory negligence on his part to allow his car to
acquire such a momentum that he could not stop
1645
1646
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. d., e.
it in time to prevent a collision, when, on look-
ing, although 25 or 30 feet from the crossing, he
saw the train approaching.-Mantel v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 N. W. 853, 33 Minn 62;
Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Same, Id.
Actions-Evidence.
204. Where the rate of speed at which the engine
causing the injuries sued for was running is in
co troversy, plaintiff may show the rate of speed
at which defendant railroad company habitually
runs its engines under like circumstances with
the one in question.-Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 9 N. W. 575, 28 Minn. 103.
205. In an action against a railroad company for
negligently causing the death of plaintiff's intes-
tate by running an engine over him at a public
crossing in the night, it appeared that the engine
in question carried no head-light, and that a train
with a bright head-light had just passed in the op-
posite direction. Held, that it was competent to
show how long the eye requires after looking at a
brilliant light to recover its natural power of sight.
-Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M, Ky. Co., 9 N. W. 575,
28 Minn. 103.
206. In an action for negligently running a loco-
motive over plaintiff's intestate at a street cross-
ing, evidence that defendant had no sign over the
crossing to warn persons of its presence is proper,
though there is no statute or ordinance requiring
such sign.-Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
9 N. W. 575, 28 Minn. 103.
207. In an action against a railway company
for injuries from a collision with a train of de-
fendant at the crossing of a street in a city, al-
leged to have been caused by negligence in run-
ning the train, the fact that the train was run at a
speed prohibited by an ordinance of the city is
competent evidence of negligence, and may be
proved, although the existence of the ordinance
is not alleged in the complaint.-Faber v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 902, 29 Minn. 465.
208. In an action against a railroad company for
negligence in blowing the whistle of a locomotive
and frightening a team, which ran away and in-
jured plaintiff, the complaint being framed to show
a cause of action for the violation of a city ordi-
nance, and also one independent of the ordinance
for negligence, the admission of the ordinance in
evidence, it being void, is harmless error, where
the court afterwards charges the jury that it is
void, and that they should treat the case as if it
had never been passed.-Dugan v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. S31.
43 Minn. 414.
209. The testimony of a fireman on a locomotive
engine, whose duty it is to ring the bell when the
engine is in motion, "that, although he had no in-
dependent recollection of ringing it on a certain
occasion, yet it was his uniform and invariable
habit to ring it, so that it had become second nat-
ure with him to do so, and that from these facts
he was able to state positively that he did ring it
on the occasion referred to, "is competent and suf-
ficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that
the bell was rung, notwithstanding the testimony
of other witnesses that they were in position tr
have heard it if it had been rung, and that it was
not rung.-Evison v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 6:
45 Minn. 370.
Questions for jury.
210. Where the mode of running cars by "kick-
ing" is explained to a jury, with the situation of
street at night, and the character of the night as
the tracks where cars were so run across the
street at night, and the character of the night as
to darkness, and of the street as to the extent to
which it was traveled, the questions whether the
rate of speed at which the cars were run was
reasonable, and whether that mode of running
the cars was more dangerous or any more con-
venient than running them with the engine, are
Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 20 N. W.
proper questions to be submitted to the jury.
93, 32 Minn. 214.
e. Injuries to Persons on Track.
Duty to persons lawfully on or near
track.
211. Plaintiff and others were lawfully, and with
defendant's knowledge, engaged in grading for
a new railway track alongside of and parallel
to defendant's original or main track. The ordi-
nary duties of the work frequently required them
to be in such close proximity to defendant's orig-
inal track as to be liable to be struck by passing
trains. It had been the uniform practice of those
operating trains on the railroad to give these
workmen warning of their approach by signals.
Held, that defendant owed the workmen the duty
of active vigilance in giving them proper signals
of the approach of trains, and that they had the
right to rely on the continued performance of this
duty.-Erickson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.)
43 Ñ. W. 332.
N.
41 Minn. 500.
212. While it would not ordinarily be the duty of
those operating a train to stop it or slack its speed,
provided they gave the proper signals, yet, if the
trainmen saw that the workmen did not hear the
signals, and were making no effort to escape, it
would then be their duty to stop the train, if there
was still time to do so.-Erickson v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 332.
41 Minn. 500.
213. In an action against a railroad company for
negligently killing plaintiff's intestate it appeared
that the intestate was employed in a lumber-yard,
and was loading one of defendant's cars with lum-
ber. He was standing on a plank, one end of
which was resting on the car, and the other on a
saw-horse standing between the rails of the track.
A loaded car was standing a few feet in front of
the car which intestate was loading, and one of
defendant's employés attempted to couple the load-
ed car onto a train to remove it, but missed the
coupling and the car was driven against the car
which intestate was loading, throwing him upon
the rail, inflicting injuries from which he died.
Held, that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by
the evidence.-Jacobson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 932.
41 Minn. 206.
Duty to trespassers.
214. A railroad company is not liable in dam-
ages for injuries
ages for injuries caused by its train striking a
1647
1648
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. e.
trespasser upon its track, although the engineer | of. Held, that he was guilty of contributory
of the train could have seen him if he had looked; negligence, and could not recover. -Donaldson v.
as it does not owe to a trespasser the duty of Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 293.
having its engineer look to see if he is upon the Distinguished in Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry.
track, but only to exercise proper care to avoid Co., 24 Minn. 415.
striking him after having seen him.-Scheffler v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 21 N. W. 711, 32
Minn. 518.
215. Plaintiff, while walking on defendant's
track, was struck by a train going in the same di-
rection, and running at the rate of seven miles an
hour. At the distance of 150 feet from plaintiff,
signals were sounded, and, when it became appar-
ent that plaintiff was not going to leave the track,
the engineer did what he could to stop the train.
Held, that defendant was not wantonly or will-
fully negligent.—Johnson v. Truesdale, (Minn.) 48
N. W. 1136.
46 Minn. 345.
216. In an action against a railroad company
for the killing of a person on its track, an in-
struction that, if the jury should find that de-
ceased was a trespasser, a recovery cannot be
had by plaintiff unless it is also found that the
engineer in charge saw her in time to have avoid-
ed the accident, and was then guilty of gross
negligence in not attempting to avoid a collision,
such as would evince a reckless disregard of
human life, is correct. -Studley v. St. Paul &
D. R. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 115.
217. Plaintiff's intestate, a child about 10 years
old, was caught between cars in defendant's
old, was caught between cars in defendant's
"gravity" yard, one of which he and his com-
panions had set in motion by releasing a securely
fastened brake, and killed. Held that, though
such cars might be attractive to boys as a means
of amusement, defendant owed no other duty to
plaintiff's intestate than to securely fasten the car
by means of the brake, and could not be required
to set a watch over the cars so fastened, or pro-
vide other means than the brake to prevent the
cars from being set in motion, and, having dis-
charged its duty in the premises, was not liable
for intestate's injury.-Haesley v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1023.
Contributory negligence.
46 Minn. 233.
218. A person who goes on a railroad track,
where cars are being shifted, for the purpose of
removing an obstruction, and stands with his
back to an engine, knowing that it is approach-
ing, and that the engineer cannot see him by rea-
son of an intervening car, must, in the absence
of explanation, be held guilty of contributory
negligence if injured by the engine.-Carroll v.
Minnesota Val. R. Co., 13 Minn. 30, (Gil. 18.)
219. Plaintiff resided and did business near a
railroad track, and was familiar with it. While
walking down the track, a freight train came
along, at 12 to 15 miles an hour. He stepped
aside to let it pass, and his attention being at-
tracted to some object on one of the cars, and
supposing the entire train had passed, without
looking back, stepped on the track again. A
portion of the train, that had become detached,
and was following down the grade some distance
behind the portion of the train that had passed,
struck plaintiff, inflicting the injuries complained'
220. In an action against a railroad company
for running a locomotive over plaintiff, it appeared
that when plaintiff, who was walking along a
country road carrying a bag, reached defendant's
track he placed his bag on one of the rails, sat
on the edge of the track about 8 inches from the
rail, placed his elbow on the bag, his head on
his hand, and fell asleep. The locomotive struck
him while in this condition. Plaintiff testified
that he had been drinking, and that he felt the
influence of the liquor. The railroad track was
level and straight for a long distance at the place
of the accident. Held, that plaintiff was guilty
of contributory negligence.-Denman v. St. Paul
& D. R. Co., 4 N. W. 605, 26 Minn. 357.
221. In an action against a railroad company
for causing the death of plaintiff's intestate, it
appeared that decedent had worked in a shop a
few feet from the track along which trains were
running every few minutes during the day for
about eight months; that at the time of the acci-
dent he went upon the track in the day-time for
purposes of his own, and without looking for ap-
proaching locomotives. The view of the track
was unobstructed, and decedent could have seen
the train by which he was struck in time to avoid
it, if he had looked. Held, that decedent was
guilty of contributory negligence.-Smith v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. 4 N. W. 782, 26 Minn.
419.
tiff from being struck by an engine on defend-
222. In an action for personal injuries to plain-
ant's railroad while he was crossing the railroad
track at a point in defendant's yard not a street
could have been seen several hundred feet, it
crossing, and from which an approaching engine
could have been seen several hundred feet, it
was apparent that either he was crossing the
track heedlessly, without using his senses to see
whether he could do so safely, or, if he did look
before starting to cross the track, he must have
stopped, and continued to stand upon it, without
further observation, for some considerable space
of time, while looking back at men who called
out to him in attempting to warn him of his dan-
ger from the approaching engine. Held, that it
was conclusively shown that he was guilty of
contributory negligence as a matter of law, and
that the action was properly dismissed.-Rogstad
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 17 N. W. 287, 31
Minn. 208.
Distinguishing Mark v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 16 N.
W. 367, 30 Minn. 493.
223. In an action against a railroad company for
personal injuries, plaintiff's evidence showed that
he was walking on a dirt-pile along-side defend-
ant's track, and too near it for safety; that the
track was straight and unobstructed, and plaintiff
knew that trains passed frequently, but he suffered
his attention to be attracted by something on the
opposite side of the dirt-pile, and was struck by a
train; that he might well have walked on the side-
walk on the opposite side of the track. Held,
that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negli-
gence, and a nonsuit was properly granted.-Hef-
1649
1650
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. e.
finger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45 | by defendant's negligence, then they should find
N. W. 1131.
that his doing so was not his negligence.-Mark
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 16 N. W. 367, 30
Minn. 493.
43 Minn. 503.
224. Plaintiff, while walking south along defend-
ant's track in a city, was struck by a train going
in the same direction. At the point where plain-
tiff got on the track he could only see to the north
about 300 feet, but, although the distance from
that point to the place of the accident was about a
block and a half, plaintiff did not look back. Sig
nals sounded at a distance of 150 feet from him,
and nearer, were not heard by him, and he admitted
that, in looking at an engine on another track, he
forgot about other engines. Held, that plaintiff
was guilty of contributory negligence.-Johnson v.
Truesdale, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1136.
46 Minn. 345.
Working on or near track.
225. A steam-boat, during high water, was com-
pelled to move along-side the side track of a rail-
road, for the discharge of passengers. Plaintiff,
a carpenter on the steam-boat, in charge of stag-
ing extending from the steam-boat to the side
track, was ordered to remove the same to prevent
its destruction by an engine which had passed
and stopped a short distance away. Plaintiff, be-
lieving that those in charge of the engine were
aware of his dangerous position on the track, at-
tempted to remove the staging, having his back
to the engine, and in so doing was injured by the
return of the engine without warning. Held, that
plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence,
and was entitled to recover for the injuries re-
ceived.-Carroll v. Minnesota Val. R. Co., 14 Minn.
57, (Gil. 42.)
226. In an action against a railway company
for damages for causing, through negligence, the
death of plaintiff's intestate, it appeared that he
was killed while at work carrying boards across
a side track of defendant's railroad, which it
was necessary for him and others to cross in
such work about every second minute during the
day; that cars were sent in on the side track by
defendant, usually by "kicking," four or five
times a day, but not at any stated time; that
there was a great deal of noise about the place;
and that he was killed by a car so sent in.
There was evidence that such car was sent in at
an unusual rate of speed, with no means of giv-
ing a signal of its approach except by the calling
out of the brakeman upon it; that he and others
called out as the car approached the place where
deceased was at work;
was at work; and that he probably
heard the shouting and saw the car when it was
very near to him. Held, that an instruction to
the jury that, if deceased attempted to run across
the track when the car was approaching, that
would be contributory negligence which would
defeat a recovery, was error, because it ignored
any consideration of the effect which defendant's
negligence might have had on his mind, and on
his ability to determine at once justly what was
the safest thing for him to do, when, through
such negligence, he found the car almost upon
him; and that if the jury were satisfied from
the evidence that the car was run in negligently,
that it was not negligence in deceased not to see
the car till it was close upon him, and, if he
then ran upon the track, that his doing so was
through terror and loss of self-possession, caused
Distinguished in Rogstad v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
17 N. W. 288, 31 Miun. 210.
•
227. At a subsequent trial of the same case it
appeared that defendant railway company had laid
a spur track along-side and within 20 feet of a
planing-mill, for the purpose of loading and un
loading lumber, etc., and a shed extended from
the mill to within about four feet of the track.
Men were employed at each of several planers in
the mill to take the boards coming from them
at the end towards the track, and carry them
across the track to land owned by defendant,
there to be placed in piles near the track, for the
purpose of loading them into defendant's cars;
and this mode of conducting the business was
known to defendant, and the use of the land for
the purpose was with defendant's permission.
The spur track was used only for such cars as
were needed to be loaded or unloaded at the mill,
and these were not sent in at regular times, but
only as occasion required. Such a car was
"kicked" in on the track at an unusual and high
rate of speed, without warning to the men who
were constantly crossing and recrossing the track
while carrying the lumber, and struck and killed
one of them. The planers made so much noise
as to prevent a person from hearing an approach-
ing car, but if deceased had looked up the track
he could have seen the approaching car in time
to have avoided the accident. Held, that the
Court could not say that it was negligence for
deceased not to keep a lookout for approaching
cars; it was for the jury to say whether he ought
to have done so, or whether, under the circum-
stances, he might not rely on being given timely
warning of approaching danger. Mark v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 20 N. W. 131, 32 Minn.
208.
228. A station agent of a railway company, after
giving to the owner of lumber loaded on a car
leave to run the car by hand past the depot to
the owner's lumber yard for the purpose of un-
loading, directed the driver of plaintiff's team,
having a load to deliver at the depot, to deliver
it at a side platform, where it was not safe to be
when a car was moving on the track at that
point; and the driver, not knowing that the lum-
ber car was about to be moved, drove to the
platform, and while the team was there the lum-
ber car, moving down the track, struck and killed
plaintiff's horse. Held that, on the questions
of negligence on the part of defendant and plain-
tiff, the case was one for the jury, and a verdict
for plaintiff should be sustained.-Foss v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 23 N. W. 553, 33 Minn.
392.
229. Deceased had been for two years at work in
a brick-kiln, and was accustomed to move cars of
wood delivered daily by a freight train on a side-
track for the kiln, pushing them from the end of
the freight train. Defendant's trainmen on the
day in which deceased was killed, changed the
manner of delivering the wood, and when deceased
began work on the car, as usual, defendant's en-
gine, contrary to custom, without notice or warn-
ing, pushed some other cars against the car on
1651
1652
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. f.
which deceased was working, at a rapid rate,
crushing him. Held, that deceased was not guilty
of contributory negligence.-Iltis v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1040.
40 Minn. 273.
Distinguishing Harris v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
23 N. W. 850, 33 Minn. 459.
f. Stock-Killing Cases.
Duty to fence track-Application of
statute.
230. Laws 1872, c. 25, § 4, in regard to the lia-
bilities of railroad companies for failure to fence
heir tracks, is to be construed as excepting com-
panies whose duty to fence is imposed and reg-
ulated by their charter from the operation of the
preceding sections of such act, imposing on rail-
roads generally the duty of fencing their tracks.
Devine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 8:
Winger v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 22
Minn. 11.
236. Where the injury occurrea on part of the
aerendant's depot grounds, which public conven-
ience required to remain unfenced, no actual neg-
ligence in the management of the train being
shown, the company is not liable.-Hooper v. Chi-
cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 33 N. W. 314.
37 Minn. 52.
Distinguished in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40
N. W. 614, 39 Minn. 486.
237. Plaintiff's horse escaped from his custody
without his fault, and entered upon the track of
the defendant company at a point where it was not
fenced, and was struck by a locomotive and killed.
The ground at the place where the horse entered
had been purchased by the company with the in-
when the business of the company so increased as
tent to use it for terminal grounds and side tracks
to render such facilities necessary, but it was not
being so used at the time of the accident. Held,
that the company was liable, the indefinite intent
to use the ground for a public purpose not being
sufficient to relieve the company from the duty to
fence its track as required by statute.-Cox v. Min-
924.
41 Minn. 101.
231. Laws 1872, c. 25, §§ 1, 2, compelling rail-neapolis, S. S. M. & A. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W.
roads to build proper cattle-guards and fences,
will be presumed to apply to a company operat-
ing under a special charter, (not a public act,)
unless a charter provision excepting it from the
operation of such section is pleaded and proved.
Whittier v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 24
Minn. 394.
Waiver by abutting owner.
232. Where the owner of lands lying on a rail-
road agrees that the company need not build the
fence required by Laws 1872, c. 25, he cannot re-
cover for injuries to his cattle resulting from the
omission of the company to build such fence.
Whittier v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 24
Minn. 394.
Streets in cities and villages.
233. Where a railroad company occupies a pub-
lic street in a city or village, subject to the public
easement, it is not entitled to fence its track, and
thereby obstruct the street, and interfere with its
use; and it is therefore not liable for stock killed
because of a failure to so fence its track.-Rippe
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N.˜Ŵ.
652.
42 Minn. 34.
234. The mere fact that a railroad is within the
limits of an incorporated village does not exempt
the company from the statutory duty of inclosing
the track, where practicable, by fences and cattle-
guards.-La Paul v. Truesdale, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
363.
44 Minn. 275.
Depot grounds.
I
235. It is the duty of a company to erect and
maintain suitable fences and guards to prevent do-
mestic animals fro passing over or through the
depot grounds, onto the track, beyond the limits
of such grounds.-Kobe v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 32 N. W. 783.*
36 Minn. 518.
Distinguished in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40
N. W. 614, 39 Minn. 486.
|
238. Failure to fence the track, at a point some
distance from the depot, is not excused by proof
merely that some freight was received and dis-
charged at the place in question.-Moser v. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 44 N. W. 530.
Sufficiency of fence.
42 Minn. 480.
viding that railroad companies shall be liable for
239. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 55, pro-
ligence, and that a failure to build fences, as re-
domestic animals killed or injured by their neg-
quired by the statute, shall be deemed an act of
negligence, a company is liable for the killing of
an animal whenever the building and maintain-
ing of a fence would have prevented the accident,
regardless of the species of such animal. In the
case of small animals the question whether a
fence would have prevented the accident may be
a question of fact for the jury.-Halverson v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 19 N. W. 392, 32
Minn. 88; Wessbecher v. Same, 19 N. W. 393, 32
Minn. 89.
240. In an action against a railway company for
the killing of plaintiff's hogs, through its alleged
negligence in failing to fence its road, the issue
of fact was whether, having reference to the size
of the animals, they would have been restrained
by a lawful fence. Held, there being evidence
that the animals might have been turned by a
legal fence, had it existed, a finding for plaintiff
should be sustained.-Schimmele v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 347, 34 Minn. 216.
241. In an action against a railway company
for the killing, by one of its trains, of plaintiff's
colts, there was evidence tending to show that
the colts went on defendant's right of way from
the pasture where they were kept, through bars
forming part of a fence, which had been built
about six years; and it appeared that the bars
were poplar poles, from two to four inches in
diameter, and were about four feet high, and
that on the morning after the colts were killed
the two top poles were found broken, and to be
1653
1654
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. f.
half rotten. Held, that this was sufficient to
sustain a finding by the jury of negligence on the
part of the railway company in respect to main-
taining the fence. -Hovorka v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 595, 34 Minn. 281.
Repairing fence-Notice of defects.
242. An instruction that a railroad company
must maintain a sufficient fence at all times is not
error, where the court also charges that when the
company has once properly fenced its line negli-
gence cannot be imputed to it until it has a rea-
sonable time to make repairs after reasonable no-
tice of defects. -Varco v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 921, 30 Minn. 18.
243. Evidence that a fence along a railroad
track had been broken for two or three weeks is
sufficient to raise a presumption of notice to the
railroad company in an action for injuries to cat-
tle on the track. -Varco v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 921, 30 Minn. 18.
244. In a statutory action against a railroad
company for the value of animals killed on its
track by a passing train, having passed on the
track through a gate in the fence along the rail-
road, a request for an instruction telling the jury,
in effect, that an inspection of the fence by the
railroad company once every two days was a suffi-
cient exercise of diligence, was properly refused.
The question was one for the jury, with refer-
ence to the circumstances of the case. -Evans v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 16 N. W. 271, 30 Minn.
489.
245. In an action against a railroad company
for killing plaintiff's cattle, which had gotten
upon its right of way through a defective fence
between it and plaintiff's land, the evidence
showed that the fence nad been broken down
and in part carried away by ice and water about
the middle of April, and remained in that con-
dition until May 22d following, when the acci-
dent occurred, and that defendant, though it had
notice of its condition in the mean time, made no
effort to repair it. Defendant claimed that it
could not repair it by reason of the high water,
but there was evidence tending to show that the
water had subsided, and was, for a considerable
time before the accident, but a few inches in
depth, so that posts could have been driven and
wires strung thereon. Held, that defendant's
negligence was a question for the jury.-Graves
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 474.
47 Minn. 429.
->
company, and the company, with his assent or
acquiescence, adopts the fence, it is the duty of
the company to maintain the fence in good con-
dition. Following Hovorka v. Railway Co, 17
N. W. 376, 31 Minn. 221.-Hoverka v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 595, 34 Minn.
281.
Čattle-guards.
248. Where it appeared that the horses in ques-
tion got upon the track in consequence of a defect-
ive cattle-guard, the timbers of which had become
so rotten and decayed that the cross-bars had be-
come loose and out of place, and the pit partially
filled up with sand, held sufficient to support a ver-
dict for plaintiff.-Miller v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 30 N. W. 892.*
36 Minn. 296.
249. Reasonable care and diligence do not re-
quire a railway company, unless under excep-
tional and extraordinary circumstances, to re-
move natural accumulations of ice and snow from
the cattle-guards constructed on its railroad..
Blais v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 24 N. W.
558, 34 Minn. 57; Stacey v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 43 N. W. 905, 42 Minn. 158.
Farm crossings.
250. In an action for the killing of plaintiff's
cattle by a locomotive on defendant's railroad, it
appeared that defendant's track was fenced as
required by law, but that the fence had been
opened on both sides thereof, under an agreement
between plaintiff and defendant, for the purpose
that defendant was bound to use only reasonable
of affording a crossing for plaintiff's cattle. Held,
diligence in approaching the crossing to discover
whether plaintiff's cattle were on the track, and,
if discovered there, to use all reasonable meas-
ures to avoid injuring them; but that defendant
was not bound to slack the speed of its train in
approaching the crossing.-Whittier v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. R. Co., 5 N. W. 372, 26 Minn. 484.
251. The provision in Gen. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 98,
§ 4, that railroad companies may furnish land-
owners with locks for gates at farm crossings, is
permissive, and not mandatory; and in case no
such locks are furnished, the question of the neg-
ligence of the corporation in any particular case,
as respects the opening or closing of such gates,
or their being securely fastened, is open for in-
vestigation, and is not affected by the statutory
provision referred to.-Sather v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 41 N. W. 458, 40 Minn. 91.
252. Plaintiff's colt escaped upon the track dur-
Adoption of fence built by land- ing the night at a farm crossing. The track was
owner.
246. Where the owner of land adjoining a rail-
way, in the absence of any agreement therefor,
builds and maintains the fence between his land
and the railway which the railway company is
required by statute to build and maintain the
company is not liable for injuries to domestic
animals upon the track, as in case of a failure
to perform the duty to fence imposed by the
statute.-Hoverka v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 17 N. W. 376, 31 Minn. 221.
247. Where the owner of land builds a fence
along the adjoining right of way of a railroad
fenced and the crossing provided with a gate, as
required by law, but there was no lock on the gate.
Defendant's employes testified that they fastened
the gate on the night in question as they went
home from their work, but that it was open the
next morning. The owner of the field into which
the gate opened testified that on that night he
"left it open, intending to return soon. Held,
that defendant was not liable.-Sather v. Chica-
go, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41 N. W. 458, 40 Minn.
91.
">
Negligence in management of train.
253. Where the track of a railroad company is
not fenced, and it is not obliged by law to fence,
1655
1656
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. f.
as against cattle unlawfully on its track, it will
be held to no greater degree of care than a rail
road whose track is fenced.-Locke v. First Div.
St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
254. Where the law requires the owner of cat-
tle to keep them on his inclosure, the engineer of
a train has a right to presume that they will be |
kept there, and is under no obligation, so far as
the owner of the cattle is concerned, to keep a
lookout for cows on or near the track.-Locke v.
First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil..
283.)
255. A railroad company is bound to use the
same care to prevent injury to a cow unlawfully
on its track that a prudent man, owning the ani
mal and the train, would use to prevent injury to
either.-Locke v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co.,
15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
Distinguished in Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 16 N. W. 537, 31 Minn. 92.
there is no duty of watchfulness on the part of
those in charge of its trains to ascertain if the ani-
mal be there, and that their duty of care with re-
spect to it arises only upon their discovering its
peril, applies as well in the case of an animal
wrongfully upon a highway at a railroad crossing.
Palmer v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 33 N.
W. 707.
37 Minn. 223.
262. Where cattle lawfully on a highway are
killed by an engine at the crossing, evidence that
the train men omitted to ring a bell or blow a
whistle before reaching the crossing, as required
by Sp. Laws Minn. c. 1, § 16, is competent.-Palm-
er v. St. Paul & D. R. Co, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 100.
38 Minn. 415.
263. Where plaintiff's cattle at the time they es-
caped upon defendant's track and were killed were
running at large in violation of the law, and the
cattle-guard was not in an unlawful or forbidden
condition, defendant's servants, engaged in operat-
trespassing by looking ahead, or by managing a
train with reference to such a contingency.-Stacey
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 905.
42 Minn. 158.
Cause of injury.
256. Plaintiff's cow was killed at a point on
defendant's railroad where the view of such pointing its trains, were not bound to anticipate such
and the grounds on either side thereof for 30
rods was unobstructed to an approaching train
for a distance of 60 rods; the train passing,
when the cow was killed, at its usual speed.
Held, the cow being unlawfully on the track,
that the burden was still on plaintiff to show that
after defendant's agents discovered the cow on
the track the killing could have been avoided
by the exercise of proper care. -Locke v. First
Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
257. An owner of domestic animals, who,
through his own fault or negligence, permits
such animals to stray upon a railroad track,
upon a railroad track,
takes all reasonable risks of their being injured
by passing trains, but the railroad company must
use reasonable care to avoid injuring them.
Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 24
Minn. 410.
258. Reasonable care to avoid injury to animals
by a railroad train is such care as a prudent
man, owning both train and animals, would take,
with proper regard for both.-Witherell v. Mil-
waukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 410.
|
264. In an action against a railroad company
for the death of plaintiff's horse, alleged to have
been caused by a collision with defendant's
locomotive, the only evidence to sustain plain-
tiff's claim was that his horse was found dead
near defendant's track, but there were no wounds
on it or marks indicating a collision. Held,
that a verdict for plaintiff would be set aside as
not supported by the evidence.-Jenicke v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 7 N. W. 363, 27
Minn. 359.
265. A mule belonging to plaintiff escaped from
him without his fault, and ran upon defendant's
railroad at a place where it crossed plaintiff's
land, and was not fenced, and, while running
along the railroad track, set its foot into a small
hole in the soil between the ties, about the size
of its foot, and in some way not otherwise ex-
plained broke its leg. Held, that such injury
was not the natural and proximate consequence
of defendant's neglect to fence its road, and that
therefore defendant was not liable in damages
therefor, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 55,
requiring railroad companies to fence their roads,
and making them liable for domestic animals
killed or injured by their negligence, and declar-
Distinguishing Donaldson v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. ing that "a failure to build and maintain
fences, as above provided, shall be deemed an act
Distinguished in Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.of negligence on the part of such companies.
Nelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 14 N. W.
360, 30 Minn. 74.
259. A railroad company, while not bound to
presume that animals will be upon its track, is
bound to use reasonable care to avoid injuring
them, and is not authorized to willfully or care-
lessly injure stock that may stray upon the track.
Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 24
Minn. 410.
Co., 21 Minn. 293.
·Co., 16 N. W. 537, 31 Minn. 92.
260. Where domestic animals stray upon a
railroad track, if a passing train cannot be
stopped after they are discovered, in time to pre-
vent injury to them, without endangering the
safety of the train, the duty of the railroad com-
pany to preserve the safety of the train is par-
amount to their duty to avoid injury to the ani-
mals.-Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.,
24 Minn. 410.
261. The rule that in case of an animal trespass-
ing on the track, without the fault of the company,
* *
""
266. While plaintiff was traveling in his sleigh
along a highway beside defendant's railroad, at a
place where it was not fenced, his horses became
frightened at a train passing on the railroad, got
beyond his control, and ran away from him upon
and along the track, and into a culvert, a part of
the railroad, and one of them was killed and the
other injured. Held, that the finding of a jury
that the accident was one that might reasonably
have been anticipated as a result of the failure
1657
1658
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. f.
to fence the railroad should be sustained.-Maher | Contributory negligence-Animals run-
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 N. W. 105, 31
Minn. 401:
ning at large.
272. It is prima facie contributory negligence
for one to voluntarily allow a valuable horse to
in the immediate vicinity of unfenced railroad
run at large in the public streets, contrary to law,
tracks.-Moser v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.).
44 N. W. 530.
42 Minn. 480.
267. A railroad company had inclosed its line of
road with a barb-wire fence, except a gateway
into plaintiff's field, which it had negligently
left open. Plaintiff's horses escaped through the
gate-way upon the right of way of the railroad
company, and were there suddenly frightened by
an approaching hand-car, running in the usual way,
273. Cattle roaming upon a highway without re-
and ran back into the wire fence with great viostraint, though upon their owner's premises, are
lence, and were seriously injured. Held, that at large within the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. c.
the question was properly left to the jury 90, § 16, subd. 6, prohibiting cattle from being al-
whether the horses were exposed to this danger lowed to go at large between the months of Octo-.
through the neglect of the company to complete ber and April.-Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. L..
its fence, and that the court could not say, as Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 152.
matter of law, that the alleged cause was too re-
mote.-Savage v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
18 N. W. 272, 31 Minn. 419.
268. In an action against a railroad company for
killing stock, where the evidence does not conclu-
sively show that a lawful fence would not have
prevented the stock from getting on the track, it
is for the jury to find whether the failure of de-
fendant to maintain a lawful fence was the cause
of the injury.-Alexander v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 481.
41 Minn. 515.
Contributory negligence-Land not suf-
ficiently fenced.
269. A railroad company, which constructs and
operates its road through land by license from
the owner, but without acquiring the right of
way, is liable for injury to his cattle on the land
without any other negligence of the company than
in not preventing the cattle getting upon the
track; the law as to fencing being inapplicable.
-Mathews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn.
434, (Gil. 392.)
270. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 55,
which provides that "all railroad companies
shall be liable for domestic animals killed or
injured by the negligence of such companies, and
a failure to build and maintain cattle-guards
and fences, as above provided, [section 54,] shall
be deemed an act of negligence on the part of
such companies," it is not negligence for the
owner of land adjoining a railroad, which has
not been fenced by the company, to allow his
cattle to range on such land. Schubert v. Min
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 7 N. W. 366, 27 Minn.
360; Holtz v. Same, 13 N. W. 147, 29 Minn. 384;
Evans v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 16 N. W. 271,
30 Minn. 489.
271. In an action against a railway company
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 56, for the
value of a domestic animal killed on defendant's
track, evidence that plaintiff permitted the ani-
mal to run at large in his pasture, as usual, after
previous notice that it had frequently passed
through defendant's railroad fence, which was
defective and insufficient, and through which the
animal finally escaped on the track and was killed,
is not sufficient to establish contributory negli-
gence, as matter of law, on plaintiff's part.
Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 13 N.
W. 673, 29 Minn. 425.
43 Minn. 207.
274. Where a city ordinance authorizes cows.
to run at large, it is not, per se, negligence for
an owner of a cow to turn her into the street,
even though she is likely to stray upon a rail.
road crossing; and the railroad company is, in
such cases, bound to use reasonable care to avoid
injury, having regard to the fact that the cow
is not a rational being.-Fritz v. First Div. St..
Paul & P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 404.
Animals trespassing.
275. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, providing
that if any railroad company fails to fence its
tracks it "shall hereafter be liable for all dam-
ages sustained by any person in consequence of
such failure," it is no defense, in an action for
injuries to plaintiff's cattle which have strayed
on defendant's track in consequence of defend-
ant's failure to construct fences, that the cattle
were trespassers on the land from which they
went on the track.-Gillam v. Sioux City & St.
P. R. Co., 3 N. W. 353, 26 Minn. 268.
276. Railway companies being required by
statute to maintain fences and cattle guards,
not only as respects cattle of adjoining owners,
but all domestic animals, whether trespassing
or otherwise, merely permitting such an animal
to run at large, in violation of a special act
prohibiting it in certain towns, and making per-
sons violating its provisions liable for trespasses.
by such animals, does not constitute negligence
on the part of the owner, contributing to an in-
jury to the animal, caused by its entering a rail-
way company's right of way through a defective
fence. Following Gillam v. Railroad Co., 26
Minn. 268.-Watier v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 16 N. W. 537, 31 Minn. 91.
Distinguishing Locke v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15.
Minn. 350. (Gil. 283;) Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry.
Co., 24 Minn. 410.
Actions-Pleading and proof.
277. In an action for killing plaintiff's horse,
where the evidence shows that, by reason of neg-
lect to fence the railroad, the horse went on the
track, fell into a railroad bridge, and in some way
was killed, there is no material variance or defect
of proof, although the complaint alleges that the
horse was killed in being taken out of the bridge.
-Moser v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 44 N. W.
530.
42 Minn. 480.
1659
1660
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. f., g.
278. In an action against a railroad company to
recover the value of domestic animals killed on
defendant's track, evidence that the fences on
each side of the track had become very poor in
places, and insufficient as a protection against
cattle, is sufficient to support a finding of neg-
ligence on the part of the company; and it may
reasonably be inferred therefrom that plain-
tiff's animals escaped from the adjoining prem-
ises, where they were kept, through some of
the openings in the fence, upon the track.
Holtz v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 13 N. W.
147, 29 Minn. 384.
279. Evidence that, on a certain day, the timbers
of a cattle-guard were so rotten that the "cross-
bars" had become loose and out of place, and that
the "pit" had become partially filled up with sand,
is admissible to prove that it was in the same de-
fective condition on the day previous.-Miller v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.) 30 N. W. 892.*
36 Minn. 296.
280. Plaintiff offered evidence, in an action to
recover damages for killing his cow at a cross-
ing, that the train passed the crossing at its usual
hour, without slacking its speed, which evidence
was received. Held objectionable, as leaving the
jury to conjecture as to the speed of the train.-
Locke v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Mina.
350, (Gil. 283.)
Actions-Costs.
281. To entitle a plaintiff to extra or double costs
under chapter 34, § 56, Gen. St. Minn. 1878, relat-
ing to the killing of stock by railroad companies,
the action should not be commenced until after the
expiration of the 30 days allowed the railroad com-
pany to pay or tender the actual damages.-Hooper
v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 33 N.
W. 314.
37 Minn. 52.
g. Fires.
| being established by plaintiff, it is not sufficient
to disprove such negligence to show that the en-
gine was of approved construction, and was op-
erated by a skillful fireman and engineer, in the
customary manner, without also showing that the
customary manner was a careful one.-Woodson
v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 60.
285. Where a fire is kindled by sparks from a loco-
motive, a presumption of negligence arises, which
may be met and overcome by satisfactory proof
that the engine was properly constructed and man-
aged, and in suitable repair; and, if the uncontra-
dicted evidence on the part of the railway company
shows that it has fully performed its duty in these
ted, and evidence of negligence other than the bare
respects, the presumption of negligence is rebut-
fact that the fire was set by the engine is neces-
sary, in order to warrant a verdict for plaintiff in
an action for damages caused by the fire.-Daly v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 611.
43 Minn. 319.
286. In an action against a railway company
alleged to have been caused by one of defendant's
for the destruction of plaintiff's property by fire,
engines, there was evidence sufficient to justify
the jury in finding that the fire was started by
sparks or cinders from defendant's locomotive.
Held, that to rebut the statutory presumption of
negligence thereby raised, it was incumbent on
defendant to rebut every negligent act or omis-
sion which might, under the circumstances, rea-
sonably or naturally have caused the fire.-Nel-
son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 28 N. W.
215, 35 Minn. 170.
nicated from an engine on defendant's railroad,
287. In an action for damages by fire, commu-
the only witness as to the condition of the en
gine testified that he examined it in the morning
of the day on which the fire occurred, and that
it was in good condition; but his testimony was
to a great extent based on an entry of his report
made by another person; and other witnesses
Statutory presumption of negligence for defendant testified that the escape of fire
Burden of proof.
from such an engine indicated that something
282. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 60, making about the engine was out of order. Held, that
the fact that fire was scattered or thrown from the jury were justified in finding that the stat-
an engine of a railway company prima facie evi-utory presumption of negligence under Gen. St.
dence of defect in the engine or negligence on
the part of the employes of the railway company,
does not change the character of the issue in an
action for damages caused by such fire, but the
existence of negligence on the part of the com-
pany or defects in its engine remains the issue.
-Mahoney v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29 N.
W. 6, 35 Minn. 361.
283. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 60,
making the fact that fire has been scattered by
an engine prima facie evidence of negligence by
the railroad company, where the fact of setting
the fire has been established, the burden of proof
is on the company to show that it was not negli-
gent either as to the construction, condition, or
manner of operating the engine.-Karson v. Mil-
waukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 11 N. W. 122, 29 Minn.
12; Sibelrud v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 11
N. W. 146, 29 Minn. 58.
Evidence to rebut.
284. In an action for damages caused by fire from
a locomotive, a prima facie case of negligence
Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 60, from the fact of fire scat-
tered by an engine, was not rebutted.-Karson v.
Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 11 N. W. 122, 29
Minn. 12.
288. In an action for damages by fire communi-
cated from an engine on defendant's railroad,
there was testimony tending to show that the
engine. Held, that the jury were justified in find-
fire was caused by a large coal thrown from the
ing that the statutory presumption of negligence
from such fact, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34,
§ 60, was not rebutted by testimony that the en-
gine was in proper condition, that the engineer
was competent for his place, and that he man-
aged the engine to the best of his ability. Sibel-
rud v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 11 N. W.
146, 29 Minn. 58.
289. In an action for loss by fire, caused by
sparks escaping from defendant's locomotive,
there was evidence that the volume of sparks
thrown out of an engine depends on the manner
in which it is worked, and that on this occasion
1661
1662
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. g.
a very unusual volume of sparks was discharged. I
Besides conflicting evidence as to the quantity of
sparks, the only other evidence to rebut plain-
tiff's proof and the statutory presumption of neg-
ligence raised in such cases by Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 34, § 60, was the opinion of the engineer
that he handled the engine very carefully; and
he further testified that he did not operate the
engine differently from what he usually did, al-
though on this occasion a very high wind was
prevailing. Held, that whether the engine was
managed in a careful and prudent manner was
for the jury to determine.-Johnson v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 N. W. 488, 31 Minn. 57.
290. In an action against a railroad company for
damage from fire which started and spread from
defendant's right of way, under circumstances
tending to prove that the fire was caused by de-
fendant's locomotive, the person whose duty it
was to inspect the fire apparatus of defendant's
engines testified that he inspected the engine in
question on the morning after the fire, and that
it was properly constructed and in good order,
and particularly that the smoke-stack was so
protected as to be entirely safe if the engine was
properly managed; and the fireman of the engine
testified that at the time of the fire there was
nothing unusual in its management, and that it
was operated in a proper manner. Held, that
this was not sufficient to rebut conclusively the
statutory presumption of negligence on defend-
ant's part, but the question was for the jury
to consider.-Sibley v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21
N. W. 732, 32 Minn. 526.
+
291. An expert witness for the defendant, testi-
fying that, with the appliances in use to prevent
such accidents, the fire could not have been so
caused, unless the engine had been out of repair,
considered in connection with the statutory pre-
sumption of negligence, justify a verdict against
defendant, though other evidence tended to show
that the engine was provided with the best appli-
ances; that they were in good order; and that the
engineer and fireman were competent.-Dean v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Minn.) 40 N. W.
270.*
39 Minn. 413.
was shown that a high wind was blowing at the
time, and that there was a quantity of combustible
material along the right of way. Held, that a find-
ing that the locomotive was not operated with due
care and skill on this occasion was warranted by
the evidence. -Hayes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 47 N. W. 260.
45 Minn. 17.
294. In an action in Minnesota to recover for
property destroyed by a fire set by a railroad loco-
motive, a verdict involving a finding of negligence
in the operation of the locomotive is sustained, in
view of the statutory presumption of negligence,
where defendant fails to show whether the damp-
ers, 10 inches wide and 4 feet long, at the front
and rear of the ash-pan beneath the fire-box, or
either of them, were closed.-Cantlon v. Eastern
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 22.
45 Minn. 481.
Combustible matter on right of way.
295. The fact that a railway runs through a
prairie country, with wild grass on its right of
way and adjacent thereto, does not, as matter of
law, relieve it of the duty to cut such wild grass
on its right of way, in order to prevent fire,
which may escape from its engines, from com-
municating to property of others adjoining its
right of way.-Sibelrud v. Minneapolis & St. L.
R. Co., 11 N. W. 146, 29 Minn. 58.
combustible materials to accumulate and remain
296. Evidence that a railway company allowed
upon its land, liable to be ignited by sparks from
its engines, and to communicate fire to property
finding of a jury of negligence on its part.
on adjoining land, is sufficient to sustain the
Clarke v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 23
N. W. 536, 33 Minn. 359; Swingler v. Same, Id.
297. Evidence showed that the railroad company
left standing on its right of way, but separated
from its track some 20 feet by a burned-out ditch,
timothy stubble and aftermath from one and a
half to four inches high. Held, that the question
of defendant's negligence was for the jury. GIL-
FILLAN, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., dissenting.-Bowen
v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., (Minn.) 32 N. W. 751.
36 Minn. 522.
Cause of fire.
298. A fire broke out on defendant's line of road
about 15 feet from the end of the ties, soon after
the passing of a train, and spread to plaintiff's
adjoining premises. There was no direct evi-
dence as to the cause of the fire, or as to the
condition or management of the engine, but plain-
tiff's witnesses testified that a high wind was
292. In an action for the value of property de
stroyed by a fire admitted to have been set out by
one of defendant's locomotives, to rebut the statu-
tory presumption of negligence defendant intro-
duced evidence showing that the locomotive was
in perfect condition the day after the fire set. The
engineer and fireman testified that so far as they
knew the engine was in perfect order. The former
had only made a cursory examination of the engine
while oiling it, and the latter while cleaning out
the hopper and ash-pan. They also testified that
the locomotive was properly handled and man-blowing, that coals were found where the fire
aged. Held, that the evidence was not conclusive
to rebut the presumption of negligence but its
sufficiency was for the jury.—Houman v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 608.
43 Minn. 334.
293. The locomotive by which it was alleged that
a fire was set had all proper and improved appli-
ances to prevent the escape of fire, and the en-
gine-driver testified that he ran it with the usual
care and skill, there being nothing to show that he
was not ordinarily a careful and skillful hand. It
originated, though there was nothing but grass
growing there, and that several fires broke out
along the line of the track shortly after the pas-
sage of the train, and that one engine would
scatter coals at times with forward damper open
and rear one shut. Held, that there was evidence
sufficient to go to the jury that the fire was
caused by the engine, and that it was in a de-
fective or imperfect condition, or negligently
operated; and that it was not necessary for
plaintiff to show affirmatively, by direct evidence,
defects in the engine or negligence in its manage
1663
1664
RAILROAD COMPANIES, VIII. g.
ment.-Woodson v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., | ants of the railway company in setting fire to
21 Minn. 60.
299. Evidence tending to show that a fire
started in the grass near to leeward of a railroad
track a few minutes after an engine had passed,
and that no person or other fire than that of the
engine was in the vicinity at the time, is suffi-
cient to justify the jury in finding that the fire
was set by the engine.-Karson v. Milwaukee &
St. P. Ry. Co. 11 N. W. 122, 29 Minn. 12.
300. Evidence that fire started in a field about 60
dry grass on its right of way, the owner of such
property is not chargeable with contributory
negligence in failing to take precaution to pro-
tect it against fire. -Lindsay v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 13 N. W. 191, 29 Minn. 411.
306. Plaintiff's omission to plow around his hay
stacks, and thus protect them from running fires,
does not constitute negligence per se. -Hoffman v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 301.
40 Minn. 60.
feet north of a railroad, immediately after the pass-Actions-Admissibility of evidence.
ing of a locomotive, while a strong wind was blow-
ing from the south; that no persons were about;
and that there was no apparent cause except the
passing engine,-is sufficient to justify the conclu-
sion that the fire was set by the engine.-Dean v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 40 N. W. 270
39 Minn. 413.
301. The evidence showed that immediately on
the passing of defendant's train, before it was out
of sight, a small fire was seen 150 feet from de-
fendant's track; that it spread rapidly in the di-
rection of plaintiff's hay, which was soon burned.
No one was seen in the vicinity of the place where
the fire started. Held, that the evidence justified
a verdict for plaintiff.-Hoffman v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 301.
40 Minn. 60.
302. In an action against a railroad company
for burning plaintiff's buildings, it was shown
that the fire was discovered shortly after defend-
ant's train passed, about 60 feet from its track,
and that a high wind caused it to spread in the
direction of plaintiff's premises. One witness tes-
tified that the engine scattered fire from its ash-
pan while passing. The train of another company
had passed on an adjoining track about 30 min-
utes before. Held, that the question whether the
fire was caused by defendant's negligence was for
the jury.—Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Minn.)
45 N. W. 1132.
43 Minn. 519.
303. In an action against a railway company
for the destruction of property by fire, alleged
to have been communicated from an engine on
defendant's road, the evidence as to the origin of
the fire was all circumstantial, but, while not
strong or conclusive, it was sufficient to warrant
the jury in finding that the damage was caused
by fire thrown from a passing engine. Held
that, defendant having introduced no evidence
to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence
arising from that fact, a verdict for plaintiff
should be sustained.-Wolff v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 63, 34 Minn. 215.
Contributory negligence.
304. The omission of one whose hay was de-
stroyed by fire set out by a locomotive to plow
around the stacks, so as to prevent fire from
reaching them, is not negligence per se. Whether
it is negligence is a question of fact for the jury.
-Karson v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 11 Ñ.
W. 122, 29 Minn. 12.
307. In an action for damages by fire set by
sparks escaping from a locomotive, evidence of a
"negligent habit" on the part of the railway com-
pany as to the construction and handling of its
engines must be limited to show the prevalence
of such a habit at or about the time of the fire
complained of.-Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 24 N. W. 324, 34 Minn. 51.
308. In an action for damages from fire alleged
to have been kindled by sparks from defendant's
iocomotive, testimony showing frequent fires of
wood-piles along the line of defendant's road is
irrelevant in the absence of any evidence that
such fires were set by defendant's locomotives.—
Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 24 N.
W. 324, 34 Minn. 51.
309. A record of the inspection of locomotives
kept by a person who is employed for the purpose
of making a daily inspection, and ascertaining their
condition, is not evidence of such condition except
under certain contingencies, not appearing in this
case. Usually it can only be used to refresh the
memory of a witness.-Hoffman v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 301.
40 Minn. 60.
310. In an action against a railroad company for
burning property along its road, evidence that
there was combustible material on the right of
way is admissible as bearing upon the degree of
care necessary in operating the locomotive.-Cant-
lon v. Eastern Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 22.
Instructions.
45 Minn. 481.
311. By Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 60, the fact
that the fire was thrown from a railway engine is
made prima facie evidence only of defects in the
engine, and negligence in operating it, and not of
negligence in leaving the right of way in an un-
safe condition. But where the questions of negli-
gence in operating the engine and in leaving com-
bustible matter on the right of way are both in is-
sue, it is not error, as against a mere general ex-
ception, to charge generally that the fact that fire
was scattered from an engine was prima facie
evidence of negligence. Additional instructions
should have been asked.-Bowen v. St. Paul, M. &
M. R. Co., (Minn.) 32 N. W. 751.
Question for jury.
36 Minn. 522.
312. The engine, alleged to have started the fire
which injured plaintiff's property, was what was
known as a "diamond stack." It appeared that
305. Where property on lands adjoining a rail- for at least two years another kind of engine
way is destroyed through negligence of the serv-known as "extension front" had been in general use
1665
· 1666
RAPE.
8. On a trial for rape, evidence on the part
of the prosecution of complaint of the outrage,
made by the prosecutrix directly after the occur-
rence, as well as marks of violence upon her per-
son, is admissible. -State v. Shettleworth, 18
Minn. 208, (Gil. 191.)
on railroads, and that all defendant's other engines | Evidence.
were of this latter pattern. There was evidence
that the apparatus of the "extension front" for
preventing the escape of sparks was better than
that of the "diamond stack," and it was not con-
tended that the "extension fronts" were not equal-
ly serviceable for the purposes of the company, or
that it was not practicable to have used them ex-
clusively. Held, that it was for the jury to say
whether the use of the engine in question was
negligence.-Hoy v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 1117.
46 Minn. 269.
RAPE.
See, also, Indecent Assault, 5, 6.
What constitutes.
1. Where it appears that when the offense was
committed the prosecutrix was rendered uncon-
scious in consequence of the assault and violence
of the defendant, the case falls under Pen. Code
Minn. § 235, subd. 2, "when her resistance is for-
cibly overcome," and not under subdivision 5 of the
same section, "when she is, at the time, uncon-
scious of the nature of the act. "-State v. Reid,
(Minn.) 39 N. W. 798.
39 Minn. 277.
Assault with intent to rape.
9. Upon a trial for rape it is not competent
for the prosecution, as matter in chief, to show
the particulars of the offense as stated by the
prosecutrix on making complaint of the outrage,
or the name of the party she then claimed com-
mitted the offense. -State v. Shettleworth, 18
Minn. 208, (Gil. 191.)
10. On trial of an indictment for rape, declara-
tions of prosecutrix that she could not tell wheth-
er her pregnancy was caused by defendant or an-
other, as she had lain with both, are not admis-
sible as substantive evidence. Prosecutrix, not
being a party to the criminal action, cannot bind
the state by her mere declarations, which are not
a part of the res gestæ -State v. Shettlworth,
18 Minn. 208, (Gil. 191.)
11. On trial of an indictment for rape the pros-
ecution may show the results of a medical and sur-
gical examination of the person of the prosecu-
trix made 12 days after the alleged commission of
the offense.-State v. Teipner, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 678.
36 Minn. 535.
Distinguishing State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 208, (Gil.
2. If a man assault a woman with intent to
have intercourse with her by force, notwithstand- | 191.)
ing her utmost resistance, the crime of assault
with intent to commit rape is complete, and the
jury may convict of such assault, although they
are not satisfied that the subsequent resistance on
the part of the woman was so continued and per-
sistent as to prove the higher crime of rape.-State
v. Bagan, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 5.
Indictment.
41 Minn. 285.
3. Rape being an offense at common law, an
indictment therefor need not conclude with the
words, "against the form of the statute.”—
O'Connell v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
The
4. An indictment for rape which alleges that
the defendant did feloniously ravish is sufficient,
though an assault be not alleged in terms.
use of the word "ravish" implies an assault.-
O'Connell v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
5. The use, in an indictment under Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 94, § 51, punishing "whoever as-
saults any female with intent to commit the crime
of rape,
" of the word "assault" in describing the
offense is a sufficient statement of an act, without
further detail.-State v. Ward, 28 N. W. 192, 35
Minn. 182.
6. The description, in such an indictment, of
the person on whom such assault is alleged to
have been committed, as a "female, " is sufficient,
without adding that she was of the human spe-
cies.-State v. Ward, 28 N. W. 192, 35 Minn. 182.
7. An indictment for assault with intent to
commit rape need not allege the age of the de-
fendant. If he is under the age of competency,
that is matter of defense. -State v. Ward, 28 Ñ.
W. 192, 35 Minn. 182.
V.2M.DIG.-53
N.
12. A statement of her injuries, made by the
prosecutrix to a physician called two days after
the offense, being similar to a statement made to
her sister immediately after the offense, is admis-
sible, although she delayed to make public com-
plaint till the next day.-State v. Reid, (Minn.) 39
N. W. 796.
39 Minn. 277.
13. When the testimony of the prosecutrix is
that the parties were in her room, engaged in con-
versation, when she was surprised and suddenly
overcome, and her mouth stopped, and that she
became unconscious, and received grievous in-
juries, of which she soon after complained to her
sister, the explanation of why no outery was
made after she became conscious is for the jury,
and the judgment will not be set aside for re-
fusal to grant a new trial on defendant's motion,
though he says the prosecutrix was not uncon-
scious.-State v. Reid, 39 N. W. 796, 39 Minn.
277.
14. On an indictment under Pen. Code Minn.
236, for carnally knowing and abusing a child un-
S
der the age of 10 years, where the state has proved
the commission of the offense on the day laid in the
indictment, but it is shown that the child was 10
years old on that day, the state cannot then aban-
don the prosecution, as to that offense, and pro-
ceed to introduce evidence of a similar offense
committed on a previous day, though, under Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 108, § 7, it might, in the first in-
stance, show its commission on a day other than
that laid in the indictment.-State v. Masteller,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 541
45 Minn. 128.
1667
1668
RAPE-REAL PROPERTY.
Verdict-Conviction of lesser or other error prejudicial to defendant.-State v. Vad-
nais, 21 Minn. 382.
offense.
15. Under Comp. St. c. 118, § 20, providing
that upon an indictment for any offense the jury
may find the defendant not guilty of the commis-
sion thereof, and guilty of an attempt to commit
the same, upon an indictment for rape, the jury
may convict of assault with intent to commit
rape.-O'Connell v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
16. In a prosecution for rape, under Pen. Code
Minn. § 235, where the indictment is drawn under
the third subdivision of that section, for rape com-
mitted by preventing the resistance of the female
by fear, defendant cannot be convicted, under the
second subdivision, of rape committed by over-
coming the resistance of the female through force.
-State v. Vorey, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 324.
41 Minn. 134.
17. On an indictment for rape, it is not error to
charge that if the jury are satisfied beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that the defendant committed an as-
sault upon the woman with intent to commit rape
they may convict of an assault in the second de-
gree.-State v. Bagan, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 5.
41 Minn. 285.
18. Upon an indictment for an assault with in-
tent to commit rape, the jury may properly bring
in a verdict of simple assault, under Gen. St.
1866, c. 114, § 18, which provides that on indict.
ment for an offense consisting of different degrees
the jury may find the defendant guilty of an of-
fense inferior in degree to that charged in the
indictment. -State v. Vadnais, 21 Minn. 382.
19. On an indictment for assault with intent
to commit rape, though the evidence tends to
show, and defendant admits, that an actual rape
was committed, the lesser offense is not thereby
merged in the greater, and the jury may find a
verdict for a simple assault.-State v. Vadnais,
21 Minn. 382.
Review.
20. The bill of exceptions on a trial for rape
showed that there was delay on the part of the
prosecutrix in making complaint of the outrage.
Held that, as it did not purport to state all the
testimony on that point, it would be presumed
that there was testimony excusing such delay.-
State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 208, (Gil. 191.)
Distinguished in State v. Teipner, 32 N. W. 679, 36 Minn.
536.
21. Upon a trial for rape, evidence was re-
ceived that some 8 to 10 days after the offense
was committed the prosecutrix seemed down-
hearted and gloomy, as though there was some-
thing she wanted to tell, but dare not. Held,
while not admissible to corroborate her testimony
as to force, it might be admissible, with other
facts, to excuse and explain delay in making
complaint; and, the bill of exceptions not con:
taining all the testimony, it would be presumed
to have been properly admitted for the last-
named purpose.State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn.
208, (Gil. 191.)
22. Where defendant is indicted for an attemp
to commit rape, but is convicted of a simple as-
sault only, the refusal of the court to admit evi-
dence of prior specific acts of unchastity between
the prosecutrix and other persons cannot be held
|
Punishment.
23. The punishment for the offense of assault
with intent to commit rape is determined by Comp.
St. Minn. c. 90, § 40, which authorizes imprison-
ment for 10 years, and not by section 44.-O'Con-
nell v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Ğil. 190.)
Ratification.
By legislature of contract on behalf of state, see
State Prison, 3.
Of action by infant, see Infancy, 22-24.
See
acts of agent, see Factors and Brokers, 10-12;
Principal and Agent, 46–56.
acts of attorney, see Attorney and Client,
16, 17.
alteration of instruments, see Alteration of
Instruments, 10.
contract by infant, see Infancy, 11.
made by state agent, see States and State
Officers, 7, 8.
deed executed under power, see Powers, 21, 22.
invalid or irregular foreclosure sale, see Mort-
gages, 292, 293.
Real Property.
Adverse Possession; Boundaries; Dedica-
tion; Easements; Mechanics' Liens; Property;
Public Lands.
Abstracts of title to, see Abstracts of Title.
Actions concerning, see Adverse Claim; Eject-
ment; Forcible Entry and Detainer; Partition;
Quieting Title; Specific Periormance; Tres-
pass; Waste.
Attachment of, see Attachment, 46-50.
Condemnation for public use, see Eminent Do-
main.
Contracts relating to, see Frauds, Statute of;
Specific Performance; Vendor and Purchaser.
Conveyances, see Covenants; Deed; Fraudulent
Conveyances; Vendor and Purchaser.
Dangerous premises, see Negligence.
Devises, see Wills.
Estates, see Descent and Distribution; Dower;
Estates: Homestead; Husband and Wife;
Landlord and Tenant; Tenancy in Common
and Joint Tenancy; Wills.
Fences, see Fences.
Exchange, see Exchange of Property, 3-9.
Fixtures, see Fixtures.
Inheritance, see Descent and Distribution.
Injuries to, see Damages, 57-64.
Jurisdiction of actions involving title, see Courts,
23-25.
Limitation of actions relating to, see Limitation
Of decedent, see Executors and Administrators,
of Actions, 11-13.
32-37.
Power of county to take and hold, see Counties,
65-67.
of national banks to take and hold, see Banks
and Banking, 30-33.
Presumption as to ownership and possession, see
Evidence, 19, 20.
Removal of lateral support, see Adjoining Land-
Owners.
1669
1670
REASONABLE-RECEIVERS.
Replevin for property severed from land, see Receiver of the property and effects of a debtor cor-
plevin, 2-5.
Taxation, see Taxation, 18-23, 86–175.
Title to, see Conflict of Laws, 1.
poration, when an execution against the corpora-
tion has been returned unsatisfied, the return of
the execution unsatisfied by the sheriff is conclu-
Venue in actions concerning, see Venue in Civil sive so long as it remains of record in force, and
Cases, 5.
Reasonable.
Doubt, see Criminal Law, 91, 92, 108-111.
Regulation by carriers, see Carriers, 2, 13, 14.
by city ordinance, see Municipal Corpora-
tions, 43-53.
Time for removal of goods from warehouse of car-
rier, see Carriers, 25, 26.
Receiptors.
cannot be collaterally assailed by inquiries into
the conduct of the officer in executing it, or into
the existence of any property which he might
have levied on by virtue of it.-Spooner v. Bay St.
Louis Syndicate, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 848.
44 Minn. 401.
4. In an action tried before a referee, he re-
ported that a receiver should be appointed for
the purpose of selling certain logs in defendant's
possession, and to raise a certain sum to be ap-
plied on certain debts, and defendant offered to
apply that amount as therein directed. Held,
that the denial of an application for the appoint-
new the motion for a receiver for other purposes,
was not improper.-Grant v. Webb, 21 Minn. 39.
See Attachment, 37, 38; Sheriffs and Constables, 4. ment of such receiver, without prejudice to re-
Receipts.
See Payment: Release and Discharge.
For payment of taxes, see Taxation, 66, 67.
Parol evidence to explain or contradict, see Evi-
dence, 336-343.
Warehouse receipts, see Warehousemen, 1–3.
RECEIVERS.
Custody of goods.
5. An order directing the appointment of a
receiver for goods does not place them in custodia
legis until the receiver is actually appointed,
until which time such goods are liable to dis-
tress or levy.-Dutcher v. Culver, 24 Minn. 584.
Sales.
6. On a sale of real estate by the receiver of
partnership assets, the purchaser refused to carry
Appeal from refusal to appoint, see Appeal and out his contract because a relcase of certain rights
Error, 69.
Foreign receiver, see Action, 3, 4.
In insolvency, see Insolvency, 28-38, 64-69, 72-78.
supplementary proceedings, see Execution,
155-157; Fraudulent Conveyances, 81.
Of insolvent corporation, see Corporations, 166.
partnership, see Partnership, 76.
railroad companies, see Railroad Companies,
146-150.
Appointment.
1. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 29, which pro-
Vides that "a mortgage of real property is not to be
deemed a conveyance, so as to enable the owner of
the mortgage to recover the real property without
a foreclosure," does not abrogate the power of the
court to appoint a receiver in an action of foreclos-
ure, when that becomes necessary for the protec-
tion of such equitable rights of the mortgagee as
do not rest upon the common-law principle that a
legal estate is transferred.-Lowell v. Doe, (Minn.)
46 N. W. 297.
44 Minn. 144.
2. A receiver was properly appointed for hotel
property at the instance of the mortgagee, where it
appeared that the mortgagors had closed it, though
the business was especially lucrative; that the
property would be depreciated thereby so as to be
an insufficient security; that the debtors were in-
solvent; that the insurance stipulated to be main-
tained was jeopardized by the disuse; and that
taxes were allowed to become delinquent contrary
to stipulation.-Lowell v. Doe, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
297.
44 Minn. 144.
3. In an action brought under Gen. St. Minn.
c. 76, § 9, providing for the appointment of a re-
|
of dower in favor of the wives of the partners
was not secured by the receiver. Held, that the
rule caveat emptor applied, and that the pur-
chaser would be required to complete his con-
tract.-Barron v. Mullin, 21 Minn. 374.
7. A purchaser from a receiver may object to
the confirmation of the report of the sale, but
where he fails so to object, and especially where
he consents to such report, he will be deemed to
have adopted the same, and cannot afterwards ob-
that the report failed to include property pur-
ject to carrying out his contract, on the ground
chased.-Barron v. Mullin, 21 Minn. 374.
chased. -Barron v. Mullin, 21 Minn. 374.
8. An order directing the sale of "all the as-
sets, property, and business" of an insolvent
corporation does not authorize the sale of causes
of action which the receiver might have enforced
only in the right of the creditors; and therefore
such sale did not transfer the right to sue the
stockholders for capital withdrawn in the shape
of unearned dividends. Minnesota Thresher
Manuf'g Co. v. Langdon, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 310.
44 Minn. 37.
Redemption from sale.
9. Where an execution against a corporation
has been returned unsatisfied, and the court has,
pursuant to the statute, (Gen. Laws Minn. 1878,
c. 76,) appointed a receiver of all the property of
the insolvent corporation in order to convert the
same into money for the payment of its debts, a
creditor of the corporation, who recovers judgment
against it after the property is thus taken in cus-
todia legis, has no right to redeem real estate sold
by the receiver under direction of the court.-Wat-
kins v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., (Minn.)
42 N. W. 862.
41 Minn. 150.
1671
1672
RECEIVERS-REFERENCE.
Compensation.
10. Where the appointment of a receiver is for
the benefit of all parties to an action, they should
share the expenses; and, in the absence of facts
justifying such course, it is error to charge the
whole of the receiver's compensation to one of
the parties only.-Johnson v. Garrett, 23 Minn.
565.
11. Where the receiver of an insolvent corpo-
ration has no assets in his hands, it is not error to
discharge him upon the application of those at
whose instance he was appointed, without making
payment of his compensation and charges a con-
dition precedent to the discharge. Joslyn v.
Athens Coach & Car Co., (Minn.) 46 N. W. 77.
43 Minn. 534.
Actions by.
Vendi
12. Upon an adjudication of the insolvency of a
corporation, and the appointment of a receiver of
its property and effects under Gen. St. Minn. c. 76,
the right to recover capital withdrawn in the guise
of unearned dividends paid to the stockholders,
passes to the receiver as representing all the cred-
itors, and the right of the creditors under chapter
34, § 139, to maintain such an action, is suspended
during the receivership. Minnesota Thresher
Manuf'g Co. v. Langdon, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 310.
44 Minn. 37.
Reception Books.
See Register of Deeds.
Recitals.
In deeds, see Dedication, 9, 10.
See Bail.
Recognizance.
In habeas corpus proceedings, see Habeas Cor-
pus, 7, 8.
Of witness, see Witness, 109, 110.
RECORDS.
Estoppel by, see Estoppel, 19–23.
Judicial notice, see Evidence, 10.
Notice to purchasers, see Vendor and Purchaser,
150-161.
Of assignment for benefit of creditors, see As-
signment for Benefit of Creditor, 33, 34.
certificate of sale on foreclosure of mortgage,
see Mortgages, 275, 276.
deed, see Deed, 65-83.
mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' Liens, 106,
107.
mortgage, see Mortgages, 56-75, 171-173.
release or satisfaction of mortgage, see Mort-
yages, 150-152.
town plat, see Towns, 4.
well as after judgment in civil cases, and ex-
tends to the case of the loss of a notice of appeal
removed from the files.-Red River & Lake of the
Woods R. Co. v. Sture, 20 N. W. 229, 32 Minn.
95.
Right to inspect and copy.
2. The right to inspect the public records and
either for examination, or for the purpose of
papers in the office of the register of deeds,
making or completing an abstract, or transcript
therefrom," given by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 8, §
179, as amended by Laws 1885, c. 116, is not limited
to those having some interest in such records.
State v. Rachac, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 7.*
37 Minn. 372.
3. Those who are in the business of making
and furnishing abstracts of title to others for
compensation are entitled to this right for the
purpose of making or completing their "tract in-
dexes, subject, however, to such reasonable
rules as the register of deeds may prescribe to
secure the safety of the public records intrusted
to his official custody.-State v. Rachac, 35 N.
W. 7, 37 Minn. 372.
Recoupment.
See Counterclaim and Set-Off.
Redemption.
From absolute deed as a mortgage, see Mortgages,
16-23, 445-460.
execution sale, see Execution, 116-131.
foreclosure of mechanics' liens, see Mechan
ics' Liens, 167, 168.
foreclosure of mortgage, see Chattel Mort
gages, 109, 110; Mortgages, 379–444.
judicial sales, generally, see
Sales, 3.
receiver's sale, see Receivers, 9.
tax sale, see Taxation, 176–205.
Of pledge, see Pledge, 6.
Red Wing, City of.
Judicial
Issue of bonds in aid of railroads, see Railrond
Companies, 64, 65.
REFERENCE.
Appeal from order of reference, see Appeal and
Error, 53.
Constitutionality of statute authorizing trial by
referees, see Constitutional Law, 46.
Of issue involving examination of long account,
see Constitutional Law, 135.
Review of findings and report of referee, see <1p-
peal and Error, 388-391, 498-506.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 161-189, 231- Power to order-In action of divorce.
279, 686, 687.
Registry of deeds, see Register of Deeds, 1.
Supplying lost and destroyed records.
1. The power of a court to replace its own
records when lost or destroyed exists before as
1. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 192, pro-
viding that where defendant fails to answer, if
the proof of any fact is necessary to enable the
court to give judgment, the court may in its dis-
cretion order a reference, a referee may be ap
pointed to take and report the evidence in an ac
1673
1674
REFERENCE.
tion for divorce, as well when the defendant is
in default as where issue is joined. Gen. St. c.
62, 14, providing that in divorce proceedings,
if defendant fail to appear, the court may pro-
ceed to hear and determine the action, does not
pretend to regulate the manner in which such
testimony should be taken.-Young v. Young, 18
Minn. 90, (Gil. 72.)
When ordered-To take account.
2. A cause of action, the trial of which will
involve the taking and adjustment of complicated
accounts between the parties, is of equitable cog-
nizance, and the court may order a reference to
take and state the accounts.-Fair v. Stickney
Farm Co., 29 N. W. 49, 35 Minn. 380.
Objections and exceptions.
3. An exception to an order of reference is of
no effect to preserve an objection to such order,
for, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 233, ex-
oeptions can cnly be taken at the trial, and then
to decisions on matters of law. -St. Paul & S. C.
R. Co. v. Gardner, 19 Minn. 132, (Gil. 99.)
Waiver of objection.
4. Where plaintiff has appeared before a ref
eree and introduced evidence, and the cause is
submitted to the court and determined on the evi-
dence reported by the referee, all without objec-
tion, an objection by plaintiff, first made on motion
for new trial, that he did not consent to the order
of reference, is too late. -Bohles v. Boland, (Minn.)
47 N. W. 155.
44 Minn. 481.
Hearing-Dismissal.
5. Dismissal by a referee, on motion of de-
fendant, at the close of plaintiff's case, is a de-
eision, as matter of law, that there was no evi-
dence tending to support plaintiff's cause of ac-
tion, or that, taking the evidence altogether, it
so conclusively disproves the cause of action that
a finding to the contrary could not be sustained.
-McCormick v. Miller, 19 Minn. 443, (Gil. 384.)
Reopening case.
6. A referee may, at any time before his re-
port is filed or delivered, in his discretion, and
upon proper foundation, reopen a case tried be-
fore him, and hear further proofs therein.-Coop-
er v. Stinson, 5 Minn. 201, (Gil. 160.)
7. On an application to a referee, after his
report is drawn, but before its delivery, to open
the case and allow defendant to testify, an affi-
davit which does not excuse the negligence in
procuring the testimony, or show its character
or its materiality, is insufficient.-Cooper v.
Stinson, 5 Minn. 201, (Gil. 160.)
Report and findings.
9. Where a cause is tried before a referee, he
must pass on and determine all the material is-
sues.-Brainard v. Hastings, 3 Minn. 45, (Gil. 17.`
10. A referee need not pass upon questions ad-
mitted by the pleadings.-Brainard v. Hastings,
3 Minn. 45, (Gil. 17.)
11. A referee, in his report, found facts from
which the law would imply damage, but, without
stating as a conclusion of fact the amount of such
damage, found judgment for a specified amount.
Held, that unless it appeared that the referee had
erred in the rule of damages, or its application,
his failure to state the amount as a conclusion of
law or fact would not vitiate the judgment.-Cald-
well v. Arnold, 8 Minn. 265, (Gil. 231.)
12. The evidence establishing the facts, and
the reasons for the conclusions thereon, should
not form part of a referee's report. -McMurphy
v. Walker, 20 Minn. 382, (Gil. 334.)
13. Where a referee files a report merely deny-
ing defendant's motion for judgment, but report-
ing no judgment for either party, it is the duty of
the district court to send the case back, with di-
rections to report a judgment. -Griffin v. Jor-
genson, 22 Minn. 92.
14. Where, on an accounting before a referee,
the parties enter into a stipulation as to what
matters shall be passed upon by him, his report
will be set aside if he disregards the stipulation.
Hatch v. Burbank, 17 Minn. 231, (Gil. 207.)
15. If the report of a referee does not show
that he was sworn, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, the presumption is that he took the
necessary oath.-Leyde v. Martin, 16 Minn. 38,
(Gil. 24;) Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 90, (Gil. 72.)
16. A referee delivered his report to one of
the parties November 19th, and the following day
removed from the state, remaining absent. The
report was not filed until the 31st of January fol-
lowing. Held, that the delay was no ground for
a new trial.-Leyde v. Martin, 16 Minn. 38, (Gil.
24.)
Correcting.
referee, the proper practice is to apply in the
17. Where omissions occur in the report of a
first instance, to the court below to send the re-
port back to the referee, with instructions to
supply the omissions.-Bazille v. Ullman, 2 Minn.
134, (Gil. 110.)
18. Under Pub. St. c. 61, $$ 41, 54, requiring
that a referee in making his report shall state
the facts found and conclusions of law separately.
upon a motion to vacate a report for an omission
of such statement, and for a new trial, the court
may send the report back for correction.-Califf
v. Hillhouse. 3 Minn. 311, (Gil. 217.)
19. An omission of a referee to find upon a
material fact cannot be supplied by the court;
the remedy is by application to the referee for a
supplementary finding.-Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn.
396, (Gil. 342.)
8. Under Rev. St. Minn. c. 71, § 54, which
provides that the report of a referee stands as
the decision of the court, and section 41, which
provides that the decision of the court must
state the facts and conclusions of law separate-
ly, it is the duty of the referee to find upon all
the issues raised by the pleadings, and report
separately his findings of act and conclusions of
law. Bazille v. Ullman, 2 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110;) 20. The district court has no jurisdiction to re-
McMurphy v. Walker, 20 Minn. 382, (Gil. 334.) | fer a report back to a referee for correction, after
1675
1676
REFERENCE-RELEASE AND DISCHARGE.
an appeal has been taken from the judgment en- | kept, was not defective because bound in the
tered in accordance with the report.-McMurphy | same volume with one of the books of miscella-
v. Walker, 20 Minn. 382, (Gil. 334.)
neous records to which it referred.-Benton v.
Nicoll, 24 Minn. 221.
Report and findings-Setting aside.
21. The reception by the referee, after plaintiff
has closed his case, of testimony not strictly rebut-
ting, while not proper, under the general rule, will
not form ground for new trial unless actual and
manifest injustice is the result.-Thayer v. Bar-
ney, 12 Minn. 502, (Gil. 406.)
22. Where judgment on a referee's report has
been entered without notice, and the moving
party has been guilty of no laches, a motion to
vacate the report, and for a new trial, for errors
occurring at the trial, and insufficiency of evi-
dence, may be made on a case settled, as provided
by Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, tit. 20, after entry of
judgment.--Cochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 52.
Reformation of Instruments.
See Equity, 14-37; Vendor and Purchaser, 102,
104.
REFORM SCHOOL.
Commitment.
Compensation.
2. Under Laws Minn. 1857, c. 2, § 2, by which
every register of deeds is required and empowered
to "procure, open, and keep" reception books, "at
the expense of the county," a county is liable to
the register for services rendered in making the
entries in such reception books, at the rate at
which such services are reasonably worth.-Hough
v. Board of County Com'rs Ramsey County, 9
Minn. 23, (Gil. 11.)
Distinguished in Nordin v. Board County Com'rs Kan-
divohi County, 23 Minn. 171.
3. A register of deeds who fails to make the
proper entries in the reception books kept by him,
as required by Comp. St. Minn. c. 7, §§ 22, 35, is
not entitled to compensation for keeping such
books; and the fact that the county retains such
books raises no implied obligation to pay for
what work he did do therein.-Mapes v. Board
of Com'rs of Olmsted County, 11 Minn. 367, (Gil.
264.)
Distinguished in Nordin v. Board County Com'rs Kan-
diyohi County, 23 Minn. 171.
Since Gen. Laws 1883, c. 37, § 2, providing
for the commitment of an infant to the reform
school, declares that no infant shall be so com-
mitted by a justice of the peace, (the section apply-
ing to a municipal court, where proceedings are had
therein,) unless the charge is proved by at least
two disinterested witnesses, and that no commit-
ment for incorrigibility shall be sufficient to justi-
fy the admission of the infant into the reform
school, unless such commitment be approved by
the judge of the district court, and requires the
justice to reduce all evidence taken before him to
writing, and transmit the same to the district
court, whose duty it shall be to examine the same,
and approve or disapprove the conviction, an in-
fant confined in the reform school for incorrigibil-
ity is entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus
where it appears from the record of the proceed-
ings in which he was committed that the testi-
mony of some of the witnesses sworn and ex-
amined in the proceeding was not reduced to writ
ing, and therefore not brought before or examined On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 210–215.
by the district judge.-State v. Brown, (Minn.) 50
N. W. 920.
4. A register of deeds is not entitled to com-
pensation from the county for keeping the re-
ception books required to be kept by Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 8, § 155, as, under chapter 70, § 24, the
services performed are to be paid for by the
parties leaving instruments for record. Hough
v. Ramsey County, 9 Minn. 23, (Gil. 11,) and
Mapes v. Olmsted County, 11 Minn. 367, (Gil.
264,) distinguished.-Nordin v. Board County
Com'rs Kandiyohi County, 23 Minn. 171.
47 Minn. 472.
Regents.
Of state university, see University of Minnesota,
3, 4.
REGISTER OF DEEDS.
Record-books.
1. A register of deeds was required by stat
ute to keep three separate and distinct sets of
record-books, -one for deeds, one for mortgages,
and one for all other instruments, -with a like
number and corresponding set of alphabetical
index books. Held, that an index book of the
miscellaneous records, separately and correctly
See Records.
Registration.
Of municipal bonds, see Railroad Companies, 89.
Rehearing.
RELEASE AND DISCHARGE.
See, also, Accord and Satisfaction; Compromise;
Payment.
From attachment, see Attachment, 39-41.
Of chattel mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages, 88–94.
claims against insolvent, on distribution of es-
tate, see Assignment for Benefit of Credit-
ors, 100; Insolvency, 91-114.
contract to convey real estate, see Vendor and
Purchaser, 93.
dower, see Dower, 4.
guarantor, see Guaranty, 8.
mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' Liens, 126.
mortgage, see Mortgages, 131-153, 183, 184.
putative father, by mother of bastard, see Bas-
tardy, 1.
1677
1678
RELEASE AND DISCHARGE.
Of stockholder from liability for corporate debts,
see Corporations, 141, 142.
surety, see Negotiable Instruments, 113, 114;
Principal and Surety, 8-23.
vendor's lien, see Vendor and Purchaser, 126-
128.
What constitutes.
1. In an action against a railroad company to
recover for labor and materials furnished in
grading defendant's road, defendant put in evi-
dence a paper, in form a statement of account
only, showing a balance due plaintiff, with a re-
ceipt at the end thereof for such balance, signed
by plaintiff. Held, that such instrument could
not be construed as a release, but was a receipt
merely, and as such open to contradiction or ex-
planation by parol.-Morris v. St. Paul & C. Ky.
Co., 21 Minn. 91.
2. Upon the return by plaintiff to defendant
of a horse previously purchased by the former
from the latter, defendant repaid the plaintiff one-
half of the amount which plaintiff had paid him
on account of the price, and plaintiff gave to de-
fendant a writing under seal, whereby he ac-
knowledged the receipt of such money "in set-
tlement for horse to this date. " Held, that this
was a mere receipt for the money, and could not
be construed as expressing a release or extin-
guishment of a claim for repayment of the bal-
ance of the price paid.-Gross v. Deller, 23 N.
W. 837, 33 Minn. 424.
3. A receipt "in full of all demands" or "all ac-
counts" may, like any other receipt, be contra-
dicted by parol evidence that the payment was not
made as acknowledged; but where it contains an
agreement or stipulation, upon a compromise or
settlement of disputed claims or unliquidated dam-
ages that the one party is to receive or accept a
certain sum in full acquittance and discharge of
such claims, it is a contract, and is not liable to be
contradicted by parol, but is conclusive upon the
parties in the absence of fraud or mistake.-Cum-
mings v. Baars, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 449.*
Fraud-Rescission.
36 Minn. 350.
4. To entitle one to rescind a release he need not
first have positive knowledge of the falsity of the
representations on which it was granted. His
right depends on the existence of the fraud, and
not on the certainty of his knowledge of it.-Peter-
son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 39 N.
W. 485.
38 Minn. 511.
5. Plaintiff assumed to rescind a release of her
claim against defendant, as procured by a false and
fraudulent statement of defendant's agent that her
physician had stated that "her injuries would soon
be cured, with proper treatment." Held, that she
need not have entertained an unquestioned belief
in the correctness of the alleged opinion of the
physician. It was enough, if she so far relied on
it, and was influenced by it, that it was the induc-
ing cause of her giving the release.-Peterson v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 39 N. W. 485, 38
Minn. 511.
•
6. Plaintiff was injured while a passenger on
defendant's road. She executed to defendant a re-
lease in consideration of $225, $25 of which was
paid to her at the time of the release, and $200 the
next day. She claims that she was induced to ex-
ecute the release by false representations of de-
fendant. The court below, in its charge, submitted
to the jury two representations as grounds on
which she could avoid the release. As to one of
these representations she had admittedly learned
its falsity, and knew the facts, when she received
the $200. Held error in the court to submit that
representation to the jury as an independent
ground to avoid the release.-Peterson v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 31 N. W. 515.*
26 Minn. 399.
7. Plaintiff had a claim against defendants for
part of commissions earned by them in the sale of .
real estate. Plaintiff had also contracted with de-
fendants to purchase land, and had paid $100 of the
price, and bound herself to make other payments.
Afterwards she wrote to defendants stating that
she could not get the money to make the payments,
and, after referring to "the two hundred and forty
odd dollars due me from you as commission on
that sale of last summer," she said, "I ask you if
you will not allow me to withdraw from the con-
tract, and forfeit the money paid; also the com-
mission due me, before spoken of." No reply was
made to this, but afterwards plaintiff had an inter-
view with defendants. Plaintiff's evidence showed
that defendants consented to the rescission, but
insisted that if it was done plaintiff should be re-
paid her $100, and she stated that she was willing
that this should be retained as forfeited. Nothing
was said about forfeiting her commission. The
parties then executed a formal agreement annulling
plaintiff's contract of purchase. One of the de-
fendants then said, "My brother will now read you
a paper, and after you have signed it the cashier
will give you a check for $100." Plaintiff wished
to know why another paper should be signed, and
this defendant said it was a mere matter of form,
to protect her from trouble about this property in
the future. This defendant then went out telling
plaintiff to come in agair and "I will have more
time to talk to you about that other matter;" re-
ferring, as plaintiff supposed, to the commission.
The other paper was then read to plaintiff, and she
paid no particular heed to it, supposing it was the
annulling of the contract, and a receipt for $100.
She signed it and received a check for that amount.
The paper was a release and discharge of defend-
ants "from all claims and demands, "etc. Defend-
ants' testimony contradicted plaintiff on the issue
of fraud. Held, that the evidence did not justify a
verdict avoiding the release executed by plaintiff.
-McCall v. Bushnell, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 545.
41 Minn. 37.
8. Plaintiff, an employé of defendant, was in-
jured by the negligence of the latter. Defendant's
agent paid plaintiff $250, and persuaded him to sign
a release discharging defendant from further lia-
bility. Plaintiff and his wife, neither of whom
could read or write the English language, testified
that they understood that the $250 was paid as wages
and that the release was a receipt for the money so
paid; and that the agent so represented. The
agent stated that the release was read and fully
explained to plaintiff. Held, that the question of
fraud was for the jury.-Sobieski v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 863.
41 Minn. 169.
1679
1680
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.
Deed in trust for, see Trusts, 1-10.
Exemption from taxation, seė Taxation, 38–40.
Incorporation-Title to property.
1. A religious congregation became incorporated
under title 4, c. 34, Gen. St. Minn. 1878. After-
wards, pursuant to a vote of more than two-thirds
of its members, it adopted and filed new articles of
incorporation, merely making a change in the name.
Held, that this did not break its continuity or
identity so as to prevent its holding the corporate
property previously acquired.-Meyer v. Trustees
of the German Evangelical Lutheran Emmanuel
Church, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 786.
37 Minn. 241.
2. The matter of notice of a meeting of a relig-
ious society to authorize its trustees to convey its
real estate goes not to the power of the society to
convey, but to the authority of the trustees as its
agents. Hence, if the trustees make conveyance
under the authority of a resolution passed at a
meeting held without giving the notice required
by statute, such conveyance is capable of ratifica-
tion by the members of the society. When all the
members of the religious society in whose behalf
such conveyance has been made unite with two
new religious societies, the organization of the old
society being abandoned, and the two new societies
bring an action to recover possession of the prop-
erty, claiming title under such conveyance, it
amounts to such ratification.-East Norway Lake
N. E. Lutheran Church v. Froislie, (Minn.) 35 N.
W. 260.
37 Minn. 447.
Membership-Matters of doctrine.
3. Where a congregation, in its constitution,
adopts certain books as the exponents of its doc
trine, and there arise honest differences of opin-
ion as to the interpretation of the statements of
doctrine in such books, and the constitution is
silent as to such matter of interpretation, and pro- |
vides no mode for determining the differences, the
civil courts will not hold that adherence to either
interpretation dissolves, ipso facto, a member's
connection with the congregation, so that he ceases
to be a member of the corporation it has formed
to hold and control its property.-Trustees of East
Norway Lake Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran
Church v. Halvorson, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 663.
42 Minn. 503.
4. While civil courts never assume to deter-
mine the abstract truth or falsity of any religious
doctrine, they can, when rights of property are
dependent on adherence to, or teaching of, a par-
ticular religious doctrine, examine what, as a fact,
the doctrine is, and whether, as a fact, the par-
ticular person adheres to or teaches it.-Trustees
of East Norway Lake Norwegian Evangelical
Lutheran Church v. Halvorson, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
663.
42 Minn. 503.
properly brought before it, is conclusive on the
civil courts.-Trustees of East Norway Lake Nor-
wegian Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Halvor-
son, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 663.
42 Minn. 503.
6. In the case of a religious congregation, what
are the doctrines, adherence to which is a condi-
tion of membership, must be determined by refer-
ence to the rules, constitution, or by-laws of the
congregation. Trustees of East Norway Lake
Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Hal-
Vorson, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 663.
42 Minn. 503.
<
7. The only qualification as to membership
in a "German Evangelical Society," as regard-
ed religious doctrine, was the declaration in its
constitution that the members acknowledged the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the
word of God, and as the only and infallible
guide to faith and life, and adhered to their
interpretation as laid down in the Augsburg Con-
fession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and Luther's
Catechism, as far as the same agreed; but that,
whenever they differed, they confined them-
selves on all disputed points solely to the Script-
ures, and reserved the right of freedom of con-
scientious views. Held, that a pastor or trustee
did not cease to become a member of the society
on adopting the interpretations of passages in
Scripture in regard to baptism and the Lord's
Supper, as contained in the catechism of Luther,
where such interpretation was different from the
interpretation contained in the Heidelberg Cate-
chism. Trustees of German Evangelical Soc. of
St. Cloud v. Henschell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 477.
Trustees.
8. If a minority of a church congregation, not
acting within the regular organization, get to-
gether and assume to elect trustees, it has not the
color of an election by the congregation.—Trus-
tees of East Norway Lake Norwegian Evangelical
Lutheran Church v. Halvorson, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
663.
42 Minn. 503.
9. One cannot be a de facto officer of a relig-
ious society unless he is acting as such, under
color of having been rightfully elected or appoint-
ed.-Trustees of East Norway Lake Norwegian
Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Halvorson, (Minn.)
44 N. W. 663.
42 Minn. 503.
Rights of pastor.
10. According to the usage and discipline of the
Presbyterian church in the United States, the call
of a congregation for the services of a regular
pastor, and the proceedings of the parties under
it, are subject to the decision of the presbytery
having jurisdiction, and the regular pastoral rela-
tion is constituted by the presbytery after the due
acceptance of the call by the candidate.-West v.
First Presbyterian Church of St. Paul, (Minn.) 42
N. W. 922.
41 Minn. 94.
5. When the contract of association of a re-
ligious body provides, or by implication contem-
plates, that what is according to or consistent
11. This usage is in harmony with Gen. St
with a particular doctrine shall be determined by Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 225, relating to religious corpo-
some religious judicatory, the determination of rations, which vests the sole authority to ascer-
such judicatory, duly made, when the matter istain and fix the salary or compensation to be paid
1681
1682
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES-RENT.
to a minister in the society or congregation.
West v. First Presbyterian Church of St. Paul,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 922.
41 Minn. 94.
12. Until such acceptance by him no civil con-
tract for his permanent employment as regular
pastor at the stipulated compensation can be
formed or made obligatory upon the congregation.
-West v. First Presbyterian Church of St. Paul,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 922.
41 Minn. 94.
13. Where by mutual consent his pastoral serv-
ices are accepted as rendered under or in pursu-
ance of the call, the relation must be regarded as
temporary only, pending his decision, and no per-
manent obligation rests upon the congregation to
pay him as if the regular pastoral relation had
been duly constituted, or longer than it may con-
sent to such employment, but for actual services
so rendered the rate of compensation fixed in the
call may be referred to, and properly adopted, as
the measure of his compensation.-West v. First
Presbyterian Church of St. Paul, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
922.
41 Minn. 94.
Remote and Proximate Cause.
See Negligence, 34-50.
Remote Damages.
See Damages, 1-10.
Removal.
Of county seats, see Counties, 9-19.
Highway obstructions, see Highways, 61.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
Application-Jurisdiction of state court.
3. On a petition for removal of a cause from
a state court to the United States circuit court
the state court has jurisdiction to inquire into
the existence of the facts alleged in the petition,
in order to determine whether the cause is in fact
within the statutory provision under which re-
moval is sought, even though the petition and
bond for removal are in due form, and there has
been no order of the federal court remanding the
cause.-Dunne v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co.,
27 N. W. 448, 35 Minn. 73. Reversed in United
States supreme court on writ of error. 7 S. Ct.
1262, 122 U. S. 513.
4. Any contest concerning the facts alleged
in the petition for removal of a cause from the
state to the federal court must be determined in
the federal court. -Roberts v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 478.
Affidavit.
5. The secretary of a corporation cannot, in the
absence of authority from the corporation, make
the affidavit required by Act Cong. March 2, 1867, to
procure the removal of a cause from a state court
to a United States court.-Dodge v. Northwestern
Union Packet Co., 13 Minn. 458, (Gil. 427.)
Security.
6. To obtain a removal of a cause to a United
States court, under statutes allowing such re-
moval before trial, the statutory requirements
must be fully complied with before the trial;
and a failure to produce the security required,
until after the jury has been called, will prevent
a removal.-St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co. v. King
Wrought-Iron Bridge Co., 23 Minn. 186.
Notice of filing petition and bond.
7. When defendant in an action in a state
court files in the office of the clerk--the court not
being in session-a petition and bond for removal
of the cause to the circuit court of the United
States, it is also incumbent on him to direct the
attention of the court to the fact; and, if he fails
to do so, the state court has jurisdiction to ren-
der judgment.
der judgment.-Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M.
O.
Appeal from order upon application, see Appeal & Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 478.
and Error, 54.
To district court on certificate of justice, see
Abatement and Revival, 13.
Statutory provisions, in general.
1. The object of Acts Cong. July 27, 1866, and
March 2, 1867, respecting the removal of causes to
the federal courts, was to provide for the removal
of a class of cases distinct from those embraced in
the judiciary act of 1789, § 12, to remove restric-
tions from the power of removal in certain cases,
and not to repeal or alter that act.-Butterfield v.
Home Ins. Co., 14 Minn. 410, (Gil. 310.)
Grounds-Local prejudice.
2. Act Cong. March 2, 1867, relating to the
removal of suits "between a citizen of the state
in which the suit is brought and a citizen of an-
other state, ">
on the ground of local prejudice,
from a state court to a United States circuit
court, has no application to a controversy be
tween a citizen of the state in which the suit is
brought and an alien. -Stinson v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn. 492, (Gil. 446.)
Order for removal.
8. Where the requirements of the act of con-
gress for the removal of a cause from a state
court to a United States court are complied with,
no order of the state court for such removal is
necessary.-St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co. v. King
Wrought-Iron Bridge Co., 23 Minn. 186; Schef-
fer v. National Life Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 534.
Remand by federal court-Effect.
9. The validity of a judgment rendered in a
state court after the cause has been removed is
not affected by the subsequent remanding of the
cause from the federal to the state court, on the
ground that the proceedings to remove were not
effectual.-Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 478.
Rent.
See Landlord and Tenant, 59-76; Use and Occu-
pation.
1683
1684
REPAIRS-REPLEVIN, I.
Rights of mortgagee, see Mortgages, 86.
of tenants in common, see Tenancy in
▪mon and Joint Tenancy, 17-22.
of vendor and purchaser, see Specific
formance, 105, 106.
Repairs.
Com-Right of plaintiff to possession.
6. In the absence of a proper objection, by
answer or demurrer, one owner in common of
Per-personalty may, without joining his co-owners,
maintain an action of replevin therefor against a
stranger who has no right to its possession, or
any part thereof.-Miller v. Darling, 22 Minn.
303.
By mortgagee in possession, see Mortgages, 457,
458.
Liability of landlord, see Landlord and Tenant,
9, 10.
Of highways, see Highways, 58, 59.
sewers, see Municipal Corporations, 190.
streets, see Municipal Corporations, 136–151.
Repeal.
Of statutes, see Statutes, 63-71.
REPLEVIN.
1. WHEN LIES, 1-16.
II. PROCEDURE, 17–90.
III. BONDS AND ACTIONS THEREON, 91–98.
Counterclaims, see Counterclaim and Set-Off, 7-9.
Effect of assignment of judgment to pass bond for
return, see Assignment, 14.
For goods attached, see Attachment, 74-80.
Jurisdiction of justice, see Justices of the Peace,
6, 7.
I. WHEN LIES.
Property subject to replevin
replevin — Title
deed.
1. Replevin will lie, in a court of competent
jurisdiction, on the part of a grantee, to recover a
deed, although the fact of its delivery be in con-
troversy, and the title to realty consequently in-
volved in the action.-Simmonsen v. Curtiss,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 1135.
43 Minn. 539.
Property severed from land.
2. Replevin may be maintained by the owner
of land for timber cut therefrom by a trespasser.
-Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361, (Gil. 335.)
3. Replevin will lie for things forming a part
of the realty, if they have been taken away after
their severance from the freehold; but to main-
tain such action the plaintiff must have had act-
ual or constructive possession of the land.
Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361, (Gil. 335.)
4. Replevin cannot be maintained for prop-
erty that formed a part of the freehold, if the
series of acts forming the severance and taking
away were sufficient to constitute adverse pos-
session.-Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361, (Gil.
335.)
5. The title of land cannot be tried ex directo
in an action of replevin for property severed
from the freehold.-Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn.
861, (Gil. 335.)
7. In claim and delivery by H. against a sheriff
who had seized certain property under execution
on judgments in favor of certain plaintiffs, it ap-
peared that at the time of the levy H. was in un-
disputed possession; that, while the answer denied
H.'s possession, it did not allege it to have been in
the judgment debtors, but simply averred that
they were entitled to possession; that no fraud
was alleged; that the sale to H. was made several
months before the judgments were rendered; and
that H. knew that the judgment debtors, of whom
he purchased, were in debt. Held, that as there
was no fraud H. could recover. Haseltine v.
Swensen, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 110.
38 Minn. 424.
8. A chattel mortgagee cannot maintain claim
and delivery for the mortgaged property against a
third person, before maturity of the notes secured,
without proving his right to immediate possession
under the terms of the mortgage, which give the
mortgagor the right to possession until he defaults
in payments, or injures or neglects the property,
or attempts to remove or dispose of it, or the mort-
gagee deems himself insecure.-Kellogg v. Ander-
Son, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1045.
40 Minn. 207.
Possession of defendant.
9. Replevin will lie for personal property, al-
though not in the actual possession of defendant,
but under his control, in the hand of another, aft-
the same.-Bradley v. Gamelle, 7 Minn. 331, (Gil.
er demand of defendant, and refusal to surrender
260.)
brought against the person who is in actual, phys-
10. An action of claim and delivery is properly
ical possession of the property involved, although
ne may be keeping it for another person. -Flatner
v. Good, 29 N. W. 56, 35 Minn. 395.
11. Pending a dispute over the cost of construct-
ing a building, plaintiff, at defendants' request,
furnished them with certain vouchers, a general
statement of expenditures, and an affidavit of its
correctness made by his book-keeper. Held, that
these papers being furnished for inspection only,
defendants did not become owners thereof, and an
action of claim and delivery will lie for their re-
covery.-Drake v. Auerbach, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 367.
37 Minn. 505.
12. Replevin will lie against an officer to recover
possession of property taken on execution against
a third person.-Whitney v. Swensen, (Minn.) 45
N. W. 609.
Demand.
43 Minn. 337.
13. Where a party comes lawfully into the pos-
session of property, replevin will not lie for its
recovery until after demand and refusal of posses-
sion; and a complaint in replevin which alleges
1685
1686
REPLEVIN, I., II.
Bneither an unlawful taking nor a demand and re-
fusal is fatally defective.-Stratton v. Allen, 7
Minn. 502, (Gil. 409.)
Distinguished in Hurd v. Simonton, 10 Minn. 426, (Gil.
340.)
14. A demand is necessary before suit to re
cover possession of personal property from a
bona fide purchaser thereof at a sale by a public
officer under process apparently regular.-Kel-
logg v. Olson, 24 N. W. 364, 34 Minn. 103.
15. Where a demand is necessary before bring-
ing suit to recover possession of personal prop-
erty, a demand on an agent having charge of the
property for safe-keeping merely is insufficient.
-Kellogg v. Olson, 24 Ñ. W. 364, 34 Minn. 103.
16. In actions of replevin a demand for the
property before suit is not necessary where the
defendant's possession was acquired wrongfully,
or where, although it was rightful in its incep
tion, he has subsequently wrongfully converted
the property to his own use, or where in his an-
swer he claims a right to it in himself, and de-
mands its return.-Guthrie v. Olson, 46 N. W.
853, 44 Minn. 404; Kellogg v. Olson, 24 N. W.
364, 34 Minn. 103; Tancre v. Pullman, (Tancre v.
Reynolds,) 29 N. W. 171, 35 Minn. 476; Ellingbor
v. Brakken, 30 N. W. 659, 36 Minn. 156; Miller v.
Adamson, 47 N. W. 452. 45 Minn. 99.
Affidavit.
II. PROCEDURE.
in no sense process of the court, and was void on
its face, and the sheriff acting under it was a
mere trepasser.-Castle v. Thomas, 16 Minn. 490,
(Gil. 443.)
20. Where property is taken under a writ of
replevin void on its face, the court has no power
to vacate the writ and direct the return of the
property, but must leave defendants to their right
of replevy, or action for damages against the
sheriff, as in case of any other trespass.-Castle
v. Thomas, 16 Minn. 490, (Gil. 443.)
plevin, does not operate as a waiver of an illegal
21. General appearance, in an action of re-
taking on the writ.-Castle v. Thomas, 16 Minn.
490, (Gil. 443.)
Delivery to plaintiff.
22. In an action of replevin, where the property
was not taken possession of by the officer, it will
lowed, and that the same was properly dismissed
be considered that no provisional remedy was al-
by entry to that effect by plaintiff's attorney in
the clerk's register, and giving notice to defend-
ants, without payment of costs or entry of judg-
242.-Blandy v. Raguet, 14 Minn. 491, (Gil. 368.)
ment, as allowed by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, §
23. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 132,
providing that the plaintiff in an action to recover
the possession of personal property may claim
immediate delivery, it is optional with plaintiff
to claim such delivery, and failure to do so will
not change an action of replevin to one for con-
version merely, for the purposes of determining
the venue. -Benjamin v. Smith, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
1083.
43 Minn. 146.
Right to return.
17. In replevin in a justice's court for exempt
property, the affidavit of plaintiff stated, in the
language of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 65, § 89, that
the property "was not taken from him by any
process legally and properly issued against him,
or, if so taken, that it was exempt, "etc. Held,
that the affidavit was not void on account of such 24. Under Pub. St. c. 60, § 135, relating to
alternative statement, as it showed that the prop-claim and delivery of personal property, which
erty was exempt, whether taken under process
lawfully issued or not. -Carlson v. Small, 21 N.
W. 737, 32 Minn. 492.
Writ.
18. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 141, estab
lishing the municipal court of Minneapolis, as
amended by Sp. Laws 1883, c. 48, which provides
that in an action to recover possession of personal
property the clerk shall issue the writ, "which
may be in form" as set forth in the act, "or the
writ may be in any other form that the court
may, by rule, prescribe, a writ in form pre-
scribed by rule of the court, which dispenses
with both the statement of value and the com-
mand to summon the defendant, is sufficient, and
the action may be commenced by a summons un-
der the General Statutes.-West Pub. Co. v. Bot-
tineau, 25 N. W. 405, 34 Minn. 239.
19. In an action of replevin, brought after the
repeal of the provisions of Gen. St. Minn. 1866,
c. 66, tit. 8, §§ 115-117, for the issue of the writ
by the clerk on affidavit and request by plaintiff's
attorney, and the amendment of section 114 by
Laws 1868, c. 76, which provided for the taking
of the property by the sheriff on requisition of
plaintiff's attorney indorsed on the affidavit, etc.,
the writ was issued by the clerk as provided be-
fore the amendment. Held, that such writ was
provides that defendant may require the return
thereof upon giving an undertaking, etc., and,
if a return be not required within three days,
the property must be delivered to the plaintiff, a
coroner taking property from the sheriff should
retain it for three days, but if during that time
he delivers it to the plaintiff, and the defendant
his right to a return, and cannot, after delivery to
excepts to the sureties on the bond, he waives
the plaintiff, and the expiration of the three days,
withdraw his exception, and insist upon a return
Vanderburgh v. Bassett, 4 Minn. 242, (Gil. 171.)
of the property on tendering an undertaking. —
Dismissal.
25. In replevin, where the property is taken by
plaintiff and returned to defendant on the proper
bond, plaintiff cannot dismiss by a notice served
on defendant's attorneys, even though they re-
tain such notice, as Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, §.
242, subd. 2, requires a consent in writing.
Williams v. McGrade, 18 Minn. 82, (Gil. 65.)
Pleading-Complaint.
26. In an action for the recovery of posses-
sion of personal property, a complaint which fails.
to show that at the time of commencing the ac-
tion the plaintiff had an existing legal right to
the possession of such property is fatally defect-
ive.-Loomis v. Youle, 1 Minn. 175, (Gil. 150.)
1687
1638
REPLEVIN, II.
·
27. In an action of replevin the complaint | Pleading-Reply.
alleged that the plaintiffs were possessed of the
property taken "as of their own proper goods. "
Held sufficient allegation of ownership and pos-
session.-Stickney v. Smith, 5 Minn. 486, (Gil.
v. Smith, 5 Minn. 486, (Gil.
390.)
28. In an action of claim and delivery plain-
tin's ownership and right to possession are prop-
erly alleged in the present tense, as the action is
founded upon the present right of the plaintiff.
Tancre v. Pullman, (Tancre v. Reynolds,) 29 N.
W. 171, 35 Minn. 476.
29. A complaint averred that a barn belonging
to and situated upon the land of plaintiff was, by
one B., wrongfully and forcibly severed from
plaintiff's land, and removed to land subsequently
conveyed to defendant, and had ever since been
used and occupied by B.; that the defendant re-
fused to deliver the same to plaintiff, or permit
him to remove the same to his own land. Held
that, since no unlawful detention by defendant
was averred, the complaint did not state a cause
of action. Tozier v. Merriam, 12 Minn. 87,
(Gil. 46.)
30. A complaint in replevin, which avers that
plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the prop-
-êrty, and that the defendant took and carried the
same away, and detains it against sureties and
pledgees, states a good cause of action without al-
leging that the detention is unjust. —Adams v.
Corriston, 7 Minn. 456, (Gil. 365.)
31. The complaint in replevin in a justice's
court for exempt property need not set out par-
ticularly the facts touching plaintiff's title and
the levy and exemption; it is sufficient to allege
generally plaintiff's ownership, the alleged
wrongful detention, the demand, and the value.
-Carlson v. Small, 21 N. W. 737, 32 Minn. 492.
32. Where property sought to be recovered in an
action of claim and delivery is a certain undivided
fractional part of a certain specified quantity of
property, uniform in quality and value, and sus-
ceptible of a fair and equal division by count, meas-
urement, or weight, (as, for instance, grain in
bulk,) the description and proof of the property
sought to be recovered, as such undivided frac-
tional part of the specified quantity, is sufficiently
specific.-Ellingbor v. Brakken, (Minn.) 30 N. W.
659.
36 Minn. 156.
Pleading-Plea.
33. Under the Wisconsin statute, giving the
action of replevin in two distinct classes of cases,
-for the wrongful taking and for the wrongful
detention,-in an action of replevin in the cepit,
a plea of the general issue, non cepit, admits the
title, and simply puts in issue the wrongful tak-
ing, and, when they are material, the time and
place.-Coit v. Waples, 1 Minu. 134, (Gil. 110.)
34. In an action of replevin, especially in the
cepit, defendant may, as inducement to the trav-
erse of the plaintiff's title, set up title in a third
person, and, if successful upon such issue, is en-
titled to judgment without connecting himself
with such outstanding title.-Loomis v. Youle,
1 Minn. 175, (Gil. 150.)
35. In an action of replevin the complaint al-
leged that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to
the immediate possession of the property in ques-
tion, and the answer denied these allegations,
and averred a former title in a third person
named, and that such third person, being the
they had ever since been the owners of it. Held
owner, sold the property to defendants, and that
that these allegations of the answer were not
new matter requiring a reply. Williams v.
Mathews, 14 N. W. 577, 30 Minn. 131.
Defects, how cured or waived.
36. Under the Wisconsin statute in force at the
time of the creation of the territory of Minnesota,
the complaint in replevin should aver that the
property was wrongfully taken. The defect will,
however, be cured by verdict.-Coit v. Waples,
1 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
37. In an action for the recovery of personal
property the affidavit cannot be referred to to
supply deficiencies in the complaint.-Loomis
v. Youle, 1 Minn. 175, (Gil. 150.)
38. Where a complaint in replevin alleges that
the defendant wrongfully detains the property, but
does not aver a demand and refusal, the defect is
cured by a verdict for plaintiff. Stratton v. Allen,
7 Minn. 502, (Gil. 409,) distinguished.-Hurd v.
Simonton, 10 Minn. 423, (Gil. 340.)
Pleading and proof.
39. Where defendants, in replevin by an as-
signor for the benefit of creditors, allege the title
to the property in controversy to be in a third
person, from whom they had taken it on execu-
tion, they cannot at the trial show an assign-
ment, prior to the assignment to plaintiff, from
such third person to another.-McClung v. Berg-
feld, 4 Minn. 148, (Gil. 99.)
40. When the fact of partnership is alleged
and proved in an action of replevin, the failure
to prove the name of the partnership, though
alleged, is immaterial.- Stickney v. Smith, 5
Minn. 486, (Gil. 390.)
41. In an action of claim and delivery for cer-
tain wheat stored in the warehouse of one H.,
defendant averred ownership in H., subject to
claims of C. & D.; that H. purchased the same
with money of C. & D., and under an agreement
that it was not to be sold or shipped without
their consent. Held, that evidence tending to
show that it was agreed that C. & D. should have
a lien on all wheat purchased, to reimburse
them for advances, the wheat to be considered
theirs until advances were paid, was properly
rejected as irrelevant and inconsistent with the
answer.-Miller v. Darling, 22 Minn. 303.
Evidence-Title and ownership.
42. In an action of claim and delivery, plaintiff
must specifically identify his own property, and is
not relieved from so doing by the fact that the de-
fendant has intermingled it with his own so as to
make such identification impossible. Other prop-
erty, of a similar character, cannot be taken in lieu
thereof.-Ames v. Mississippi Boom Co., 8 Minn.
467, (Gil. 417.)
1639
1690
REPLEVIN, II.
43. In an action of replevin to recover prop-
erty, the plaintiff's title to which depends upon a
deed of assignment, the validity of which is at-
tacked upon the ground of actual fraud in its exe-
cution, the question of fraud is one proper for the
jury, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 198, pro-
viding that issues of fact in actions to recover per-
sonal property shall be tried by jury.-Blackman
v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326, (Gil. 299.)
44. Where plaintiff in replevin alleges generally
that he is the owner of the property in controversy,
and entitled to its possession, he may prove a
chattel mortgage thereon to himself, and a breach
of some condition thereof which by its terms en-
titles the mortgagee to take possession of the prop-
erty.-Miller v. Adamson, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 452.
45 Minn. 99.
45. In an action of replevin defendant may
show that plaintiff had sold the property to a
third party under whom defendant claims it, even
though plaintiff's title at the time of such sale
may not have been absolute, but subject to a
right of redemption under a chattel mortgage.
Bragdon v. Penney, 28 N. W. 241, 35 Minn. 204.
46. In replevin, originally brought in justice's
court, the answer, by general and specific denials,
put in issue all of the allegations of the complaint,
which was in the usual form. The answer also
averred that defendant owned the property in dis-
pute, but the previous denials in the answer did
not seem to be predicated upon the claim of own-
ership. Held, that it was not error to admit in
evidence a certified copy of a chattel mortgage on
the property, executed and delivered by its owner
(not the plaintiff) to a third person, the previous
testimony showing that defendant's possession
was as the authorized agent of said third person,
mortgagee, and in accordance with the terms of
the mortgage.-King v. La Crosse, (Minn.) 44 N.
W. 517.
42 Minn. 488.
a judgment for plaintiff is proper.-Game v. Wha-
ley, (Minn.) 45 Ñ. W. 228.
43 Minn. 234.
50. In replevin against a sheriff for cattle, de-
fendant alleged that they were the property of C.,
and were seized on execution against him. Plain-
tiff and C. testified that the former had sent the
cattle to C. to be sold, and that C.'s sole interest
there was evidence that, some time after the exe-
therein was as plaintiff's agent. For defendant
cution issued, plaintiff purchased one of the cattle
not sold under the execution from a man in whose
charge it had been left, and who sold it to reim-
burse himself for the keeping; and that C. sold
one of the cattle, taking in payment a note which
he negotiated at a bank, but it was shown that he
accounted to plaintiff for it. Held, that the evi-
Cosgrove v. Kohler, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 539.
dence will not support a verdict for defendant.
Taking.
45 Minn. 148.
51. In an action of replevin for a wagon, a con-
stable may be asked whether, as such, he took the
wagon from defendant; and the question cannot
writ is the best evidence, as that would not show
be excluded on the ground that the return on the
whether the witness was the officer who took the
wagon.-Goodell v. Ward, 17 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
52. In an action of replevin for a wagon, evi-
dence showed plaintiff's ownership; that the wag-
on was standing in the highway in front of his.
yard, and between the fence and traveled part
of the street, whence it was removed by defend-
ant. It was in defendant's possession a fortnight
later, and he refused to surrender the same.
Held, that a wrongful taking was fully made
out.-Goodell v. Ward, 17 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1 )
Demand.
53. In replevin for goods wrongfully levied up-
on by defendant sheriff, under execution against
47. In an action of replevin, where each party another, an attorney for plaintiff testified that
pleads in general terms that he has title to the immediately after a levy he told the sheriff that
property, and denies the title alleged by the other the goods belonged to plaintiff, and he had better
party, the defendant may avail himself of the de- give them up; that, if he did not, witness would
fense that the conveyance under which the plain-replevy them, and defendant replied that he was.
tiff claims title was fraudulent and void as to the indemnified. Held sufficient to authorize a find-
defendant. Mullen v. Noonan, (Minn.) 47 N. W. ing of a demand and refusal.-Caldwell v. Brug-
164.
german, 8 Minn. 286, (Gil. 252.)
44 Minn. 541.
48. In an action of claim and delivery, each party
alleging general ownership and right of possession
in himself, where the defendant, in support of his
claim, introduces in evidence what purports to be
a bill of sale from plaintiff, the latter may prove
in rebuttal that there had never been in fact any
sale or delivery of the property; that the bill of
sale had been signed to be placed in escrow until a
proposed trade had been completed; and that the
person named as vendee therein had fraudulently
and unlawfully obtained possession of it.-Grin-
nell v. Young, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 929.
41 Minn. 186.
54. The admission, in an action of claim and
delivery, of incompetent evidence of a demand
for the property on defendant, is not material
where the answer sets up title and prays a re-
turn. Following Kellogg v. Olson, 24 N. W. 364,
34 Minn. 103.-Tancre v. Pullman, (Tancre v.
Reynolds,) 29 N. W. 171, 35 Minn. 476.
55. Proof of a wrongful taking, or of a wrong-
ful conversion, will support a complaint for a
wrongful detention, without proof of demand be-
fore suit.-Guthrie v. Olson, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 853.
44 Minn. 404.
Value.
49. Where plaintiff in replevin testifies that the 56. In claim and delivery, when the value of the
property in controversy belongs to him, and was property cannot be determined by the ordinary rule
taken from him by defendant, and defendant claims of market value, it is not error to permit a jury to.
under a mortgage which is introduced in evidence, consider the owner's estimate of its worth to him.
but there is no evidence that the property mort--Drake v. Auerbach, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 367.
gaged is the same as that sought to be recovered,
37 Minn. 505.
1691
1692
REPLEVIN, II.
57. The statutory affidavit to obtain delivery
of property, requisition on the sheriff, and sher-
iff's return thereon, may be admitted in evidence
to show a rebonding of property replevied, and
that, therefore, plaintiff, as prevailing party,
was entitled to have its value assessed and judg-
ment accordingly.—Bennett v. Schuster, 24 Minn.
383.
Damages.
58. In an action of replevin, where the property
has been taken by plaintiff and the verdict is in
plaintiff's favor, no damages being alleged, the
value of the property is not material.-Foster v.
Berkey, 8 Minn. 351, (Gil. 310.)
59. In replevin for horses, evidence of the use
plaintiff had for such horses, offered to show the
damages accruing from their detention, is not
admissible unless such damages are specially
pleaded.-Ferguson v. Hogan, 25 Minn. 135.
60. In replevin for horses, evidence of a con-
tract made by plaintiff, whose fulfillment re-
quired the use of these horses, is not admissible |
to show damages resulting from their detention,
where such contract was made after defendant
took the horses, and antedated.-Ferguson v.
Hogan, 25 Minn. 135.
61. In replevin by a scripee for the recovery of
certain non-assignable Sioux half-breed scrip, the
plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the scrip
to him. Defendant, being a wrong-doer, cannot
urge as defense that the scrip is of no value to
any one but plaintiff, or that he might procure du-
plicates thereof.-Bradley v. Gamelle, 7 Minn. 331,
(Gil. 260.)
62. In an action of replevin, in the absence of
evidence of fraud, malice, negligence, oppression,
or special damages, the measure of defendant's
damages for taking his property is its value at the
time of taking, with interest to date of trial.-
Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn. 501, (Gil. 462.)
?
63. In an action of replevin by the general own-
er of goods against an officer having a special
property therein, by virtue of levy thereon, the
measure of the officer's damages in case of judg-
ment in his favor, and failure to return the prop-
erty, is the amount of execution debt, interest and
costs; and, if this is less than the full value of
the property, it is error to order judgment for
such full value.-Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 114,
(Gil. 105;) La Crosse & M. Steam-Packet Co. v.
Robertson, 13 Minn. 291, (Gil. 269.)
64. Where, in an action of replevin, the value
of the property is assessed as of the time of tak
ing, allowance of the value of the use of such
property as damages for the wrongful detention
is improper, unless the character of the property
is such that it necessarily, or in fact, has perished,
worn out, or become impaired in value by such
user.-Sherman v. Clark, 24 Minn. 37.
65. In an action of claim and delivery for a
wrongful taking, if the plaintiff recovers, the
value of the property is to be assessed as of the
time of the wrongful taking or detention. If the
defendant recovers, the value is to be as of the
time when the property is replevied from him.
-Sherman v. Clark, 24 Minn. 37.
66. Part of the property taken by plaintiff in
replevin was delivered by him to a receiver of
the vendor of the goods to defendant, appointed
under the insolvent law subsequent to the sale
to defendant. Held that, upon defendant being
found to be the owner and entitled to possession,
plaintiff was not entitled to a deduction, from
the amount of the recovery against him, of the
value of the goods so delivered to the receiver.
Yallop-De Groot Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 24 N. W. 185, 33 Minn. 482.
67. A mortgagee, after default in the mortgage,
has a right to possession only for the purpose of
foreclosure or sale under the mortgage, to satisfy
the debt, and cannot recover in replevin the value
of the use of the property, as special damages.-
Thompson v. Scheid, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 801.
39 Minn. 102.
Verdict and findings.
68. In an action of replevin, where the value
of the property is not assessed by the jury, the
value cannot be assumed to be the amount of
damages found.-Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 134,
(Gil. S0.)
69. Under Pub. St. c. 61, § 38, which provides
that in an action for the recovery of personal
property the jury must assess the value of the
property, the value of each article need not be
assessed separately, and a finding of the value in
Minn. 270, (Gil. 190.)
gross is sufficient.-Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4
70. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 221,
which provides that whenever a verdict in re-
plevin is in favor of the party having possession
of the property the value thereof shall not be
found, the finding of the jury, plaintiff being in
possession of a part of the property, of the value
of all the property, and of that part taken on the
writ, is unwarranted, but may be disregarded
as surplusage, and judgment entered for that
which was not taken on the writ.-Hecklin v.
Ess, 16 Minn. 51, (Gil. 38.)
71. In an action for recovery of possession of
grain in bags, a general verdict for defendants was
supported by the evidence, except as to the bags,
the issues as to which were entirely severable.
A motion for a new trial was denied by the trial
court, upon a stipulation by defendants that judg-
ment might be entered for the value of the bags.
Held, that there was no substantial error in this,
it being in principle the same as directing an
excess to be remitted from a verdict.—Ladd v.
Newell, 24 N. W. 366, 34 Minn. 107.
72. In an action of replevin for property of
plaintiff levied on and sold by defendant as sher-
iff under an execution against third parties, it
appeared that plaintiff in the replevin had pur-
chased the property at the execution sale and so
had become repossessed of it, and was in posses-
sion of it at the time of the trial. The taking,
sale, and purchase by plaintiff, and the amount
paid by him, were admitted by the pleadings.
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff, assessing
the value of the property at the amount paid by
him therefor, but not in terms assessing damages
for the detention. Held, that the verdict, al-
though wrong in form, was right in substance;
that it should have assessed the same amount
1693
1694
REPLEVIN, II.
as damages for the detention, to be recovered ab-
solutely; and that defendant could not complain
of a judgment for plaintiff for the possession, or,
in the alternative, for the amount of the verdict
as damages. -Leonard v. Maginnis, 26 N. W. 733,
34 Minn. 506.
Amendment.
73. The statute of Wisconsin, in force in Min-
nesota at the time an action of replevin was
brought, provided that in a replevin suit the
jury should, if the verdict was in favor of the
plaintiff, assess his damages, and also the value
of the goods and chattels specified in the decla-
ration. The jury found for plaintiff generally,
but did not assess his damages. Held, that the
verdict was not, for that reason, void, but that
the court could amend it by adding nominal
damages; and that, the property having been de-
livered to the plaintiff, an assessment of its value
was not essential.-Coit v. Waples, 1 Minn. 134,
(Gil. 110.)
|
81. A judgment in replevin in the usual form,
for the recovery of money only, is irregular, but
not void, and cannot be attacked in an action upon
the replevin undertaking.-Robertson v. Davidson,
14 Minn. 554, (Gil. 422.)
82. The right of a party to an alternative judg-
ment for the value of the property, if a return
cannot be obtained, is exclusively for his own
benefit, and he may waive it, and take judgment
merely for the return.-Stevens v. McMillan, 35
N. W. 372, 37 Minn. 509; Thompson v. Scheid, 38
N. W. 801, 39 Minn. 102.
83. In replevin, where the plaintiff's title or
right of possession is legally divested after suit
brought and before trial, he can, as against the
owner or person entitled to the possession, recover
only damages for the unlawful detention up to
the time his title or right of possession was divest-
ed. He is not entitled to judgment for the return
of the property, or for its value.-Deal v. D. M.
Osborne & Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 835.
42 Minn. 102.
Amendment.
74. A verdict, in an action of replevin, cannot
be amended so as to find the value, where such
value is not assessed by the jury.-Eaton v.
Caldwell, 3 Minn. 134, (Gil. 80.)
Judgment—Return of property or its property, or judgment for its assessed value, and
value.
75. In an action of replevin the defendant
claimed a return of the property and $50 dam-
ages for its detention. The jury assessed his
damages at $75, but did not find as to the value
of the property, and judgment was entered for
a return of the property, or, on failure to re-
turn, for $75 as the value thereof. Held that,
the jury not having found the value, such judg-
ment was irregular.-Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn.
134, (Gil. 80.)
76. In an action of replevin, if a part of the
goods can be returned, the plaintiff can elect to
take that part, and a judgment for the value of
the remainder, to be assessed by the jury.
Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4 Minn. 270, (Gil. 190.)
77. In an action of claim and delivery, an offer,
made after a return of the property to plaintiff,
to allow judgment for damages for detention, with
costs, without adjudging the title to the property,
is insufficient for any purpose.-Oleson v. Newell,
12 Minn. 186, (Gil. 114.)
78. Where, in an action of claim and delivery,
the possession of the property has been returned
to the plaintiff, his ownership and wrongful de-
tention having been admitted, he is still entitled
to a judgment determining the right of property to
be in him, and at least for nominal damages.
Oleson v. Newell, 12 Minn. 186, (Gil. 114.)
79. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, p. 433, § 88, which
provides that defendant in replevin "may have
judgment for the return of the property, or the
value thereof if the same has been taken from his
possession, or delivered to the plaintiff," judg-
ment for defendant must be in the alternative.
Kates v. Thomas, 14 Minn. 460, (Gil. 343.)
80. Judgment for plaintiff in replevin, where
the property has not been delivered to him,
should be in the alternative.-Sherman v. Clark,
24 Minn. 37.
84. In an action of replevin, defendant had a
verdict in the alternative for a return of the
the clerk, through mistake, entered an absolute
money judgment. Held, that the district court
might, in its discretion, amend the judgment so
as to conform to the verdict.-Berthold v. Fox,
21 Minn. 51.
85. An amendment by the district court of a
judgment in replevin, to make it conform to the
verdict rendered, cannot affect the rights of a
person, not a party to the suit, but a clause
saving such rights should be incorporated in the
order of amendment.-Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn.
51.
Review.
86. In an action of replevin for a wagon, a con-
stable was asked, "Did you, as such constable,
ever take from the possession of the defendant
objection that the question was incompetent, im-
the wagon, or any part thereof?" Held, that an
material, and irrelevant was insufficient to raise
the point that the witness did not know what
wagon was in question.-Goodell v. Ward, 17
Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
S7. In replevin for a horse mortgaged to plain-
tiff to secure the note of a third person, which
horse defendant claimed by purchase from the
mortgagor, a judgment for defendant will not be
disturbed where there is evidence that the note
due plaintiff has been fully paid.-Stein v. Hast-
ings, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 968.
Res judicata.
45 Minn. 196.
88. Plaintiff brought an action of claim and
delivery against R. for certain wheat, which was
taken from the possession of R. and delivered to
plaintiff. Subsequently, P., claiming the wheat
under a chattel mortgage, brought another action
of claim and delivery against plaintiff and two
others, in which process was served on such
others, but not on plaintiff, and the wheat was
taken from plaintiff's possession and delivered
to P. Thereafter P. was made a party defend
1695
1696
REPLEVIN, II., III.-RES GESTA.
ment in the court below and before appeal taken..
-Robertson v. Davidson, 14 Minn. 554, (Gil. 422.)
>>
ant in the action brought_by plaintiff, and an-
swered and took part in the trial therein with-
out objection. Held, that the action brought by
P. was not a bar to the maintenance of the for- 95. The condition of a replevin bond that the
mer action brought by plaintiff; that such for- plaintiff "shall prosecute said action with effect,
mer action was to be taken as commenced, as to is to be construed as meaning a prosecution with
P., as of the date when he was brought into it; success, or to a successful termination, and an
and that, the property and right of possession action may be maintained on the bond, as for a
of the wheat having been found to be in plain-breach, upon the dismissal of the action in re-
tiff, judgment was properly rendered for him plevin, without a judgment therein for a return
against P. for possession of the wheat or its of the property to the defendant.-Boom v. St.
value.-Chadbourn v. Rahilly, 25 N. W. 633, 34 Paul Foundry & Manuf'g Co., 22 N. W. 538, 33
Minn. 346.
Minn. 253.
89. On reversal, on appeal, of a judgment of &
justice in favor of the plaintiff, where the property
has been delivered to plaintiff on the writ, defend-
ant is entitled to judgment for the return of the
property, or its value; but this is not a judgment
on the merits, so as to bar another action.-Daley
v. Mead. (Minn.) 42 N. W. 85.
Costs.
40 Minn. 382.
90. Under Rev. St. Minn. p. 370, c. 72, § 2, in
relation to actions of replevin, providing that
plaintiff shall recover no more costs and charges
than damages, unless he recovers at least $50
damages, or property the assessed value of which,
with the damages, amounts to $50, where the
verdict is for plaintiff, but fails to find the value
of the property, he is entitled to nominal costs
only.-Coit v. Waples, 1 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
III. BONDS AND ACTIONS THEREON.
When authorized.
Parties.
96. A plaintiff in replevin, who has signed an
undertaking for the return of the property, is a
proper defendant, with the sureties, in an action
upon such undertaking after judgment against
him.-Buck v. Lewis, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 298.)
Evidence.
97. In an action on a bond in replevin against
a surety therein to enforce a judgment against
plaintiff for a return of the property, evidence
that the judgment was subsequently satisfied by
a delivery of the property is not objectionable as
impeaching the record of the judgment or the
return of the officer in the replevin suit. -Demp-
sey v. Cogswell, 12 N. W. 148, 29 Minn. 100.
Recovery.
98. Where an action of replevin in a justice's
court is dismissed without judgment for return,
the value of the property taken cannot be recov-
ered in an action on the replevin bond.-Clark v.
Norton, 6 Minn. 412, (Gil. 277.)
Reply.
91. Since Laws Minn. 1868, c. 76, repealing
Gen. St. 1866, c. 66, §§ 112-117, a writ to take
the property in an action to recover the posses-
sion of personal property is unauthorized and
void, and a bond given to procure the issuance
thereof, and a bond given in substitution therefor,
for the insufficiency of the sureties in the first See Counterclaim and Set-Off; Pleading, 97-
bond, are void, notwithstanding all parties may
have treated all the proceedings as regular, and
they are no protection to the officer taking the
property.-Hicks v. Mendenhall, 17 Minn. 475,
(Gil. 453.)
Rights of sureties.
92. A surety on a replevin bond, after judg
ment for defendant, on being sued upon the un
dertaking in the court of another state, success -
112.
Representations.
See Deceit; False Pretenses; Fraud.
Estoppel by, see Estoppel, 44-58.
Rescission.
ments, 53, 54.
contract for sale of real estate, see Vendor and
Purchaser, 76–92.
fully defended the action on the ground of erro- Of accommodation note, see Negotiable Instru
neous entry of judgment in the replevin suit, and
discharge thereby from liability. Held, that
he could not thereafter oppose an application to
amend the judgment in the replevin suit, or ap-
peal from the order granting such amendment.
Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn. 51.
When action lies.
93. The issuance of an execution upon a judg-
ment in replevin is not, in the absence of a statu-
tory requirement, a condition precedent to bring-
policy of insurance, see Insurance, 35.
release, see Release and Discharge, 4-8.
sale of goods, see Sale, 126-140.
of land, see Vendor and Purchaser, 61-75.
Reservations.
ing an action upon the undertaking given for the In deed, see Deed, 89-91; Easements, 1, 2
return of the property. - Robertson v. Davidson,
14 Minn. 554, (Gil. 422.)
94. Modification by the supreme court, on ap-
peal from a judgment rendered in an action of
replevin, as to the amount, will not defeat an ac-
tion on the replevin bond commenced after judg-
Res Gestæ.
See Account Stated, 14; Criminal Law, 61; Evi-
dence, 102-110; Homicide, 75, 76.
1697
1698
RESIDENCE-RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
Residence.
REWARD.
20.
Of defendant in attachment, see Attachment, 5, 6, Offer by sheriff, see Sheriffs and Constables, 1.
Who entitled to.
Res Judicata.
See Judgment, 92–169.
Condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Domain,
236-239.
Judgment in replevin, see Replevin, 88, 89.
of divorce, see Divorce, 28, 29.
Restraint of Trade.
See Contracts, 47-49; Intoxicating Liquors, 3.
Resulting Trusts.
See Trusts, 13-25.
Retainer.
Of attorney, see Attorney and Client, 1-17.
Retraction.
Of libel, see Libel and Slander, 49–51.
1. Where a peace officer performs service in
the detection and punishment of crime and recov-
ery of stolen goods, which it is his official duty to
perform, he is not entitled to share in the reward.
-Warner v. Grace. 14 Minn. 487, (Gil. 364.)
2. A deputy-sheriff, on information furnished
by a private person, at the request of such person,.
without a warrant, and within his own county, ar-
rested one who had committed a felony in another
county, and delivered him to the authorities of
that county. Held, that it was his duty as a peace
officer, if satisfied the information was true, to
make the arrest, and he was entitled to fees there-
for the same as if the arrest had been made on
warrant, but was not entitled to share in the re-
ward offered for the arrest and delivery of such
prisoner.-Warner v. Grace, 14 Minn. 487, (Gil..
364.)
3. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 19, pp. 54,
61, (Charter of City of Minneapolis,) making it
the duty of police officers to pursue and arrest
persons violating the laws, the chief of police of
a city is not entitled to a reward offered for the
"arrest and conviction" of persons who com-
mitted a particular offense within the city, though
he procured the arrest of such persons of his own
Retrospective and Ex Post Facto motion, and collected the evidence, and caused
Laws.
See Appeal and Error, 2,3; Constitutional Law,
80-92; Statutes, 58-60.
Return.
Of assessment of tax, see Taxation, 48, 49.
attachment, see Attachment, 71, 72.
deposition, see Deposition, 11-20.
execution, see Execution, 105-115.
summons, see Summons, 53-56.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 161-169, 715-
719; Criminal Law, 155.
To certiorari, see Certiorari, 27–29.
See Statutes, 11.
Revenue.
Review.
Of assessment of tax, see Taxation, 54-59.
witnesses to be summoned, and himself testified
against them.-Day v. Putnam Ins. Co., 16 Minn.
408, (Gil. 365.)
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See, also, Waters and Water-Courses.
In navigable waters, see Navigable Waters, 7.
Protection by injunction, see Injunction, 12, 13.
Ownership, in general.
1. The owner of the fee of the river side or
a street bordering on the Mississippi river is a.
riparian proprietor, holding to low-water mark,
subject only to the public easement of the street,
and is entitled to compensation for his riparian
rights as such owner from a railroad company.
appropriating that side of the street to its use.
Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114...
Distinguished in Wait v. May, 51 N. W. 472.
2. The person entitled to the exclusive right
to possess and use land abutting on a navigable
On appeal or error, see Appeal and Error, 216- lake or river is also, though he does not own the
230, 722-748; Criminal Law, 140-192.
certiorari, see Certiorari.
Revival.
See Abatement and Revival.
Revocation.
Of license, see License, 2, 3.
will, see Wills, 26–32.
V.2M.DIG.-54
fee, entitled to enjoy the riparian rights incident
to the land.- Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 596.
43 Minn. 104.
Conveyances-Waiver of rights.
3. Where an improvement company owning
land along the shore of a navigable bay plats the
same, and also the shoal waters extending to the
dock-line established by legislative authority,
with a view to filling up and making dry land of
the latter, in conveyances of such water it may
1699
1700
RIPARIAN RIGHTS-RIVERS.
waive all riparian rights therein, incident to the
remaining uplands, and a grantee of the latter
with notice of such conveyances, and of the gen-
eral plan of the improvements, recited in his deed,
will be bound by such waiver.-Miller v. Menden-
hall, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 1141.
43 Minn. 95.
Overruling Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38 N.
W. 200, 3S Minn. 406.
Submerged lands-Wharves, docks, etc.
4. The owner of land abutting upon the Mis-
sissippi river has the riparian right to construct
wharves and piers thereon, and to extend them
out into the river to the point of navigability,
-Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co., 23 Minn.
18.、
5. The owner of land bounded by a navigable
river has the right to free communication between
his premises and the navigable channel of the
river, and is entitled to the exclusive use of the
bed of the stream for the purpose of filling out be-
yond low water to navigable water, so long as he
does not interfere with the rights of the public
with respect to navigation.-Čarli v. Stillwater
St. Ry. & T. Co., 10 N. W. 205, 28 Minn. 373.
6. Defendant deposited stone, earth, and dé-
bris in the Mississippi river opposite abutting
land of plaintiff, and between such land and the
center of the river, with plaintiff's consent
thereto, given upon defendant's agreement to re-
move the same by a specified time. Defendant
failed to remove the stone, earth, etc., within
the time specified, to plaintiff's damage. Held,
that plaintiff could not complain that the matter
so deposited created a nuisance, having consented
thereto.-Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Bassett, 18 N.
W. 100, 31 Minn. 390.
7. The title to the soil below the low-water mark
in a navigable lake is in the state, and not in the
owner of the abutting shore, and a deed by him
purporting only to convey the soil under water
below low-water mark is inoperative. His ripa-
rian rights cannot be severed and transferred
apart from the shore, so as to give rights in
gross.-Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38
N. W. 200, 38 Minn. 406.
Overruled in Miller v. Mendenhall, 44 N. W. 1144, 43
extend landings, piers, wharves, etc., from his
land into a navigable river beyond low-water
mark, is to be understood as giving him the right
to do so to the extent necessary to make his
abutting property reasonably available at any
ordinary stage of water for any kind of naviga-
tion for which the stream is used, and for which
it is adapted: provided, of course, it does not
obstruct the paramount rights of the public.-In
re Union Depot St. Ry. & T. Co., 17 N. W. 626,
31 Minn. 297; Brunswick v. Union Depot St. Ry.
& T. Co., Id.
11. The establishment by legislative authority
of a harbor or dock line in navigable waters is an
implied grant to the owners of the adjacent up-
land of the right to occupy the land between low-
water mark and such line, title to which is in the
state, and to build on or fill up the same so as to
extend the upland to such dock-line.-Miller v
Mendenhall, (Minn.) 44 N. W 1141
43 Minn. 95.
12. The owner of land abutting on Lake Su-
perior platted it, together with the shallows be-
yond the shore, and sold blocks with reference to
the plat. Held, that the gradual encroachment
of the water on one of the shore blocks, so as to
entirely submerge it, did not vest the title there-
to in the owner of the adjacent inland block.-
Gilbert v. Eldridge, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 679.
47 Minn. 210.
13. Where the owner of land abutting on Lake
Superior plats it, together with the shallows
beyond the shore, and conveys an inland block
with reference to such plat, the gradual encroach-
conveyed does not confer on its owner the ripa-
ment of the water until it reaches the block so
rian right to reclaim and use the submerged
blocks and streets.-Gilbert v. Eldridge, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 679.
47 Minn. 210.
14. The riparian right of the owner of lands
on the shore of Lake Superior to reclaim, improve,
and occupy the land submerged by shallow water,
beyond the shore, may be disassociated from
the shore-land by the act of the owner, so that
a conveyance by him of the shore-land would not
include such riparian rights as incident thereto.
Minn. 103; Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 44 N. W. 1144,-Gilbert v. Eldridge, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 679.
43 Minn. 120.
8. The right of a riparian proprietor upon nav-
igable waters to improve, reclaim, and occupy the
submerged lands out to the point of navigability,
although originally incident to the riparian estate,
may be separated therefrom, and be transferred to
and enjoyed by persons having no intereg in the
original riparian estate. Overruling Land Co. v.
Emerson, 38 Minn. 406, 38 N. W. 200.-Hanford v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 44 N. W. 1144.*
43 Minn. 104.
9. A condemnation by a railroad corporation of
the upland abutting upon the water embraces also
the incidental riparian right of improvement and
occupancy of the submerged lands, although no
specific mention is made of riparian rights.-Han-
ford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Minn.) 44 Ñ. W. 1144.*
43 Minn. 104.
10. The term "point of navigability," as used
in cases defining the right of a riparian owner to
47 Minn. 210.
15. A conveyance in fee of land bordering on
the Mississippi river, which had been submerged
for some distance above low-water mark by dams
erected in the river, includes the riparian rights
which are naturally incident to the land con-
veyed, among which is the right to accretions
formed by gradual alluvial deposits beyond the
line of low water, notwithstanding the fact that
the deed also in terms grants certain easements
and rights upon the shore, which may be regard-
ed as applicable to the remaining lands of the
grantor bordered by the submerged land con-
veyed. -Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Eastman,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 82.
47 Minn. 301.
Rivers.
See Navigable Waters; Riparian Rights; Wa-
ters and Water-Courses.
1701
1702
RULES OF COURT.
RULES OF COURT.
Authority to make.
1. Prior to the passage of the Revised Stat-
utes of 1851, the supreme court of Minnesota had
no authority by law to make rules binding on the
district court. Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn.
452, (Gil. 393.)
Force and effect.
2. Under the provision of Pub. St. Minn. c. 53,
§ 12, that in an action for divorce a copy of the
complaint must be served on defendant, with a no-
tice to appear and answer within 30 days, or such
other notice as the court or judge may direct, etc.,
a rule of the district court allowing such a defend-
ant, in case of personal service of the summons
and complaint within the jurisdiction of the court,
90 days to answer, is void, because in conflict with
the statute.-Fagebank v. Fagebank, 9 Minn. 72,
| (Gil. 61.)
3. The rules of the district courts which de-
rived their force from Laws Minn. 1862, c. 16,
which chapter was repealed by Gen. St. 1878, c.
122, are no longer effective.-Jordan v. White, 20
Minn. 91, (Gil. 77.)
1703
1704
SABBATH-SALE.
Bee Sunday.
Sabbath.
St. Anthony, City of.
Purchase of sites and erection of buildings for
schools by board of education, see Schools and
School-Districts, 5, 10, 11.
Return of delinquent taxes, see Taxation, 98.
St. Anthony Falls Water Power
Company.
Power to appropriate water power, see Waters
and Water-Courses, 25.
St. Croix Boom Corporation.
Condemnation proceedings by, see Eminent Do-
main, 163.
St. Paul, City of.
Actions against, see Municipal Corporations,
320-322.
Assessments for public improvements, see Munic-
ipal Corporations, 224, 242-244, 247, 254-261, 265–
268, 275-283, 285-290, 293-301, 303–306.
Change of grade of streets, see Municipal Corpo-
rations, 229–234.
Condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Domain,
8, 133, 134, 148.
Contracts, see Municipal Corporations, 98-100,
108-110, 118-120, 123, 124.
S.
Water commissioners, see Constitutional Law,
62; Municipal Corporations, 88, 89.
St. Paul Union Depot Company.
Depot accommodations, see Railroad Companies,
97.
Liability to taxation, see Railroad Companies,
116.
St. Paul & Chicago Railway Com-
pany.
Branch of St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company,
see Railroad Companies, 7.
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Com-
pany.
Acquisition of franchises of Minnesota & Pacific
Railroad Company, see Railroad Companies,
99.
Exemption from taxation, see Railroad Compa-
nies, 103-109.
Land grants, see Public Lands, 56, 62, 63, 65.
Names of branches, see Railroad Companies, 7.
SALE.
I. THE CONTRACT, 1–50.
II. WARRANTY, 51-125.
III. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF PARTIES, 126-196.
IV. CONDITIONAL SALE, 197–202.
Control and improvement of streets, see Munici- | By agent, see Principal and Agent, 29–32, 73-75.
pal Corporations, 133, 134, 137-139, 213–218, 237,
238.
Defective streets, see Municipal Corporations,
152-154.
Elections and officers, see Municipal Corpora-
tions, 74.
Health board, see Municipal Corporations, 95.
Licenses, see Municipal Corporations, 30-36, 39.
Municipal court, see Appeal and Error, 699, 721,
740, 741; Constitutional Law, 51; Courts, 18,
19; Criminal Law, 5; Forcible Entry and De-
tainer, 2, 18; Justices of the Peace, 2; Land-
lord and Tenant, 86; Pleading, 159: Prohibi-
tion, Writ of, 14.
Nuisances, see Municipal Corporations, 9, 24–27.
Ordinances, see Municipal Corporations, 53, 57,
58.
Public parks, see Eminent Domain, 48.
works, see Municipal Corporations, 221, 222.
Regulating hackmen, see Municipal Corpora
tions, 50.
speed of railway trains, see Municipal Cor-
porations, 46–48.
Survey and map of streets, see Municipal Corpo-
rations, 6.
·
unlicensed auctioneer, see Auction and Auc-
tioneer.
Counterclaim in action for price of goods sold, see
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 17.
Declarations of seller as evidence against pur-
chaser, see Evidence, 88-92.
Election in action for agreed price or reasonable
value, see Action, 21.
Exemptions in actions for price, see Exemptions,
21-23.
Illegal sales of liquors, see Intoxicating Liquors,
49, 50.
Of land for nonpayment of tax, see Taxation, 86-
175.
granted to aid railroads, see Railroad
Companies, 126–136.
logs, see Logs and Logging, 39, 40.
mortgaged chattels, by mortgagee, see Chattel
Mortgages, 60–63.
patent right, see Patents for Inventions, 3.
pledge, see Pledge, 12-17.
railroads, see Railroad Companies, 91-100.
school lands, see Public Lands, 92-98.
state lands, see Public Lands, 112–114.
vessel, see Shipping, 4.
1705
1706
SALE, I.
Of ward's realty, see Guardian and Ward, 23-49.
On execution, see Execution, 64–104.
foreclosure, see Chattel Mortgages, 99, 100;
Mortgages, 243-266, 358.
Oral contracts, see Frauds, Statute of, 37-46.
Purchase of trust property by trustee, see Trusts,
37-40.
To infant, see Infancy, 8, 9.
6. Where a manufacturer of a steam snow-
plow makes a contract with a railroad company,
by the terms of which he leases to them a snow-
plow for the term of 99 years, and it appears that
the plow will not last so long, and the contract
is not qualified by any condition, and there is
oral evidence tending to show that the parties
put the contract in the form of a lease, instead of
Use of improved scales or measures, see Weights a sale, merely for the purpose of enabling the
and Measures.
1. THE CONTRACT.
What constitutes-In general.
1. Where nothing further remains to be done to
complete the transaction, it is not material that
the bill of sale reads, "I agree to sell," instead of
"I sell," etc. The form of the expression used is
not decisive, but the manifest intention of the par-
ties must control.-Bangs v. Friezen, (Minn.) 32
N. W. 173.
36 Minn. 423.
2. Where a husband offers to sell personalty to
his wife, if she will pay a note of his, but she does
not at the time accept the offer, nor relieve the
husband from liability on the note, there is no
sale, although she adds her name to the note.
Johnson v. Jacobs, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 6.
42 Minn. 168.
3. Defendant called at plaintiff's place of bu
ness, and examined wall-papers, selected the kinɩ.
that he wanted, expressing satisfaction at the
price thereof, gave instructions as to the quantity,
and said he would send a paper-hanger to get it.
This he did the next day, and the goods were de-
livered to the paper-hanger, who took them to
defendant's house, where he was employed, and
they remained there several days. Held that,
though defendant then refused to allow the paper
to be used or to pay for it, there was a complete
sale of it at the stipulated price.-Rickey v. Stew-
art; (Minn.) 48 N. W. 22.
45 Minn. 437.
4. In an action for liquors alleged to have been
sold to a husband as the agent of his wife, the de-
fendant, it appeared that defendant was a non-
resident, owning a saloon, which she rented to the
husband; that she had never carried on the business
herself; that the goods were shipped to the hus-
band in his name; that all demands for payment
were made upon him personally; and that a pay-
ment was made by him on account. Held that, a
verdict having been given for plaintiff, an order
granting a new trial would not be disturbed.-
Grommes v. Shute, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 784.
Sale or bailment.
46 Minn. 182.
5. B. delivered to W. certain sheep, under an
agreement reciting that they were lent for three
years, upon certain special conditions; B. to have
a certain amount of wool each year, and W. the
increase; W. to pay the taxes on the sheep, to take
proper care of them, and at the expiration of the
period specified to return as many sheep as were
lent him, and of as good quality, etc. Held, that
such contract did not constitute a sale, but a bail-
ment.-Williams v. McGrade, 13 Minn. 174, (Gil.
165.)
|
manufacturer to avoid a promise to pay a third
person for advertising, under a contract by which
he was to make the payment out of the proceeds
of the first plow sold, the agreement with the
railroad company will be treated as a sale.-Na-
tional Car & Locomotive Builder v. Cyclone
Steam Snow-Plow Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 657;
Northwestern Railroader v. Same, Id. 658; Lan-
ward Pub. Co. v. Same, Id.
Sale or contract for work and material.
7. A contract to furnish ties and construct a
railroad for a given compensation, payable in
installments, as the work progresses, upon
monthly estimates of work done and material
furnished, is a contract for work and material,
and not one of sale; and, until placed in the
track, the title to ties to be used remains in the
contractor, though they have been inspected by
the company and included in its estimate.-
Chandler v. De Graff, 22 Minn. 471.
$
Sale of option.
8. After the burning of a grain elevator tud
warehouseman sold, for the account of all whom it
might concern, the "whole mass" of grain upon
the premises, and which had been partially de-
stroyed by the fire, with the condition that the pur-
chasers should remove it within 30 days. Held a
sale and purchase of an option to take away, with-
in the time specified, all of the grain desired by
the purchasers, but not as an absolute purchase,
including the ashes and grain already destroyed,
and rendered worthless, so as to oblige the pur-
chasers to remove such worthless matter from the
premises, or make them liable to the public after
this had become a nuisance.-City of Duluth v.
Dunn, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1049.
40 Minn. 301.
Parol evidence to establish.
9. Where an order for goods is incomplete as
a contract, and is consistent as well with a con-
signment as a sale, and the terms thereof may ap-
ply to either, it may be shown by parol to have
been given in response to a proposition to deliver
the goods upon consignment.-Head v. Miller,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 192.
45 Minn. 446.
Fraudulent purpose.
10. Defendant as sheriff took under execution
certain grain from land belonging to T., the execu-
tion debtor. T. had, by written contracts, leased
the land to plaintiff for a time certain or
"until
the grain is secured for the rents." Plaintiff
agreed to pay T. $300 to buy seed, etc., also to ap-
ply $300 on a debt of T. to plaintiff. T. agreed to
cultivate the land, sow, harvest and thresh the
grain, and deliver two-thirds to plaintiff. The
court instructed the jury that this was a sale to
plaintiff, valid between the parties, but whether
inade with fraudulent purposes was left to the
1707
1708
SALE, I.
jury to say.. Held, that the instruction was not
prejudicial to defendant even if inaccurate, as the
question of fraud was left to the jury.-McDonald
v. Peacock, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 370.
37 Minn. 512.
Property conveyed.
11. A bill of sale described the property sold as
"all the logs belonging to and owned by me in the
Mississippi river and along the shores thereof
and also in the booms above the falls of St. An-
thony of the following marks, " etc.; no punctua-
tion appearing in the entire clause. Held, to in-
clude only logs above the falls of St. Anthony.
Van Eman v. Stanchfield, 8 Minn. 518, (Gil. 460.)
12. A bill of sale described the property sold
as "all my entire possessions at G., including the
certain household furniture and all paraphernalia
thereunto belonging to said house," and then
enumerated specific items of both real and per-
sonal property. Held, that a stock of liquors in
a saloon kept by the vendor, not being suggested
by anything in the particular description of the
items sold, did not pass by the general descrip-
tion, and it was proper to prove by parol a sale
of such liquors to the same parties at a subse-
quent date.-McAlpine v. Foley, 25 N. W. 452,
34 Minn. 251.
Sale by sample.
•
13. To constitute a sale by sample it must ap-
pear that the parties contracted solely with refer-
ence to the sample, and mutually understood that
they were dealing with the sample, with an under-
standing that the bulk was like it.-Day v. Raguet,
14 Minn. 273, (Gil. 203.)
14. Where at the time of an agreement to sell
goods the seller exhibits a sample, but the parties
agree that the goods ordered shall be a certain per
cent. better than the sample shown, the sale is not
by sample.-Day v. Raguet, 14 Minn. 273, (Gil. 203.
15. Goods sold by sample were received and
retained by the buyer, and a large portion there-
of sold by him, without objection until after suit
brought for their price, several months after the
sale; and he had in the mean time paid part of
the price, and tendered his notes for the balance.
by the jury that the goods
Held, that a finding by the jury that the goods
were of the description ordered should be sus-
ined. Singer v. Brockamp, 24 N. W. 189, 33
Minn. 501.
Price.
16. In an action for the price of lumber sold
and delivered the only issue was whether the sale
was at the prices specified in the complaint, or
whether no prices were fixed or agreed on. It
appeared that the lumber was ordered by defend-
ant from price lists furnished by plaintiff for
the purpose, and that it was to be delivered at
different places, for some of which no price-lists
were furnished by plaintiff; but from the course
of dealing between the parties and the terms of
the order for the lumber it might fairly be as-
sumed that the lots of lumber specified for the
several places were all to be supplied at the list
prices, which were substantially the same for the
different points. Held, that the court properly
directed a verdict for plaintiff.-Paine Lumber
Co. v. Betcher, 26 N. W. 606, 34 Minn. 480.
|
17. Defendant agreed in writing to buy plain-
tiff's crop of wheat "at 46 cents per bushel, to be
removed and weighed in six days; and also agrees
to give said B. [plaintiff] the benefit of the rise of
wheat in six days from this date, and in case the
wheat declines in price the said B. loses the de-
cline. To establish the price of wheat in six days
we take No. 3 wheat at 76% cents at this time in
Chicago, and be governed by the change either up
or down."
At the end of the six days No. 3 wheat
was selling in Chicago for 89% cents. Held, plain-
tiff was entitled to the difference between 76%
and 89% in addition to 46 cents agreed on in the
contract.-Bass v. Veltum, 11 N. W. 65, 28 Minn.
512.
18. A contract of sale of all the logs at. D. bear-
ing a designated mark, the vendee to pay a speci-
fied sum per 1,000 feet, "for 273,840 feet, more or
less, scaled in the boom of M. & R. at P.," con-
strued as providing that the quantity of the logs,
supposed to be about 273,840 feet, should be deter-
mined by the scaling of the same at P., and that
the aggregate price should be determined thereby.
Jesmer v. Rines, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 180.
37 Minn. 477.
for goods furnished them by plaintiff, and the
19. Where defendants agree to pay in lumber
time of delivery and prices of the lumber are not
particularly specified, it is sufficient that the de-
fendants were ready and willing to furnish it at
their lumber-yard, when called for by plaintiffs,
at the current market rates.-Hillestad v. Hos-
tetter, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 192.
46 Minn. 393.
20. Plaintiff sold lumber to defendant, and
agreed to pile it in his yard until ordered shipped
by defendant. The purchase money was to be
paid in two installments, at specified times, un-
less the lumber was ordered to be shipped before
the last one was due, in which case defendant
agreed to pay for it "as soon as received at M.
unloaded, and scaled.” Held, that plaintiff
might require payment from time to time as par-
tial deliveries were made.-Pineville Lumber Co.
v. Thompson, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 204.
46 Minn. 502.
When title passes.
recited that the latter sold to the former, at a cer-
21. A memorandum between buyer and seller
tain place, all the logs of a certain mark cut that
season, payments to be made, one-quarter down be-
fore team goes out, one-quarter June 1st, one-quar-
ter August 1st, and one-quarter September 1st,
logs enough to pay the stumpage, at a certain rate,
to be left at a point named. At the time it was
made the season was not over, and some of the logs
were not cut. Held, that it was an executory con-
tract, and not a completed sale, passing present
title.-Martin v. Hurlbut, 9 Minn. 142, (Gil. 132.)
22. A clause in a contract was as follows: "R.
contracts for all material to put up house, paying
part in lots and pianos when possible, using his own
judgment as if for himself, for which D. allows R.
to make a selection of the best piano in the lot enu-
merated below, and keep for himself, (R.)" Held,
that this did not vest the title of the piano in præ-
senti in R., but only gave him the right to select a
piano, the title to which should vest on the per-
formance of the contract. -Dodge v. Rogers, 9
Minn. 223, (Gil. 209.)
1709
1710
SALE, I.
23. Upon a contract for the sale of personal | sold and delivered to him certain goods, which
property, it is competent for the parties to deter-
mine what acts shall be done by the vendor before
the title shall vest in the purchaser.-Malone v.
Minnesota Stone Co., (Minn.) 31 N. W. 170.
36 Minn. 325.
24. Promissory notes for the price of a ma-
chine, and a chattel mortgage of the property
given to secure them, made by the purchaser at
the same time and as parts of one transaction,
are to be read together, and may be construed as
evidence of a contract by which such machine
was recognized by both parties as the property
of the purchaser, notwithstanding a clause in the
notes providing that the title to the machine
should remain in the seller until full payment of
the notes. -Beer v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 19 N.
W. 388, 32 Minn. 99.
Distinguishing Third Nat. Bank of Syracuse v. Arm-
strong, 25 Minn. 530; Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Hally, 8 N. W. 597, 27 Minn. 495.
25. On a sale of all the wheat in the ware-
houses of the seller along certain lines of rail-
way, to be delivered in lots of one or more car-
loads, at a certain price per bushel, the purchase
money for each lot was payable at any time on
demand after delivery, without reference to
the delivery of the whole amount. Held that,
although the contract was a single contract, the
delivery of each installment was complete as to
that installment, and the title thereto passed to
the purchaser.-Fishback v. Van Dusen, 22 N. W.
244, 33 Minn. 111.
defendant received in satisfaction of his debt,
and delivered to a railway company for trans-
portation. Two days afterwards, M., in payment
of his debt to plaintiff, executed to him a bill of
sale of the same goods, and on the following day
proceedings were instituted against M. under
the insolvent law, resulting in the appointment
of a receiver. Held, that the sale and delivery
to defendant were effectual to transfer the prop-
erty to him, and that his title could not be dis-
puted by plaintiff or the receiver of M.-Yallop-
De Groot Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
v.
24 N. W. 185, 33 Minn. 482.
29. Bills of lading, issued by railway station
agents,-one on December 1st, for a car-load of
barley, another on December 3d, for a car-load of
wheat,-were delivered to plaintiff, a corporation
handling grain, on commission and otherwise, by
a firm engaged in buying, selling, and storing the
same article as warehousemen, under an arrange-
ment that the grain should be shipped to and sold
by plaintiff, and the net proceeds applied in part
payment of a debt owing to plaintiff. In the bills
of lading plaintiff was designated as consignee.
At the time of delivery neither of the cars was
fully loaded, but in each of the bills was a stipula-
tion that the loads might be completed at another
station on the line of railway. This was done, and the
cars were sealed up and side-tracked ready for haul-
ing to their destination. Afterwards, on December
3d, defendant, as sheriff, seized and attached the
contents of the cars to satisfy the claim of another
creditor against said warehousemen. Held, upon
the trial of, an action for conversion, brought by
plaintiff against said sheriff, that there was either
mission merchant was coupled with an interest,
and that it was error to charge the jury that the
question for its consideration was as to the owner-
ship of the grain when it was attached; and that if,
from a preponderance of evidence, the jury found
that by the agreement between plaintiff and its
debtors the latter assigned the grain in question
to plaintiff to be sold on commission, the proceeds
to be applied in payment of a debt, their verdict
should be for defendant.-Van Dusen v. Piper,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 684.
26. On a sale of all the wheat in the ware-
houses of the seller along certain lines of rail-a sale to plaintiff, or the latter's agency as a com-
way, to be delivered at the mill of the purchaser
and paid for at an agreed price per bushel, in
car-load lots, the seller made deliveries of part
of the wheat without insisting on payment at
the time, or annexing any condition to the de
livery. In previous similar dealings between
the parties immediate payment had not been in-
sister upon, but the purchaser had paid after de-
livery, as was convenient. It also appeared that
he bought wheat exclusively to be ground in his
mill; that he never kept it separate from other
wheat until paid for, and was accustomed to use
it without reference to whether he had paid for
it or not; and the evidence tended strongly to
show that the seller perfectly understood this
mode of dealing with the wheat, and had entire
confidence in the purchaser's personal responsi-
bility. Held, that this state of facts amply sus-
tained a finding that the delivery of the grain was
absolute and unconditional, and was intended to
be such, and that such delivery passed the title
without payment of the price.-Fishback v. Van
Dusen, 22 N. W. 244, 33 Minn. 111.
42 Minn. 43.
30. Defendant elevator company, having con-
tracted to sell certain grain to M., loaded it in
cars, and by a written switching order directed
the railroad company to switch the cars into the
yard of another railroad company, M. being
named therein as consignee. The cars were duly
switched, but it did not appear that the latter
company ever took possession of them. On the
following day the bill for the price was presented
to M. and he refused to pay it, and it was again
twice presented, and the last time a check was
27. Evidence that one who had owned certain given therefor, which on presentation at the bank
goods had declared and represented to divers per- was dishonored.
was dishonored. Held, there being nothing to
sons that he had sold them to another, to whom he show whether the sale was for cash or on time,
delivered possession as the apparent owner, will it would be presumed to have been for cash on
uphold a finding of title in the latter by the trial delivery, and the check not being paid, title did
court, especially in favor of creditors of the alleged not pass.-Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Ele-
purchaser who had acted upon such representa-vator Co., 46 N. W. 306, 44 Minn. 153,
tions.-Orth v. Bauer, 38 N. W. 758, 39 Minn.
31.
28. M., being indebted to both plaintiff and
defendant, in payment of his debt to defendant
31. Where a certain number of articles are
sold out of a greater number of exactly the same
kind and quality, with the intention that the title
shall at once pass, and where the vendee has
1711
1712
SALE, I.
the absolute right, at any time, to take his
amount or number out of the whole quantity,
this is sufficient to pass the title, though the
specific articles are not actually designated, or
separated from the remainder.-Mackellar' v.
Pillsbury, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 222; Same v. Booth,
Id.
32. When on a sale of chattels they are clearly
designated and appropriated to the contract, are
ready for immediate delivery, and the terms of
sale, including the price, are explicitly given,
there is an executed contract, and the title, as
between the parties, passes to the purchaser,
even without actual payment or delivery. -Rail
v. Little Falls Lumber Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 471.
47 Minn. 422.
33. In such case, an agreement by the vendor
to transport the chattels to a place named for
delivery, or to retain possession for a time, does
not render the contract of sale executory. —Rail
v. Little Falls Lumber Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 471.
47 Minn. 422.
Delivery-Time.
34. Under a contract for the sale and delivery
of 3,000 bushels of wheat, which was to be deliv-
ered by the seller, a farmer conveying it by team
a distance of 12 miles, the evidence tended to
show that it was not the expectation of either
party that he should commence the delivery im-
mediately, or that he should continue it without
interruption until completed; and there was evi-
dence tending to prove that it was agreed, if he
did not deliver the wheat fast enough to suit the
purchaser, the latter should send him notice,
and that this was not done, and that, the con-
tract having been made in June, on an inquiry
by the seller in July of the purchaser if the lat-
ter was in a hurry for the wheat, a reply was re-
turned that it was not. Held that, on the re-
fusal of the purchaser in August, after delivery
of part of the wheat, to receive any more, the
question of what was a reasonable time for the
delivery under the circumstances was a question
for the jury.-Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Cō., 15 N.
W. 680, 30 Minn. 413.
Place.
35. Hardware merchants, whose residence and
place of business were in the city of M., agreed
with defendant, who resided at B., at their place
of business, to sell and deliver to him a quantity
of grass, which at the time they did not have in
stock, and purchased elsewhere to meet their con-
tract. Held that, in an action for the price of
the grass, the burden of proof was on defendant
to show that the delivery was to be made at B.,
and not at M.-Janney v. Sleeper, 16 N. W. 365,
30 Minn. 473.
Sufficiency.
36. Going upon a raft of logs and marking
them, all parties being present, is a sufficient de-
livery.-Brewster v. Leith, 1 Minn. 56, (Gil. 40.)
37. Defendants gave plaintiffs a written order
for a harvester machine, then unselected, to be
shipped from the factory to him at B. station on
or before July 1, 1878, agreeing to pay them there-
for a certain sum, etc. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs shipped a lot
of harvesters from the factory to M., where one
was selected and forwarded to defendant at B.
station, it arriving there some time in July. It
did not appear that defendant ever received the
harvester. Held, in an action for the purchase
money, that the shipment from M. to B. station,
not being in accordance with the contract, did
not pass the title to the property nor operate as
complaint were sufficient as upon a contract for
a constructive delivery thereof, and that if the
sale and refusal to accept, plaintiffs having
failed to ship according to order, they could not
recover.-Jones v. Schneider, 22 Minn. 279.
38. Where, on a bona fide sale of seed-wheat, to
be sown on the land of the purchaser, the amount
of wheat specified in the seed-grain note is in a
in containing a larger quantity, all of the same
quality and value, out of which it is agreed the
purchaser is then and there entitled to take away
the amount purchased, there is sufficient evidence
of a sale and delivery of the wheat at the date of
the note, as between the maker and payee. Weigh-
ing or measuring is not essential, except when nec-
essary to define the subject-matter.-Nash v. Brew-
ster, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 105.
39 Minn. 530.
39. Plaintiff made five contracts to deliver to
defendants on the lines of two railroads cross-ties
aggregating 224, 240. Each contract specified the
number of ties to be delivered under it, and on the
line of which railroad they were to be delivered.
Plaintiff delivered more than the aggregate num-
ber of ties called for by the contracts, and on one
line he delivered more than the number required
to be delivered there, and on the other less than
the required number. Plaintiff was credited
with the ties delivered, and payments were made
thereon, without reference to any particular con-
tract, except that under one contract the price
was 30 cents per tie and under the other contract
the price was 28 cents. Afterwards the par-
ties had a settlement by which it was ascer-
tained that plaintiff had delivered 20,359 ties in
excess of the number called for by the contracts,
and defendants paid plaintiff the balance due for
the 224, 240 ties, and gave him an order on their
agent for the 20,359 ties delivered in excess of the
contracts. It did not appear that the 20,359 ties
last delivered, or any of them, could be distin-
guished from the others. Held, that plaintiff did
not have title to any particular ties, but was en-
titled to 20,359, from the common lot, without re-
gard to where they were delivered or under
which of the five contracts.-Chandler v. De Graff,
6 N. W. 611, 27 Minn. 208.
40. Plaintiff sold to defendant 3,000 bushels of
wheat to be delivered at defendant's mill. It
was understood by both parties that the wheat
was to be transported a distance of 12 miles.
Held, that plaintiff was not required to deliver
the whole amount at one time and in one lot, it
appearing that such mode of delivery had not
been in the minds of the parties, and that it was
not reasonably practicable, in view of the nat
ure and situation of the property.-Roberts v.
Mazeppa Mill Co., 15 N. W. 680, 30 Minn. 413.
41. Delivery to the carrier at the seller's place
of business is a sufficient delivery, where the goods
are to be sent by a common carrier.-Kessler v.
Smith, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 794.
42 Minn. 494.
1713
1714
SALE, I., II.
Delivery-Refusal to receive.
42. Plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to de-
fendant a quantity of lumber, the delivery to be
at the rate of 20,000 feet per week. Some of the
lumber was to be delivered on the cars, and
some on defendant's land. Held, that a request
by defendant that no more lumber should be
shipped until further notice authorized plaintiff
to suspend all delivery of lumber, both on the
cars and on defendant's land, so long as such re-
quest remained in force.-Robson v. Bohn, 7 N.
W. 357, 27 Minn. 333.
43. On a contract for the sale and delivery by
plaintiff to defendant of 3,000 bushels of wheat,
after a part thereof had been delivered, defend-
ant refused to receive any more, upon the ground
that the time within which, by the terms of the
contract, the wheat was to be delivered, had ex-
pired. Held, that this amounted to a waiver by
defendant of any subsequent tender or offer to
deliver by plaintiff.-Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill
Co., 15 N. W. 680, 30 Minn. 413.
Acceptance.
44. The vendor of 200 barrels of sound flour,
for the purpose of delivery, went with the vendee
to a warehouse, where the vendor had 200 bar-
rels of flour stored, and made a formal delivery
by authorizing the verdee to take and remove the
same. The flour being in barrels, no examina-
tion could then be had, and the vendee paid the
balance of the purchase price. The vendee made
immediate preparation to remove the flour, and,
in so doing, to examine its quality. It being
found in a damaged condition, he desisted from
removing the same, and on the day following,
when the vendor returned, informed him of the
condition of the flour, refused to receive it un-
der the contract, and demanded repayment of
the purchase money. Held, that there had been
no acceptance of the flour, and therefore no com-
plete delivery.-Knoblauch v. Krouschnabel, 18
Minn. 300, (Gil. 272.)
45. Plaintiff agreed to put on defendant's
building shutters of a specified kind and quality.
The shutters furnished were not of the kind re-
quired by the contract, and, as soon as defendant
had an opportunity to examine them, he refused
to receive them, and forbade plaintiff to put
them on the building. Plaintiff afterwards prom-
ised to make the shutters according to the con-
tract or not expect defendant to take them, to
which defendant replied it might be made satis-
factory, but defendant only wanted such shutters
as he had agreed to pay for. Plaintiff then put
the shutters on, intending to alter them after-
wards, but this was never done. Defendant when
asked to pay the contract price replied that the
shutters were not the kind ordered, and that un-
less something was done to them within 10 days
he would remove and put up others. Held,
that defendant did not accept the shutters and
waive the defects.-Belt v. Stetson, 4 N. W. 779,
26 Minn. 411.
46. Where a wholesale dealer sells whisky to a
retailer, doing business in the same city, on con-
dition that it is of a certain kind and quality, a de-
lay of six weeks, after an examination and discov
ery as to the kind and quality of the goods de-
livered, in notifying the vendor that they were
not satisfactory to the vendee, and would not be
kept, is unreasonable and amounts to an accept-
ance of the goods.-Rosenfield v. Swenson, (Minn.)
47 N. W. 718.
45 Minn. 190.
47. When goods are ordered, and they are sent
before the time specified in the order, the buyer
waives the objection that they are prematurely sent
by receiving them, and not objecting within a rea-
sonable time.-Sole-Leather Över Manuf'g Co. v.
Bangs, (Lee v. Bangs,) 44 N. W. 671, 43 Minn. 23.
ties of plaintiff, no amount being specified, accept-
48. Under a parol agreement to take railroad
ance of a certain number actually delivered does
not bind defendant to receive more.-Russell v.
Wisconsin, M. & P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 39 N. W. 302.
39 Minn. 145.
49. On a sale by sample, the buyer acquiesces in
the quality of the goods by receiving them, and
making no objection.-Sole-Leather Over Manuf'g
Co. v. Bangs, (Lee v. Bangs,) 44 N. W. 671, 43
Minn. 23.
50. Goods were ordered of plaintiffs by A.,
and, through mistake, sent to defendant, who re-
ceived them. The mistake being discovered by
plaintiffs, they notified A., to whom they were
delivered by defendant. Subsequently plaintiffs
sent a statement of account to A., and drew a
draft on him for the amount. Held a ratifica-
tion by plaintiffs of the delivery by defendant
to A., and that defendant was not liable for the
goods.-Foreman v. Barrie, 24 Minn. 349.
II. WARRANTY.
Express warranty-In general.
51. To constitute a warranty, neither the word
"warrant" nor any equivalent word is indispen-
sable. A clear and positive affirmation or repre-
sentation of the quality of the thing sold, made
by the seller as a part of the contract of sale,
and relied upon by the purchaser, is a warranty.
-Warder v. Bowen, 17 N. W. 943, 31 Minn. 335.
52. Upon a sale of sheep, representations as to
their soundness, made by the vendor to the vendee
and which do induce him to purchase, amount to a
for the purpose of inducing the latter to purchase,
warranty.-Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn. 109, (Gil.
99.)
53. A contract for the construction of a speci-
bied kind of flouring-mill contained a clause,
"machine to have capacity of 100 barrels per 24
hours; to have 5 pairs of corrugated rolls." Held,
that this clause was not merely descriptive of
the kind or size of the machine, but was a war-
ranty of its capacity.-Cosgrove v. Bennett, 20
N. W. 359, 32 Minn. 371.
54. In an action for the price of apples de-
fendant set up an express warranty of the qual-
ity of the apples, and a breach thereof. He tes-
tified that plaintiff applied to him to purchase
the apples; that he offered to do so if plaintiff
would give his word that they were first-class,
both in fruit and package; and that after consid-
ering the matter plaintiff agreed to accept de-
fendant's proposition, and stated that the apples
1715
1716
SALE, II.
should be in every respect equal to certain others
specified. Held, that this was sufficient evidence
of warranty to be submitted to the jury. -Scott
v. Raymond, 18 N. W. 274, 31 Minn. 437.
55. In an action on an alleged warranty on the
sale of two horses, the complaint alleged that "at
the time of said purchase, and before the same was
made, one of said horses was affected with what
defendant said was a cold, which caused said horse
to discharge at the nose; that, before this plain-
tiff bought said horses, the defendant told him,
the plaintiff, that nothing ailed said horse but a
cold, and that it was only such cold that caused
said horse to discharge from the nose as aforesaid. '
It further alleged that plaintiff relied on and be-
lieved what defendant told him, and was thereby
led to purchase the horses, and that in fact the
horse had a dangerous disease called "glanders, "of
which he afterwards died. Held, that the com-
plaint did not allege a warranty.-Zimmerman v.
Morrow, 10 N. W. 139, 28 Minn. 367.
56. In an action for the price of a mower, the
answer alleged that, when defendant purchased
the mower, plaintiff represented to him that it was
a good machine, and would do good work; that
the mower was worthless; that, immediately after
discovering that it was incapable of doing good
work, defendant offered to return it to plaintiff,
who refused to receive it; that defendant has al-
ways been willing to return the mower; and that
by reason of the premises he has been damaged,
etc. Held, that the answer did not allege a war-
ranty. Torkelson v. Jorgenson, 10 N. W. 416, 28
Minn. 383.
Express warranty-By parol.
of a verbal warranty made by such agent on be-
half of his principal.-Kelly v. Clow Reaper
Manuf'g Co., 20 Minn. S8, (Gil. 74.)
61. When the bill of sale of a horse contains
a written warranty of title and pedigree, evidence
of a prior or contemporaneous oral warranty of
soundness is inadmissible.-Bradford v. Neil,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 193.
46 Minn. 347.
62. A contract of sale being completed and ev-
idenced by a written bill of sale, prepared by the
purchaser, embracing particular warranties as to
the property sold, precludes the purchaser from
recovering upon oral representations (as warrant-
ies) made in the course of the negotiations.-
Humphrey v. Merriam, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 199.
Implied warranty-Of title.
46 Minn. 413.
63. One who sells for a fair price, and as his
own, any personal property in his possession, im-
pliedly warrants the title thereto.-Davis v. Smith,
7 Minn. 414, (Gil. 328.)
64. Where a person in the possession of per-
sonal property undertakes either to sell or to ex-
change it as his own, he impliedly warrants
that he has title to it, and that it is unincum-
bered.-Close v. Crossland, (Minn.) 50 N. W.
| 694.
47 Minn. 500.
Of quality.
65. An implied warranty on the sale of pro-
visions arises, if at all, only where such provis-
ions are for consumption or the immediate do-
sold as merchandise.-Ryder v. Neitge, 21 Minn. 70.
57. After a sale and delivery of personal prop-mestic use of the vendee, and not where they are
erty with a verbal warranty, the gratuitous de-
livery by the seller to the buyer of a writing
containing a different warranty cannot supersede
the verbal warranty.-C. Aultman & Co. v.
Kennedy, 23 N. W. 528, 33 Minn. 339.
58. On a sale of personal property a warranty
of its quality is an item and term of the contract,
and not a separate and independent collateral
contract, which can be added to the written agree-
ment of sale by oral testimony. Distinguishing
Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 389.-Thompson v.
Libbey, 26 N. W. 1, 34 Minn. 374.
59. The language of a writing entitled as an
"agreement," and signed
" and signed by T., by his agent,
and by L., was as follows: "I have this day sold
L., of Hastings, Minn., all my logs marked
'H. C. A.,' cut in the winters of 1882 and 1883,
for ten dollars a thousand feet, boom scale at
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Payments cash as fast
as scale-bills are produced." Held, that this
purported to be a complete expression of the
whole agreement of the parties, and that oral tes-
timony of a warranty of the quality of the logs
was not admissible.-Thompson v. Libbey, 26 N.
W. 1, 34 Minn. 374.
60. In an action for breach of a warranty on a
sale of goods through defendant's agent, proof
of a written warranty, made by the agent in his
own behalf, will not, upon the sole ground that
parol evidence will not be heard to contradict
or affect that which is written, exclude evidence
66. Plaintiff having constructed a model of a
device constituting an improvement in a machine,
by which he undertook to illustrate its practical
operation, defendant, after a personal examina-
tion of such model, and witnessing its operation,
and after hearing plaintiff's description and ex-
planation of the machine and its design, entered
into a contract with plaintiff for the manufacture
by plaintiff for him of a machine in conformity
with the model. Held, that there was no im-
plied warranty that such machine should be fit
for the purpose intended, but only that it should
be of good materials and workmanship.-Cos-
grove v. Bennett, 20 N. W. 359, 32 Minn. 371.
67. On a purchase of a specific lot of logs in
existence at the time no warranty is implied
merely from the fact that the seller knew that
the buyer intended to use them for the manu-
facture of lumber. -Thompson v. Libby, 29 N.
W. 150, 35 Minn. 443.
68. Wheat sold for the express purpose of be-
ing used for seed for the production of a crop
was designated in the written contract of sale as
"Saskatchewan Fife wheat." Held, that there
was an implied warranty as to its quality, that
it was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it
was sold, but not that it was pure, or absolutely
free from other seeds; and, on conflicting evi-
dence as to the amount of impurities in it, the
questions what amount it contained, and whether
1717
1718
SALE, II.
it was thereby rendered unfit for the purpose
contemplated, or failed to fulfill the requirements
of the contract, were for the jury.-Shatto v.
Abernethy, 29 N. W. 325, 35 Minn. 538.
69. Where a manufacturer fills an order for an
auger for boring wells of a known and recognized
description, there is no implied warranty that it
will answer the purpose for which it is intended
to be used.-Goulds v. Brophy, (Minn.) 43 N. W.
834.
42 Minn. 109.
What constitutes breach.
70. A warranty of the capacity of a machine
is broken, although, while new and clean, or un-
der specially favorable circumstances, it tempo-
rarily fulfills the requirements, if there are such
inherent defects in it that ordinarily, under
proper management, it cannot turn out the stip-
ulated quantity of work.-Cosgrove v. Bennett,
20 N. W. 359, 32 Minn. 371.
71. On the sale of a mill, the sellers represent-
ed that it would grind 40 bushels of corn per
hour. Held, that this representation was not
shown to be untrue by proof that the mill would
grind only 15 bushels of mixed corn and oats per
hour.-Kerrick v. Van Dusen, 20 N. W. 228, 32
Minn. 317.
tice provided for, or to waive it, and where such
notice was not shown to have been accepted or
acted upon by the sellers, or his acceptance there-
of to have been ratified by them, was wholly in-
effectual to bind them.-Nichols, Shepard & Co.
v. Knowles, 18 N. W. 413, 31 Minn. 489.
""
75. A written warranty of a harvesting-ma-
chine contained a stipulation that "if, on start-
ing a machine, it should in any way prove de-
fective, and not work well, the purchaser shall
give prompt notice to the agent from whom he
purchased it, and allow time for a person to be
sent to put it in order. Held, that this condi-
tion was satisfied by the agent voluntarily in-
specting the machine, and attempting to put it
in order, soon after it was set up, he having no-
tice of its defective condition, and by subsequent.
attempts by persons representing the seller of
the machine.-Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co.,
N. W. 440, 33 Minn. 98.
22
76. Where, in a written agreement of warranty
on the sale of a threshing-machine, it is stipu-
represent-lated that if, within three days after the ma-
chine is set up and started, it shall not work as
warranted, the buyer shall at once discontinue
its use, and notify the seller in writing, and wait
for the seller to send a man "to right it," and
within that time an agent representing the com
pany, and authorized to make necessary repairs or
changes, appears and undertakes the same, the
required notice is waived.-Massachusetts Loan
& Trust Co. v. Welch, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 740.
47 Minn. 183.
Return of property.
72. A warranty by the seller of stock of a cor-
poration that there were no assessments "about
to be made" upon the stock is not broken by the
fact that shortly after the sale the stockholders,
by agreement, issued new stock to be purchased
by themselves, the proceeds to be applied in pay-
ment of debts.-Humphrey v. Merriam, (Minn.)
49 N. W 199.
46 Minn. 413.
Notice of breach.
73. A warranty on a sale of a threshing-ma-
chine required the buyer to give written notice
of defects in the machine to the seller at its place
of business in Michigan, and that reasonable time
should be allowed to get to it and remedy the
defect, unless it was of such a nature that the
seller could advise by letter. Held, that the
seller might waive the written notice; that the
buyer might give the notice by an agent, writing
in his behalf, and might for that purpose select
one who, for other purposes, acted as agent of the
seller; and that the notice might be given by
mailing it.-Nichols v. Root, 29 N. W. 160, 35
Minn. 363.
74 A contract of warranty of an engine on a
sale thereof was made subject to a condition that,
if upon trial the engine failed to operate well,
written notice should be given to the dealer
through whom the engine was purchased, and
also to the sellers at a place specified. Held,
that the giving of seasonable oral notice to such
dealer, and his acting upon it without objec-
tion, were sufficient to authorize the jury to
find a waiver of the written notice required
as to him; but that such an acceptance of oral
notice given to another person alleged to have
been sent by the sellers of the engine to visit
and fix up engines which they had sold in
different parts of the state, but who was not
shown to have been authorized to receive the no-
machine "guarantied to work satisfactorily," the
77. Under an executory agreement to furnish a
buyer has a right to make a trial of it, reasona-
ble as respects both time and manner, and to re-
ject it if it does not work satisfactorily to him.
-McCormick Harvesting-Mach. Co. v. Chesrown,
21 N. W. 846, 33 Minn. 32.
78. The purchaser of a harvester and binder
machine, under a warranty and agreement that
he should take it on trial, and that, if it did not.
fulfill the warranty, the sellers would take it
back, expressed to their agent his dissatisfac-
tion with the machine within two or three days.
after his grain was in a condition to try it, and
after he began to try it. He thereafter continued
the trial, at the solicitation of the agent, for a
few days, and then distinctly informed the agent
that it was not satisfactory, and he would not
keep it, and offered then and there to return it
if the agent wished; and in the course of two or
three days afterwards he returned the machine
to the agent, before the beginning of the wheat
harvest. Held that, on these facts, the question
of reasonable time for the return of the machine
was one for the jury, and the court could not
say, as matter of law, that there was an unrea.
sonable delay.-Warder v. Bowen, 17 N. W. 943,
31 Minn. 335.
79. Where the purchaser of a chattel is to have
30 days to try if it be as represented, he is bound
to keep and pay for it if he do not, within or at the
end of that time, give notice to the seller that it is
not as represented, and offer to return it, and an
allegation that he "has duly offered to return and
has been ready and willing to return said
to
1719
1720
SALE, II.
plaintiff ever since its insufficiency for the pur-
poses aforesaid was ascertained" does not show
compliance with this condition.-Latham v. Baus-
man, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 776.
39 Minn. 57.
80. A contract of sale of a harvesting-machine
contained a warranty thereof, and provided that,
if it could not be made to do good work, it should
"immediately be returned to the agent of whom
it was purchased, at his place of business." The
agent who sold it was a traveling agent, and had
no place of business; but the contract provided
for the delivery of the machine to the purchasers
at a certain railroad warehouse, and it was there
delivered to them. Held that, on the machine
failing to do good work, the purchases were jus-
tified in returning it to such warehouse; but that
they were bound, in order to rescind, to give
prompt notice to the sellers.-Paulson v. D. M.
Osborne & Co., 27 N. W. 203, 35 Minn. 90.
81. Where, by the terms of the warranty of a
harvester, the purchaser has a right to rescind
the contract of sale, and return the machine, a re-
tarn of it to the railroad warehouse, where it was
delivered for him by the inanufacturer, and, the
whereabouts of the agent who made the sale not
being known, a written notice of the return and a
demand for his purchase-money notes on the next
nearest agent, is a sufficient rescission to support
an action by the purchaser for the amount of the
notes which he had been compelled to take up in
the hands of an indorsee.-Paulson v. D. M. Os-
borne & Co.. (Minn.) 33 N. W. 2.
37 Minn. 19.
82. For the purposes of rescission of a sale of
personal property for breach of warranty it is
sufficient if the vendee has notified the vendor of
his intention to rescind, and has returned, or
offered to return, the property.-Close v. Cross-
land, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 694.
Waiver of breach.
47 Minn. 500.
83. On a sale of a self-binding harvester ma-
chine, the vendor warranted it to be well built,
and capable of cutting a certain amount per day.
The contract also provided that, if the machine
should in any way prove defective, and not work
well, notice should be given to the vendor, and,
if it could not then be made to do good work, the
defective part would be replaced, or the machine
taken back; and that keeping the machine dur-
ing harvest, without giving such notice, should
be deemed conclusive evidence that the machine
filled the warranty. Held, that the warranty
applied to the binding machinery, and was not
limited to the harvesting machinery; and that,
the binder having proved defective, and incapa-
ble of doing good work, and the vendee having
given the required notice, he might recover dam
ages for breach of warranty, although he there-
after retained the machine without offering to
return it.-Tunnell v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 17
N. W. 944, 31 Minn. 343.
84. Under a contract for the construction of a
machine, with an express warranty of its capac-
ity, the receipt and retention of a machine other-
wise answering the description in the contract is
not a waiver of a right of action on the warranty,
cn a subsequent discovery of a breach thereof.-
Cosgrove v. Bennett, 20 N. W. 359, 32 Minn. 371.
Distinguishing Haase v. Nonnemacher, 21 Minn. 486.
85. A written warranty on a sale of a harvest-
ing-machine, to the effect that the machine was
well built, of good material, and capable of a
certain amount of work per day, stipulated that,
if the machine should prove defective, the pur-
chaser should give notice to the agent from whom
he purchased it, and allow time for putting it in
order, and that, if it could not then be made to
do good work, the defective part would be re-
placed, or the machine taken back; but that keep-
ing the machine during harvest, whether kept
in use or not, without giving such notice, should
be deemed conclusive evidence that the machine
filled the warranty. The machine failed to work
well on starting it the first season, and the pur-
chaser at once gave notice of the fact, whereupon
the seller tried to put it in order, but it still
failed, of which the purchaser also gave due no-
tried, but failed to
tice, and the seller again
make it work well. Held, that keeping the ma-
chine after the first harvest season was not, un-
der these circumstances, conclusive evidence
that it filled the warranty, and that, as evidence
of a breach of warranty, it might be shown that
the machine worked badly after the first season,
in the same way in which it had worked badly
from the beginning, and also that it wasted
grain, and to what extent, if due to defects in
the machine.-D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Marks,
22 N. W. 1, 33 Minn. 56.
86. On the purchase of a machine with a war-
ranty, several notes were given by the purchaser
for the price. Held, that a renewal of one of the
notes without mention of a counter-claim for a
breach of the warranty, although very strong
evidence against the existence of such a counter-
claim, could not operate as a waiver or a release
thereof.-D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Marks, 22 N.
W. 1, 33 Minn. 56.
87. The execution of notes for a part of the pur-
chase price subsequent to the delivery and trial of
a machine is not a waiver of defects therein,
where the seller, at the time of the execution of
such notes, promised and agreed to repair it, and
make it satisfy the terms of the warranty.-D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter, (Minn.) 34 Ñ. W. 163.
37 Minn. 331.
88. Plaintiff agreed to cut and bank for defend-
ants a certain quantity of "good, smooth, sound"
logs, which were to be subject to the inspection
and approval of defendants when banked, and, if
approved, plaintiff was to drive them into a cer-
tain boom, and defendants were to pay for them
in installments, at times specified: and advances,
to be made by defendants to plaintiff, were to be
refunded in case the logs, on inspection by de-
fendants, did not receive their approval. Held,
that the words quoted, descriptive of the quality
of the logs, while constituting a precedent to be
performed by plaintiff, were not intended as a
warranty which would survive acceptance of the
logs; and that, although it did not appear
whether the inspection provided for by the con-
tract had been made by defendants, they must be
deemed, after having settled with plaintiff, and
paid him part of the contract price according to
its terms, and having received the logs, making
1721
1722
SALE, II.
no objection, to have acquiesced in the quality as
in accordance with the contract.-Maxwell v.
Lee, 27 N. W. 196, 34 Minn. 511.
89. A contract for the sale of a specified lot of
logs, so situated that they could not be exam-
ined by the buyer, for a fixed price per 1,000
feet, to be transported by the seller to a distant
place of delivery and there measured, delivered,
and paid for, is, upon its face, executory, and
not an executed sale; and the implication, from
the impossibility of an examination of the prop-
erty by the buyer at the time of the contract,
that it is of merchantable quality, is to be treat-
ed as a condition, rather than as a warranty,
as to defects which were obvious upon inspec-
tion, or which were or might have been discov-
ered on the delivery of the logs; and the receiv-
ing and retaining of the logs by the buyer under
the contract, with knowledge of such defects,
operates as a waiver of the implied condition
as to quality.-Thompson v. Libby, 29 N. W.
150, 35 Minn. 443.
90. Where the agent of a threshing-machine
manufacturer, under his general authority to
make, or cause to be made, suitable repairs, has
taken charge of a machine sold under a warranty,
for the purpose of "righting" it, and, upon ex-
periment thereafter, it continues to work badly,
and not as warranted, and the buyer, under his
direction, continues to use it in reliance upon
his promise to fix it and put it in complete re-
pair, which he fails to do, the manufacturer hav-
ing ratified the agent's acts, the buyer does not
forfeit his right to recover upon the warranty by
reason of the expiration of the time limited in
the contract for the trial of the machine before
the repairs are fully made. -Massachusetts Loan
& Trust Co. v. Welch, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 740.
47 Minn. 183.
Action for breach-When maintainable.
91. Where a buyer purchases goods with a war-
ranty that they are of particular quality, and a
stipulation that if they are not equal to the war-
ranty he may rescind the contract and return the
goods, he is not, in case the warranty prove false,
confined to his remedy of rescission and return,
but may bring an action for the breach.-Man-
del v. Buttles, 21 Minn. 391.
92. A purchaser of personal property cannot re-
cover against the seller on a warranty for any de-
fects in the thing sold which were known to the
seller at the time of the sale.-McCormick v. Kel-
ly, 9 N. W. 675, 28 Minn. 135.
93. The purchaser of personal property may
recover from the seller damages for breach of
warranty on the sale, although the price was
paid by promissory notes of the purchaser which
remained unpaid.-Frohreich v. Gammon, 11 N.
W. 88, 28 Minn. 476; Thoreson v. Minneapolis
Harvester Works, 13 N. W. 156, 29 Minn. 341.
94. The recovery by the seller of personal
property of a judgment on notes given by the
buyer for the price does not bar an action by the
buyer against the seller for breach of warranty on
the sale, where the breach of the contract of
warranty was not pleaded by the buyer in the ac-
tion on the notes.-Thoreson v. Minneapolis Har-
vester Works, 13 N. W. 156, 29 Minn. 341.
|
95. On a sale and delivery of certain logs by
defendant to plaintiffs, defendant, by an instru-
ment in writing, covenanted "to warrant and de-
fend the title" to the logs against the lawful
claims of any person. Thereafter a third party,
claiming to have been the owner of the logs at
the time of such sale, brought an action against
plaintiffs for converting them, and recovered
judgment against them therefor. Held, that plain-
tiffs could recover from defendant on bis cove-
nant without showing that they had paid the
judgment. - Hersey v. Long, 14 N. W. 508, 30.
Minn. 114.
96. On the sale of a machine, paid for in money
and notes, a warranty was given with a provis-
ion that, "if said machine will not bear the-
above warranty, it is to be returned, after a trial
of two weeks, to the place of delivery, and an-
other substituted that will answer such warranty,.
or the money and uotes immediately refunded."
Held, that the remedy thus agreed on was ex-
clusive, and that the purchaser could not recover-
for a breach without returning or offering to re-
turn the machine.-Rowell v. Olson, 20˚N. W.
227, 32 Miun. 288.
97. On a sale of goods with an express war-
ranty of the quality, after the sale has been con-
summated by delivery to the buyer without ex-
amination or notice of the defective quality of
the goods, and after payment of part of the pur-
chase price, the buyer is not bound to accept a
proposition of the seller to reship the goods to
others. He may retain them, rely upon the war-
ranty, and recoup or sue for his damages for the
breach thereof.-Scott v. Raymond, 18 N. W. 274,
31 Minn. 437.
98. Where there is a breach of warranty of
title or against incumbrances in the sale or ex-
change of personal property, the proper form of
action therefor is for the breach, and the dam-
ages are the actual loss, which is the value of
the property purchased.-Close v. Crossland,
(Minn.) 50 N. Ŵ. 694.
47 Minn. 500.
99. Where property is exchanged as upon a
sale, with a warranty of title, though a third
person may afterwards show a paramount title,
the warranty is not broken until an ouster or a.
surrender.-Close v. Crossland, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 694.
47 Minn. 500.
100. Where the vendee of mortgaged property
does not surrender the same upon the demand of
the mortgagee, but defends an action brought by
him for the recovery thereof, an action by him
against the vendor for damages or to recover the
consideration paid is premature while the suit
land, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 694.
by the mortgagee is pending.-Close v. Cross-
47 Minn. 500.
101. In such case the provisional taking of the
property in claim and delivery before determina-
tion of the action decides nothing as to the title,
and is not an eviction warranting an action by
the vendee against the vendor.-Close v. Cross-
land, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 694.
|
47 Minn. 500.
1723
1724
SALE, II.
Action for breach-Limitation.
102. By a written warranty on a sale of a steam
thresher engine the sellers warranted the engine
as well made, of good materials, and that, if
properly run, fired, and managed, it was capable
of developing the rated power. Deficiencies in
general adaptation for developing the rate of
power were expressly agreed by the purchaser to
be reported in writing within 10 days after scart-
ing the engine, and it was agreed that all war.
ranty on the engine should terminate and expire,
and all liability of the sellers for breach of war-
ranty, damages, or otherwise should cease en-
tirely, at the close of the year. Held, that the
limitation by the last clause mentioned did not
operate to prevent the bringing of any action on
the contract of warranty after the close of the
year, but only to limit the warranty, and the lia-
bility of the sellers to such defects warranted
against in the engine existing at the time of sale
and not being deficiencies in general adaptation
for developing the rated power as might be dis-
covered before the close of the year, and to such
deficiencies in general adaptation for developing
the rated power as might be discovered within 10
days after the engine was started. Nichols,
Shepard & Co. v. Knowles, 18 N. W. 413, 31 Minn.
4$9.
Evidence.
103. In an action upon a warranty, on the sale of
a horse, the answer admitted the sale, but denied
the warranty. Held, that under his pleading de-
fendant could not show the contract was void be-
cause made on Sunday.-Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn.
194, (Gil. 179.)
104. Where the complaint alleges a breach of
warranty, and also fraudulent representations, in
the sale of personal property, plaintiff may re-
cover on the warranty, though the fraud be not
proven.-Johnson v. Wallower, 15 Minn. 472,
(Gil. 387.)
105. On a counter-claim for breach of warranty
of a reaping-machine, the admission of evidence
to the amount of grain defendant had to cut that
year is error; it not being material to show the
purpose for which he bought the machine, and
being liable to prejudice the jury on the ques-
tion of damages.-Johnston Harvester Co. v.
Clark, 17 N. W. 111, 31 Minn. 165.
106. In an action for the price of a reaping
machine defendant set up a counter-claim for a
breach of warranty of the machine, consisting
in the fact that one part of it was defectively
made, and broke and fell apart when brought
into use. Held, that evidence of the nature of
the repairs required, and of the reasonable ex-
pense of repairing or replacing the part broken,
was competent on the question of damages; and
that evidence of the actual value of the machine
in its unsound condition was also competent.-
Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 17 N. W. 111,
31 Minn. 165.
107. In an action for the price of a harvesting
and binding machine, in which the defense was
breach of a warranty of the machine, defendant,
after proving what would have been the market
value of the machine if it had been as warranted,
asked his witnesses what the machine, in its act-
ual condition, was worth as a harvester and
binder. Held, that the question was improper,
because limited to the value for a specific pur-
pose; the inquiry should have been as to the
market value generally.-D. M. Osborne & Co.
v. Marks, 22 N. W. 1, 33 Minn. 56.
108. In an action for damages for breach of
warranty of a machine, the question to the pur-
chasers, "What was the machine worth in the
condition it was at the time you bought it?" is
competent, as calling for the value of the ma-
chine generally.-Wilson v. Reedy, 24 N. W.
191, 33 Minn. 503.
109. In an action for damages for breach of
warranty of a harvesting-machine and binder it
appeared that the binder was defective, and
plaintiff and his witnesses testified that, as a
binder and harvester combined, the machine was
substantially worthless. Held, that it was
proper, on cross-examination of the witnesses,
to show the cost of changes and repairs reason-
ably practicable to make the machine work as a
hand-binding harvester, and the value of the ma-
chine for such purpose.-Melby v. D. M. Os-
borne & Co. 24 N. W. 253, 33 Mion. 492.
110. In an action for breach of warranty of a
harvesting-machine, where evidence on the part
of plaintiff tends to show that the machine could
not be made to do good work because of a defect
in the design of a certain part, opposing evidence
is admissible that other machines, exactly like
that in question, did good work under the same
conditions.-Paulson v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 27
N. W. 203, 35 Minn. 90.
111. In an action on a breach of warranty of a
harvesting machine, evidence that the machine
question whether it worked well; also proof that
ran very hard is admissible as bearing upon the
another machine worked well in the same grain
that the difficulty was in the machine, not in the
where it failed is admissible, as tending to show
that the difficulty was in the machine, not in the
condition of the grain.-Paulson v. D. M. Os-
borne & Co., 27 N. W. 203, 35 Minn. 90.
112. Where damages are claimed by the purchaser
of a harvester and binder, for breach of warranty
that the binder would do as good work as other
binders, evidence is properly received showing a
cod the one in question.-D. M. Osborne & Co v.
comparison between the work of other machines
and
Carpenter, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 163.
37 Minn. 331.
113. Evidence of the working of the machine
during several harvests is properly received to
show its intrinsic defects, and that, after a thor-
ough trial, it was not as warranted.-D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Carpenter, 34 N. W. 163, 37
Minn. 331.
114. Upon the issue of the false and fraudulent
warranty of a horse, testimony as to the result of
a trial of the animal, held competent; and evidence
of the price offered for it by a third party, not
shown to be familiar with its character or habits,
held properly ruled out.-Johnson v. Hillstrom,
Minn.) 33 N. W. 547.
37 Minn. 122.
1725
1726
SALE, II., III.
115. In an action for damages for breach of con-
tract to deliver 4,000 cases of corn, of a guarantied
quality, it appeared that the corn whose quality
was in dispute was shipped in October. Held,
that a letter written by defendants' agent in Au-
gust, in which he expressed a doubt whether the
quality would be equal to that of last season, was
properly excluded, as it did not appear that he had
examined or had any personal knowledge of the
quality of the corn.-Smith v. Groneweg, (Minn.)
41 N. W. 939.
40 Minn. 178.
116. In an action on one of several notes given
tor the price of a machine, in which the defense
was breach of warranty of the machine, evidence
is admissible that defendant paid another such
note without objection, and without any com-
plaint that the machine did not work well.-D.
M. Osborne & Co. v. Marks, 22 N. W. 1, 33 Minn. 56.
117. The only evidence tending to show a
breach of warranty of a threshing-machine, set
up as a counter-claim in an action on promis-
sory notes for part of the price, was the testi-
mony of one of the defendants. There was no
direct evidence rebutting his testimony, but it
appeared that defendants had made large pay-
ments on the machine, and that the notes in suit
had been given two years and a half after the
original purchase, in renewal of old notes, and
the referee found that at that time defendants
did not allege any defects in the machine, or
make any claim for damages. Held, that a find-
ing by the referee that the counter-claim was
not established should be sustained on appeal. -
Geiser Threshing-Mach. Co. v. Dresden, 12 N.
W. 453, 29 Minn. 169.
122. in the case of a breach of warranty of a
horse, no fraud appearing, subsequent expenses
incurred by the vendee for medical examination or
treatment held not recoverable as special damages,
in addition to the general damages allowed under
the rule stated.-Merrick v. Wiltse, 33 N. W. 3,
37 Minn. 41.
123. In an action for breach of warranty of a
harvesting machine, the measure of damages is
the difference between the value of the machine
as it actually was, and its value as warranted, un-
less fraud or special circumstances are shown,
such as the loss of a crop, which would entitle
plaintiff to greater damages. -Frohreich v. Gam-
mon, il N. W. 88, 28 Minn. 476.
124. In an action for breach of warranty of a
harvester and binder, where the defects com-
plained of were in the binding attachment solely,
and the harvester is admitted to work satisfactorily,
supplied with a new binder, testimony that the
and may be separated at a moderate expense, or
machine, as a harvester and binder, was worthless,
will not justify a finding fixing the value thereof
at a sum different and much less than the undis-
puted evidence shows it to be worth as a harvester.
-D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter, (Minn.) 34 N.
W. 163.
37 Minn. 331.
125. Where property is exchanged as upon a
sale, with a warranty that it is unincumbered,
and it is incumbered, the vendee cannot recover
more than nominal damages until he has paid
the amount of the incumbrance, or been deprived
of the possession.-Close v. Crossland, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 694.
47 Minn. 500.
118. In an action for the price of a harvesting
machine sold defendant by plaintiff, where de-
III. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF PARTIES.
fendant has pleaded breach of warranty, and
asked damages therefor, the admission of evi- Rescission by seller-Nonpayment.
dence as to statements made by defendant to 126. By the terms of an agreement by defend-
plaintiff's agent when negotiating for the ma- ants to furnish certain materials to plaintiff, pay-
chine, as to the number of acres he had to har-ments therefor were required to be made at times
vest, is reversible error.-C. Aultman & Co. v.
Falkum, Minn.) 50 N. W. 471.
Damages.
47 Minn. 414.
119. The general rule of damages on a breach
of warranty on a sale of personal property is the
difference between the value of the article sold
in its defective condition and the market value
of the article at the place where it is to be used
in its condition represented by the vendor.-Con-
verse v. Burrows, 2 Minn, 229, (Gil. 191.)
120.. In an action for breach of warranty a gen-
eral allegation of damage is sufficient to admit
proof of general damages, i. e., such as necessarily
accrue from the breach.-Meacham v. Cooper,
(Minn.) 30 N. W. 669.
36 Minn. 227.
121.. The general rule is that, upon the breach of
a simple warranty upon the sale of a chattel, the
measure of damages is the difference between the
value of the property as it is represented and war-
ranted and its actual value, with interest.-Mer
rick v. Wiltse, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 3.
87 Minn. 41.
specified. Held that, on a refusal of payment
after demand and notice that it would be insisted
on as a condition of further deliveries, defendants
might properly refuse to continue to deliver fur-
ther materials.-Palmer v. Breen, 24 N. W. 322,
34 Minn. 39.
127. A side track was set apart for the use of an
elevator. When it loaded cars
When it loaded cars they were put on
this track by the railroad, and not moved until the
elevator issued "shipping orders." Four cars were
put on the side track loaded with wheat sold for
cash by the elevator. It took the buyer's check
and gave a receipted bill, and he then received
bills of lading from the railroad, but no "shipping
orders" were given by the elevator. The check
was dishonored, and the elevator unloaded the
wheat. A bank had made advances on the bills
of lading, but neither it nor the railroad acted on
faith of the receipted bill. In trover by the rail-
road against the elevator, held that, if there was
a delivery of the wheat, it was conditional on pay-
ment of the check, on failure of which the elevator
could retake the wheat even from a bona fide pur-
chaser.-National Bank v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
46 N. W. 342, 560, 44 Minn. 224; Same v. Wisconsin
Cent. Ry. Co., Id.; Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. v. L. T.
1727
1728
SALE, III
Sowle Elevator Co., Id.; Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co.
v. Same, Id.
135. The vendor in an executory contract for
the delivery of certain lumber at a certain time
failed to deliver the full amount required by the
Rescission by seller-Insolvency of buy-time stipulated. Held, that the vendee might
er.
128. Goods, purchased with a preconceived in-
tention not to pay for them, having been delivered
to the defendant in payment of a debt which the
latter held for collection against the purchaser,
the seller may avoid the sale, and recover the goods
or their proceeds which remain in the hands of
the defendant.-Slagle v. Goodnow, (Minn.) 48 N.
W. 402.
45 Minn. 531.
129. A dealer in lumber, who knew himself to be
insolvent, bought $5,000 worth of lumber, and at
once delivered it to certain creditors in payment
of debts due them. He had no reasonable expec-
tation of being able to pay for the lumber except
from a sale of the same for cash. Held sufficient
evidence to warrant a finding that he bought with
a preconceived design not to pay for the lumber.
-Slagle v. Goodnow, (Minn.) 48 Ñ. W. 402.
45 Minn. 531.
Fraud.
130. A merchant, applying to purchase goods
on credit, and being told that "it would be nec-
essary to know now he stood," stated in response
that he had a certain amount "in his business,
consisting of merchandise and book-accounts, "
and a certain sum in cash. He did not disclose
the fact that he was indebted to a considerable
amount. Held, that his statement was fraudu-
lent, and the sale of the goods obtained thereby
was voidable, and might be rescinded by the sell-
er. -Newell v. Randall, 19 N. W. 972, 32 Minn.
171.
131. In an action to recover personal property al-
leged to have been obtained by the false repre-
sentations of defendant as to the solvency of a
maker of a note taken by plaintiff in payment of
the property, it is not necessary that these repre-
sentations should have been the sole cause induc-
ing plaintiff to take the note. It is enough if they
constitute one of the substantial inducements to
such action.-Moline Milburn Co. v. Franklin,
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 323.
37 Minn. 137.
132. It is no defense to such an action that
there are solvent indorsers on the note. The
plaintiff has a right to a solvent maker as repre-
sented. and is not required to take his chances
of collecting from the indorsers.-Moline Milburn
Co. v. Franklin, 33 N. W. 323, 37 Minn. 137.
treat the contract as at an end, and refuse to
make the payment, and in such case was liable
only upon the implied contract for the value of
the lumber delivered, without regard to the con-
tract price.-Robson v. Bohn, 22 Minn. 410.
136. Upon an executory contract for the sale
of personal property of a particular quality, the
vendee, when the property is tendered him, may
receive and retain it long enough to make a fair
examination thereof, and, if it be not of the
quality described in the contract, may return
it, and recover the price paid; but after delivery
and acceptance, where there is no provision for
a return if defective, the vendee cannot, where
recover the price paid, but must resort to his ac-
there has been no fraud, return the property and
tion for damages on his warranty.-Knoblauch
v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn. 300, (Gil. 272.)
137. After title has passed upon the sale and
delivery of a chattel, a rescission cannot be had
for a breach of warranty simply. Following
Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn. 300.-Min-
neapolis Harvester Works v. Bonnallie, 13 N. W.
149, 29 Minn. 373.
138. The act of purchasers of grain by sample,
in procuring, in good faith, a delivery of the
grain to them, in ignorance that it is inferior to
unequivocal act of acceptance thereof as to pre-
the sample, is not necessarily such a decisive and
clude them from rejecting it on discovering its
inferior quality; and their omission to examine
it before it arrived at the place for delivery un-
der the contract cannot be construed as a waiver
or conclusive acceptance.-Taylor v. Mueller, 15
N. W. 413, 30 Mină. 343.
139. Where certain personal property is in the
hands of bailees, subject to charges for storage,
and the vendor thereof agrees, as part of the con-
sideration and inducement to a sale thereof, to pay
the charges, and deliver the goods when requested.
by the purchaser, and upon the demand of the lat-
ter, refuses to pay such charges, and to deliver the
goods in pursuance of such agreement, the pur-
chasers may rescind, and refuse to pay the con-
tract price. Malone v. Minnesota Stone Co.,
(Minn.) 31 N. W. 170.
36 Minn. 325.
140. One who is induced to enter into a contract
for the purchase of a chattel in payment of a pre-
cedent debt, and in reliance upon representations
133. The recovery, by a vendor of goods, of a made by the vendor as to the character and qual-
judgment against his vendee for the price, in ig- ity thereof, which prove false and fraudulent, may
norance of fraud on the part of the vendée suffi- rescind the contract, and return the chattel, and
ient to authorize a rescission of the sale, does such rescission may be set up in the reply in an
not amount to an affirmance or ratification of the action brought by him to recover the original debt.
contract of sale, so as to preclude him from sub--Johnson v. Hillstrom, 33 N. W. 547, 37 Minn.
sequently rescinding, upon discovery of the fraud.
-Kraus v. Thompson, 14 N. W. 266, 30 Minn. 64.
Rescission by buyer.
134. Under an executory contract for sale of
goods by description, the purchaser need not re-
ceive the goods unless they are of the kind and
quality called for by the description.-Haase v.
Nonnemacher, 21 Minn. 486.
122.
Seller's lien.
141. Where a locomotive was sold on condition
that it be paid for on delivery, but was delivered
without payment, and afterwards, without attempt-
ing to recover possession, the vendor sued for the
price, and by judgment and garnishment secured
partial satisfaction, the sale became absolute and
1729
1730
SALE, III.
}
the reserved lien was lost.-Manchester Locomo-
tive Works v. Truesdale, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 301.
44 Minn. 115.
Stoppage in transitu.
142. The complaint in an action in the nature of
trover alleged that plaintiffs sold on credit to S.,
P. & Co. certain lumber, and "employed" a certain
railroad company to convey the lumber to S., P. &
Co.; that the railroad company never delivered
the lumber to S., P. & Co.; that afterwards S., P.
& Co. became insolvent, and defendant was ap-
pointed their assignee in bankruptcy; that plain-
tiffs thereupon notified the railroad company not
to deliver the lumber to S., P. & Co., or to the as-
signee, and demanded possession of it for them-
selves; that after this defendant, "with knowl-
edge and due notice of the aforesaid orders and
demand, * took all of said lumber from the
possession of plaintiffs, and sold the same without
the consent and against the will of plaintiffs, and
converted the same." Held, that the complaint
was insufficient, in that it failed to allege that the
price of the lumber had not been paid, so that
plaintiff would be entitled to stop the lumber in
transitu.-Haven v. Place, 11 N. W. 117, 28 Minn.
551.
*
Action by seller-
goods.
Refusal to accept
as abandoned, and sue for the price of the lum-
ber already delivered.-Robson v. Bohn, 7 N. W.
357, 27 Minn. 333.
146. Where there is a contract to deliver four
hogs at the same time, and the purchaser declines
to take one, but receives the others, plaintiff may
recover for those so delivered and accepted; and
the price agreed, in the absence of other evidence,
is the basis for his damages.-Churchill v. Holton,
(Minn.) 38 N. W. 611.
38 Minn. 519.
147. Plaintiff and defendant made a written con-
tract by which defendant was constituted plain-
tiff's agent for the sale of agricultural machinery,
and providing, among other things, that any ma-
chines on hand at the close of the season defendant
would, if required by plaintiff, pay for in notes of
a certain kind, all machines to be property of plain-
tiff until paid for. Held, that plaintiff could not
recover the price of machines delivered under the
contract, under a complaint alleging a sale and de-
livery before July 1, 1885, and a demand for pay-
inent January 1, 1886, and non-payment.-St. Paul
Harvester Works v. Nicolin, (Minn.) 30 N. W.
36 Minn. 232.
763.
Defense of failure of consideration.
148. Parties to a contract for the sale of No. 1
wheat, agreed upon an inspector to inspect and
grade it when desired by the purchasers, the
seller to pay the difference between inferior
grades and No. 1; it being left with the purchaser
to call on the inspector when he desired. Held,
that the purchaser could not be allowed any de-
ductions for inferior wheat he neglected to have
graded.
graded.— Brackett v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 174,
(Gil. 134.)
143. If, during the time for delivery of goods
sold, and to be paid for after delivery, the buyer
notifies the seller that he will not pay the con-
tract price, but only a less price, the seller may
act on this as a repudiation of the contract, stop
delivery, and sue for damages; and such conduct
on part of the buyer is none the less a repudia-
tion of the contract because not willful, but the
result of an error as to its terms, or because ac-
companied with a profession of willingness to
perform the contract according to his erroneous 149. A note payable to plaintiff "for value re-
construction of it. 49 N. W. 233, affirmed.-Arm-ceived in two M. L. reapers," provided that "the
strong v. St. Paul & P. Coal Co., (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 1029.
For price-When maintainable.
144. In an action for the price of goods sold,
where it appeared that defendants agreed to buy
the goods and pay for them at a specified time,
it is immaterial whether, by the terms of the
contract, the title vested in them on delivery of
the articles.-Thomas v. Thompson, 28 N. W. 255,
35 Minn. 231.
145. Plaintiff and defendant, on May 19, 1873,
entered into a contract by which plaintiff agreed
to sell and deliver to defendant a quantity of
lumber, some of which was to be stacked by
plaintiff on defendant's land, and the residue
was to be delivered on the cars. The delivery
was to commence at once, was to be made at the
rate of not less than 20,000 feet per week, and
was to be completed by September 1st. Defend-
ant agreed to deliver to plaintiff, on the execu-
tion of the contract, his note for $3,000, payable
on July 10, 1873; to pay $2,000 on August 1st, and
on full delivery of the lumber to pay the residue
of the contract price. Held, that plaintiff's cove-
nant to deliver lumber after August 1st was
dependent on defendant's covenant to pay $2,000 on
that day, and, on defendant's failure to make
such payment, plaintiff could treat the contract
V.2M.DIG.-55
express condition of the sale and purchase of the
machine for which this note is given is such
that the title, ownership, or right of possession
does not pass from the said [plaintiff] until this
note and interest is paid in full.” The note also
authorized plaintiff, should it deem itself inse-
cure, to take possession of the machines and sell
the same. Held that, plaintiff having taken
the machines from the possession of the pur-
chaser, and sold them, there was an entire fail-
ure of the consideration of the note, and no ac-
tion could be maintained thereon. -Minneapolis
Harvester Works v. Hally, 8 N. W. 597, 27
Minn. 495.
Distinguished in Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co., 19 N. W.
388, 32 Minn. 91.
Questioned, but stated to have become a rule of prop-
erty, in C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 45 N. W. 852, 43 Minn.
409.
150. Plaintiff and defendant, on May 13, 1873,
entered into a contract by which plaintiff agreed
to sell and deliver to defendant a quantity of
lumber of specified kinds, some of which was
to be stacked by plaintiff on defendant's land,
and the balance was to be delivered on the cars.
The delivery was to commence at once, was to
continue at the rate of not less than 20,000 feet
per week, and was to be completed by September
1st. Defendant agreed to deliver to plaintiff, on
the execution of the contract, his note for $3,000,
1731
1732
SALE, III.
payable on July 10, 1873; to pay $2,000 on Au-
gust 1st; and to pay the balance of the contract
price when all the lumber should be delivered.
Held, that the fact that plaintiff had delivered
some lumber of a kind not called for by the con-
tract, and which was rejected by defendant, was
no excuse for defendant to refuse to pay the $2,-
000 on August 1st, where plaintiff had delivered
on or before that day the agreed quantity and
kind of lumber.-Robson v. Bohn, 7 N. W. 357,
27 Minn. 333. •
151. Where plaintiff sells personal property to
defendant, with a condition that the latter may re-
turn it within a stated time, and a part has been
returned and kept by plaintiff, he cannot recover
the price of the whole property.-Smith v. Minne-
sota Transfer Packing Co., (Minn.) 38 N. W. 204.
38 Minn. 450.
152. In an action on a non-negotiable note given
for the price of property sold to defendant, a breach
of warranty of the article sold may be pleaded and
proved in reduction of damages as a partial want
or failure of consideration.-Stevens v. Johnson,
9 N. W. 677, 28 Minn. 172.
Action by seller-Fraud.
153. Defendant, interposing the defense to a
promissory note of fraud in the sale of personal
property for which it was given, requested the
instruction that, although the purchaser might
have possessed himself of knowledge, if the rep-
resentations of the seller diverted him from the
means of information at hand, he has his remedy
against false representations by which he has
been injured. The court added the qualification:
"A person may, if be choose, rely upon his own
judgment; but it is not to be presumed, in the
absence of express proof, that he neglected the
means of observation or information at hand."
Held, that the qualification was erroneous, as
doing away with the fact that the purchaser was
diverted by the seller from looking for himself.
Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 470, (Gil. 421.)
Counterclaim for breach of war-
ranty.
154. In an action upon one of several notes
given for the price of a chattel, defendant may
recover by way of counter-claim his entire dam-
age from a breach of warranty of the chattel.
Geiser Threshing-Mach. Co. v. Farmer, 8 N.
W. 141, 27 Minn. 428; Minneapolis Harvester
Works v. Bonnallie, 13 N. W. 149, 29 Minn. 373.
155. In an action for goods sold and delivered,
the answer set up as a counter-claim that plaintiffs
contracted, warranted, and represented that the
goods should be of a certain quality, and that the
goods delivered did not correspond with the con-
tract, warranty, and representations. Held, that
the court correctly charged that, "under the plead-
ings, defendants were bound to establish either an
express warranty or fraud, or contract as to quali-
ty, in reference to the sales, before they will be en-
titled to any deduction by way of recoupment or
counter-claim. "-Day v. Raguet, 14 Minn. 273,
(Gil. 203.)
Pleading.
156. A complaint which states that the defend-
ants are indebted on account of goods sold and
delivered, without alleging them to have been
of any value, or alleging a promise to pay for
them, is demurrable. -Foerster v. Kirkpatrick,
| 2 Minn. 210, (Gil. 171.)
Overruled in Solomon v. Vinson, 17 N. W. 340, 31 Minn.
205.
157. An answer setting up a counter-claim alleg-
ing that plaintiff is indebted to defendant in a cer-
tain sum for lumber sold and delivered to plaintiff
at his request, but not alleging any value or prom-
ise to pay, states a mere conclusion, and is fatally
defective.-Holgate v. Broome, 8 Minn. 243, (GiÏ.
209.)
Overruled in Solomon v. Vinson, 17 N. W. 340, 31 Minn.
205.
158. A complaint alleged that on a certain day
"the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff
delivered to the defendants [at a time and place
on an account then past due for goods sold and
specified] in the sum of $241.13, and that the
same is now due and owing plaintiff, and no part
from a judgment entered on defendants' default,
thereof has been paid. " Held that, on appeal
objections that the complaint did not allege that
the goods were sold and delivered by plaintiff,
nor that defendants promised to pay the sum
named, nor that the goods were of that value,
were not available. Those facts were fairly in-
ferable from the facts alleged. Overruling Foer-
ster v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Minn. 210, (Gil. 171,) and
Holgate v. Broome, 8 Minn. 243, (Gil. 209.)-Solo-
mon v. Vinson, 17 N. W. 340, 31 Minn. 205.
159. Where a vendor agreed to release the goods
sold from a lien for storage rent, and the purchaser
accepted a draft for the price without obtaining
delivery of the goods, an allegation in the answer
in an action on such draft that the vendor, though
often requested so to do, has failed to pay such
charges, and has failed and refused to deliver the
goods, or any part thereof, is, as against a motion
for judgment upon the pleadings, sufficient to show
a demand for the delivery of the goods.—Malone v.
Minnesota Stone Co., (Minn.) 31 N. W. 170.
36 Minn. 325.
160. Plaintiff declared on a contract to manufact-
ure goods for defendant, and deliver them on the
cars at C., the place of manufacture. Defendant's
answer alleged an unreasonable time consumed in
the delivery, but with reference to delivery at M.,
defendant's residence; and it further alleged that
two days from the commencement of the work
was a reasonable time for the manufacture of the
goods, but there was nothing to show a duty`on
plaintiff's part to begin the manufacture on the re-
ceipt of the order. Held, that the answer stated
no defense.-Cleveland v. De Soto Boiler-Works,
(Hitchcock v. Turnbull,) 47 N. W. 153, 44 Minn.
475.
Pleading and proof.
161. In an action for the price of goods, proof
that the price was less than that alleged in the
complaint does not constitute a material variance.
-Iverson v. Dubay, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 159.
39 Minn. 325.
162. Under a general denial of the allegations in
the complaint which set forth a parol agreement
and part acceptance thereunder, plaintiff must
1733
1734
SALE, III.
prove both contract and acceptance.-Russell v.
Wisconsin, M. & P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 39 N. W. 302.
39 Minn. 145.
163. In an action for a balance due for goods
sold and delivered, the answer alleged that plain-
tiffs were to accept in payment certain promis-
sory notes secured by mortgage, executed by a
third party, and held by defendants, and that
defendants had duly assigned the notes and mort-
gage, and delivered them to plaintiffs, who re-
fused to accept them. The reply denied that
plaintiffs agreed to receive the notes in payment
unless defendants should indorse them, and al-
leged that they indorsed them "without recourse,
for which reason plaintiffs refused to accept
them. Held, that the burden was on plaintiffs to
prove an agreement to indorse. -Paine v. Smith,
24 N. W. 305, 33 Minn. 495.
""
164. The answer in an action for the price of
horses sold alleged as a reason for refusing to ac-
cept the horses that "plaintiff's title to such
horses was not satisfactory to defendants." Held,
that under this allegation defendants might prove
that a chattel mortgage by plaintiff was a lien
on the horses.-Blaise v. Anderson, 28 N. W. 922,
35 Minn. 306.
Evidence.
165. An action for the price of goods sold and
delivered cannot be maintained without proof of
actual or constructive delivery -Jones v Schnei-
der, 22 Minn. 279.
166. Where in the case of a verbal contract
for the sale of property the price is disputed, ev-
idence of the value of the property at the time of
the sale or conveyance is proper. Kumler v.
Ferguson, 7 Minn. 442, (Gil. 351,) and Schwerin
v. De Graff, 21 Minn. 354, followed.-Miller v.
Lamb, 22 Minn. 43.
167. In an action for the value of goods sold
and delivered to defendant, evidence that plain-
tiff's have been fully paid for goods sold to a firm
of which defendant was a partner, there being
nothing to show that they were the same goods
for which defendant was charged alone, is im-
material.-Torinus v. Matthews, 21 Minn. 99.
168. In an action for the price of wheat sold
the controversy was wholly as to the grade of
the wheat which was delivered. Held, that the
admission of evidence as to the price received
by plaintiff for certain other wheat, by which
evidence the price of that in question was to be
fixed, was competent, but in any view of the case
its admission was not prejudicial.-Worden v.
Hitter, 28 N. W. 503, 35 Minn. 244.
Amount recoverable.
169. The only evidence ir support of an action
for the price of certain horses was that defend
ants agreed to pay or allow plaintiff the sum
claimed for the horses and other articles, which
were never delivered; and it was undisputed that
part of the sum was to be applied in satisfaction
of a debt of plaintiff to defendants and the bal-
ance to be paid in stone. Held, that a verdict for
plaintiff for the full amount claimed should be
set aside. -Blaise v. Anderson, 28 N. W. 922, 35
Minn. 306.
170. Damages for breach of warranty of a ma-
chine, pleaded by the buyer in an action for the
price, should be applied in reduction of the
plaintiff's cause of action as of the date of the
sale. -Wilson v. Reedy, 24 N. W. 191, 33 Minn.
503.
171. Where, in an action on two notes of $130
each given in part payment of a harvester and
binder worth $325, defendant claimed recoupment
for breach of warranty, the binder being defective,
and testified that the harvester was worth nothing
to him without the binder, but did not show its in-
trinsic value as it stood or the cost of a new bind-
ing attachment, held that the evidence was not
sufficient to go to the jury, the value of such har-
vester not being a matter of common knowledge,
and that a verdict assessing defendant's damages
at $265 would be set aside.-D. M. Osborne & Co.
v. Huntington, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 789.
37 Minn. 275.
Action by buyer-Failure to deliver.
172. A contract provided for the delivery of a
quantity of paving plank during the season of 1887,
without specifying any place of delivery. Held
that, to put the seller in default for a failure to fill
orders, the order must specify time and place of
delivery. Canney v. Brown, (Minn.) 42 N.W.354.
40 Minn. 461.
173. Where defendants have disposed of iron,
which they contracted to sell to plaintiff, before
the time when it was to be delivered, plaintiff need
not make a formal demand or tender of payment
for it before bringing his action for breach of con-
tract.-Lieberman v. Isaacs, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 8.
43 Minn. 186.
174. Where the purchaser notifies the seller that
he will not pay the contract price for the property
if delivered, but only a less price, it amounts to a
repudiation of the contract, and absolves the seller
may have his action for the loss of profits on the
from the duty of delivering the property; and he
sale.-Armstrong v. St. Paul & P. Coal & Iron Co.,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 233.
175. Defendant agreed to sell to plaintiffs, local
dealers, 10,000 tons of coal at certain prices. Aft-
erwards, in order to enable them to meet competi-
to let them have the coal at lower prices; and fur-
tion, defendant modified the contract, and agreed
ther it was agreed that for one day defendant
would furnish plaintiffs coal not to exceed 200
tons, for sale at still lower prices. Plaintiff T.,
with whom this arrangement was effected, tele-
graphed it to his partner. Defendant saw the
inessages, but failed to mention the 200-ton limit,
and the partner took_orders for an amount great-
ly in excess of it. Held, that defendant was not
bound to supply that amount at the lowest agreed
price, since the transaction was a sale, and plain-
tiffs were not defendant's agents in taking such
orders.-Armstrong v. St. Paul & P. Coal & Iron
Co., (Minn.) 49 N. W. 233.
176. Where a complaint alleges a contract for
sale and delivery of personal property, and a
breach thereof, a general allegation of damages
is sufficient to admit proof thereof and a recov-
ery therefor, and it is not a ground of demurrer
that an allegation of special damage is insuffi-
cient. -Partridge v. Blanchard, 23 Minn. 69.
1735
1736
SALE, III.
Action by buyer
paid.
Recovery of price
177. Defendants sold a machine to plaintiff with
a warranty in respect to quality and capability,
with the express agreement that, if it could not
be made to perform as guarantied, it should be
returned, and a new machine given in its place,
or the notes given by plaintiff for its purchase
price should be refunded. It could not be made
to perform as guarantied, and plaintiff returned
it, and demanded a settlement and the return of
the notes. Held, that defendants, having the
election to perform their agreement in one of the
two ways agreed, waived that right by neglect-
ing to exercise it, and that plaintiff might re-
cover his notes without further demand therefor.
-Turnbull v. Seymour, 17 N. W. 278, 31 Minn.
196.
178. In an action by purchasers of a machine to
recover back the purchase money on a breach of
warranty of the machine, and a return of it to
the sellers, evidence of the value of the machine
is immaterial. - Paulson v. D. M. Osborne &
Co., 27 N. W. 203, 35 Minn. 90.
Damages for defects.
179. A traveling salesman took an order for
goods of a specified kind and quality, but with-
out exhibiting any sample or giving any war-
ranty of the goods to be sent. Held, that the ven-
dee, by keeping such goods for nearly two years
without notifying the seller of any objection
thereto, would be deemed to have admitted that
the goods were such as were ordered, and es-
topped from afterwards claiming damages because
of defects in the quality thereof.-Haase v. Non-
nemacher, 21 Minn. 486.
Distinguished in Cosgrove v. Bennett, 20 N. W. 360, 32
Minn. 374.
Damages for fraud.
180. In the case of fraudulent sale and war-
ranty of personal property, the vendee may re-
scind the contract, return the property, and re-
cover the purchase price paid, or may affirm the
contract, and recover damages for the fraud.
Marsh v. Webber, 16 Minn. 418, (Gil. 375.)
181. Where, in the case of a fraudulent sale
and warranty of diseased sheep, the vendee af-
firms the contract, and brings an action for dam-
ages resulting from the fraud, he is entitled to
recover all the damages of which the act com-
plained of is the cause, whether direct, or conse-
quential upon the communication of disease to
other sheep of the vendee without fault on his
part.-Marsh v. Webber, 16 Minn. 418, (Gil. 375.)
182. In an action for damages from fraud in the
sale of diseased sheep, it is proper to ask a wit-
ness what is the difference in the value of the
sheep as described by witnesses, and their value
if sound.-Marsh v. Webber, 16 Minn. 418, (Gil.
375.)
183. Where a joint owner of property stands by,
and, remaining silent, hears his co-owner make
false representations in regard to such property
to induce a sale thereof, he will be jointly liable
for such false representations.-Johnson v. Wal-
lower, 15 Minn. 472, (Gil. 387.)
184. Where the owner of a horse, knowing him
to be unsound, sells him as sound, an intent to
lower, 15 Minn. 472, (Gil. 387.)
defraud necessarily follows. -Johnson v. Wal-
185. A complaint for breach of warranty and
deceit, in the sale of a horse, alleged that the
horse so sold gave the glanders to another horse
belonging to plaintiff. The answer denied any
such sickness of such other horse. Held, that
defendant could not, under such answer, show
that such other horse, at the time plaintiff pur-
chased him, was affected with a disease that
would run into glanders if not checked, or im-
peach the former owner of such horse, who testi-
fied it was sound when sold to plaintiff.-John-
son v. Wallower, 15 Minn. 472, (Gil. 387.)
186. in an action for breach of warranty and
for deceit in the sale of a horse, the complaint
charged him to be affected with glanders, but
was broad enough to cover any unsoundness ren-
dering him of no value. Held, there being evi-
dence tending to show that he was warranted free
from disease, that it was not error to charge the
jury that if the horse had any disease that ren-
dered him worthless they should find for the
plaintiff.-Johnson v. Wallower, 15 Minn. 472,
(Gil. 387.)
187. In an action for breach of warranty and de-
ceit in the sale of a horse to plaintiff by defend-
ant, represented as sound, which in fact was dis-
eased, which disease was thereby communicated
to another horse belonging to plaintiff, it is er-
ror to charge the jury that, if defendant know-
ingly represented to plaintiff that the horse sold
was sound, when in fact it was afflicted with
disease which it communicated to the other
horse, whereby such horse was rendered worth-
less, they might find for plaintiff the value of
such second horse, the burden being on plaintiff
to show that the disease was communicated to
the second horse without his fault; and such in-
struction is not remedied by a further, independ-
ent charge that plaintiff is entitled to recover if
the disease was communicated to the second
horse without plaintiff's fault.-Johnson v. Wal-
lower, 15 Minn. 472, (Gil. 387.)
188. If a person who has been induced by fraud
and deceit to enter into an executory contract for
the purchase of personal property, to be delivered
and paid for in the future, discovers the fraud
while the contract is still wholly executory, and yet
thereafter accepts the property under the contract,
and uses it, he cannot maintain an action for dam-
ages for the fraud, or recoup them in an action
against him for the purchase price of the prop-
erty.-Thompson v. Libby. (Minn.) 31 N. W. 52.
36 Minn. 287.
189. In the case of fraudulent sale of goods the
purchaser may retain the same, and sue for dam-
ages on account of the fraud; and the receipt of
some of the goods, and the completion of the con-
tract after discovery of the fraud, will not consti-
tute a waiver of his claim, or defeat his action for
damages. -Haven v. Neal, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 612.
43 Minn. 315.
Rights of third persons-Bona fide pur-
chasers.
190. A purchaser of goods from a fraudulent
vendee, who has paid nothing on his purchase,
1737
1738
SALE, III., IV.
is not, as against the original vendor and his
creditors, a bona fide purchaser.-Hicks v. Stone,
13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398.)
191. A sale of personal property, where there is
a delivery by the owner, induced by fraudulent
acts and representations, is voidable only, not
void; and such owner, if he desires to avoid the
same, must do so before the property is sold to a
bona fide purchaser for value. Cochran v.
Stewart, 21 Minn. 435.
vey the land to him by warranty deed, provided
he shoul pay to C., on or before a fixed date,
a certain sum of money, and also all taxes and
assessments against the land due at the time of
making the deed. In an action claiming that the
transa tion was a mortgage, there was ample
testimony, although contradicted, tending to
show that there was no loan of money, but a
positive refusal to make a loan; that the deed
was not given or accepted as security; that it
was, and was intended by both parties to be, an
Distinguished in Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Ele- absolute conveyance, in pursuance of an absolute
vator Co., 46 N. W. 307, 44 Minn. 155.
192. One who purchases goods or choses in ac-
tion bona fide from a fraudulent vendee acquires
a valid title, though the fraudulent acts of such
first vendee amount to a statutory felony.-Coch-
ran v. Stewart, 21 Minn. 435.
193. A purchaser of personal property is bound
to exercise that degree of caution and diligence,
in ascertaining the title of the vendor or assign
or, which ordinarily prudent business men usu-
ally exercise in like circumstances, and is
charged with constructive notice of such facts
only as the use of such caution and diligence
would probably have discovered. - Cochran v.
Stewart, 21 Minn. 435.
194. The rule in Cochran v. Stewart, 21 Minn.
435, that in case of the sale and delivery by the
owner of personal property, although induced
by fraud of the purchaser, the latter may convey
a good title to a bona fide purchaser, does not
apply to a case where the second purchaser does
not rely upon, or know of, any indicia of title
with which the first vendor may have invested
the first purchaser.—Globe Milling Co. v. Minne-
apolis Elevator Co., 46 N. W. 306, 44 Minn. 153.
Distinguishing Cochran v. Stewart, 21 Minn. 435.
195. In an action to declare the vendee of a note
a trustee thereof for plaintiff, the burden rests up-
on such vendee, if he would avail himself of the
rule in favor of bona fide purchasers, to bring him-
self within it, and he is bound to deny notice of
the prior equity in order to raise the issue, which
rule is equally applicable under the Code system
of pleading.-Newton v. Newton, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
450.
46 Minn. 33.
196. Where the seller of personal property exe-
cutes a bill of sale, and places it in escrow with
a third person, to be delivered to the purchaser
on receipt of the latter's note for the unpaid pur-
chase money, the title passes on the deposit of
the note by the purchaser to the person having
possession of the bill of sale, and one who there-
after purchases the property from the seller with
knowledge of all the facts is not a bona fide
purchaser, though the property may have re-
mained in the seller's possession.-Hayden v.
Dwyer, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 200.
47 Minn. 246.
IV. CONDITIONAL SALE.
What constitutes.
197. O., holding a certificate of sale of land, on
foreclosure of a mortgage assigned it to C., who
at the same time agreed with O. to sell and con-
sale. Held, that a finding by the court that the
transaction was a sale and not a mortgage must
be upheld; the transaction constituting prima
facie a conditional sale, as distinguished from
a mortgage.-Buse v. Page, 19 N. W. 736, 20 N.
W. 95, 32 Minn. 111.
right of pose of ion of a machine for which a note
198. An instrument reciting that the title and
is given shall not pass from the seller until the note
is paid, and that he, at any time before the ma-
turity of the note, may take possession of the ma-
chine and sell it, if he deems himself insecure, con-
stitutes a conditional sale, and no action can be
maintained on the note after the seller has taken
ba k the machine.-C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 852.
43 Minn. 409.
N. W. 597, 27 Minn. 495, but stating that it has become
Questioning Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 8
a rule of property.
Filing.
199. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 15, requiring
a conditional contract of sale, or, if oral, a mem-
orandum thereof, to be filed, as against creditors
and bona fide purchasers and mortgagees, applies
to an exchange of horses, in which one party re-
serves the right to return the one delivered to
him and retake his own, if the former should
prove to have a certain disease.-Kinney v. Cay,
39 N. W. 140, 39 Minn. 210.
200. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, §§ 15, 16, as
amended by Laws 1883, c. 38, § 2, providing for
the filing of contracts which, by their terms,
preserve in the vendor the title of property sold
conditionally, does not operate to avoid such a
contract, although not filed as prescribed, as to
creditors of the purchaser having actual notice
of the state of the title at the time when a levy
is made upon the property in behalf of such
creditors.-Dyer v. Thorstad, 29 N. W. 345, 35
Minn. 534.
Waiver of condition.
201. Where machinery was to be delivered on
cars consigned to a purchaser in another state, and
on delivery the purchaser was to execute notes
therefor, forwarding the machinery to the con-
signee before receipt of the notes did not neces-
sarily waive the conditions or the right of the con-
signor to reclaim the property on default of the
consignee to deliver the notes as agreed.-Pond
Mach. Tool Co. v. Robinson, (Minn.) 37 N. W. 99.
38 Minn. 272.
Agreement of defeasance.
202. Where there is an absolute sale and deliv-
ery of personal property, an agreement by the
purchaser to pay the vendor for the future use of
1739
1740
SAMPLE-SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DISTRICTS.
the same, or deliver it up on demand, is repug-
nant to the sale, and void, and the receipt of the
property furnishes no valid consideration for
such agreement.-Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co.
v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 57.
Sample.
Sale by, see Sale, 13-15, 49.
Satisfaction.
that the town of Moorhead could be organized
into an independent school-district, though it
contained more than 36 square miles of land.—
State v. Sharp, 6 N. W. 408, 27 Minn. 38.
2. The board of county commissioners, to
whom is intrusted the matter of forming school-
districts, may appeal from an order of the district
court reversing their action in establishing a new
district. Moode v. Board of County Com'rs,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 435.
43 Minn. 312.
See Accord and Satisfaction; Compromise; Pay- Change of districts.
ment; Release and Discharge.
Of execution, see Execution, 136-142.
judgment, see Judgment, 210-226.
mortgage, see Mortgages, 131–153.
Savings Banks.
See Banks and Banking, 29; Corporations, 8.
Scaling.
Logs, see Logs and Logging, 39, 40.
Schedules.
3. School-districts are quasi corporations, and
under the control of the legislature. They may,
at its will, be changed or divided, or the property
transferred from one organization to another.-
Connor v. Board of Education of City of St. An-
thony, 10 Minn. 439, (Gil. 352.)
4. In 1857, school-district No. 2, county of Ano-
ka, contracted a debt for the erection of a school-
house. Under Act Minn. March 7, 1861, it became
subdistrict No. 2, town of Anoka, and by the ac-
tion of the trustees, under that act, was merged
in and became a part of subdistrict No. 1 of that
town. By the operation of Act Minn. March 6,
1862, which repealed the act of 1861, subdistrict No.
1 of the town of Anoka was changed to school-dis-
trict No. 1, county of Anoka, this defendant. Held,
that the act of 1862 merely merged the old corpo-
On assignment for benefit of creditors, see As- ration into the new, and did not dissolve the for-
signment for Benefit of Creditors, 35, 36.
School Lands.
See Public Lands, 92-98; Schools and School-
Districts, 32-36.
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DIS-
TRICTS.
See, also, Reform School.
Constitutionality of statute directing contracts
with state for school-books, see Constitutional |
Law, 171, 172.
Creation of special school-districts, see Constitu-
tional Law, 59, 60.
Exemption of school property from taxation, see
Taxation, 35-37.
Mechanic's lien on school-house, see Mechanics'
Liens, 13.
Creation of districts.
"}
1. Pursuant to Const. Minn. art. 11, § 3,
which declares that "laws may be passed provid-
ing for the organization for municipal and other
town purposes of any congressional or fractional
townships in the several counties in the state,
12 townships were, by Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c.
236, organized into the town of Moorhead. Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 94, provides that "any
city, town, village, township, or school-district,
now or hereafter organized, may be organized
into and established as an independent school-dis-
trict. Section 17 of the same chapter provides
that "any school-district * may contain
the entire township, * * or a tract of land
six miles square in different townships." Held,
|
mer, and therefore the latter was liable for the
debt of school-district No. 2.-Robbins v. School-
Dist. No. 1, Anoka County, 10 Minn. 340, (Gil.
268.)
5. School-district No. 3, St. Anthony, con-
tracted for the conveyance to it of a lot as a site for
a school-house. Afterwards the lot was included
in the limits of St. Anthony, and the board of edu-
cation of that city succeeded, under the act creat-
ing it, to the rights of school-district No. 3 therein,
and entered upon and occupied the lot. The ven-
dor then conveyed to the board, in pursuance
of the original agreement, and took its agree-
ment to pay for the same. Held, that this lat-
ter was not a purchase, within the section of
the act incorporating the board and regulating
such purchases, but merely a completion of the
original purchase made by district No. 3, which
such board was authorized to make under
Laws Minn. 1860, c. 40, § 25, providing that such
board should have the entire management and
control of "all the houses, lands, and appurte-
nances" set apart for school purposes, etc.—Con-
nor v. Board of Education of City of St. Anthony,
10 Minn. 439, (Gil. 352.)
Annexation of districts.
6. Sp. Laws Minn. 1878, c. 155, entitled "An act
for the establishment of public schools in the city
of Winona," established a school system for the
city of Winona, whether enlarged or diminished
in area by future legislation; and that part of the
territory of another school-district which was an-
nexed to the city by Sp. Laws 1887, c. 5, became a
part of it for school as well as other municipal pur-
poses, and ceased to be a part of the other school-
district.-City of Winona v. School-Dist. No. 82,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 539.
40 Minn. 13.
1741
1742
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DISTRICTS.
7. Sp. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 5, annexed a part
of the territory of the defendant school-district to
the city of Winona. Held that, as there was no
Held that, as there was no
provision made in the statute, the defendant
school-district remained subject to all its liabili-
ties, and retained its property, including that
which, upon the change of boundaries, happened
to fall within the limits of the city.-City of
Winona v. School-Dist. No. 82, 41 N. W. 539,
40 Minn. 13.
Distinguished in Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, 42
N. W. 931, 41 Minn. 139.
Withdrawal by village from district.
8. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 12 et seq.,
authorizing the change of boundaries of school-
districts by the action of the county commissioners,
a village constituting a part of an independent
school-district is not authorized, at its own election,
to withdraw therefrom, and to organize as a sepa-
rate independent school-district.-State v. Inde
pendent School-Dist., (Minn.) 44 N. W. 120.
42 Minn. 357.
11. Laws Minn. 1860, c. 40, § 9, provided that the
meeting of the legal voters of a certain district
called by the board of education for that purpose
should determine upon the erection of a school-
house or school-houses, and the purchase of a site-
or sites therefor, and the amount of money to be-
raised, which should be certified to the city coun--
"At.
cil, who should levy a tax for such amount.
such a meeting the voters resolved to erect a
school-house or school-houses, and to purchase a
site or sites therefor, and that 2 per cent. on the
assessment of the city should be raised for such
purpose, the site or sites and kind of house or
houses to be determined thereafter by the dis-
trict." Held, that such a resolution was ineffectual
to authorize the levy of a tax, as the number of
school-houses to be erected, and sites to be pur-
chased, was not definitely determined, so as to
ascertain the "amount to be levied," nor was the-
amount to be raised designated by a gross sum.—
State v. City of St. Anthony, 10 Minn. 433, (Gil.
345.)
12. It is not essential to the regularity of an
Grant of land for school purposes-annual meeeting of a school-district that the
Abandonment.
time for the same should have been designated
at a previous annual meeting. The powers of
the district being the same at a special meeting
as at an annual meeting, a meeting called on due
notice is regular, whether annual or special.-
Sanborn v. School-Dist. No. 10, Rice County, 12
Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
9. In 1861 the owner of land granted it to a
school-district, "for the purpose of erecting the
district school-house upon, and for holding the
school of said district in,'" and provided that
"when abandoned for such purposes" it should
revert to the grantors. A school-house was imme-
diately erected by the district, and a school was
kept therein by it until 1887, when by an act of the
legislature the land became part of a city, and the
school-district ceased to exist, the city succeeding
it. The building was then permitted to get out of
repair, but in 1890 the city, on learning that the
grantor's successors asserted title to the land,
caused the building to be repaired. No school was
maintained therein after 1887 until in 1890, after
a suit was brought to declare the land abandoned,
when school was opened and kept for about seven
months. No taxes were ever assessed against the
land, presumably because as school property it was
exempt, and from 1887 continuously the city kept
the building insured. Held, that a finding that
the grant was not abandoned was warranted.-
Rowe v. City of Minneapolis, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 907.
School meetings.
10. Under Laws Minn. 1860, c. 40, § 9, providing
that whenever the board of education of the city of
St. Anthony shall deem it necessary to erect a
school-house or school-houses, or to purchase a site
or sites therefor, they shall call a meeting of the le-
gal voters of the district, who shall determine upon
the erection of school-houses, their number, etc.
the board passed a resolution, the preamble of
which recited: "Whereas, it is deemed necessary
by the board of education of the city of St. An-
thony to purchase a site or sites, and to erect there-
on a school-house or school-houses for the school-
district," etc. Held, such preamble sufficiently
showed that the board came to a conclusion as to
the necessity of building houses or purchasing
sites, so as to authorize it to call a meeting of the
legal voters, the number of houses to be built or
sites to be purchased being unimportant, as under
this statute that was to be determined by the meet-
ing of the voters, irrespective of the judgment of
the board.-State v. City of St. Anthony, 10 Minn.
433, (Gil. 545.)
13. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 1, in relation to
elections, does not apply to a meeting in a school-
district called under Sp. Laws 1869, c. 92, § 14,
in relation to voting bonds for school purposes,
the provisions oeing conflicting. -Board of Edu-
cation Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, (Gil.
391.)
quires that a certain number of the signers of the
14. Though Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 38, re-
holders, the mere fact that the notice fails to recite
notice of a special school meeting shall be free-
that they are so does not invalidate it.—Sturm v..
School-Dist. No. 70, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 462.
45 Minn. 88..
15. A complaint alleged that there was a regu--
lar meeting of a certain school-district at a time
being then and there duly assembled, " voted, etc.
stated, at which "the voters of said district,
Held, that it might be presumed that the meet-
cluding the requisite number of voters.-Soule
ing was valid, and was properly composed, in-
v. Thealander, 17 N. W. 373, 31 Minn. 227.
Officers-Eligibility of women.
16. Under the amendment to Const. Minn.
art. 7, by section 8, that "the legislature may,
notwithstanding anything in this article, pro-
vide by law that any woman, at the age of 21:
years and upward, may vote at any election held.
for the purpose of choosing any officers of schools,
or upon any measures relating to schools, and
may also provide that any such woman shall be
eligible to hold any office pertaining solely to
the management of schools," the legislature has
the power to make women eligible to any such
office without giving them the right to vote for
such officer; and under Gen. St. 1878, c. 36, § 13,.
women are eligible to the office of county super
1743
1744
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DISTRICTS.
intendent of schools, although no right is con-
ferred upon women to vote for such superintend-
ent.-State v. Gorton, 23 N. W. 529, 33 Minn. 345.
Officers-Liability to penalties.
* *
""
execute a bond with sureties conditioned "for
the faithful discharge of his duties as treasurer,
and further requiring him to "pay to his suc-
cessor in office upon demand
* all money
in his hands belonging to said district," the fact
that such treasurer has lost the funds by burglary,
although without his own fault, constitutes no
defense to an action on his official bond for the
failure to pay over to his successor the money
received and not disbursed by him.-Board of
Education v. Jewell, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 914.
44 Minn. 427.
Bonds of district.
17. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 31,
providing for the hiring for a school-district of
such teachers only as have certificates of qualifi-
cation, a school-district clerk, who issues an order
upon the treasurer of the district for the pay-
ment of wages to a teacher known to him not to
have had such a certificate, upon which the
treasurer pays the amount of the order out of the
school funds in his hands, is liable to the pen-
23. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 92, author-
alty, imposed by section 88 on "any school-d's-izing the issue of bonds in pursuance of a vote of
trict clerk who shall draw an order upon the
the electors of the school-district thereby cre-
district treasurer diverting the public school
funds from their legitimate channel," of twice ated, a majority vote of those voting on the ques-
tion is sufficient to authorize their issue. Laws
the amount of such order.-School-Dist. No. 10 1866, c. 26, § 1, as amended by Laws 1867, c. 3, §
v. Thealander, 17 N. W. 866, 31 Minn. 333.
1, requiring a two-thirds vote, is inapplicable
where special authority is given.—Board of Edu-
cation Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, (Gil.
391.)
18. Where, at a regular meeting of a school-
district, it is voted to have a school kept for a
specified time, and sufficient funds are provided,
if the trustees neglect, without excuse, to pro-
vide the school for the specified time, they are
liable to the penalty imposed by Gen. St. Minn.
1878. c. 36, § 86, as amended by Laws 1879, c. 41,
on any such officer who shall "refuse or neglect
to perform any of the duties prescribed by law."
-Soule v. Thealander, 17 N. W. 373, 31 Minn. 227.
19. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 86, as
amended by Laws 1879, c. 41, imposing a pen-
alty on an officer of the school district who shall
refuse or neglect to perform any of his duties, to
be collected by an action "prosecuted by the di-
rector of said district, or by any freeholder in
said district," such an action may be brought by
a director or freeholder in his own name.- -Soule
v. Thealander, 17 N. W. 373, 31 Minn. 227.
20. The complaint, in an action for a penalty
against a clerk and member of a board of direct-
ors of a school-district for failure to maintain a
school, contained no express averment of the ex-
istence of a school-district. Held that, as the
facts stated could not be true unless there was
such a district, and no contrary inference could
he drawn from them, the complaint was suffi-
cient in that respect. -Soule v. Thealander, 17 N.
W. 373, 31 Minn. 227.
24. Authority given to issue bonds for the pur-
pose of building a school-house implies the power
to sell them.-Board of Education Sauk Centre
V. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)
25. The board of education created by Sp.
Laws Minn. 1869, c. 92, were authorized by such
act, on vote of the electors of the district, to is-
sue bonds and negotiate them to the best advan-
tage; the proceeds thereof to be used in building
a school-house for said district. Held, that an
agreement to sell such bonds at par, to be paid in
brick and lumber for such school-house at cur-
rent cost value at the time of delivery, was valid.
Board of Education Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17
Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)
Promissory notes of district.
26. To make a promissory note executed by
the trustees of a school-district, as such, a note
of the district, it is necessary that it be made to
appear that the note was given for an indebted-
ness that the trustees were authorized to con-
tract.-School-Dist. No. 7 v. Thompson, 5 Minn.
280, (Gil. 221.)
27. Upon an accounting between the trustees of
a school-district and a person who had performed
School funds-Liability on treasurer's labor for such district, instruments in the form of
bond.
21. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 107, which
requires the treasurer of a school-district to give a
bond with sureties conditioned for the faithful per-
formance of the duties of his office, and to turn
over to nis successor in omce all money in his
hands belonging to the district, and which further
provides that, for any breach of such bond, the
board shall cause an action to be commenced there-
on, a vote of the school-district, and of the board
of education, without consideration, to discharge
the legal obligation of a treasurer who has lost the
school fund by burglary, without fault, is ineffect-
ual.—Board of Education v. Jewell. (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 914.
44 Minn. 427.
promissory notes were executed by the trustees
for the district for the amount found due, payable
at a future day, with interest beyond the statute
rate. Held, that such notes were valid between
the parties, at least as a contract for forbearance
and promise to pay the amount specified, but that
against the fund raised by levying a tax for pay-
a judgment upon them could be enforced only
Dist. No. 1, Anoka County, 10 Minn. 340, (Gil. 268.)
ment of the indebtedness.-Robbins v. School-
Minn. 33, (Gil. 9.)
Distinguished in Sanborn v. School-District No. 10, 12
Personal liability of trustees.
28. Trustees of school-districts are public
agents, within the rule that such agents will not
be held to a personal liability upon contracts ex-
22. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 107, re-ecuted in their official capacity, unless guilty of
quiring the treasurer of a school-district to fraud or misrepresentation or expressly contract-
1745
1746
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DISTRICTS.
ing to assume such liability.-Sanborn v. Neal, | ness.-Currie v. School-Dist. No. 26, 27 N. W.
4 Minn. 126, (Gil. 83.)
922, 35 Minn. 163.
Supplies.
29. Defendants, being trustees of a school-dis-
trict, made a note for a debt of the district, in
37. Contracts on behalf of a school-district, in-
which they promised as trustees of such district, volving expenditures for labor, furniture, and
but signed the same without any official designa- supplies, must be authorized by the board of
tion. Held, that the language of the promise, if trustees at a meeting called for the transaction of
it did not show conclusively that the makers did such business, after due notice to all the members,
not intend to promise in their individual capac-
as required by Laws Minn. 1881, c. 41, § 3. Per-
ity, at least rendered the nature of such promise mitting goods supplied under such contracts to
doubtful, and parol testimony was admissible to remain in the school-room, if placed there with-
show the surrounding circumstances, as indicat-out authority, is not a ratification of the contract,
ing the intention.-Sanborn v. Neal, 4 Minn. 126, although accepting and retaining them would be;
(Gil. 83.)
and the use of a school-house, built on land of
the district with materials belonging to it, under
a contract not duly authorized, is not a ratifica-
tion of the contract.-Currie v. School-Dist. No.
26, 27 N. W. 922, 35 Minn. 163.
Distinguished in Rollins v. Phelps, 5 Minn. 467, (Gil. 377.)
30. Where trustees of a school-district execute
a promissory note in form as individuals, simply
annexing their title as trustees to their signa-
ture, the liability created thereby is an individ-
ual one. To relieve them from such liability, it
must appear, from the instrument itself, that
they executed it in their capacity of trustees.-
Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 578, (Gil. 412;)
Bingham v. Stewart, 13 Minn. 106, (Gil. 96.)
31. An agreement made at the time of giving
a promissory note, by the trustees of a school-
district, that the same shall be the note of such
district, and not of the defendants, is, if prop-
erly alleged and proven, a valid defense to an
action thereon against the trustees as individ-
uals.-Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 214, (Gil.
153.)
School lands and buildings.
32. The title to lands of a school-district is in
the district, not the trustees; and they cannot, in
absence of authority from the district, exe-
cute a valid mortgage thereon. Sanborn v.
School-Dist. No. 10, Rice County, 12 Minn. 17,
(Gil. 1.)
33. The unauthorized act of school trustees in
expending more funds on a school building than
the limit voted may be ratified by the district at
a district meeting.-Sanborn v. School-Dist. No.
10, Rice County, 12 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
34. Trustees of a school-district have power to
employ a portion of a dwelling-house for school
purposes if, in their judgment, it is necessary and
proper.-Gould v. Eagle Creek School-Dist., 7
Minn. 203, (Gil. 145.)
35. Comp. St. Minn. c. 23, §§ 64, 70, which author-
ize a school-district to purchase, lease, or build a
suitable school-house, and to levy a tax for such
purpose, “not exceeding six hundred dollars in any
one year," does not limit the amount that it may
expend for such purpose; and a debt of greater
amount than that named in such statute, con-
tracted in building a school-house, and payable at
a future day, is binding on such district.-Robbins
v. School-Dist. No. 1, Anoka County, 10 Minn. 340,
(Gil. 268.)
|
38. A contract by two trustees of a school-dis-
trict for purchase of supplies for the district is
not binding on the district unless authorized at
a meeting of the trustees.-Andrews v. School-
Dist. No. 4, 33 N. W. 217, 37 Minn. 96.
39. If such supplies are received and used for
the benefit of the district under such circum-
stances and for such length of time as to raise the
presumption that it was with the common consent
of the district, it will be bound to pay for them.
Andrews v. School-Dist. No. 4, 33 N. W. 217, 37
Minn. 96.
40. Where supplies were bought by two direc-
tors without any authority, and used for about
three weeks, and afterwards some of the articles
were used by order of the clerk of the district, and
others from time to time, by whose direction did
not appear, the voters of the district having in the
meantime repudiated the action of said trustees,
the presumption of ratification was not necessarily
raised.-Andrews v. School-Dist. No. 4, 33 N. W.
217, 37 Minn, 96.
Text-books.
41. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 75, providing for "uni-
form and cheap text-books for the public
schools," is not repealed by Laws 1877, c. 74, ex.
cept so far as the same is affected by subdivision
8, 18, subc. 7, of said chapter 74, giving boards
of education of independent school-districts
power to prescribe text-books, etc.—Curryer v.
Merrill, 25 Minn. 1.
Teachers-Licenses.
42. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 67,
making it the duty of a county superintendent to
keep a record of re-examinations and revocations
such record is the best and the proper evidence
of licenses to teach, provided for in section 69,
of a revocation.-School-Dist. No. 10 v. The-
lander, 21 N. W. 554, 32 Minn. 476.
Contracts of employment.
43. Under Gen. St. Minn, 1866, c. 36, § 12, provid-
ing that the school trustees shall hire such teach-
36. A contract between a director and trustee ers as have procured a certificate of qualification,
of a school-district and the other trustees, for the and section 32, providing that no person shall be
erection by him of a school-house in the district, admitted to teach in the public schools except such
is against public policy, and is voidable by the as shall have passed the required examination and
trustees, irrespective of its fairness or unfair-received certificates, a contract by trustees with
1747
1748
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-DISTRICTS-SEAL.
a teacher for the teaching of a school, made before | ness v. School-District, 12 Minn. 448, (Gil. 337.)
he has obtained the requisite certificate, is void. -Ryan v. School-Dist. No. 13, 8 N. W. 146, 27
Jenness v. School-Dist. No. 31, Washington Coun- Minn. 433.
ty, 12 Minn. 448, (Gil. 337.)
44. A teacher having no license entered into
a verbal contract to teach for three months, at
a certain sum per month. After teaching three
weeks, and about May 9th, he qualified and re-
ceived a license, and then entered into a written
contract to teach the school at the rate previously
stipulated for three months from April 18th, pre-
ceding. Held, that he was entitled to recover
at the rate stipulated for teaching done after mak-
ing the written contract.-McKinney v. School-
Dist. No. 45, 20 Minn. 72, (Gil. 57.)
45. A contract of employment as a teacher
purporting to have been entered into between
plaintiff and defendant school-district was signed
'Q., Director," and "S., Treasurer." Held,
that it was implied that Q. and S. were respect-
ively defendant's director and treasurer, and as
such were two of its board of trustees author-
ized by Laws Minn. 1879, c. 17, § 1, to make con-
tracts for the district.-Ryan v. School-Dist. No.
13, 8 N. W. 146, 27 Minn. 433.
46. Under Gen. St. Minn. c. 36, § 31, a contract
made between a teacher and the trustees of a
school-district must be in writing, and in a suit by
the teacher to enforce such a contract, where it is
admitted that a majority of the trustees signed,
and the only issue raised by defendant's testimony
is a denial that plaintiff signed, it is proper to in-
struct the jury that the "statute makes it neces-
sary that the contract for hiring a teacher must
be in writing; but if the necessary trustees be.
longing to the district signed, it would be a com-
pliance with the law," and to leave it to the jury
to decide "whether there was a contract as stated
by plaintiff at that time or not. "-McGinness v.
School-District No. 10, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 103.
39 Minn. 499.
Teachers-Actions for compensation.
47. An action may be maintained against trus-
tees of a school-district upon orders on the treas-
urer of the district drawn and delivered by the
proper officers in payment of an amount due to a
teacher of the district school, after demand on
the treasurer and refusal of payment, although
plaintiff has a remedy by mandamus against the
treasurer.-Martin v. Elwood, 29 N. W. 135, 35
Minn. 309.
48. The complaint in an action on a contract
by which plaintiff was employed by defendant
school-district as a teacher, alleged that plaintiff
and defendant "entered into an agreement in
writing." Held, that such allegation implied
that the contract was made by the trustees at a
meeting called for that purpose, of which due
notice was given, as required by Laws Minn.
1879, c. 17.-Ryan v. School-Dist. No. 13, 8 N.
W. 146, 27 Minn. 433.
49. In an action on a contract by which plain-
tiff was employed by defendant school-district
as a teacher, the complaint, under Laws Minn.
1879, c. 17, § 2, providing that a common school
district shall hire "such teachers only as have
certificates of qualification," must allege that
plaintiff had such certificate. Following Jen-
50. The complaint in an action for services as
a teacher in the public schools of a school-district
alleged that plaintiff was "a duly-qualified
teacher of and in the public schools of said
state." Held, that this included the fact that
he had received the certificate required by stat-
ute to entitle him to teach in such school. Dis-
tinguishing Ryan v. School-District, 27 Minn.
433.-Goetz v. School-Dist. No. 59, 17 N. W. 276,
31 Minn. 164.
Liabilities of school-districts for negli-
gence.
51. School-districts and independent school-dis-
tricts, being corporations with limited powers or-
ganized solely for public purposes, and the duties
of the trustees or boards of education, intrusted
with the management and care of the property of
such districts, being public and administrative
only, they are not liable for injuries to individuals
caused by negligence in failing to make repairs.-
Bank v. Brainerd School-Dist., (Minn.) 51 N. W.
814.
52. Nor is a right of action against a school-
district for such negligence given by section 117,
c. 36, Gen. St. 1878, which authorizes actions to be
brought against trustees in their official capacity,
for an injury to the rights of plaintiff arising from
some act or omission of the officers or of the dis-
trict.-Bank v. Brainerd School-Dist., (Minn.) 51
N. W. 814.
Judgment against district.
53. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 119, which
authorizes the treasurer of a school-district to pay
a judgment against the trustees of the district only
out of money not otherwise appropriated, he has
no authority to do so out of moneys of the district
applicable only to other specific purposes, as shown
by his own report.-School-Dist. No. 1 v. Roach,
(Minn.) 45 N. Ŵ. 1097.
43 Minn. 495.
54. Where judgment in an action against a
school-district is entered by collusion between the
plaintiff and one of the trustees, the court may,
on the proper application of the other trustees, set
aside the same and allow an answer upon the mer-
its to be interposed.-Sturm v. School Dist. No. 70,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 462.
45 Minn. 88.
Scienter.
Knowledge of vicious propensity of dog, see Ant
mals, 2.
Seal.
Certificate of acknowledgment, see Deed, 47.
Contracts under seal, see Contracts, 14, 132, 133.
Enforcement of voluntary executory agreement
under seal, see Equity, 66.
Of clerk, see Clerk of Court, 5.
corporation, see Corporations, 62.
court, requiréd on warrants of attachment, see
Attachment, 61-63.
notary, see Notary Public.
1749
1750
SEARCH-WARRANT-SEDUCTION, I., II.
Of probate court, see Courts, 17.
On bonds, see Bonds, 2.
lations with the female, is admissible as corrobo-
rating the principal charge, and as matter of ag-
31 Minn. 54.
contract by agent, see Principal and Agent, gravation.-Russell v. Chambers, 16 N. W. 458,
41, 42.
to convey land, see Vendor and Pur-
chaser, 5.
mortgage, see Mortgages, 35.
partnership contract, see Partnership, 30-32.
promissory note, see Negotiable Instruments,
24-26.
To certificate of taking deposition, see Deposition
19, 20.
writ of habeas corpus, see Habeas Corpus, 6.
When seal imports consideration, see Contracts,
31, 32.
SEARCH-WARRANT.
Damages.
5. In an action by a parent for seduction, it
is proper for the jury, in addition to the dam-
ages for loss of services, disbursements for med-
ical attention, and other necessary expenses, to
award such compensation for wounded feelings,
mental suffering, and for dishonor to plaintiff
and his family, as from the evidence is reasonable
and proper, not exceeding in all the amount
claimed in complaint.-Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn.
272, (Gil. 252.)
6. In an action for the seduction of plaintiff's
minor daughter, plaintiff may recover for his
exemplary damages. -Russell v. Chambers, 16 N.
W. 458, 31 Minn. 54.
Malicious issue and execution, see Malicious Pros- wounded feelings and sense of dishonor, and also
ecution, 6, 7.
Issuance.
A proceeding for a search-warrant may
be, but is not necessarily, a substantive criminal
proceeding. It may be ancillary to a prosecution
for larceny, though the warrant be issued upon a
separate complaint, and at a subsequent stage of
the prosecution.-Cole v. Curtis, 16 Minn. 182,
(Gil. 161.)
Secretary of State.
Powers and duties, see Constitutional Law, 27.
SEDUCTION.
1. CIVIL ACTION, 1-8.
II. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,
Evidence.
9-22.
I. CIVIL ACTION.
1. In an action by a parent for the seduction of
his child, testimony of the daughter as to promises
of defendant, made during the continuance of his
guilty visits, is competent.-Fox v. Stevens, 13
Minn. 272, (Gil. 252.)
2. In an action by a parent for the seduction
of his daughter, the daughter testified as to prop-
ositions to procure abortion, made by defendant
during the continuance of his guilty visits, and
also requests made on his part, after she became
pregnant, that she should marry his son, and
nothing should be said about it. Held admissi-
ble, as tending to establish the fact of seduction.
-Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272, (Gil. 252.)
3. In an action by a father for seduction of a
daughter, evidence that defendant had exerted
his influence to secure plaintiff's election to the
office of chairman of town board is admissible to
show the relation of confidence existing between
the parties.-Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272, (Gil.
252.)
|
7. In an action by a father for the loss of
services of his minor daughter resulting from
her seduction by defendant, evidence of the ill
health and depressed mental condition of the
daughter following her confinement is admissi-
ble.-Russell v. Chambers, 16 N. W. 458, 31
Minn. 54.
8. In an action for the 'seduction of plaintiff's
minor daughter, evidence of the amount of money
which defendant had furnished the daughter from
time to time is inadmissible, where it did not ap-
pear that such money was in any way applied to
plaintiff's benefit or in reduction of any of his
damages.-Russell v. Chambers, 16 N. W. 458, 31
Minn. 54.
II. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
What constitutes the offense.
•
9. Under Pub. St. c. 96, § 6, making seduc-
tion under promise of marriage of an unmarried
female of "previous chaste character" a mis-
demeanor, a woman may be of chaste character,
within the meaning of the statute, although,
previous to the seduction charged, she had had
sexual intercourse with the accused, if she had
reformed, in principle, before the time of the
act charged.-State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325,
(Gil. 241.)
10. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 100, § 6, punishing
the seduction, under promise of marriage, of "an
unmarried female of previous chaste character. "
applies to the seduction of a woman who, al-
though having a low standard of propriety, and
permitting indelicate familiarities, has enough
sense of virtue not to surrender her chastity ex-
cept when induced to do so under pro:aise of mar-
riage.-State v. Brinkhaus, 25 N. W. 642, 34
Minn. 285.
Indictment.
11. An indictment alleged that defendant did,
on May 11, 1878, under a promise to marry one
A., "seduce and have illicit connection with her,
the said A., and so promising to marry her, the
4. In an action for seduction, evidence of the said A., did carnally know the said A.; she con-
conduct of defendant subsequent to the alleged senting and agreeing to such knowledge of her
seduction, in seeking to continue his illicit re-person in the belief that said promise would be
·
1751
1752
SEDUCTION, II.-SEQUESTRATION.
kept, and she, the said A., being then an unmar-
ried female of chaste character previous to the
date of said promises, and of chaste character
previous to the said 11th day of May, 1878." Held,
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 100, § 6, which pro-
vides that any man "who seduces and has illicit
connection with an unmarried female of previous
chaste character is guilty of a felony," that the
indictment was insufficient as not alleging that
A. was of chaste character up to the time of the
act of seduction.-State v. Gates, 6 N. W. 404,
27 Minn. 52.
12. The allegation in an indictment for seduc-
tion, that the woman "was then and there an un-
married female of previous chaste character, " is a
sufficient allegation of chaste character at the time
of the alleged seduction.-State v. Wenz, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 933.
41 Minn. 196.
13. Pen. Code Minn. § 242, provides that "a
person who, under promise of marriage, seduces
and has sexual intercourse with an unmarried fe-
male of previous chaste character shall be pun-
ished," etc. Held, that an indictment which al-
leges that defendant "willfully and feloniously,
under promise of marriage to T., her, the said T.,
did then and there seduce, and have sexual inter-
course with, said T. being then and there an un-
married female of previous chaste character, " is
sufficient, as it follows the language of the stat-
ute.-State v. Abresch, 42 N. W. 543, 41 Minn.
41.
14. Such indictment sufficiently alleges the se-
duction to have been "under promise of marriage. "
--State v. Abresch, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 543.
Evidence-Presumption.
41 Minn. 41.
15. Upon the trial of an indictment for seduc-
tion the usual presumption of chastity in a woman
does not apply.-State v. Wenz, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
933.
41 Minn. 196.
Promise of marriage.
had on the testimony of the female seduced un-
less corroborated, does not require proof of the
material fact, independent of the female's testi-
mony, but only proof of concomitant facts or cir-
cumstances, sufficiently strong and pertinent to
satisfy the jury of the female's truthfulness as
to the main fact.-State v. Timmens, 4 Minn.
325, (Gil. 241.)
20. In an action for the offense of seduction
under promise of marriage, the consultations
of the female with her parents concerning her
marriage, and her preparations for the same, are
in corroboration of her testimony as to the prom-
ise.-State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325, (Gil. 241.)
21. At the trial of an indictment for seduction
under promise of marriage, besides testimony of
the prosecutrix to the making of such a promise,
there was evidence that defendant visited her as
a lover several times a week, and was frequently
alone in her company, and that, in talking with
her brother, he had expressed an intention to
marry her, notwithstanding his parents were
opposed to his doing so. Held, that this was
sufficient corroboration of her testimony as to the
promise of marriage, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 100, $ 6, providing that no conviction shall bé
had on the testimony of the female seduced un-
supported by other evidence. -State v. Brink-
haus, 25 N. W. 642, 34 Minn. 285.
22. The prosecutrix further testified that she
yielded to defendant because he gave her to un-
derstand that he was going to marry her, and
that she had never before had sexual intercourse
with any man. Other testimony showed that she
was an inmate of the family of her father and
that of her married sister in the neighborhood
where she had lived since a child; that she was
23 years of age, and had been received in society
of the social rank of her family; and some of her
neighbors, who had known her for years, testi-
fied that they never saw anything improper in
her conduct. Held, that this was sufficiently cor-
roborative of her previous chaste character.-
State v. Brinkhaus, 25 N. W. 642, 34 Minn. 285.
Seisin.
16. Under an indictment for seduction under
promise of marriage, the proof of such promise
may be sufficient, although the particular words
used are not stated. It is enough if language is See Adverse Possession; Covenants, 20–23, 27, 28.
used which implied such a promise, and was in-
tended to convey that meaning, and was in fact
so understood by the prosecutrix.-State v. Brink-
haus, 25 N. W. 642, 34 Minn. 285.
17. In a prosecution for seduction under prom-
ise of marriage the female seduced may testify
that she permitted the intercourse because of the
promise of marriage.-State v. Brinkhaus, 25 N.
W. 642, 34 Minn. 285.
Self-Defense.
See Homicide, 24-27.
Sentence.
See Criminal Law, 124-133, 192; Homicide, 96.
Separate Estate.
Previous conviction for bastardy.
18. Upon the trial of an indictment for seduc-
tion, the record of a previous conviction of defend-
ant upon a charge against him by the complaining Of married woman, see Husband and Wife, 14–59.
witness for bastardy is not admissible.-State v.
Wenz, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 933.
Corroboration.
41 Minn. 196.
19. Pub. St. c. 96, § 6, providing that on an
indictment for seduction no conviction shall be
Sequestration.
Proceedings to enforce liability of stockholders for
corporate debts, see Corporations, 157-168.
1753
1754
SERVANT-SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, I.
Servant.
See Master and Servant.
Service.
Of notice of appeal, see Appeal and Error, 143-
151, 701-706.
of foreclosure, see Mortgages, 223–230.
to redeem from tax sale, see Taxation,
195-198.
papers, see Practice in Civil Cases, 57–61.
pleadings, see Practice in Civil Cases, 57, 58.
process, see Attachment, 68-70.
by publication, see Constitutional Law,
156, 157.
summons, see Summons, 14-28..
writ of certiorari, see Certiorari, 26.
Set-Off
See Counterclaim and Set-Off.
Settlement.
See Accord and Satisfaction: Compromise;
Payment; Release and Discharge.
By executors, etc., see Executors and Adminis-
trators, 86-88.
guardian, see Guardian and Ward, 14-22.
Marriage settlement, see Husband and Wife, 52–
56.
Of case or bill of exceptions, see Case and Bill of
Exceptions, 1-9.
pauper, see Poor and Poor-Laws, 1–5.
Sewers.
Defective sewers, see Municipal Corporations,
190-201.
Power to construct, see Municipal Corporations,
219.
caping from the county jail.-Bemis v. Board
County Com'rs Rice County, 23 Minn. 73.
Powers in levying execution.
2. The fact that one uses his dwelling as a
place for the transaction of his business does not
render it lawful for an officer to break the outer
door for the purpose of levying an execution;
and no valid levy can be made by means of such
unlawful entry.-Welsh v. Wilson, 24 N. W. 327,
34 Minn. 92.
Dealings with property levied on.
3. A sheriff, having levied an execution on
grain in the stack or shock, caused it, before sale,
to be threshed, and handled through an elevator.
Held, that this was not such misapplication or
abuse of his authority as to render him a tres-
passer ab initio.-Ladd v. Newell, 24 N. W. 366,
34 Minn. 107.
Rights as against receiptor.
4. Where a sheriff relinquishes possession of
property, which has been seized and attached by
him, to another, on the strength of a receipt for
the same, the receiptor cannot question a judgment,
so seized and attached, as obtained by perjury and
obtained in the action in which the property was
fraud.-Holcomb v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co.,
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 354.
39 Minn. 342.
Failure to execute process.
5. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. S, §§ 198, 199,
providing that a sheriff guilty of misconduct in
relation to the execution of a writ delivered to
him may be proceeded against in the district
court by order to show cause, a sheriff improp-
erly neglecting and refusing to execute a writ
of execution may be required to show cause be-
fore the district court from which the execution
issued, on an order made by a judge of that court..
-Breuer v. Elder, 22 N. W. 622, 33 Minn. 147.
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES. execution delivered to him it appeared that he
I. POWERS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES, 1-47.
II. FEES AND COMPENSATION, 48–56.
III. ACTIONS ON BOND, 57-60.
IV. DEPUTIES, 61-65.
Actions by, to collect credits attached, see Attach
ment, 53-57.
Certificate of sale on foreclosure of mortgage by
advertisement, see Mortgages, 267-281.
Conversion of property levied on, see Conversion
of Personal Property, 7, 8.
Effect of return of summons, see Summons, 53-56.
Liability for uncollected taxes, see Taxation, 71.
Venue in actions against, see Venue in Civil Cases,
1-3.
Verdict in replevin against, see Replevin, 72.
I. POWERS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES.
Offer of reward.
1. A sheriff cannot bind his county by offer-
ing a reward for the recapture of a prisoner es-
6. In proceedings against a sheriff for mis-
conduct in relation to the execution of a writ of
had failed to collect any part of the amount of
the_execution, though sufficient property of de-
fendants was pointed out to him, out of which
he could have made the execution, and that he
had made return that he was unable to find
property of defendants on which to levy, and
thereupon returned the execution wholly unsat-
isfied, and that it had become wholly uncollecti-
ble, defendants no longer having any property on
which it could be levied. Held that, under Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 8, § 199, providing that for
such misconduct the court, "in addition to re-
quiring the performance of the duty neglected,
or the correction of the injury done," might im-
pose on the sheriff a fine not exceeding $200, the
court, besides requiring the sheriff to make good
the loss occasioned by his misconduct, might im-
pose such fine, and enforce its order by commit-
ting the sheriff to the common jail, unless such
order was complied with within a reasonable time
fixed by the court.-Breuer v. Elder, 22 N. W.
622, 33 Minn. 147.
7. In an action by a judgment creditor against
a sheriff for failure to collect the judgment, which
1755
1756
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, I.
was valid, the judgment is conclusive evidence of
the plaintiff's right to sue.-Armour Packing Co.
v. Richter, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 1114.
42 Minn. 188.
8. In an action against a constable for the
wrongful release of a levy, the issue made promi-
ment on the trial was whether the execution de-
fendant was the owner of the property levied on,
and plaintiff's evidence showed that he was.
Held, that a finding by the court that the allega.
tions in the complaint were true was sufficient
to warrant a judgment in plaintiff's favor, though
there was no direct allegation in the complaint
that the execution defendant owned the property
seized and levied on, and though the court made
no express finding to that effect.-Crosson v.
Olson, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 406.
47 Minn. 27.
Delay in executing process.
9. It is the duty of the sheriff to execute
writs of execution against the same debtor in
the order received by him.-Albrecht v. Long, 25
Minn. 163.
10. The remedy of a creditor whose execution
is first placed in the hands of the sheriff, but up-
on which levy is not made until after levy upon
an execution subsequently delivered, so that the
lien of the latter becomes prior to his, under
Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 269, is against the
sheriff.-Albrecht v. Long, 25 Minn. 163.
11. An execution was delivered by plaintiff to
defendant sheriff about 4 o'clock in the afternoon
to be levied on goods at a point about five miles
distant. Defendant was told that it was very im-
portant that the levy should be made that after-
noon, the reasons therefor being given by plain-
tiff, and promised that the levy should be made as
plaintiff wished. Defendant, being engaged in
other official duties, gave the writ to his deputy.
The latter was too late for a train which he ex-
pected to take, because of a change in the time-
table, but there was another train which he might
have taken that evening, and he could have gone
by private conveyance. Held, that a delay until 10
o'clock the next forenoon to levy the writ was un-
reasonable and negligent.-Guiterman v. Sharvy
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 780.
46 Minn. 183.
Failure to collect money.
12. A sheriff who levies on personal property of
the debtor, and sells and delivers it to the pur-
chaser without receiving the price, may be pro-
ceeded against summarily under Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 8, 3$ 198, 199, and compelled to pay to the
person entitled to the surplus any excess of the
selling price over the amount required to satisfy
the execution and his fees and disbursements.-
Kumler v. Brandenburg, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 704.
39 Minn. 59.
Failure to pay over money collected.
13. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 8, § 198, pro-
viding for an order by the court to the sheriff
to pay a person entitled thereto money collected
by him by virtue of any execution, etc., "with
twenty per centum thereon as damages for such
failure," if no reasonable excuse for his failure
to pay over is shown by the sheriff, the party en-
I
titled to the money has a legal right to such dam-
ages, and the court cannot relieve the sheriff
from payment thereof.-Coykendall v. Way, 12
N. W. 452, 29 Minn. 162.
14. A judgment of foreclosure directed a sale
and the payment of the proceeds to persons
named. Held, that the sheriff, making such sale
and payment according to the terms of the judg-
ment, was protected from liability to another as-
serting a superior right to the proceeds, although
notice of such claim was given to the sheriff be-
fore he paid over the money.-Hill v. Rasicot,
25 N. W. 604, 34 Minn. 270.
15. An officer making sale on foreclosure of a se-
nior mortgage, and receiving the surplus, knowing
of the junior mortgagee's right to the surplus
fund, who immediately pays the surplus to the
mortgagor, becomes liable to the junior mortgagee.
-Fuller v. Langum, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 122.
37 Minn. 74.
Liability to lienor claiming attached
property.
16. When property levied on under attachment
or execution is subject to lien claims for wages,
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, §§ 22, 23, the officer,
when notice has been duly served on him, in case
a sale is made by him upon execution, must pay
over to such lienholders the amount found to be
due each from the proceeds of the sale, not exceed-
ing the statutory limit, and prior to a sale he is
not liable to the lienholder, except for some wrong-
ful act or omission in the disposition of the prop-
erty, to the damage of the latter.-Liljengren v.
Ege, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 250.
46 Minn. 488.
Wrongful seizure-In general.
17. Where a sheriff, under process against one,
takes the property of another, such taking and
subsequent detention by him are wrongful.-Cald-
well v. Arnold, 8 Minn. 265, (Gil. 231.)
18. Where a sheriff, under process against A.,
levies upon and takes into his possession property
of B. in the hands of C., his subsequent abandon-
ment of the levy, and return of the property to C.,
will not relieve him from liability to B., unless it
appeared that C., at the time of its return, was
authorized to receive such property.-Caldwell v.
Arnold, 8 Minn. 265, (Gil. 231.)
19. A sheriff is not liable in damages for a
levy upon goods under an execution against the
owner which is fair upon its face, although the
judgment was fraudulently obtained, so long as
it was not reversed, stayed, or enjoined. - Baker
v.. Sheehan, 12 N. W. 704, 29 Minn. 235.
20. Although a sheriff may levy on and sell
the interest of the execution debtor in personal
property, he is liable for taking property in which
the execution debtor has no interest, although he
assumes to levy only on the interest of the execu-
tion debtor therein.--Leonard v. Maginnis, 26 N.
W. 733, 34 Minn. 506.
Sale of mortgaged goods.
21. When a sheriff, under an execution against
the mortgagor in a chattel mortgage, assumes to
sell, against the objection of the mortgagee, the en-
1757
1758
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, I.
tire property, and not merely the interest of the
mortgagor, the mortgagee may treat it as a con-
version of his interest, even though the purchaser
knew of the mortgage.-Appleton Mill Co. v.
Warder, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 791.
42 Minn. 117.
Claim or demand before action.
22. An action against a sheriff for goods levied
upon while lawfully in possession of the one
against whom the process runs, exercising acts of
ownership over them, cannot be maintained by the
real owner until after demand or notice to the
officer. ATWATER, J., dissenting.-Vose v. Stick-
ney, 8 Minn. 75, (Gil. 51.)
23. An attachment of property known to be
exempt is unlawful, and no demand is necessary
before suit brought for the unlawful taking.-
Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184, (Gil. 128;) Murphy
v. Sherman, 25 Minn. 196.
24. In an action against a sheriff for levying on
plaintiff's personal property under an execution
against another person, the plaintiff being pres-
ent at the time the sheriff took the goods, a charge
to the jury that, to entitle plaintiff to a verdict,
she must prove, not only that the goods were hers,
but "that at the time they were taken she assert-
ed her title thereto," was erroneous, because it
omitted the essential element of an estoppel, that
the sheriff was influenced by her silence.-Hopkins
v. Swensen, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 1062.
41 Minn, 292.
25. Where an attachment is regularly issued
by a justice of the peace, and subsequent pro-
ceedings in the action divest the justice of juris-
diction to proceed, the person whose property
was seized has no right of action against the of-
ficer for the possession of the property without a
demand first made for its return on the officer.
-Hines v. Chambers, 11 N. W. 129, 29 Minn. 7.
Defenses.
26. In an action against a sheriff for the seiz-
ure and sale of wheat under an execution against
plaintiff's husband, it appeared that the wheat
was grown on land conveyed to plaintiff several
years before the debt sought to be enforced ac-
crued, and managed and controlled by plaintiff
for her own use and benefit. There was no evi-
dence that the husband was in possession of the
wheat, or that he managed the land or received
the proceeds thereof. Held, that defendant
could not show that the husband had transferred
the land to plaintiff in fraud of his creditors.
Sanders v. Chandler, 3 N. W. 351, 26 Minn. 273.
27.. Upon a simple issue of ownership, averred
in the complaint and denied in the answer, be-
tween a plaintiff claiming title to personal prop-
erty under a transfer from an insolvent debtor and
a defendant in possession as sheriff under a valid
process against the debtor in favor of a creditor,
it is competent for the defendant to prove that
such transfer was fraudulent and void, as against
such creditor.-Tupper v. Thompson, 4 N. W.
621, 26 Minn. 385; Kenney v. Goergen, 31 N.
W. 210, 36 Minn. 190.
28. In an action for wrongful attachment of
exempt property, waiver of exemption must, if
relied upon as a defense, be specially pleaded.-
Murphy v. Sherman, 25 Minn. 196.
Evidence.
29. Where an officer levies upon property in the
hands of one who has purchased from the execu
tion defendant, the purchaser, in an action against
the officer, need not show that the purchase was
for a valuable consideration, unless the plaintiff in
the process under which the levy was made was
a creditor at the time of such purchase.-Buck v.
Colbath, 7 Minn. 310, (Gil. 238;) Colbath v. Buck,
8 Minn. 85, (Gil, 60.)
30. In an action for the seizure and sale of
property under an execution against a third per-
son, plaintiff introduced evidence that the prop-
execution in evidence, but offered no proof that
erty taken was hers. Defendant introduced the
the goods taken under it were the property of the
execution debtor. Held, that the court properly
withdrew the execution from the consideration
of the jury and directed a verdict for plaintiff.
Sanders v. Chandler, 3 N. W. 351, 26 Minn. 273.
ment is conclusive on him as to the truth of all
31. The return of a sheriff to a writ of attach-
matters stated therein as between the sheriff or
his legal representatives and the attaching cred-
itor in an action by the creditor involving the
liability of the sheriff in respect to the property
W. 790, 27 Minn. 269.
attached or its proceeds.-State v. Penner, 6 N.
32. At the trial of an action against an officer
levy of an execution against another, on plaintiff
for taking property which plaintiff claims, on
adducing evidence of his right to the property, if
the officer relies on the fact that the property
was in the possession of such other person at the
time of the taking, he must adduce evidence to
show that it was in such possession, under cir-
cumstances raising a presumption of ownership
in such person; and plaintiff, in reply thereto, if
he relies upon an affidavit claiming the property
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 154, or upon
notice, must prove the same. He need not make
such proof as a part of his case in chief. -Per-
kins v. Zarracher, 19 N. W. 385, 32 Minn 71.
33. In replevin against a sheriff for goods of
plaintiff attached by defendant under a writ
against a third person, issued by a justice of the
peace, defendant justified under the writ, and
pleaded that plaintiff's title was fraudulent as
to creditors of the attachment defendant. Held
that, in order to maintain such defense, defend-
ant must show not only a writ of attachment fair
on its face, but also the existence of an indebt-
edness from the defendant in the attachment to
the plaintiff therein; and that for that purpose,
in connection with testimony of the plaintiff in
attachment to such an indebtedness on a note,
the complaint and judgment in the justice's
court, showing a cause of action on a note iden-
tical as to parties, date, amount, and a payment
made on it, were admissible, and sufficient, in
the absence of proof impairing their effect.-
Hines v. Chambers, 11 N. W. 129, 29 Minn. 7.
34. In an action against a sheriff for attach-
ing goods of plaintiff under a writ against a third
person, defendant justified under the writ, and
pleaded that plaintiff's title was fraudulent as
1759
1760
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, I.
to creditors of the attachment defendant, and
showed by parol undisputed evidence the exist-
ence of an indebtedness from the defendant in
attachment to the plaintiff therein. Held, that
the subsequent admission of incompetent evi-
dence to prove such indebtedness was harmless.
-Hines 7. Chambers, 11 N. W. 129, 29 Minn. 7.
he may recover as damages, in an action for the
wrongful taking and detention of the property,
what it so cost him to regain the property; and
the sheriff cannot object that such sum exceeded
the actual value of the property.-Leonard v.
Maginnis, 26 N. W. 733, 34 Minn. 506.
35. In an action against a sheriff for the wrong-
ful seizure of property under an attachment,
where he justifies the taking of the property
from the possession of plaintiff on the ground
that it was the property of the debtor in an at-
tachment, it is material for him to establish the
relation of debtor and creditor between the plain-
tiff and defendant in such attachment suit.-Hom-itor of plaintiff's grantor against the latter, the
berger v. Brandenberg, 29 N. W. 123, 35 Minn. 401.
36. The defendant in such attachment suit,
examined as a witness, denied any indebtedness
on the promissory note upon which he was sued,
and his evidence tended to show that the noté |
was fraudulent and invalid. Held, that the
sheriff, defendant, might inquire into the con-
sideration of the note, and the circumstances un-
der which it was given.-Homberger v. Branden-
berg, 29 N. W. 123, 35 Minn. 401.
37. Where an officer, in order to justify a seiz-
ure of goods under an attachment, attacks the
plaintiff's title on the ground that it was ac-
quired by a conveyance from the defendant in
the writ which was fraudulent and void as to
creditors, he must show, not only the indebted-
ness in favor of the plaintiff in the writ, and the
writ itself, but the preliminary proceedings
which authorized the issuing of it.-Howard v.
Manderfield, 17 N. W. 946, 31 Minn. 337.
38. In an action by F. against a sheriff for an
alleged wrongful seizure of wheat, the sheriff
justified under a writ of attachment against J.,
the brother of F. F. testified that he bought the
wheat of his sister; that she lived with J., their
brother; that she had bought the land of J.; and
that J. had raised the wheat for her. Held, that
defendant was entitled, on cross-examination, to
inquire fully into the consideration and circum-
stances of the alleged sale. - Homberger v. Bran-
denberg, 29 N. W. 123, 35 Minn. 401.
Wrongful seizure-Damages.
39. The ordinary measure of damages, in an
action for the wrongful attachment and sale of
exempt property, is the value of the property,
with interest from the time of taking.-Murphy
v. Sherman, 25 Minn. 196.
40. Knowledge upon the part of the officer that
property levied upon by him is exempt from exe-
cution may properly go in aggravation of dam-
ages.-Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184, (Gil. 128.)
41. Injury to plaintiff's feelings from a wrong-
ful levy upon his property by one knowing it to be
exempt is an element of damage, which is not de-
creased by the fact that he had no use for the prop-
erty at such time.-Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184,
(Gil. 128.)
42. Where a sheriff wrongfully levies on and
sells personal propery, and the owner, to protect
himself, buys the property at the execution sale,
43. Although, in an action against an officer for
& wrongful seizure of goods under an attach-
nent, he fails in an attempted justification on
the ground that plaintiff's title was derived from
the defendant in the writ by a transfer fraudu-
lent and void as to creditors, he may show, in
mitigation of damages, the fraudulent nature of
plaintiff's title, and that, in an action by a cred-
property, subsequent to the levy complained of,
had been lawfully levied upon by attachment,
and subsequently sold upon execution.-Howard
v. Manderfield, 17 N. W. 946, 31 Minn. 337.
Distinguished in Welsh v. Wilson, 24 N. W.328, 34 Minn.
93.
44. Every subsequent act of a sheriff based on
an unlawful levy of execution is but a continua-
tion of the original trespass; and in an action
for such unlawful levy the fact that he sold the
goods taken, and paid the proceeds to the execu-
tion creditor, is not available in mitigation of
the damages. -Welsh v. Wilson, 24 N. W. 327,
34 Minn. 92.
Distinguishing Howard v. Manderfield, 17 N. W. 946, 31
Minn. 337.
45. A sheriff, after taking and selling under
execution property of plaintiff, deposited, with
the justice who issued the execution, the surplus
proceeds, which plaintiff might, if he chose, have
demanded and received. Held, that this did
not affect plaintiff's right in an action against
the sheriff for wrongfully taking the property,
plaintiff not having received the money.-Allen
v. Coates, 11 N. W. 132, 29 Minn. 46.
Substitution and liabilities of in-
demnitors.
46. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 154,
providing that, on a claim by affidavit by any
person other than the defendant or his agent, of
property levied on by a sheriff, the sheriff may
release the levy unless the plaintiff indemnify
him, and under section 155, providing that “if,
in such case," the person claiming the owner-
ship commence an action against the sheriff for
taking it, the obligors in the bond shall, on mo-
tion of the sheriff, be impleaded with him in the
action, such obligors may be so brought in, al-
though, the property having been taken from the
possession of the party so claiming it, he might
have maintained an action therefor against the
sheriff without the affidavit prescribed; and, as
the purpose for which such obligors are brought
in is to enable the sheriff to enforce against them
his right of indemnity, not the enforcing in fa-
vor of the plaintiff of a liability in tort, their lia-
bility is measured by the terms of the contract
of indemnity, and is limited to the penal sum
named in the bond; and where several writs have
been levied upon all the property, and several
indemnity bonds executed to the sheriff, and the
damages recovered for the taking exceed the
amount of the penalties in all the bonds, the ob-
ligors ir each bond should be charged to the ex-
1761
1762
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, I.-III.
tent of the penalty thereof.-Lesher v. Getman, tion, during such time, performed the duty and
15 N. W. 309, 30 Minn. 321.
Outgoing and incoming sheriffs.
*
*
47. Though Gen. St. Minn. c. 8, § 174, provides
that "every sheriff going out of office by the ex-
piration of his term, and having any attachment
in his hands, which he has begun to
execute by a levy upon property, shall be au-
thorized to proceed thereon and execute the same
* in the same manner as if still in office,
where a sheriff goes out of office after levying an
attachment, his successor is the proper person
to levy an execution issued on a judgment in the
action in which the attachment issued.-Butler
v. White, 25 Minn. 432.
*
II. FEES AND COMPENSATION.
Service of process.
48. As a sheriff is entitled, for diligent search,
inquiry, and return not found on summons, to
the fee of one dollar, for like services under
subpoena he is entitled to the same fee, as Gen.
St. Minn. c. 70, § 10, allows a sheriff to charge
for services not therein enumerated the same
fees allowed him by statute for similar services.
-Barman v. Miller, 23 Minn. 458.
49. A sheriff or constable is entitled to mileage
for traveling to serve a criminal warrant, although
by no fault of his, he fails to serve it.-Davis v.
County of Le Sueur, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 364.
Searching for criminals.
37 Minn. 491.
was in the nature of a writ of attachment, and
the sheriff was entitled to fees in caring for the
property as on a writ of attachment.-Barman
" Miller, 23 Minn. 458.
Collections.
* *
54. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 11, allows a sher-
iff for collections on executions, when the same is
collected or settled after levy, a certain percent-
age of the amount collected, and for "selling land
on decree by foreclosure
* $3," and pro-
vides that "for any services not herein enumerat-
ed" the sheriff "shall receive the fees herein
allowed for similar services." Held, that for sell-
ing mortgaged personalty under a decree of fore-
closure, the sheriff is entitled to $3 only.-Thomp-
son v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 4 N. W. 603,
26 Minn. 353.
55. Under Laws Minn. 1885, c. 2, § 12, providing
for the sheriff the same fees for collecting taxes as
are given by law to constables, "for making levy
and sale on execution, ""which fees shall be added
to the tax and collected, "the sheriff is entitled to
receive from the county the same compensation
for services rendered in an attempt to collect a
tax-warrant, which by no fault of his does not
succeed, as the law allows to a constable on exe-
cutions which he is unable to collect.-Schmid v.
Board of Com'rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 145.
Attendance at court.
44 Minn. 67.
56. The per diem allowed to a sheriff as com-
pensation by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 11, for
attendance upon terms of the district court, cov-
50. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 70, § 10, fixing the ers all services that may be required of him in
fees of a sheriff, allows no per diem to a shiff and about the business of the term, such as bring-
for services in searching for supposed criminals ing into court and removing prisoners whose pres-
with view to their arrest, and the commission-ence is necessary for arraignment, trial, or sen-
ers erred in allowing the same.-Thomas v. Coun- tence. -Connelly v. Board of Com'rs of Dakota
ty Com'rs Scott County, 15 Minn. 324, (Gil. 254.) County, 29 N. W. 1. 35 Minn. 365.
Care of prisoners.
51. The provision of Sp. Laws Minn. 1876, c.
207, 3, allowing the sheriff of Ramsey county
§
a fee of one dollar for committing a prisoner
to jail, applies to cases of prisoners committed
to jail by the municipal court of the city of St.
Paul, notwithstanding the provision of the city
charter (Sp. Laws 1874, p. 100) that said city
"shall be liable to pay for the support and keep-
ing of said prisoners the same charges and allow-
ances as are allowed for the support and keeping
of prisoners committed under the authority of
the state:" the two provisions not being incon-
sistent.-Richter v. City of St. Paul, 12 N. W.
532, 29 Minn. 198.
52. The sum of four dollars per week allowed
the sheriff by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 11, for
"boarding prisoners," covers washing done for
them, required of him by statute.-Connelly v.
Board of Com'rs of Dakota County, 29 N. W. 1,
B5 Minn. 365.
Caring for property.
53. C application, after levy, to open a judg
nent entered by default, the motion was granted,
conditioned on the judgment, execution, and
levy, standing as security for the claim, to abide
the event of the action. Held, that the execu-
V.2M.DIG.-56
III. ACTIONS ON BOND.
Leave to sue.
57. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 78, §§ 1-3, requir
ing leave from a district court or judge before
bringing action on an official bond, applies to
constables' bonds. The provision of chapter 10,
§ 42, authorizing any person aggrieved by acts or
omissions of a constable to maintain an action on
his bond is not inconsistent with, and does not
supersede or dispense with, those sections.
Litchfield v. McDonald, 28 N. W. 191, 35 Minn. 167.
Pleading-Complaint.
58. The complaint in an action on a sheriff's
bond, which sets forth that the sheriff was duly
elected, that the bond was executed, and sure-
ties approved by the county board, and that he
took the oath of office, and entered upon the
be an officer de facto, and that his sureties were
performance of his duties, shows the sheriff to
responsible on his bond for wrongful acts com-
mitted by him while so acting.-County Com'rs
of Ramsey County v. Brisbin, 17 Minn. 451, (Gil.
429.)
59. A complaint on a sheriff's bond to recover
money paid the sheriff for redemption alleged
payment by one S., the day before the expiration
1763
1764
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES, III., IV.—SHIPPING.
of the period of redemption from execution sale,
in redemption of said premises; that the same
was made on a mortgage executed by the debtor,
which was a lien upon the premises, and the re-
demption money was paid for the use and bene-
fit of relator; that the sheriff executed and deliv-
ered a certificate of redemption, which was duly
filed and recorded. Held, that such complaint,
though indefinite and uncertain, was not bad on
general demurrer.- County Com'rs of Ramsey
County v. Brisbin, 17 Minn. 451, (Gil. 429.)
60. Where the complaint in an action on a
sheriff's bond shows the bond to have been duly
approved by the board of commissioners, a deliv-
ery will be implied, though it does not appear
that the sheriff deposited it in the office of the
register of deeds.- County Com'rs of Ramsey
County v. Brisbin, 17 Minn. 451, (Gil. 429.)
Removal.
IV. DEPUTIES.
61. A district judge has no power under the
laws of Minnesota to remove a deputy-sheriff.-
State v. McIntyre, 25 Minn. 383.
Powers.
62. A sheriff and his deputy are, in law, one
officer, so that the delivery of a writ to either is
delivery to the sheriff.-Albrecht v. Long, 25
Minn. 163.
63. The duties imposed on a sheriff, by a decree
of foreclosure directing him to make sale and a
report thereof, are duties imposed upon him as an
officer, and may be performed by deputy.-Hotch-
kiss v. Cutting, 14 Minn. 537, (Gil. 408.)
Liability of sheriff for unofficial acts.
64. A sheriff is not liable for an unofficial act
of his deputy in taking possession of mortgaged
chattels at the request of the mortgagee, even
though he approved of the same, supposing it to be
an official act.-Dorr v. Mickley, 16 Minn. 20,
(Gil. 8.)
Right to fees.
65. A sheriff may lawfully assign to a deputy
all the sheriff fees that may be due, or become
due, for services rendered by such deputy.
Pioneer Printing Co. v. Sanborn, 3 Minn. 413,
(Gil. 304.)
SHIPPING.
Admiralty jurisdiction, see Admiralty.
|
cient, and the assignee might sue thereon in his
own name.-Russell v. Minnesota Outfit, 1 Minn.
162, (Gil. 136.)
3. Plaintiff and defendant were part owners
of a steamer, which they had employed for their
common profit, under the management of defend-
ant as master. Plaintiff brought suit for an ac-
counting and a sale of the vessel and a division
of the proceeds, and obtained therein an injunc-
tion restraining defendant from using the vessel
during the pendency of the action; but this
was, on motion of defendants, modified so as to
permit him to run the vessel until the further
order of the court, but he was forbidden to con-
tract any debts which might become a lien on the
vessel, or upon which plaintiff might become lia-
ble; and plaintiff also served a written notice on
defendant, withdrawing from him all authority
to represent plaintiff in the management of the
vessel, and forbidding him to contract any debts
for running it, and notifying him that plaintiff
would resist the payment of any such claims in-
curred by defendant, either as part owner or
master. Defendant then took possession of the
boat, and ran it during the season. Held, that
plaintiff, having dissented from the employment
of the boat, and having refused to bear or be
responsible for any part of the expenses or losses,
was not entitled to any part of the earnings, nor
to compensation for the use of his share of the
vessel.-Swain v. Knapp, 25 N. W. 397, 34 Minn.
232.
Sale of vessel.
4. As between the parties a written bill of sale
is not necessary to pass the title to a boat.-Mc-
Mahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 357, (Gil. 232.)
Powers of master.
5. A master of a vessel may maintain an ac-
tion in his own name for freights, or for injury
to or conversion of goods intrusted to his care.-
Houghton v. Lynch, 13 Minn. 85, (Gil. 80.)
Action against vessel-Jurisdiction.
6. Rev. St. Minn. c. 86, § 1, which provides
of the territory shall be liable, etc., has no ap-
that every vessel used in navigating the waters
plication to a case where the contract sued upon
was made, and the breach complained of oc-
curred outside of the state. -The Reveille v.
Landreth, 2 Minn. 175, (Gil. 146.)
7. Rev. St. c. 86, providing for the collection
of demands against vessels navigating the wa-
ters of the state, is applicable to causes of action
Enforcing liens, see Constitutional Law, 166, 167; arising within the state, contracts made within
Maritime Liens.
Joint ownership.
and broken without the state, or contracts made
without, to be performed within, the state, but
not when the cause of action arises wholly with-
our the state. -Irvi ne v. Steam-Boat Hamburg,
3 Minn. 192, (Gil. 124.)
Distinguished in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 357, (Gil.
1. Joint owners of a boat are tenants in com-
mon as to the property, but as to the business
done by it they are copartners, and subject to the
laws of copartnership.-Russell v. Minnesota | 331.)
Outfit, 1 Minn. 162, (Gil. 136.)
2. A commander of a boat, who was also
part owner and agent of the other owners, sold
and transferred a claim due the partnership from
an individual owner and partner. Held, that
his authority to make the assignment was suffi-
Who may maintain.
8. Under Pub. St. Minn. c. 76, providing that
"any person" having a demand against a vessel
may bring an action thereon against the vessel by
name, the assignee of any such claim may main-
tain such action.-Reynolds v. The Favorite. 10
1765
1766
SIDEWALKS-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, I., II.
Minn. 242, (Gil. 190;) Morin v. The F. Sigel, 10
Minn. 250, (Gil. 195.)
Sidewalks.
2. Defendant deposited stone, earth, and dé-
bris in the Mississippi river opposite abutting
land of plaintiff, and between such land and the
center of the river, with plaintiff's consent thereto,
given upon defendant's agreement to remove the
same by a specified time. Held, that specífic
could not be enforced, plaintiff having an ade-
quate remedy by an action for damages for
breach of the contract.-Minneapolis Mill Co. v.
See Municipal Corporations, 132-134, 145-151, performance of such agreement by defendant
158-160.
Signature.
By agent for principal, see Principal and Agent, Bassett, 18 N. W. 100, 31 Minn. 390.
39-42.
Confession of judgment, see Judgment, 11.
Of affidavit, see Affidavit, 7.
contract, see Contracts, 10-13.
deed, see Deed, 7, 8.
deposition, see Deposition, 10.
promissory note, see Negotiable Instruments,
4-7.
summons, see Summons, 11-13.
will, see Wills, 21, 22.
Silence.
Estoppel by, see Estoppel, 59-74.
Slander.
See Libel and Slander.
Slander of Title.
See Libel and Slander, 97, 98.
Societies.
See Associations; Benevolent Societies: Build-
ing and Loan Associations; Corporations
Religious Societies.
Southern Minnesota Railroad
Company.
Exemption from taxation, see Railroad Com-
panies, 135.
24.
Location of route, see Railroad Companies, 22,
Power to operate ferry, see Railroad Companies,
4-6.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
I. JURISDICTION, 1-6.
II. CONTRACTS ENFORCEABLE, 7-57.
III. GOOD FAITH AND DILIGENCE, 53–77.
IV. PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 78-106.
3. Defendants, in consideration of the exten-
sion of the plaintiff's railway to the city of S., con-
tracted with plaintiff that the city would furnish
right of way through certain real estate in the
city, and that they would purchase certain land,
and grant plaintiff a right of way through it. Such
right of way was not so given or procured; and
several parcels of land included within the limits
of the right of way, as designated, were separately
owned, subsequent to the contract, by some of the
defendants, and conveyed to other defendants with
notice of the contract. Held, in an action against
the signers of the contract, and such grantees, for
a specific performance, with compensation in dam-
ages, that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief
sought, but must be left to its action at law for
damages.-Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Du-
rant, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 676; Same v. Hospes, Id.;
Same v. Staples, Id.; Same v. Union Depot St. Ry.
& T. Co., Id.
44 Minn. 361.
4. Plaintiff agreed to assign and deliver to
M. a certain note and mortgage, in consideration
whereof M. was to cancel and deliver up certain
notes of plaintiff which he held. Held, plain-
tiff having performed the contract on his part,
that he was entitled to specific performance on
the part of M., though the notes which M. re-
of transfer, to the prejudice of plaintiff. —Tuttle
fused to deliver up were overdue and incapable
v. Moore, 16 Minn. 123, (Gil. 112.)
To compel void act.
5. A conveyance of a homestead by a married
man, without the signature of his wife, being
void, a contract to convey such homestead, exe-
cuted by the husband alone, cannot be specifical-
have no greater effect than the deed of the hus-
ly enforced, as the judgment in such case could
band alone.-Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299.
Power of probate court.
6. Where one, who is bound by a contract in
writing to convey real estate, dies before making
a conveyance, the proper probate court may, on
the application of any person interested, under
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 58, direct the administrator
or executor to make it, but, if not satisfied that it
ought to be made, it cannot decide against the ap-
plicant on the merits, but must dismiss the peti-
tion, leaving him to his ordinary remedy by ac-
Limitation of actions, see Limitation of Actions, tion.-In re Moussean's Estate, (Minn.) 41 N. W.
38, 39, 54.
I. JURISDICTION.
Adequate remedy at law.
1. A court of equity will not willingly inter-
fere to enforce specific performance if the party
can be adequately compensated in damages.
McClane v. White, 5 Minn. 178, (Gil. 139.)
977.
40 Minn. 236.
II. CONTRACTS ENFORCEABLE.
Parties to contract.
7. After defendant had entered into possession
of a portion of premises without any claim of
1767
1768
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, II.
1
right, he discovered that a deed by P., the former | Assent-Unaccepted offer.
owner, to H., was not recorded, and procured a 11. In an action for specific performance of an
verbal agreement from P. to deed such portion to agreement for the sale and conveyance of real
him. P. subsequently sold the other portion of the
estate it appeared that the minds of the parties
lot to plaintiff, who knew all the facts, and entered
never met as to several particulars, especially
into possession and made valuable improvements.
as to a requirement or condition that the cash
In the mean time, however, H.'s deed had been
payment should be deposited in bank, and as to
recorded; and, to give plaintiff a good title, it was the time within which another payment night
agreed between him and P. that H.'s title should
be made. Held, that there was no such clear ac-
be purchased at P.'s expense, and the part occu- cession on both sides to one and the same set of
pied by defendant conveyed to him. The purchase terms as was requisite to make out an agreement
was accordingly made by plaintiff, the title being entitled to be specifically enforced.-Hamlin v.
taken in his name. Held that, P.'s agreement to
Wistar, 18 N. W. 145, 31 Minn. 418.
convey to defendant being without consideration,
as was also the agreement by plaintiff with P. to
convey to defendant, specific performance of the
latter agreement could not be enforced. Nor was
defendant entitled to the improvements made by
him, in ejectment by plaintiff.-Towlerton v. Da-
vidson, 7 Minn. 408, (Gil. 322.)
8. Plaintiff and defendant, N., entered into a
verbal contract that N. should purchase certain
lands of L., in his own name, with money to be
furnished by plaintiff, and that all rights acquired
by N. by such purchase should at once inure to
plaintiff, and if it was consummated and a deed
procured by N. he should at once convey to plain-
tiff. N. entered into a written contract for the
purchase of the lands, making the first payment
with money furnished by plaintiff; and plaintiff,
in pursuance of the verbal contract, and with the
consent of N., entered into possession, and made
valuable improvements. N. subsequently repudi-
ated his agreement, and refused to carry it out.
Held, plaintiff not being in default, and L. not ob-
jecting, that the court would give effect to the
verbal agreement by directing the conveyance
from L. to be made directly to plaintiff; that the
part performance of the verbal contract operated
to transfer all the equitable rights acquired by the
written agreement; that L., being notified of such
verbal agreement, was bound by same; that N.
could not object to the sufficiency of any tender of
payment from plaintiff to L., L. not objecting; and
that N. acquired no rights, either by tendering to
plaintiff the amount he had paid, or to L. the bal-
ance of purchase money falling due after his repu-
diation. Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn. 462, (Gil. 430.)
Distinguished in McCarthy v. Couch, 33 N. W. 778, 37
Minn. 125.
9. A. entered into an executory contract with B.
for the purchase of land owned by the latter, and,
before performance of the conditions on either side,
contracted to sell the same land to C., and there-
after neglected or refused to complete his contract
with B. so as to acquire the title. Held, that the
contracts were independent, and that an action
could not be maintained by C. against A. and B. to
compel a specific performance of the first-named
contract by A., to the end that B.'s title might be
acquired and transferred to C.-McCarthy v. Couch,
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 777.
87 Minn. 124.
Distinguishing Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn. 462, (Gil. 430;)
Thompson v. Myrick, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
10. A contract for the sale of lands made with
a firm, in the firm name, may be enforced in equi-
ty, and the deed will be decreed to be executed to
the individual partners as tenants in common.-
Townshend v. Goodfellow, 41 N. W. 1056, 40 Minn.
B12.
12. An offer to sell real estate by one person to
another imposes no obligation upon the former, so
as to make him liable in action for specific perform-
ance, unless it is accepted by the latter according
to the terms on which it is made, without qualifi-
cation or the introduction of any new term.-Lang-
ellier v. Schaefer, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 690.
36 Minn. 361.
13. Held, in this case, that plaintiff's letter of
acceptance, in answer to defendant's offer, fixed a
different place for the delivery of the deed, and the
payment of the purchase money, from that implied
by the terms of the offer, and therefore was not an
unconditional acceptance so as to bind the defend-
ant.-Langellier v. Schaefer, 31 N. W. 690, 36
Minn. 361.
Execution.
14. A contract for the conveyance of land, un-
fairness of which is not impeached, may be spe-
der seal, upon a valuable consideration, and the
cifically enforced in equity, although not exe-
cuted by the vendee.-Austin v. Wacks, 15 N. W.
409, 30 Minn. 335.
Certainty as to subject-matter.
15. To entitle one to specific performance of a
contract for the conveyance of lands, the contract
should be clearly proved, and so clear and specific
in its terms as to leave no reasonable doubt as to
its meaning.-Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 72,
(Gil. 55.)
16. Upon demurrer to a complaint for refor-
mation and specific performance of a title-bond,
on the ground that it was void for uncertainty,
the bond designated the lands as one-half of a
Held, that
parcel described as "lot 7, half of lot 8, so much of
lot 10 as lies east of a line commencing at the
center of the Minnesota river, at the center
of the county road, running,
being in
section 31, township 114, * * * reserving two
acres on the east side of the creek. "
by one-half was meant an undivided half; that the
half of lot 8 intended was identified by aver-
ment as the lot next to and joining lot 9 on
the north; that, the Minnesota river being a
well known object, and the county road a matter
of record, the place of the commencement of the
line was certain; that the grantor's failure to
make a valid reservation of the two acres would
not deprive the grantee of any rights; and that,
the range in which the township was situated
not being specified, plaintiff might identify and
prove the one intended.-Baldwin v. Winslow,
2 Minn. 213, (Gil. 174.)
17. Land was described in a written agree
ment for the sale thereof as "two and one-half
1769
1770
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, II.
acre tract of land, being the first half of the five-
acre tract along by the fence just back of the
Chicago Catholic burying-ground. " Held, that
this did not describe the land with sufficient def-
initeness to satisfy the statute of frauds, and the
contract could not be specifically enforced.-
Pierson v. Ballard, 20 N. W. 193, 32 Minn. 263.
|
veyance of real estate, though it contain no express
covenant or agreement to convey.-St. Paul Div.
No. 1, Sons of Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157,
(Gil. 144.)
24. Specific performance will not be enforced
when all the material terms of the contract are
not specific and clear, as when credit is given
but no limit to time therefor stated.-Williams
v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516.
25. An agreement to pay, "from time to time,"
to the holder of a mortgage due on or before a
certain day, a certain sum for the release of the
mortgage, is an agreement to pay in such sums
and at such times as the promisor should see fit
on or before the date of the maturity of the
mortgage, and is not too indefinite for specific
enforcement. Distinguishing Williams v. Stew-
art, 25 Minn. 516.--Lankton v. Lamoreaux, 7 N.
W. 360, 27 Minn. 346.
18. A complaint alleged the making by defend.
ant, by his agent, of the following agreement:
"Received of Wilson J. Romans one hundred
dollars, as earnest money and part purchase price
of lot one, block ten, of Bazille and Roberts' ad-
dition to West St. Paul, being fifty feet front on
Ducas street by sixty-nine feet on Fairfield ave-
nue, which I have sold for the sum of eighteen
hundred dollars, on the following terms: Assume
a mortgage of $600 now on said lot, and pay the
balance in cash. Abstract of title to be furnished.
If title is not perfect, money is to be refunded, "
-which was signed in defendant's name by the
agent. Held, that it was sufficiently certain as
respects parties, terms of payment, and descrip-
tion of the land, to be specifically enforced.
Romans v. Langevin, 25 N. W. 638, 34 Minn. 312.
19. A description of land in correspondence
constituting an agreement to convey, as the five
acres owned by the vendor in section 2. town-
ship 28, and range 23, is sufficiently definite.-enforced, and that a decision giving defendants
Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn. 178, (Gil. 163.)
Distinguished in Nippolt v. Kammon, 40 N. W. 266, 39
Minn. 372.
20. A description of land, in an agreement to
convey, as "five acres, lot 3, sec. 23," etc., there
being nothing to show what five acres is intended,
is not a good description, and the defect cannot be
supplied by parol.-Nippolt v. Kammon, (Minn.)
40 N. W. 266.*
39 Minn. 372.
26. Defendants agreed to secure an indebted-
ness to plaintiff by executing to him a mortgage
on certain land to run for 12 years, none of the
amounts secured to be paid for the first 3 years,
and after that to be paid in equal annual install-
ments of $100 each, with 6 per cent. interest.
Held, that the agreement might be specifically
40 days within which to pay the money, and,
upon their default in so doing, a decree for specific
performance to be entered, was not erroneous.
Irvine v. Armstrong, 17 N. W. 343, 31 Minn. 216.
27. Where the contract requires the assumption
by the vendee of a mortgage on the premises for
$4,000, and interest, of a certain date, and payable
in installments, it is not a material variance that
the same debt was in fact secured by two mort-
Distinguishing Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn 178, (Gil. gages, amounting to the same sum, of the same
163.)
21. Plaintiff sold to defendant a leasehold es-
tate, in consideration of a certain sum, part of
which was to be paid in cash, the balance in 5,000
acres of Georgia pine lands, also 320 acres of land
in Dakota; said 320 acres of Dakota lands to be
within nine miles of a railway station, and to be
good, tillable land. In an action to cancel the
contract, defendant in his answer demanded spe-
cific performance, and alleged that he had se-
lected, set apart, and appropriated to the contract
certain described tracts of land completely an-
swering the requirements of the instrument as to
quality, quantity, and location; and had executed
proper conveyances thereof, tendered the same to
plaintiff, and in all things stood prepared, and
willing to perform, the contract on his part.
Held, that he was entitled to a decree.-Brown
v. Munger, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 519.
42 Minn. 482.
22. Where a written authority to sell real estate
is so indefinite and uncertain as to the terms upon
which the sale may be made that the court cannot
tell whether a contract made by the agent comes
within the terms of the power, such contract will
not be specifically enforced.-Olson v. Erickson,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 317.
42 Minn. 440.
Definiteness as to performance.
23. A court of equity will enforce specific per-
formance of a penal bond, conditioned for the con-
date, and otherwise containing the same terms and
conditions.-Williams v. Langevin, (Minn.) 41 N.
W. 936.
40 Minn. 180.
28. A contract to convey real estate, by the
terms of which the deed was to be delivered "up-
on receipt of balance of cash payments and the
secur' ties for deferred payments, herein stipu-
lated" there being no other reference to securi-
ties, or statement of what they were to be, can-
not, by reason of the indefiniteness in that par.
ticu.ar, be specifically enforced. - Holliday v.
Hubbard, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 1134.
45 Minn. 333.
29. An owner of land orally promised and
agreed with defendants that, if they would erect
a good custom mill at a certain point, he would
give them the privilege of flowing his land so
long as they would maintain such mill, and
they, relying upon such promise and agreement,
and in part induced thereby, erected a dam, and
made expenditures on their own land adjoining.
The owner of the land flowed under the agree-
ment afterwards conveyed it to plaintiff, who
took with notice of the facts and of the agree-
ment. He brought an action to compel defend-
ants to remove their dam. Held, that defendants
were not entitled to equitable relief; the terms
of the agreement were too indefinite, as neither
the height of the dam nor the extent of flowage
appeared; the improvements were not wholly in-
1771
1772
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, II.
fluenced by and referable to the agreement; and
defendants had their statutory remedy to secure
the right of flowage.-Johnson v. Skillman, 12
N. W. 149, 29 Minn. 95.
Mistake.
30. A lumber company should not be compelled to
complete the purchase of land, which both its ven-
dor and itself believed was well timbered, but
which turns out to have been so far cleared that it
is of no practical use for lumbering purposes.
Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co., (Minn.) 41
N. W. 815.
40 Minn. 184.
31. Where there was no fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation on part of the plaintiff, and the
terms of the writing were explicit, unambiguous,
and not subject to any doubtful or double construc-
tion, so that there was no reasonable excuse for
misunderstanding them, and the instrument was
read over by defendant, or to him, before he signed
it, the mere fact that he did not understand the
meaning or legal effect of the language as written
constitutes no ground for refusing specific per-
formance.-Caldwell v. Depew, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
479.
40 Minn. 528.
Mutuality.
32. Where a married woman has gone into pos-
session of real estate under a verbal contract to
convey, and made valuable improvements there-
on, a court will not refuse to compel specific per-
formance on her behalf because she could not have
been compelled to have performed upon her part.
-Seager v. Burns, 4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93.)
33. The execution by a vendor of lands of a
bond for the conveyance thereof, and of promis-
sory notes by the vendee for the unpaid portion
of the purchase price, creates a mutuality of
agreement and a mutuality of remedy.-Gill v.
Bradley, 21 Minn. 15.
34. Specific performance will not be decreed
when the complaint shows that the contract de-
clared on did not create a power coupled with an
interest, but a mere naked agency, by which de-
fendant employed plaintiff as agent, the compensa-
tion to consist of a share of the results of execu-
tion of the agency, which the defendant had the
power to revoke at any time; and as the contract
calls for the future personal services of plaintiff,
the performance of which the court has no power to
compel, there is no mutuality of remedy.-Alworth
v. Seymour, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 1030.
Title of vendor.
42 Minn. 526.
35. Upon a loan of money, the borrower pro-
cured to be made, and the lender received as
security, a conveyance of real estate, and the
lender gave a bond to convey it to the borrower,
on payment of the loan and interest. Held, in
an action to enforce specific performance of the
bond, there being no fraud, mistake, or surprise
alleged or shown, that whether the land was
ever the property of the borrower or not was
immaterial. -St. Paul Div., No. 1, Sons of Tem-
perance v. Brown, 11 Minn. 356, (Gil. 254.)
36. A., being in possession of land which he had
previously conveyed, of which conveyance B. was
aware, contracted with B. to convey to him all his
right, title, interest, and occupancy, improvement,
possession, and right of possession, for a sum cer-
tain, in consideration of which he put B. into pos-
session. Held, that A. could maintain an action
to enforce such agreement and recover the pur-
chase price.-Maxfield v. Bierbauer, 8 Minn. 413,
(Gil. 367.)
37. An action will lie against an attorney in
fact of the owners of land for the specific per-
formance of a contract, made by him lor the con-
veyance of the land, if he becomes vested with
the title to the land either in his own name or
that of some other person.-Thompson v. Myrick,
20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
Distinguished in McCarthy v. Couch, 33 N. W. 778, 37
Minn. 125.
38. Where the vendor has no interest in the land
which he agrees to convey, but enters into it as a
mere speculation or venture, he is not deemed a
bona fide contractor, and a court of equity will
not lend him its aid in enforcing it. But one who,
even as subpurchaser, has acquired an equitable
title or interest in the land under an executory
agreement, may enter into another agreement for
its sale to a third person, without waiting until he
has obtained a deed, if the sale is made in good
faith, and the title is fully perfected at the time
specified for the completion of the sale.-Towns-
hend v. Goodfellow, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1056.
40 Minn. 312.
39. A will authorized the executors to sell or
mortgage real estate at any time it may become
necessary to do so, to pay any expenses or bequests
therein provided for, or to save or improve any
other portion of the property while undistributed.
A report of the executors showed a balance of
$904.93, to be provided for, but it did not appear
whether this had been approved. Long before
making this report the executors had contracted
to sell the land in question to plaintiff's vendor
for $6,000. They afterwards conveyed to plaintiff.
Held not a marketable title, the power of the ex-
ecutors to convey the land being a doubtful ques-
tion of fact.-Townshend v. Goodfellow, (Minn.)
41 N. W. 1056.
40 Minn. 312.
40. The vendee was sued for the specific per-
formance of a contract, which he had refused to
perform on the ground that vendor's title was
doubtful and unmarketable. The title was derived
through mesne conveyances from W., who had con-
veyed by warranty deed during coverture without
his wife joining. W. afterwards died, leaving the
widow surviving. It was afterwards decided that
the said widow, by her election to take under W.'s
will, had precluded herself from claiming dower.
Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn. 336, 20 N.
W. 324. Held, that the widow's acceptance of the
provisions made for her in W.'s will constituted
a bar to her claim of dower in the land conveved
by him without her joining, and vendor's title was
not doubtful or unmarketable, and specific per-
formance was properly decreed.-Fairchild v. Mar-
shall, (Minn.) 43 Ñ. W. 563.
42 Minn. 14.
41. The vendor derived title from G., who had
purchased the land as his homestead, but it had
been abandoned by his going to live elsewhere
1773
1774
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, II.
with his family. After six years' absence, his
wife and family returned to the land with intent
to remain, he remaining in town where he was
conducting a hotel, but in two months they re-
turned to him. Shortly afterwards, contemplat-
ing an assignment for the benefit of creditors, he
filed the notice required by the Minnesota statute,
claiming the land in question as his homestead.
After the assignment, three judgments were re-
covered against him, which would be liens on the
land if his claim of homestead was not effectual.
Shortly after that he sold to plaintiff in this suit.
Held that, as there is a reasonable doubt about the
actual existence of the homestead, which involves
the risk of litigation, the vendor's title is not a
marketable one, and specific performance will not
be decreed.-Richmond v. Koenig, (Minn.) 45 N.
W. 1093.
43 Minn. 480.
47. Payment and delivery of possession takes
an oral sale of lands out of the statute of frauds.
Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 342, (Gil. 320.)
48. The erection of substantial improvements
upon lands, upon an oral agreement for the pur-
chase thereof, by a vendee in possession at the
time of such agreement, is such part performance
as will take the contract out of the statute of
frauds.-Pfiffner v. Stillwater & St. P. R. Co.,
23 Minn. 343.
49. Where there has been a manifest change
in the relations of the parties, the holding over
by a tenant on the expiration of a lease, under a
verbal contract of sale, is a sufficient part per-
formance to entitle him to an action for specific
performance.-Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 219,
(Gil. 198.)
516.
50. Refraining from exercising a right of re-
42. Plaintiff contracted personally to sell to de-
fendant land to an undivided one-third of which demption until after its expiration, relying upon
she had title, title to the residue being in her in-part performance to take such contract out of the
an oral agreement to convey land, is sufficient
fant wards. She then applied for, and obtained
from the probate court, license to sell her wards' statute of frauds.-Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn.
land at private sale. No sale was, in fact, made
under the license, but a report was filed reciting a
sale to defendant, which was confirmed and a
guardian's deed ordered to be executed. Plaintiff
tendered this deed to defendant, together with her
own deed to the premises; but defendant refused
to accept them. Held, that defendant would not
be compelled to take the title offered, as it was
doubtful whether there was such a compliance
with the license to sell as would bind the wards.
-Williams v. Schembri, 46 N. W. 403, 44 Minn. 250.
Claim by defendant against plaintiff.
43. That the vendor has an independent claim
against the vendee, which by reason of the latter's
insolvency he may be unable to enforce, is no rea-
son for refusing specific performance on the appli-
cation of the vendee.-Thompson v. Winter,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 796.
42 Minn. 121.
Oral contract to convey lands-Part
performance.
44. A deposit of purchase money by a vendee
with his agent, and notification to the vendor that
such agent is ready to pay it over on delivery of
the deed, will not have the effect of a payment, nor
entitle the vendee to specific performance of a
parol contract to convey land.-Lanz v. McLaugh-
lin, 14 Minn. 72, (Gil. 55.)
45. Payment of purchase money, going into
possession, and making valuable improvements
upon lands, under a verbal contract for the pur-
chase thereof, is sufficient part performance to
take such contract out of the statute of frauds.
-Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn. 326, (Gil. 216.)
46. Delivery and entry into the possession of
land under a parol contract for the purchase there-
of, paying part of the purchase price, and making
valuable improvements thereon, as breaking land,
is such part performance as will take the contract
out of the statute of frauds, and entitle the vendee
to specific performance.-Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn.
462, (Gil. 430.)
51. Acts relied upon to take an oral agreement
for the sale of lands out of the statute of frauds,
as constituting a part performance of the agree-
ment, may be acts done by and to the prejudice
those under whom he claims title; and any act
of the party seeking to enforce the contract or
serted and relied on as such part performance
which the party to the contract might have as-
may be asserted and relied on by those claiming
under him.-Brown v. Hoag, 29 N. W. 135, 35
Minn. 373.
52. To constitute such a part performance of
an oral agreement for the sale of lands as to take
it out of the statute of frauds, the acts relied on
must have been done in reliance upon and in pur-
suance of the oral agreement, and must be relat-
ed to and connected with it; but they are not
confined to the doing of what the contract stipu-
lated. Brown v. Hoag, 29 N. W. 135, 35 Minn.
373.
53. Payment of purchase money alone is not
such a part performance of an oral agreement for
the sale of lands as will take the contract out of
the operation of the statute of frauds, even where
the vendor is unable, by reason of his insolv-
ency, to repay the money. It is immaterial
whether the insolvency existed at the time of
making the agreement or occurred subsequently.
-Townsend v. Fenton, 21 N. W. 726, 32 Minn.
482.
54. By an oral agreement between T., F., and
D., D., who held the note of F., transferred it to
T. and agreed to pay F. $100 upon his conveying
certain land to T., and T. agreed that, on such
conveyance, he would surrender the note to F.,
and F. agreed that, on the payment of the $100
and the surrender of the note to him, he would
convey the land to T. D. afterwards paid $65 of the
$100 to F. Held, that such payment of the pur
chase money was not a part performance, so as
to take the agreement out of the statute of
frauds, and entitle T. to specific performance
thereof, as he had an adequate remedy at law.-
Townsend v. Fenton, 16 N. W. 421, 30 Minn. 528.
1775
1776
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, II., III.
55. A verbal contract for the sale of land for use Performance by plaintiff-Tender and
as a cemetery was entered into between plaintiff
and defendant. In an action for specific perform-
ance, judgment was given for defendant on the
ground that improvements made by plaintiff were
made against the will of defendant. It appeared
that the latter had assisted in staking out the
land, and that the plaintiff had built a fence with
the knowledge of defendant, and without objection
from him. Held, that a new trial should be grant-
ed.-Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Armstrong,
(Minn.) 34 N. W. 32.
demand.
who held certain land scrip, should secure the
63. A contract stipulated that the first party,
title to the land on which it should be located to
be vested in the second party; and that the sec-
ond party, "in consideration of the premises and
of the faithful performance of his agreement" by
the first party, should pay him a certain sum one
year after date, according to the condition of bis
promissory note of even date with the contract;
and that the note should be secured on the land
as soon as he acquired the title. Held, that pay-
56. Where an instrument in the form of a bond ment of the note is not a condition precedent to
for deed, but unsealed, was delivered, and the the second party's right to specific performance.
vendee went into possession and improved the land-Thompson v. Myrick, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
to an amount much larger than its value, with the
vendor's concurrence, and afterwards tendered the
price, he is entitled to specific performance.-EV-
ans v. Miller, (Minn.) 36 N W. 640.*
37 Minn. 259.
38 Minn. 245.
57. Plaintiff and defendant were practically the
parties opposed in interest in five actions. On the
day of the trial of the most important, defendant
promised orally, in consideration of a compromise
and dismissal of the actions, to convey certain
land to plaintiff on the day plaintiff married a cer-
tain lady. Plaintiff dismissed his actions, paid the
agreed amounts in the others, and married the
lady. Held sufficient part performance to take
the agreement out of the statute.-Slingerland v.
Slingerland, (Minn.) 39 N. W. 146.
39 Minn. 197.
III. GOOD FAITH AND DILIGENCE.
In general.
58. A court of equity, when asked to lend its
aid on behalf of a party, against the operation of
the statute of frauds, and the acts of one who
would take an unjust advantage of it, will
scrutinize the conduct and acts of the party so
invoking its aid, and demand of him the utmost
good faith and fair dealing.-Evans v. Folsom, 5
Minn. 422, (Gil. 342.)
Fraud.
59. A court of equity will not lend its aid to en-
force a contract tainted with fraud. -Evans v.
Folsom, 5 Minn. 422, (Gil. 342.)
60. Fraud for the purpose of avoiding a writ-
ten instrument or bargain cannot be predicated
on a promise not performed.-Evans v. Folsom,
5 Minn. 422, (Gil. 342.)
Time as essence of contract.
61. Time, in the performance of contracts, in
so far as it involves the good faith and diligence
of the parties, will, in equity, be regarded as of
the essence of the contract.-Gill v. Bradley, 21
Minn. 15; McDermid v. McGregor, Id. 111.
63. Though the time for making payment for
land contracted to be conveyed will not ordi-
narily be regarded as of the essence of the con-
tract, it is proper for a court of equity, in a suit
for specific performance, to regard delay in mak-
ing such payments or offer to perform as bear-
ing on the question of good faith and diligence.
-McDermid v. McGregor, 21 Minn. 111.
64. Defendant and others agreed in writing to
donate to plaintiff certain property for use as an
exposition building upon the performance of cer-
tain conditions. On the failure of the promisors to
raise sufficient money to purchase the property,
defendant agreed with plaintiff that the former
should purchase the property, taking title in him-
self as security for the money so advanced. This
was done, and plaintiff used the property for the
purposes contemplated by the first agreement, per-
forming all the conditions specified therein.
Held, that under these agreements plaintiff is
not entitled to a conveyance from defendant until
the latter is reimbursed the money so advanced
by him. Minneapolis Industrial Exposition v.
Brown, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 674.
43 Minn. 77.
65. After having given a penal bond conditioned
for the conveyance of lands, the obligor holds the
lands as a trustee for the obligee, with a lien
thereon for the purchase money. Hence, when he
conveys with notice, his grantee stands in his
place, and is the proper party to whom tender
should be made.-St. Paul Div. No. 1, Sons of
Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157, (Gil. 144.)
66. Where there is no stipulation to that effect
in an agreement for the conveyance of lands, the
vendee is not bound to prepare and tender the con-
veyance to be executed.-St. Paul Div. No. 1, Sons
of Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157, (Gil. 144.)
67. Where a bond is conditioned for a convey-
ance upon the payment of a certain sum, a tender
of the money is all that is necessary. A demand
for a deed need not be made.-St. Paul Div. No.
1, Sons of Temperance, v. Brown, 11 Minn. 356,
(Gil. 254.)
68. A refusal by a vendor, in a contract to con-
vey real estate, to receive the purchase price,
when properly tendered, is equivalent to a refusal
to make the deed, and therefore a demand for the
deed is not necessary.-St. Paul Div. No. 1, Sons
of Temperance, v. Brown, 11 Minn. 356, (Gil. 254.)
69. Where a vendor of lands puts it out of his
power to perform his contract according to its
terms by conveying to a subsequent purchaser,
the first vendee need not tender nor offer to per-
form the consideration on his part of the con-
specific performance.-Smith v. Gibson, 15 Minn.
tract of sale, before bringing an action to compel
89, (Gil. 66.)
70. A contract for the conveyance of land was
made by which the making of the deed, payment
1777
1778
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, III, IV.
of a part of the purchase price, and giving se-
curity for the remainder were to be concurrent
acts. Held, the vendor having unqualifiedly re-
fused to perform, that no tender of money and
security before suit was necessary to sustain a
suit for specific performance.-Brown v. Eaton,
21 Minn. 409
Laches of plaintiff.
76. Plaintiff for more than a year neglected to
consummate a bargain to purchase real estate, and
on two occasions expressly refused to perform, on
the ground that there was a defect in the title,
which objection was unsubstantial. Held, that
specific performance must be denied.-Simpson v.
Atkinson, (Minn.) 39 N. W. 323.*
39 Minn. 238.
71. One holding land scrip as attorney in fact 77. Specific performance of an alleged oral
for its owners agreed that when the land was agreement to convey land will not be granted
located he would secure the vesting of the title where the proof of the agreement is uncertain,
in plaintiff. The owners of the scrip were mi- and no relief has been sought until after the lapse
nors. Several years after the location of the land of 32 years from the time of the alleged agreement,
the attorney procured deeds from them to him- nor until 6 years after the death of a party in in-
self. Three years after this, plaintiff sued for terest whose land was its subject. Plaintiff was
specific performance of the attorney's contract. not exonerated from laches by the fact that, dur-
Held, that the suit was not barred by laches ing 19 years of the intervening period, the party
where it was not shown that the owners at- to be charged had kept his property out of his
tained their majority before they conveyed to the hands to avoid the claims of creditors, nor by fre-
attorney; for prior to such majority he could quent promises on his part to make the convey-
not procure a valid transfer of the title.-Thomp-ance.-Northrup v. Stevens, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 810.*
39 Minn. 105.
son v. Myrick, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
72. Where either party to a contract for the
sale of real estate fails or refuses to act under
the contract, under such circumstances and for
such length of time as to give just ground for
believing that he has waiyed or abandoned the
sale or purchase, and especially when, in addition,
the facts justify the belief that his intention was
to perform only, if at all, in case it suited his
interest, a court of equity will not aid him.-Mc-
Dermid v. McGregor, 21 Minn. 111.
IV. PLEADING AND PRACTICE.
Who may sue-Parties.
78. It is no ground for demurrer to a com-
plaint, in an action for specific performance, that
the plaintiff is a married woman.-Seager v.
Burns, 4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93.)
ing their judgments subsequent to the vendee's
possession, are proper parties defendant.-Seager
v. Burns, 4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93.)
79 In an action to enforce specific perform-
ance of a verbal contract for the conveyance of
73. Where one party to a contract for convey-lands, judgment creditors of the vendor, obtain-
ance of land gives notice to the other that he will
not perform the same, acquiescence by such other
party, he not being in possession, for a space of
between 12 and 13 months, in enforcing his right
by an appeal to the courts for specific perform
ance, the land, in the mean while, having passed
into the hands of a third party, will operate as
a bar to such relief.-McDermid v. McGregor, 21
Minn. 111.
74. Plaintiff, after purchasing a tract of land
for $500, continued to improve and cultivate it
for about three years, when he sold the fencing
thereon, and abandoned the premises. Plaintiff
had paid $200 cash, one of three notes of $100 each,
and a part of the interest on the others. At the
time he left the premises plaintiff sent his ven-
dor $40 on account of purchase money, which the
vendor returned, saying he considered the con-
tract canceled. Plaintiff's vendor then sold the
land to a third person, who took peaceable pos-
session of the premises, and built a house there-
on.
More than a year after the return of the $40
plaintiff brought suit for specific performance.
Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to relief.
McDermid v. McGregor, 21 Minn. 111.
75. The vendor of real estate consented that
the purchase money might run on interest after
maturity, without fixing a time for payment, and
then removed from the state without having ever
demanded the principal of the purchase money.
Held, that the purchaser's failure to pay the
purchase money, or the interest thereon accruing
after the vendor left the state, did not amount
to a forfeiture of her right to call for a specific
performance of the contract.-Lovejoy v. Stewart,
23 Minn. 94.
of a contract to convey, judgments were recov-
80. Pending an action for specific performance
ered against defendant, execution issued, and
voluntary purchasers, took title subject to plain-
the land sold. Held, that the purchasers were
tiff's claim, and could not become parties to the
action without his consent.-Steele v. Taylor,
1 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
Pleading-Complaint.
81. Where parties are made defendants to an
action merely because they claim an interest in
the property sought to be reached by the action,
the complaint will be sufficient if it show the
plaintiff's own rights, and allege the mere fact
that others claim an interest.-Seager v. Burns,
4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93.)
82. In an action for the specific performance of
a bond for the conveyance of lands, an allegation
that the obligee offered to perform, and the obligor
refused, is sufficient, when the acts to be performed
were mutual and concurrent.-St. Paul Div. No. 1,
Sons of Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157, (Gil.
144.)
83. A complaint in an action to enforce spe-
cific performance of a contract to convey land
recited a written authority of an agent to sell
on the terms specified, or such modifications
thereof as the owner should thereafter accept,
and that on a certain day thereafter, the agent,
in pursuance of such authority, "effected a sale"
to plaintiff upon the terms set out in the written
1779
1780
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, IV.
contract. Held sufficient after judgment.-
Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil. 414.)
84. The complaint in an action to compel spe-
cific performance of a contract for the assignment
of a lease of real estate for a term of years al-
leged the contract generally, and then added, in
substance, that a memorandum of the contract
was made in writing, in which the consideration
was expressed, and was signed by the duly au-
thorized agent of defendant, but did not allege
further the contents of the memorandum, or
the manner of its execution. Held, that while,
although such a contract is within the statute of
frauds, an allegation that the contract was in
writing was not necessary, the allegation made
did not so limit or qualify the preceding allega-
tions of the complaint as to show affirmatively
that no sufficient memorandum was made in
writing, to fulfill the requirements of the statute.
-Benton v. Schulte, 17 N. W. 621, 31 Minn.
312.
S5. Where the contract set forth in the com-
plaint contains a complete and certain description,
on its face, it is a matter of defense that the de-
scription is false.-Williams v. Langevin, (Minn.)
41 N. W. 936.
40 Minn. 180.
86. In an action for the specific performance of
a parol agreement for the sale and conveyance of
land, under and in pursuance of which the vendee
had entered and made valuable improvements, the
agreement, as proved by the plaintiff and found by
the court, did not conform strictly to that alleged
in the complaint as respects the boundaries and
the nature of the grant or conveyance to be made
of a part of the premises. Held, that the plead-
ings might properly have been amended so as
to conform to the proof, and that the variance
should be disregarded in this court.-Cairncross v.
McGrann, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 548.
37 Minn. 130.
87. In an action to compel the specific perform-
ance of an agreement to convey real estate, a
complaint alleging such an agreement, without
stating whether it was written or oral, and alleg-
ing also such a part performance as would take
an oral agreement out of the statute of frauds, is
sufficient to justify the relief sought, upon proof
of a partly performed oral agreement. -Slinger-
land v. Slingerland, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 605.
46 Minn. 100.
Pleading-Answer.
•
88. In an action for specific performance of a
contract to convey lands the complaint alleged
that plaintiffs, after their purchase, went into
possession and commenced the erection of build-
ings, and have ever since been in possession.
The answer of defendant, who claimed as a sub-
sequent bona fide purchaser, admitted that plain;
tiff had been in possession of the premises, and
erected buildings and improvements thereon, and
that they used and occupied the same, but denied
any knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to when or what time they went int
possession, or commenced making or made the
improvements thereon, or what amount was ex-
pended. Held, that such answer was evasive
and defective in not denying notice of plaintiffs'
possession previous to defendant's purchase.-
Minor v. Willoughby, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.)
89. In an action to enforce specific performance
the defendant cannot, under a mere denial of the
execution of a deed of homestead, assert the de-
fense that the land was his homestead; that he
was a married man; and that his wife did not
join in the contract.-Brown v. Eaton, 21 Minn.
409.
90. In an action for specific performance, an an-
swer alleging that plaintiff has never tendered per-
formance on its part, or demanded performance of
defendants, is immaterial, where plaintiff alleges
that it is ready and willing to perform. It could,
at most, only affect costs, and therefore presents
no ground for setting aside a default.-St. Paul
Land Co. v. Dayton, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 66.
39 Minn. 315.
91. In an action for damages for breach of a
contract to exchange lands, the answer prayed
that, in case the court should adjudge plaintiff's
title to its lands to be good, so that defendant was
bound to accept a conveyance of them, it decree
a specific performance. Held defendant cannot
complain that the court tried and decided the ac-
tion as one for specific performance. -Mealey v.
Finnegan, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 207.
46 Minn. 507.
""
92. In an action upon a written agreement to
convey "Duluth property already agreed upon,
the answer alleged that the "property already
agreed upon" was not the land described in the
complaint, as claimed by plaintiff, but only such
interest therein as defendant had acquired under
a contract. Held that, in the absence of any
proof as to what property had been agreed upon,
plaintiff was not entitled to recover as upon aá
breach of an agreement to convey the land.-Saw-
yer v. Wallace, (Minn.) 50 N. Ŵ. 366.
Evidence.
47 Minn. 395.
93. Where, in an action to enforce specific
performance of an agreement to convey land, it
appears that the description that may be gathered
from the title-bond is equally applicable to several
pieces of land, extrinsic evidence is admissible
to identify the particular piece that the parties
intended. Baldwin v. Winslow, 2 Minn. 213,
(Gil. 174.)
94. One is not entitled to specific performance
of an alleged agreement for a lease made with
agents of the owner, on the strength of their tes-
timony that they were acting for the owner,
where there is no evidence that they had author-
ity to make an agreement for such a lease.—
Huy v. Griswold. 19 Minn. 114. (Gil. 83.)
95. Where, in a suit for the specific perform-
fendant made the contract in consideration of
ance of a contract to convey, it is shown that de-
plaintiff's dismissing several actions against him,
evidence as to whether or not plaintiff could have
recovered in those actions, and as to the amount
Slingerland v. Slingerland, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
of the recovery, if anything, is inadmissible.-
605.
46 Minn. 100.
96. Specific performance of a contract for the
conveyance of lands will be decreed where it is
shown that the purchase money was tendered,
tender kept good, a proper deed presented for ex-
ecution, execution demanded, and a notary provid-
1781
1782
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, IV.-STARE DECISIS.
ed to take the acknowledgment of the parties,
and conveyance refused.-Sanborn v. Nockin, 20
Minn. 178, (Gil. 163.)
Judgment-Relief granted, generally.
97. Specific performance of an oral agreement to
convey lands cannot be decreed on a finding of
fact that the trial court is unable to determine
from the evidence what the terms of the agree-
ment are, such finding being, in effect, that the al-
legations of the complaint as to the terms of the
agreement are untrue.-Burke v. Ray, (Minn.) 41
N. W. 240.*
40 Minn. 34.
|
Rents and improvements.
104. In an action for damages for breach of con-
tract to exchange lands, it was stipulated that
the action should be tried as one for specific per-
formance, and the question of damages afterwards:
determined, if necessary. The court, having on
the first trial decided that it was a case for spe-
cific performance, and that plaintiff had fully
performed by bringing his deed into court to be-
delivered to defendant, directed that defendant
be allowed to perform on his part within 30 days,
and, if he failed to do so, the question of dam-
| ages should be tried. Held defendant cannot
complain that the court, instead of absolutely di-
recting him to perform, left it optional with him.
98. A contract to convey stipulated for a "deed-Mealey v. Finnegan, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 207.
46 Minn. 507.
with good title." The decree of specific per-
formance required the vendor to give a good and
sufficient warranty deed, with full covenants,
such and so as to vest the vendee with a good,
sure, perfect, and indefeasible estate in fee-sim-
ple thereto; in default, the judgment to be a
lien upon the premises until compliance, and un-
til the further order of the court. Held not
objectionable as requiring an impossibility,
e., a transfer of the dower interest of the wife
of B., in case she refused to join in the deed,-
as the power was reserved to the court to change
the judgment in such event, if the vendee would
not accept the deed of the vendor with cove-
nants.-Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil. 414.)
99. Where a married woman is not a party to the
contract sought to be enforced, she should not be
required by the judgment of the court to join in
the conveyance decreed.-Cairncross v. McGrann,
(Minn.) 33 N. W. 548.
37 Minn. 130.
100. In an action for specific performance, when
the contract was based on a common and material
mistake of the parties, the court may give affirm-
ative relief by rescinding it. Thwing v. Hall &
Ducey Lumber Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 815.
K
Awarding damages.
40 Minn. 184.
105. After a contract to convey real estate, the
vendee to have possession and to pay the consid-
eration in money, or in crops raised on the land,
the vendor wrongfully took possession of the
land, and sold the same to a third person. Held,
that the vendor was chargeable, in an action by
the vendee for specific performance, with the
fair rental value of the land, less taxes paid and
expenses of keeping the fences in repair.-Smith
v. Gibson, 15 Minn. 89, (Gil. 66.)
106. Defendants cannot complain of an alterna-
tive decree for a conveyance or a money judgment
for improvements, on the ground that plaintiff
should not recover for improvements as long as he
is in possession, since they have the option to con-
vey.-Evans v. Miller, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 640.
Spendthrift.
38 Minn. 245.
Accounting of guardian, see Guardian and Ward,
18.
Spirituous Liquors.
See Intoxicating Liquors.
Stamps.
101. In an action for specific performance, it is
proper, under a prayer for such other and fur-
ther relief as to the court may seem meet," to
decree not only such performance, but also to al- See Internal Revenue.
low damages, in case the wife of the defendant
should refuse to join in the execution of the deed.
-Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn. 178, (Gil. 163.)
102.. When it appears that the contract was en-
tered into by defendants under a mistake, and that
its performance would be harsh and inequitable,
if specific performance is refused plaintiff is enti-
tled to an assessment of damages, and decree for
the return of any purchase money paid by him, in
the same action.-Buckley v. Patterson, (Minn.)
39 N. W. 490.
39 Minn. 250.
STARE DECISIS.
Former decision, law of the case, see Appeal and
Error, 645-647.
The rule.
1. The precise point at which laws cease to
operate upon the remedy, and begin to infringe
upon the right of a contract, must, in every case,
be governed by the circumstances of the case,
and no adjudicated case can be authority for an-
Distinguished in Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co., other, unless the facts in both cases are iden-
41 N. W. 816, 40 Minn. 187.
tical. The positive authority of a decision is
co-extensive only with the facts upon which it is
made.-Grimes v. Bryne, 2 Minn. 89, (Gil. 72.)
Former judgment not pleaded.
103. When specific performance is denied, and re-
scission granted on the ground of common and ma-
terial mistake, plaintiff is not entitled to any dam-
ages for breach of the contract.-Thwing v. Hall
& Ducey Lumber Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 815.
2. A former judgment between the same par-
ties, touching the same cause of action, though not.
Distinguishing Buckley v. Patterson, 39 N. W. 490, 39 pleaded in bar nor offered in evidence in the
court below, will be taken by the supreme court.
Minn. 250.
40 Minn. 184.
1783
1784
STATE PRISON-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
as conclusive of the matter in controversy, up- |Officers or agents of state-Contracts.
on the principle of stare decisis.-Knox v. Ran-
dall, 24 Minn. 479.
STATE PRISON.
Mandamus to prison officers, see Mandamus, 20.
Lease of shops, etc.-Covenants-Valid-
ity.
1. Laws Minn. 1866, c. 10, which authorizes
the warden and inspectors of the state-prison "to
lease the prison shops and such vacant ground as
the inspectors deem proper, "authorizes them to
lease only the shops, buildings, and ground owned
by the state at the time of the execution of the
lease, or during its continuance, and does not
authorize them to bind the state to supply other
or additional shops or grounds; and a covenant
to that effect in a lease executed by such officer
is ultra vires and void.-Reed v. Seymour, 24
Minn. 273.
2. But the illegality of such covenant, as in
excess of authority of the warden and inspect-
ors, does not vitiate the entire lease.-Reed v.
Seymour, 24 Minn. 273.
3. Such covenant may be made binding upon
the state by ratification by the legislature, but
the intention to ratify it must be clear and un-
mistakable.-Reed v. Seymour, 24 Minn. 273.
STATES AND STATE OFFI-
CERS.
Appeal by state in criminal cases, see Criminal
Law, 142.
Executive powers under constitution, see Consti-
tutional Law, 15-28.
Purchase of land by state at tax sale, see Taxation,
227-233.
State lands, see Public Lands, 112-114.
park, see Eminent Domain, 12.
prison, see State Prison.
4. An appropriation by the legislature of a sum
of money for printing and publication ordered by
a constitutional convention is a recognition and
ratification of a contract made by its president
for such printing, and gives no right to the state
Minn. 61, (Gil. 49.)
printer to do the work.-Goodrich v. Moore, 2
5. Where the authority of a public agent is
conferred by a public statute, every one dealing
with him is bound to take notice of the extent
of his powers.-Reed v. Seymour, 24 Minu. 273.
6. Act Wis. March 3, 1869, authorized the ap-
pointment of agents of the state to take posses-
sion of logs cut by trespassers on state lands, and
sell the same at public auction for cash. Held,
that a sale for anything but money, paid at once,
was unauthorized and void; that a delivery of
such logs without such payment passed no title;
and that a promissory note, taken in lieu of such
payment, was void, and could not be enforced.
-State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 24 Minn. 332.
Distinguished in State v, Galusha, 2 N. W. 941, 26 Minn.
241.
7. Contracts of an agent or officer of the state,
be ratified only by the legislature.-State of Wis-
beyond the authority given him by statute, can
consin v. Torinus, 24 Minn. 332.
8. Act Wis. March 3, 1869, authorized the gov-
ernor to appoint an agent to sell certain timber
on behalf of the state to the highest bidder for
cash. The agent sold the timber, taking the pur-
chaser's note for the price. Held, that such sale
was not void, but merely voidable, and could be
ratified by the legislature.-State of Wisconsin
v. Torinus, 49 N. W. 259, 26 Minn. 1.
Auditor-Settlement on behalf of state.
9. After one H. had unlawfully cut and car-
ried away certain timber from land owned by the
state, the state auditor had an accounting with
him on which the value of the timber taken was
agreed on, and H. promised to pay the same. On
railroad bonds, see Constitutional Law, 112; defendant's agreeing to guaranty such payment,
Garnishment, 2.
roads, see Highways, 12-18.
university, see University of Minnesota.
Action by state.
1. The state of Minnesota has legal capacity
to sue upon recognizances. State v. Grant, 10
State v. Grant, 10
Minn. 39, (Gil. 22.)
2. In an action by a sovereign state upon an
obligation, it is not necessary to allege its cor-
porate character; and a demurrer on the ground
of want of capacity to sue will be stricken out
as frivolous.-State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 22
Minn. 272.
the auditor extended the time of payment to a
future day. Held, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
38, § 53, authorizing the auditor to seize any prop-
erty unlawfully taken from state lands, and to
dispose of the same "at public or private sale in
such manner as will be most conducive to the in-
terests of the state," that the auditor had author-
ity to make such settlement, and the promise of
H. to pay and defendant's guaranty were sup-
ported
ported by a sufficient consideration.-State v.
Galusha, 2 N. W. 939, 3 N. W. 350, 26 Minn. 238.
Distinguishing State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 24 Minn.
332.
Statute of Frauds.
3. In an action by a sovereign state on a
promissory note indorsed to it, an allegation in See Frauds, Statute of.
the complaint that the note was duly indorsed
and transferred to plaintiff was sufficient aver-
ment of the capacity of the state to take and
hold such note, and bring suit thereon.-State
of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 272.
Statute of Limitations.
See Limitation of Actions.
1785
1786
STATUTES, I.
STATUTES.
I. ENACTMENT AND APPROVAL, 1–13.
II. AMENDMENTS, 14–17.
III. TITLES OF ACTS, 18-47.
IV. CONSTRUCTION, 48-54.
V. OPERATION AND EFFECT, 55–62.
VI. REPEAL, 63-71.
VII. PLEADING AND PROOF, 72, 73.
Abolishing dower, see Dower, 5.
section 20, which provides that every bill shall
be read on three different days in each house, un-
less in case of urgency, are mandatory, and
must be strictly followed.-Board Sup'rs Ram-
sey County v. Heзnan, 2 Minn. 330, (Gil. 281.)
Two-thirds vote.
4. The provision of Const. Minn. art. 6, § 1,
for the creation of "such other courts inferior to
the supreme court as the legislature may from
time to time establish by a two-thirds vote, >> re-
Authorizing removal of county seats, see Coun- quires a vote in each house of the legislature of
ties, 9-12.
Computation of time, see Time.
Defining crimes, see Criminal Law, 1, 2.
Establishment of highways, see Highways, 12-52.
Exercise of right of eminent domain, see Eminent
Domain, 1, 2.
Judicial power to interpret, see Constitutional
Law, 38.
Regulating dedication, see Dedication, 11-23.
foreclosure by advertisement, see Mortgages,
154, 155.
Retrospective operation, see Appeal and Error,
2, 3.
Statutory remedies, see Action, 15-17.
Validity of special or private laws, see Constitu-
tional Law, 54-79.
I. ENACTMENT AND APPROVAL.
Suspension of rules.
1. Where the journal of the house showed that
an act was read the first time, and on motion read
a second time and filed for third reading, it will be
presumed that the motion was adopted, and the
rules suspended by a requisite two-thirds vote, as
required by Const. Minn. art. 4, § 20, relating to
the passage of acts.-State v. Peterson, 36 N.
W. 443, 38 Minn. 143; Same v. Oleson, 36 N.
36 N.
W. 446, 38 Minn. 150; Same v. Sannerud, 36 N.
W. 447, 38 Minn. 229.
Taking yeas and nays.
2. In the printed journal of the senate it ap-
pears that on the final passage of Gen. Laws Minn.
1885, c. 129, "the roll being called, there were yeas
26, and nays, 7, as follows: Those voting in the
affirmative were [here follow the names of 26 sen-
ators: those voting in the negative were [here
follow the names of senators;] so the bill passed,
and its title was agreed to." But in the written
journal of the senate in the office of the secretary
of state the record reads as follows: "The roll be.
ing called, there were yeas, 26, and nays 7, as fol-
lows: Those voting in the affirmative were, "
here follow the 7 names recorded in the negative
in the printed journal, and the 26 names there re-
corded in the affirmative are omitted altogether.
Held, that the law was validly passed, as the con-
stitution only provides for the taking of the yeas
and nays when it is required by the rules or by a
member, and it will not be presumed that they
were required in the absence of a showing in the
journal to that effect.-Lincoln v Haugen, (Minn.)
48 N. W. 196.
45 Minn. 451.
Majority vote.
3. Const. Minn. art. 4, § 13, which provides
that no law shall be passed unless voted for by a
majority of the members of the legislature, and
に
​two-thirds of all the members of such house.-
State v. Gould, 17 N. W. 276, 31 Minn. 189.
Enrollment.
5. An omission of words from an enrolled
bill, which does not change the substance or ef-
fect of the statute as it passed the legislature,
will not invalidate the act.-Sharp v. Merrill,
43 N. W. 385, 41 Minn. 492.
Journal records.
6. The journals of the legislature cannot be
resorted to, to overthrow the presumption of the
proper enrollment of a bill, arising from its au-
thentication, except as to such facts relating to
the enrollment as are required by the constitution
to appear in the journals; and therefore the fail-
ure of the journals to show that a properly au-
thenticated and enrolled bill was read, as re-
quired by Const. Minn. art. 4, § 20, which fact
is not required to appear in the journals, cannot
overthrow the presumption of its authenticity.
State v. City of Hastings, 24 Minn. 78.
Approval by governor.
7. Sundays are not to be included in the three-
days time allowed by Const. Minn. art. 4, § 11, aft-
er the adjournment of the legislature, for the sign-
ing of bills by the governor.-Stinson v. Smith, 8
Minn. 366, (Gil. 326.)
8. Under Const. art. 4, § 11, authorizing the
governor to sign, within three days after the
adjournment of the legislature, any act passed
during the last three days of the session, bills,
though finally voted upon more than three days
before the day of adjournment, if enrolled within
the last three days, are to be deemed passed
within that time, and may be signed by the gov-
ernor.-Burns v. Sewell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 224.
Publication.
9. In the absence of any allegation to the
contrary, it will be presumed that a general law
has been published.-Lowell v. North, 4 Minn.
32, (Gil. 15.)
10. Where publication of a law was required be-
fore it could go into effect, publication in a news-
paper, as required by Comp. St. Minn. c. 3, §§ 4, 5,
was all that was necessary, and it will be pre-
sumed that publication was made immediately in
pursuance of such sections.-Stine v. Bennett, 13
Minn. 153, (Gil. 138.)
Acts for raising revenue.
11. An act of the legislature which merely
makes an appropriation of public money, though
it may necessitate taxation, is not a bill for rais-
ing revenue, that, under Const. Miun. art. 4, § 10,
1787
1788
STATUTES, I.-III.
must originate in the house of representatives.
Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1.
Presumption of validity.
12. The Minnesota act of November 22, 1881,
to establish a municipal court in the city of Man
kato, having been duly signed as an enrolled bill
by the presiding officers of the two houses of the
legislature, and having been approved by the gov-
ernor, and the subject of it being within the con-
stitutional power of the legislature, is prima
facie a valid law, and the court created thereby
is prima facie a legal_court.-Burt v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 18 N. W. 285, 289, 81 Minn. 472.
Questions of law and fact.
13. A question presented on trial as to whether
a law has been properly passed by the legisla-
ture must be tried by the court, and not by the
jury.-Board Sup'rs Ramsey County v. Heenan,
2 Minn. 330, (Gil. 281.)
Construction.
II. AMENDMENTS.
| railroad, while in fact the act applies to the
"town" of that name, there being no such village,
this does not render the act void, it being ap-
parent that the use of the term "village" was an
inadvertence.-State v. City of Lake City, 25
Minn. 404.
Expressing subject-matter.
19. Where the title of an act is such that the
legislature can be deemed to be fairly apprised
of its general character by its subject, as ex-
pressed in such title, and all the provisions of
such act have a just and proper reference there-
to, and are such as by the nature of the subject
so indicated are manifestly appropriate in that
connection, and might reasonably be looked for
in a measure of such character, it is sufficient,
within Const. art. 4, § 27, requiring the subject
of an act to be expressed in its title.-State v.
Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312; State v. Klein, Id. 328.
>>
14. An act amending a public act is itself a of the same, or any compound other than that pro-
public act.-State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22.
15. Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 13, § 1, further
amending the amended charter of the city of
Winona, (Sp. Laws 1867, c. 20,) enacts "that sec-
tion 2 of chapter 1 of said amended charter be
amended, so that the proviso at the end of the first
subdivision shall read as follows: 'provided,'"
etc. There were no subdivisions or provisos in
the section 2 referred to, and the amendment
attempted was not germane to the matter con-
tained in that section, but was manifestly in-
tended to refer to section 2 of chapter 4 of the
charter, which contained a subdivision and a
proviso to which the amendment was entirely
appropriate. Held, that chapter 13, § 1, should
be read by substituting "chapter 4" for "chap-
ter 1," in the reference, in order to carry out the
evident intent of the legislature.-City of Winona
v. Whipple, 24 Minn. 61.
Effect.
16. Provisions of the former law, embodied in
an amendment, are not to be deemed repealed and
re-enacted, but continuing as part of the law, and
the provisions of the changed portions are not to
be taken to have been the law at any time prior
to the passage of the amendment.-Kerlinger v.
Barnes, 14 Minn. 526, (Gil. 398.)
17. The mere omission to embody in an amend-
ment to a remedial statute some of the provisions
of the original law, not conflicting, but which may
exist independent of and in entire harmony with
it, will not, as to existing rights, and in the ab-
sence of circumstances indicating an intention to
repeal the omitted provision, be deemed to have
the effect of repealing it.-Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14
Minn. 526, (Gil. 398.)
III. TITLES OF ACTS.
Error in title.
18. Though the title of Act Minn. March 6,
1868, purports that it is an act authorizing the
"village of Lake City" to issue bonds to aid a
20. Laws Minn. 1885, c. 149, entitled "An act
to prohibit and prevent the sale or manufacture of
unhealthy or adulterated dairy products, pro-
vides, in section 4, that no person shall manufact
ure out of any oleaginous substance, or compound
duced from unadulterated milk, or cream from the
same, any article designed to take the place of but-
ter or cheese made from pure, unadulterated milk
or cream. Held, that the provisions are not for-
eign to the title, within the intent and meaning of
Const. art. 4, § 27, which declares that no law
shall embrace more than one subject, which shal
be expressed in its title.-Butler v. Chambers, 30
N. W. 308, 36 Minn. 69.
21. Gen. Laws Minn. 1883, c. 107, entitled "An act
to authorize the organization of annuity, safe-de-
posit, and trust companies, " is not unconstitutional
as not having its subject expressed in its title.
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Beebe, (Minn.)
41 N. W. 232.
40 Minn. 7.
22. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 316, entitled
"An act relating to the Mississippi Boom Cor-
poration," as the powers and duties of the corpo-
ration named extend only to logs in the Missis-
sippi river below the Falls of St. Anthony, the
provision of section 6, which imposes upon an-
other corporation, having jurisdiction only above
the falls, additional duties, not required by its
charter, in respect of logs going below the falls,
is unconstitutional, the subject-matter thereof
not being expressed in the title of the act, as re-
quired by Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27.-Mississippi
& R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 24 N. W. 361, 34
Minn. 79.
23. Gen. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 170, § 3, makes it
criminal for a contractor for any building, etc., on
which there is a right of lien under that law in fa-
vor of laborers or material-men, to himself receive
full payment under his contract and neglect to pay
laborers and material-men, so that the latter shall
impose a lien on the property of the owner. Held,
that the title is sufficient, namely: "An act giv-
ing labor the right of first lien, and material fur-
nished a second lien, on all property."-State v.
Brachvogel, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 641.
38 Minn. 265.
24. The title of Laws Minn. 1885, c. 147, to-wit,
"An act to regulate the practice of pharmacy, the
1789
1790
STATUTES, III.
licensing of persons to carry on such practice, and
the sale of poisons in the state of Minnesota," suf-
ficiently expresses the subject of regulating the
sale of drugs and medicines not poisons.-Hypo-
phosphites and Borax Cases, (State v. Donald-
son,) 42 N. W. 781, 41 Minn. 74.
exemptions of personal property, is not unconsti-
tutional, as embracing more than one subject.-
Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 465, (Gil. 374.)
33. The homestead act, (Gen. St. 1866, c. 68,)
which provides for the exemption of a home-
stead from seizure and sale on execution or
25. Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 204, provides gen- other process, is not rendered repugnant to Const.
erally that the wages of persons standing in the art. 4, § 27, providing that no law shall embrace
relation of servants or employes shall be exempt more than one subject, etc., by a provision there-
from process, and does not limit the exemption to in that any
toilsome and unskilled labor. Held, that the sub-land by the owner, if a married man, shall not
in that any "mortgage or other alienation of such
ject and purpose of the act were sufficiently in- be valid without the signature of the wife to the
dicated by the title, which is, "An act to fix the
same. "-Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299.
amount of wages of laborers exempt from pro-
cess," etc.-Boyle v. Vanderhoof, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
396.
45 Minn. 31.
26. Laws Minn. 1860, c. 87, entitled "An act
to regulate the foreclosure of real estate," pro-
viding for a waiver of the right of redemption,
sufficiently expresses its object in the title.-At-
kinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 45, (Gil. 30.)
34. Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 10, authorizing
the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company to
consolidate with the Minnesota Central Railroad
Company, and to bridge the Mississippi river,
and also amending Laws Minn. 1862, c. 19, is in-
valid, being in conflict with Const. Minn. art. 4,
§ 27, providing that "no law shall embrace more
than one subject, which shall be expressed in
its title."-Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron,
11 Minn. 515, (Gil. 392.)
35. Gen. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 112, entitled "An
act to change the titles of and regulate the holding
of courts for counties unorganized for judicial
27. Laws Minn. 1858, c. 61, entitled "An act to
regulate the foreclosure of real estate," regulated
rights of redemption from sales under executions,
judgments, orders, or decrees, and upon foreclos-
ures, by advertisement or otherwise, of any mort-purposes, and to regulate the manner in which the
gage, contract, or liability. Held, that it had
but one general subject, which was sufficiently
expressed by its title, as required by Const.
Minn. art. 4, § 27, providing that "no law shall
embrace more than one subject, which shall be
expressed in its title. "-Gillett v. McCarthy, 25
N. W. 637, 34 Minn. 318.
28. An act of the legislature entitled "An act
to incorporate the village of High Forest, in the
county of Olmsted, Minnesota," in addition to in-
corporating the village, provided for a division of
the town of that name, and organization of a new
town. Held, that the provisions for a division of
the town and organization of a new town violated
Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27, providing that "no law
shall embrace more than one subject, which shall
be expressed in its title. "-State v. Kinsella, 14
Minn. 524, (Gil. 395.)
29. Laws 1873, c. 10, entitled "An act to es-
tablish a fund for the foundation and mainte-
nance of an asylum for inebriates," sufficiently
expresses the subject thereof in its title.-State
v. "Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312; State v. Klein, Id. 328.
30. The subject of Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 191,
entitled "An act to regulate actions for libel," is
sufficiently expressed in its title.-Allen v. Pioneer
Press Co., (Minn.) 41 N. W. 936.
Plurality of subjects.
40 Minn. 117.
31. Act Minn. Aug. 13, 1858, relating to town.
ship organizations, which creates a system of
town government and also of county government,
is not in violation of Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27,
providing that no law shall embrace more than
one subject, which shall be expressed in its
title.-Board Sup'rs Ramsey County v. Heenan,
2 Minn. 330, (Gil. 281.)
•
32. Laws Minn. 1858, c. 35, entitled "An act for
a homestead exemption," though it also treats of
counties to whichey are attached for such pur-
poses are to prc.ide for the transaction of the
business of counties which have no board of coun-
ty commissioners," one part of which is wholly
devoted to regulating the holding of courts, etc.,
and the other part wholly to the regulation of
county business, is not liable to objection under
Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27, providing that no law
shall embrace more than one subject, to be ex-
pressed in its title.-State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341,
(Gil. 315.)
36. Sp. Laws Minn. 1876, c. 208, providing for
the disorganization of Cass county, attaching
the same to Crow Wing, and turning the prop-
erty and records of Cass county over to Crow
Wing, and providing for a settlement of the in-
debtedness of the county, embraces but one dis-
tinct object. -State v. McFadden, 23 Minn 40.
37. Sp. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 333, entitled "An act
to provide additional compensation to the auditor
and assessor of Ramsey county for clerk hire dur-
ing the years 1887 and 1888, in transcribing books
* * * and for other purposes," which provides,
in addition to the matter indicated in the title, for
a change in the time for the election of the city at-
torney of St. Paul, and for the salaries of the city
jailer and market master, is void, as in violation of
Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27, which provides that "no
law shall embrace more than one subject, which
shall be expressed in its title. "-State v. Murray,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 858.
41 Minn. 123.
38. Act Minn. April 2, 1891, entitled "An act
to incorporate the city of Lakeside, to provide
for its future annexation to the city of Duluth,
and to the independent school-district of Duluth,
incorporates the city of Lakeside, makes provis-
ions for its temporary government, and provides
(chapter 12) that the corporate limits of the city
of Duluth shall, on December 31, 1892, be and are
extended so as to include the city of Lakeside,
1791
1792
STATUTES, III., IV.
which shall thereupon become a part of the city
of Duluth, and subject to all the laws of the state
in reference to the latter city, except as therein
provided. Held, that the act does not embrace
more than one subject, in violation of Const.
Minn. art. 4, § 27.-State v. La Vaque, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 525.
47 Minn. 106.
39. Laws 1889, c. 46, entitled "An act to estab-
lish a probate code," which provides a mode of
procedure in the probate courts, and also estab-
lishes the rights of property in estates of deceased
persons, is not obnoxious to Const. art. 4, § 27, pro-
viding that "no law shall embrace more than one
subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
Johnson v. Harrison, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 923.
47 Minn. 575.
Amendatory acts.
|
One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-Seven,
(1887,) entitled
(1887,) entitled 'An act to define the boundaries of,
and establish a municipal government for, the city
of Duluth,'" is not in violation of Const. art. 4, §
27, because it might repeal by implication the act
incorporating the village of Park Point, or might
extinguish the village organization.-State v. Gal-
lagher, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 529.
42 Minn. 449.
46. Sp. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 25, § 6, amending an.
act incorporating a city, which provides, among
other things, that a fixed proportion of the fees
for licenses for the sale of liquor granted under
the act amended shall be paid over to the public
"-school fund, is not in violation of Const. Minn. art.
4, § 27, providing that each act shall include but
one subject, which shall be expressed in its title,
though the title of neither act refers to intoxicat-
ing liquors or public schools, since the regulation
in question is germane to the purpose of municipal
government.-State v. Madson, (Minn.) 45 N. W.
43 Minn. 438.
40. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 67, entitled "An act to
amend chapter 84 of the General Statutes, relat-
ing to forcible entries and unlawful detainers,
sufficiently expresses its subject.-Hoffman v.
Parsons, 6 N. Ŵ. 797, 27 Minn. 236.
41. The provision of Laws Minn. 1881, c. 10,
$22, so far as it relates to the express repeal of
Laws 1877, c. 6, § 37, which required service of
notice of the expiration of the period for redemp-
tion from tax-sales, is unconstitutional, because
the subject is not expressed in the title of the
act, which is: "An act to amend chapter 1 of the
General Laws of 1878, to provide for the assess-
ment and collection of taxes, being chapter 11,
General Statutes of 1878." Explaining Gaston v.
Merriam, 22 N. W. 614, 33 Minn. 271.-State v.
Smith, 28 N. W. 241, 35 Minn. 257.
42. Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 16, p. 121, entitled
"An act to amend the charter of the city of
St. Paul," which contains a provision that the
collector of taxes of Ramsey county, who is also
collector of city taxes, should pay over his col-
lections on account of the city to the city treas-
urer at certain times, is not in conflict with
Const. Minn. art. 4, § 27, providing that no law
shall embrace more than one subject, which
must be expressed in its title.-City of St. Paul v.
Colter, 12 Minn. 41, (Gil. 16.)
43. Laws 1873, c. 10, providing for the found-
ing, etc., of an inebriate asylum, and requiring
a license fee from all dealers in liquor for such
purpose, is applicable to the city of St. Paul,
as well as the rest of the state, though the pur-
pose to amend the charter of that city is not ex-
pressed in the act, as required by the charter of
the city of St. Paul. Prince v. City of St. Paul,
19 Minn. 267, (Gil. 226,) followed. State v.
Klein, 22 Minn. 328.
44. Sp. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 5, entitled "An act to
amend the charter of the city of Winona,
"" ex-
tended the city limits so as to include a part of an-
other school district. Held, that the act was not
in conflict with Const. art. 4, § 27, relating to the
entitling of statutes, because the matter of the
change in the boundaries of the school districts
was not mentioned in the title.-City of Winona v.
School-Dist. No. 82, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 539.
40 Minn. 13.
45. Sp. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 19, entitled "An act
to amend chapter two (2) of the Special Laws of
856.
47. Laws 1889, c. 30, entitled "An act to amend
an act entitled 'An act to prevent debtors from
giving preference to creditors, and to secure the
equal distribution of the property of debtors
among their creditors, and for the release of
debts against debtors,"" and providing that “the
release of any debtor under this act shall not
operate to discharge any other party liable as
surety, guarantor, or otherwise for the same
debt," is not invalid on the ground that its sub-
ject is not sufficiently expressed in its title; and
it is immaterial that the amendatory act does
not refer to the chapter or year when the original
act was passed, since there was no other act of
the same title. -Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co.,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 1110.
IV. CONSTRUCTION.
General rules.
48. A statute ought, on the whole, to be so con-
strued, if possible, that no clause, section, or word
shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant. Mc-
Namara v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co., 12 Minn. 388,
(Gil. 269.)
Legislative intent.
49. In construing a statute, the intention of the
legislature is to be sought for, and the construc-
tion carrying out such intention given, even if it
seem contrary to the letter itself. -Grimes v.
Bryne, 2 Minn. 89, (Gil. 72;) Barker v. Kelder-
house, 8 Minn. 207, (Gil. 178.)
50. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 62, entitled “An act
to amend section 34 of chapter 94 of the General
Statutes of 1878, relating to [punishment of]
manslaughter in the fourth degree," amended the
statute referred to by increasing the punishment
of manslaughter in the fourth degree; but sec
tion 2 of the act provided that the act should not
extend to any act done or offense committed prior
to the passage thereof, "but the provisions of
law now in force prescribing the punishment
for murder in the fourth degree shall continue
in force as to all such offenses committed prior
to the passage hereof. " Held that, as it clearly
appeared from the face of the act and from the
1793
1794
STATUTES, IV.-VI.
!
statute amended that the word "murder" was | 348; Parkinson v. Brandenburgh, 28 N. W. 919,
used by mistake for "manslaughter," the act 35 Minn. 294.
should be construed in accordance with the inten-
tion of the legislature; and that, so construed,
the saving clause was valid, and authorized the
punishment under the previous law of offenses
already committed.-State v. Small, 12 N. W.
703, 29 Minn. 216.
Opinion of subsequent legislature.
51. The opinion of a legislature as to the mean-
ing of a statute passed by a prior legislature is en-
titled to no more weight than that of the same men
in a private capacity.-Bingham v. Board of Sup'rs
Winona County, 8 Minn. 441, (Gil. 390.)
Statute adopted from other state.
52. The legislature having borrowed from an-
other state and adopted a statute which had been
judicially construed in such state, a presumption
arises that the legislature intended to adopt the
statute with that settled construction. Nicollet
Nat. Bank v. City Bank, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 577.
38 Minn. 85.
Declaratory or mandatory.
53. Sp. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 563, which "author-
ized and empowered" the city council of Minne-
apolis to pay plaintiff a specified sum, with in-
terest, as compensation for work theretofore per-
formed by him for the city, is mandatory as to
both principal and interest, since the city was
under a strong moral obligation to pay plaintiff's
claim, which it was the purpose of the act to
legalize.-Bowen v. City of Minneapolis, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 683.
47 Minn. 115,
Public or private laws.
54. Sp. Laws Minn. 1878, c. 191, legalizing and
establishing as a public highway a traveled road
in D. county, is a public and not a private law.
State v. Messenger, 6 N. W. 457, 27 Minn. 119.
V. OPERATION AND EFfect.
Time of taking effect.
55. A provision that an act of the legislature
shall take effect and be in force from and after
its passage is effectual, and pro tanto a repeal
of Gen. St. 1866, c. 4, § 2, directing that no ger-
eral law shall take effect until published.-State
v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22.
56. A statute which provides that it shall take
effect "from and after its passage, "takes effect
at the beginning of the next day after its passage.
-Parkinson v. Brandenburgh, 28 N. W. 919, 35
Minn. 294.
57. All persons are required to take notice of
the existence and terms of a public law from its
approval, or at least from its publication, although
it may not become operative for some time there-
after.-Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 153, (Gil. 138.)
Retroactive operation.
58. Courts will not construe statutes so as to
give them a retrospective effect, except where the
intention is clearly expressed, or necessarily and
unavoidably implied.--Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14
Minn. 526, (Gil. 398;) Giles v. Giles, 22 Minn.
V.2M.DIG.-57
59. Statutes which take away or impair any
vested right acquired under existing laws, create
a new obligation, impose a new duty, or attach
a new disability in respect to transactions al-
ready past, are not to be deemed retrospective
unless such is clearly the intention of the legis-
lature.-Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 230, (Gil.
202.)
60. Act Minn. Aug. 3, 1858, (Comp. St. c. 35, § 24,)
declaring that every conveyance by deed, mort-
gage, or otherwise, of real estate within this state,
'hereafter made," shall be void as against attach-
ments, judgments, etc., obtained before it is re-
corded, is not restrospective in its operation, and
does not apply to conveyances made before its pas-
sage.-Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 34, (Gil. 15.)
Legalizing acts.
61. An act of the legislature legalizing a town
and recognizing the record of a plat thereof, is
evidence of the fact of the record of such plat, the
presumption being that the statutory requisitions
to entitle the plat to record were complied with.-
City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 119, (Gil. 75.)
Waiver of statutory provisions.
62. In the absence of an express prohibition,
a party may waive a statutory provision made
for his benefit, no principle of public policy be-
ing violated.-Leighton v. Grant, 20 Minn. 345,
(Gil. 298.)
By implication.
VI. REPEAL.
63. Repeals by implication are not favored, and
to constitute such a repeal the repugnancy must
be clear and unmistakable.-Moss v. City of St.
Paul, 21 Minn. 421.
4. Where a law, in terms, gives the right to ap-
peal by simply filing notice thereof, this right can-
not be taken away by a subsequent statute which
does not clearly and unmistakably modify the right
given in the previous statute.-Gurney v. City of
St. Paul, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 661.
36 Minn. 163.
65. Gen. St. Minn. c. 81, § 24, relating to the
foreclosure of mortgages, provides for the recov-
ery of three times the amount of illegal interest
embraced in a foreclosure. Laws Minn. 1879, c.
66, § 2, regulating interest and usury, provides
that one who has paid illegal interest may re-
cover the excess from the person receiving it.
Held, that section 24 is not impliedly repealed
by Laws 1879, c. 66.-Beal v. White, 8 N. W.
829, 28 Minn. 6.
Of special act by general law.
63. Act Minn. Feb. 18, 1887, (Gen. Laws 1887,
c. 118,) detached from the unorganized county
of Cass a part of its territory, and attached it to the
organized county of Crow Wing, subject to the ap-
proval of the legal voters of the latter county. Act
Feb. 25, 1887, (Gen. Laws 1887, c. 119,) provided
that no change should be made in the lines of an
unorganized, and no part thereof should be annexed
to an organized, county, without first submitting
the proposition for such change of line or annexa-
tion to the electors of the county or counties to be
1795
1796
STATUTES, VI., VII.—STRUCK JURY.
affected thereby, and an adoption of the proposi- |
tion by a majority of the electors. It also provided
"that all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with
this act are hereby repealed. " Held, that the lat-
ter, being a general law, was not in hostility to the
act of February 18, 1887, which was a special law,
and did not repeal the special law.-State v. Arch-
ibald, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 606.
43 Minn. 328.
Effect-Existing rights.
67. The general repealing clause of the Re-
vised Statutes of 1951 (section 1, c. 137) operated
only on such part of the old statutes as were not
included in the new. It did not operate to de-
stroy the lien of a judgment existing at the time
of its passage.-Marshall v. Hart, 4 Minn. 450,
(Gil. 352.)
68. Act Minn. March 7, 1861, for the reorganiza-
tion of school-districts, etc., provided that such
act should not "affect or prejudice any right of
any party who may hold any contract, obligation;
or right or lien upon any such district, or the prop-
erty thereof." Held to save a right of action
against such a district for trespass. Gould v.
Eagle Creek School-Dist., 7 Minn. 203, (Gil. 145.)
scribed by Pub. St. p. 682, § 56, may raise a pre-
sumption that the law has continued the same
since the date of passage of such a statute, but
raises no presumption as to what the law was
before its passage.-State v. Armstrong, 4 Minn.
335, (Gil. 251.)
Statutes Cited, Construed, etc.
See table at end of text, pages 2097--2286.
Stay of Proceedings.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 628-635, 688,
689.
Until payment of costs, see Costs, 57.
Stillwater, City of.
Assessments for public improvements, see Munic
ipal Corporations, 273, 274.
Municipal court, see Courts, 24.
Stipulation.
See Appeal and Error, 13-16, 52; Assignment,
32; Attorney and Client, 8, 9; Costs, 14; Prac-
tice in Civil Cases, 1, 2, 45-52, 59.
Stock.
69. Laws Minn. Ter. 1857, c. 71, § 7, granting a
ferry franchise, provided that the right granted
should not extend beyond the lands owned by the
grantee, and provided further that nothing con-
tained in the act should be construed to affect the
rights already granted to a specified railroad com-
pany. Sp. Laws Minn. 1858, c. 104, §§ 1, 2, after
extending the limits within which the ferry fran-
chise might be exercised, amended the act of 1857
so as to repeal all acts conflicting with such ex-
tension, except so much of the section containing
said provisos as related to the rights of the rail-In banks, see Banks and Banking, 26–28.
road company named. Held, that the part of the
former statute restricting the exercise of this
franchise to the lands owned by the grantee of
the franchise was repealed.-McRoberts v. Wash-
burne, 10 Minn. 23, (Ġil. 8.)
Corporate stock, see Building and Loan Asso
ciations; Corporations, 86-168.
Live stock, injuries by railroad trains, see Rail-
road Companies, 230-247.
shipments, see Carriers, 38-41.
Stock in trade exempt from execution, see Exemp-
tions, 11-14.
Stoppage in Transitu.
70. Where a distraint had been made, and the
property taken possession of by the landlord
prior to Laws 1877, c. 140, abolishing the right
of distress, the rights of the parties were unaf- See Sale, 142.
fected by such act, though the action to determine
the validity of such distress was pending at the
time of the passage of the act.-Dutcher v. Cul-
ver, 24 Minn. 584.
Revival.
71. The repeal, by the General Statutes of
Minnesota of 1866, of laws existing prior thereto,
did not operate to revive rights taken away by
such prior laws.-Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 153,
(Gil. 138.)
Pleading.
VII. PLEADING AND PROOF.
Streams.
See Waters and Water-Courses.
As boundaries, see Boundaries, 14.
Street.
Dedication, see Dedication.
Control, see Municipal Corporations, 125-135.
Defects, see Municipal Corporations, 136–189.
Establishment of highways, see Highways, 12-53.
Improvement, see Municipal Corporations, 211-
306.
Strict Foreclosure.
72. Where the charter of the city of Minneap-
olis is pleaded, the court will take judicial no-
tice of all its provisions without further aver-
ment.-Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. See Mortgages, 352–354.
308, (Gil. 284.)
Statutes of other states-Presumption.
73. Proof of the statutes of another state by
production of a printed copy thereof, as pre- | See Jury, 48-51.
Struck Jury.
1797
1798
SUBCONTRACTORS-SUBROGATION.
Subcontractors.
See Mechanics' Liens, 171–175.
Submission.
To arbitration, see Arbitration and Award, 1-3.
SUBROGATION.
have the amount so paid adjudged a charge upon
the land as against the latter. Wadsworth v.
Blake, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 1131.
43 Minn. 509.
Assignment to mortgagor.
7. Where the mortgagor has sold his equity of
redemption subject to the lien of the mortgage, he
has the same right as any third person to purchase
and take an assignment of the mortgage, and upon
payment of a prior incumbrance to the holder
thereof he would be entitled to be subrogated to
Of one of several joint judgment debtors to right his rights, and substituted in his piace as respects
of creditor, see Contribution, 1, 2.
Voluntary payment.
1. A mere voluntary payment does not entitle
the one making such payment to subrogation. It
must be by one legally liab¹.-Felton v. Bissel,
25 Minn. 15.
the land, in the absence of any intervening rights
of third persons.-Gerdine v. Menage, (Minn.) 43
N. W. 91.
41 Minn. 417.
8. Where the record shows all the proceedings,
and the relation of the assignee of the second mort-
gage to the title, and the satisfaction by him of
gage, it is sufficient to put a purchaser upon in-
quiry as to his equitable rights. Gerdine v. Me-
nage, (Minn.) 43 Ñ. W. 91.
41 Minn. 417.
To rights of mortgagee-Payment of prior incumbrances after foreclosure of his mort-
debt.
2. Where a surety redeems from a mortgage of
his principal, in the absence of proof to the con-
trary it will be presumed that the act was done
with the intent that would be most for the inter-
est of the surety; that is, that he might be sub-
rogated to the rights of the mortgagee.-McArthur
v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74.
3. Where a surety pays notes, and takes an
assignment of mortgages given by the principal
and by the other surety to secure them, neither
debts nor mortgages are thereby extinguished,
as between the sureties, but the one who pays is
subrogated to the creditor's rights in the mort-
gage given by the other.-Felton v. Bissel, 25
Minn. 15.
4. But, where one of such notes is not yet
due, the right of subrogation does not become per
fect, nor the assignment operative, until the time
when it does fall due; and an attempted fore-
closure of the mortgage securing it before that
time is void.-Felton v. Bissel, 25 Minn. 15.
5. F.executed a mortgage to K., and afterwards
sold the premises to C., who, in part payment of
the price, assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage
to K., and, to secure the balance, executed to F. a
second mortgage, which F. subsequently sold and
assigned to K. K. knew of, but was not a party
to, this arrangement as to the payment of the first
mortgage. When F. sold the second mortgage to
K., no reference was made to the arrangement be-
tween F. and C., and no reservation made of any
supposed rights of F. arising under it. Held, that
F., upon payment of the first mortgage, would not
be entitled (the second mortgage remaining un-
paid) to be subrogated to the rights of K.; that K.
had a right to have the money collected of F., the
mortgagor, on the debt secured by the first mort-
gage, treated as payment, and not as a purchase of
the mortgage.-Knoblauch v. Foglesong, (Minn.)
38 N. W. 366.*
38 Minn. 459.
6. Where one claiming title to land voluntarily
discharges a mortgage thereon given by his gran-
tor, and a third party is subsequently adjudged to
be the owner in fee, the former is not entitled to
Ineffective foreclosure.
9. Where a holder of a mortgage has fore-
closed the same, and, under a mistake as to the
correctness of the proceedings, and the consequent
validity of the foreclosure, has paid prior incum-
brances which he was equitably entitled to have
kept alive for his protection, equity will relieve
from the mistake except as against innocent gran-
tees and purchasers without notice, and allow him
to be subrogated to the rights of the holders of
such prior incumbrances.-Gerdine v. Menage,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 91.*
41 Minn. 417.
Distinguished in Ahern v. Freeman, 48 N. W. 678, 46
Minn. 159.
10. The mortgagor of land having died, and the
without making his heirs or devisees parties, the
mortgage foreclosed against his administrator
purchaser and his grantees will be subrogated to
the rights of the mortgagee.-Jellison v. Halloran,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 332.
44 Minn. 199.
Of surety or guarantor to rights of
creditor.
11. Upon payment of a debt by a surety, the
surety becomes subrogated to all the rights of
the original creditor; and as between principal
and surety, and those claiming under the princi-
pal, such payment operates as an equitable as-
signment of the debt and securities.—McArthur
v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74.
12. A surety upon a note given by his principal
for the purchase price of a chattel, the title to
which it was expressly stipulated should remain
in the seller until full satisfaction of the debt, is
entitled, upon payment of the debt by him, to be
subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the
creditor, and has the same rights as the equitable
assignee of the latter, to take possession of the
property for his security.-Torp v. Gulseth, (Minn.)
33 N. W. 550.*
37 Minn. 135.
1799
1800
SUBROGATION-SUMMONS.
13. And the right of such surety to be so subro-
gated is not affected by the fact that he holds a
mortgage upon the same property for another and
prior debt.-Torp v. Gulseth, 33 N. W. 550, 37
Minn. 135.
14. Guarantors of the collection of a promis-
sory note, which is not paid by the maker at ma-
turity, have a right to pay the note thereafter,
for their own protection, whether it is collecti-
ble from the maker or not, and on such payment
are entitled to be subrogated to the securities
held by the payee of the note to secure its pay-
ment.-Conner v. How, 29 N. W. 314, 35 Minn.
518.
15. The fact that the right of action of the
guarantors against the maker on such payment of
the note by them is barred by the statute of lim-
itations, does not extinguish the lien of a mort-
gage given to secure payment of the note, against
which the statute has not taken effect, nor take
away their right of subrogation to it. -Conner v.
How, 29 N. W. 314, 35 Minn. 518.
Actions-Pleading.
16. Defendant, as agent of A. in the purchase
or land, took a deed therefor in his own name, and
executed a note and mortgage to secure the pur-
chase money. He then conveyed to A., who as-
sumed payment of the note and mortgage. These
latter the vendor transferred to plaintiff, who sued
defendant on the note. Held, that tender of the
note to defendant as security for the debt is not a
condition precedent to plaintiff's recovery, and de-
fendant, if he desires an assignment of such note
to him, must ask for it in his answer.-Barton v.
Moore, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 460. 45 Minn. 98.
Pleading-Requiring transfer of secu-
rity.
17. Where a defendant, upon paying a debt sued
for, will be subrogated to the rights of plaintiff in
a security for the debt, he may in his answer al-
lege the facts showing that he will be so entitled
to subrogation; and the court, before rendering
judgment, may require the plaintiff to execute and
file a transfer to defendant of the security to be de-
livered on payment of the judgment.-Knoblauch
v. Foglesong, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 865.*
37 Minn. 320.
Subscribing Witness.
To deed, see Deed, 9-13.
will, see Wills, 23, 24.
SUBSCRIPTION.
To corporate stock, see Corporations, 86-92.
Consideration.
1. Defendant was one of several persons sign-
ing an agreement to pay the sums opposite their
names to one W., to aid him in constructing an
hotel which he proposed to erect. He subsequent-
ly assigned his contract to plaintiff. Held,
there was no consideration for defendant's sub-
scription, and the fact that plaintiff relied on
such subscription in going on and completing
the work would not aid him.-Culver v. Banning,
19 Minn. 303, (Gil. 260.)
2. The plaintiff undertook to expend money in
the erection of a manufactory in the city of St.
Paul, upon the condition that certain sums should
be subscribed and paid by citizens thereof in aid
of the enterprise, and upon the faith of such sub-
scriptions. Held, that this was a sufficient consid-
eration for the subscriptions.-Bohn Manuf'g Co.
v. Lewis, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 652.
45 Minn. 164.
Failure of consideration.
3. An agreement by subscribers to a paper to
pay on demand the sums set opposite their re-
spective names, for the purposes of building a
public bridge, though a valid and binding con-
tract, under which the subscriptions may be re-
covered at once, is not enforceable after failure to
perform the contract to build the bridge.-Brim-
hall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Conditions.
4. Where subscriptions to the removal and es-
tablishment of a manufactory elsewhere are upon
the condition precedent that the manufactory
should be completed by a day certain, time is
essential, and the subscriptions are obligatory
only upon the strict performance of the condition.
-Bohn Manuf'g Co. v. Lewis, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
652.
45 Minn. 164.
5. The agreement by which subscriptions were
made to the erection of a factory provided that the
money should be paid to a trust company on Au-
gust 1st, but should not be paid to the beneficiary,
unless its factory was in operation by September
1st, failing which it was to be refunded to the sub-
scribers. The time was afterwards extended to
November 1st. Held, that the extension was sub-
ject to the same condition as to refunding the
money subscribed. -Bohn Manuf'g Co. v. Lewis,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 652.
45 Minn. 164.
Substitution.
Of attorneys, see Attorney and Client, 3-5.
parties, see Abatement and Revival, 14-28;
Parties, 31-40.
See Action.
Suit.
Summary Proceedings.
To eject tenant, see Landlord and Tenant, 77-95.
SUMMONS.
I. ISSUANCE AND VALIDITY, 1–13.
II. SERVICE, 14-28.
III. PUBLICATION, 29–52.
IV. RETURN, 53–56.
Death of defendant before completion of service
by publication, see Abatement and Revival, 15.
Garnishee summons, see Garnishment, 27.
1801
1802
SUMMONS, I.
In justice's court, see Justices of the Peace, 37.
partition, see Partition, 8.
Record showing issue, see Appeal and Error,
236, 237.
Waiver of defects in service, see Appearance, 12,
14.
1. ISSUANCE AND VALIDITY.
Form and style-In general.
1. Act March 5, 1853, (Comp. St. 1858, p. 480,)
declared (section 1) that all equity and chancery
jurisdiction should be exercised, and all suits or
proceedings to be instituted for that purpose
should be commenced, prosecuted, and conducted,
"by the like process, pleadings, and proceedings
as in civil actions;" and (section 2) that all suits
authorized to be commenced, prosecuted, and
conducted in chancery, including foreclosure of
mortgages, should thereafter be commenced,
be commenced,
prosecuted, and conducted "by the like process,
pleadings, trial, and proceedings as in civil ac-
tions. "
Held, that it was intended to make both
the form of process and the manner of its
service in equity conform to that which ob-
tained in civil actions.-Crombie v. Little,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
2. A summons which, after the address to the
defendant, proceeds, "You are hereby summoned
and required, in the name of the state of Minne-
sota, to answer," sufficiently complies with Const.
Minn. art. 6, § 14, requiring the style of all process
to be "the state of Minnesota. "Cleland v. Tav-
ernier, 11 Minn. 194, (Gil. 126.)
3. A summons, in Minnesota, is merely a no-
tice given by the plaintiff's attorney to defend-
ant that proceedings have been instituted against
him, and that judgment will be taken if he fails
to defend, and is not process, within the mean-
ing of Const. Minn. art. 6, § 14, requiring all
process to run in the name of the state. -Hanna
v. Russell, 12 Minn. 80, (Gil. 43;) Lowry v. Har-
ris, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil. 166.)
Overruling Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power
Co., 9 Minn. 55, (Gil. 44.)
4. A summons is not vitiated by the mere fact
that it described the court as "third district,
Minnesota territory," instead of "fourth district,
state of Minnesota;" for such error is purely
technical, and could not affect the substantial
rights of defendant.-Hanna v. Russell, 12 Minn.
80, (Gil. 43.)
Blanks.
|
"the subscriber, at his office in the city of R.,
sufficiently designates the place at which service
of the answer is required to be made. If the plain-
tiff has no office at the place designated it is a
mere irregularity, and may be taken advantage of
on motion to set aside the summons, but cannot be
made the subject of collateral attack.-Hotchkiss
v. Cutting, 14 Minn. 537, (Gil. 408.)
7. A summons containing a notice to defend-
ant that, in case he fails to answer the complaint
within the time aforesaid, application will be made
to the court for the relief demanded in the com-
plaint, sufficiently notifies him that the plaintiff
will so apply, and substantially complies with Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 45.-Hotchkiss v. Cutting,
14 Minn. 537, (Gil. 408.)
8. A summons, in an action on a note, stat-
ing that plaintiff will apply to the court to have
the amount he is entitled to recover "ascertained
by the court, or under its decision," is sufficient
compliance with Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 45,
requiring a summons to contain a notice that the
plaintiff will apply to the court to have the
amount he is entitled to recover "ascertained by
the court, or under its direction. "-White v.
Iltis, 24 Minn. 43.
Reference to complaint.
9. A copy or a complaint was left with the
defendant, and thereafter a summons without a
complaint, requiring him to answer the com-
plaint, "a copy of which is herewith served on
you," was also served. Held, that the court ac-
quired no jurisdiction of the cause, and that
judgment entered thereon was void.—Tuller v.
Caldwell, 3 Minn. 117, (Gil. 67.)
Overruled in Millette v. Mehmke, 3 N. W. 700, 26 Minn.
306.
10. A summons was served with a copy of the
complaint, but, instead of requiring defendant to
answer such copy, it referred to the complaint
"which has been filed in the office of the clerk,"
when no complaint bad been filed. Held only
an irregularity, which defendant waives unless
he moves to set aside the service.-Millette v.
Mehmke, 3 N. W. 700, 26 Minn. 306.
Overruling Tuller v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 117. (Gil. 67.)
Subscription.
11. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, § 49, requiring
that the summons shall "be subscribed by" the
plaintiff or his attorney, and chapter 3, § 16, which
provides "that in all cases where the written sig-
nature of any person is required it shall always be
the proper handwriting of such person, or, in
case he is unable to write, his proper mark," the
signature to a summons must be written, and if
printed the summons is void.-Ames v. Schur-
meier, 9 Minn. 221, (Gil. 206.)
5. A summons issued by a justice of the peace
required the defendant to appear before him "at
10 o'clock in the
noon. " Held, that the
summons was void, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
65, § 12, requiring that such a summons "shall
be entirely filled up, and have no blank, either
in date or otherwise, at the time of its delivery (Gil. 411.) Overruled in Herrick v. Morrill, 33 N. W. 849,
to an officer to be executed," and declares that
a summons "issued contrary to the provisions of
this section shall be void. "-Seurer v. Horst, 18
N. W. 283, 31 Minn. 479.
Contents.
6. A summons signed by the plaintiff, and re-
quiring defendant to serve a copy of his answer on
Distinguished in Hotchkiss v. Cutting. 14 Minn. 540,
87 Minn. 251, 252.
12. The subscribing of the name of the plaintiff
to a summons by another person, in the presence
and by direction of the plaintiff, constitutes a suffi-
cient subscription by him.-Hotchkiss v. Cutting,
14 Minn. 537, (Gil. 408.)
Distinguishing Ames v. Schurmeler, 9 Minn. 221, (Gil.
206.)
A
1803
1804
SUMMONS, I., II.
18. A summons in a civil action may be sub-
scribed by the printed signature of the plaintiff or
his attorney; overruling Ames v. Schurmeier, 9
Minn. 221, (Gil. 206.)—Herrick v. Morrill, (Minn.)
33 N. W. 849.
37 Minn. 250.
II. SERVICE.
By whom made.
14. When Sp. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 185, § 2, pro-
viding that summons to be served in Ramsey
county shall be served by the sheriff, was repealed
by Sp. Laws 1881, c. 371, the provisions of the gen-
eral law on the subject, (Geñ. St. 1878, c. 66, § 56,)
allowing service by any one not a party to the ac-
tion, took effect in that county.-Miller v. Miller,
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 261.
Time of service.
39 Minn. 376.
15. Service on the 11th day of the month of a
summons returnable on the 17th is in time, being
six days before the time of appearance.-Smith
v. Force, 16 N. W. 704, 31 Minn. 119.
On absent defendant-Leaving copy at
place of abode.
16. A return of service of summons on defend- |
ant "by leaving a true and certified copy at his
usual place of abode, with his wife, she being a
suitable person of age and discretion, and then a
resident therein," is sufficient, under Gen. St.
Minn. c. 65, § 11, allowing service of summons to
be made by leaving a copy at defendant's usual
place of abode, etc., when defendant cannot be
found.—Goener v. Woll, 2 N. W. 163, 26 Minn. 154.
17. The summons in an action was served dur-
ing defendant's absence from the state by deliv-
ering a copy at the house which was his usual
place of abode, to his clerk, who was not a res-
ident of such house. Held that, under Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 59, providing that, except
in cases otherwise not specially provided for, the
summons is to be served by delivering a copy
"to defendant personally, or by leaving a copy
of the summons at the house of his usual abode,
with some persons of suitable age and discretion
then resident therein," the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the person of defendant, and a
judgment rendered against him by default was
void. -Heffner v. Gunz, 12 N. W. 342, 29 Minn.
108.
18. Service was had on an absent defendant by
leaving a copy of the summons at his boarding-
house with a person of suitable age and discretion.
Judgment went by default during his continued
absence, and afterwards he moved to vacate on
the ground that there was no proper service. The
evidence tended to show that he had no place of
abode except this boarding house, and that, when
he left on the trip during which the judgment was
rendered, he left personal property there, and ex-
pected to return to it. Held, that this was suffi-
cient to support a finding that it was his usual
place of abode.-Lee v. Macfee, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
309.
45 Minn. 33.
On foreign corporation.
>>
19. Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, §§ 52, 53, providing
county where the defendant is found, by deliver-
that a summons may be served by the sheriff of the
ing a copy thereof, if the suit be against a corpo-
ration, to the president, etc., thereof, does not ap
ply to "foreign corporations, as they have no
legal existence in the state, and service can be
made upon them "only by publication" under sec-
tion 54 of the same chapter, which provides that
the court or judge may grant an order that the
service be made by publication when the defend-
ant is a foreign corporation. Sullivan v. La
Crosse & Minn. Packet Co., 10 Minn. 386, (Gil. 308.)
20. Where a foreign corporation has no agency
within the state of Minnesota, service of a sum-
mons on its general agent, who happens to be
temporarily in the state, is sufficient, under
Act Minn. Feb. 28, 1866, authorizing service of
process on a corporation by delivering a copy
thereof to its general agent, and notwithstand-
ing Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, §§ 48, 56, limiting
such service to cases where the company has prop-
erty within the state, etc., and making the ex-
istence of an agency within the state essential to
the jurisdiction of the court. WILSON, C. J.,
dissenting.-Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 18
Minn. 278, (Gil. 256.)
Limited in State v. District Court, Ramsey Co., 2 N. W.
699, 26 Minn. 234.
On nonresident-Mailing summons.
21. A non-resident defendant in a civil action,
to whom a copy of the summons has been mailed
at his known place of residence in the manner pro-
vided in Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 64, has not
been personally served with the summons, within
the meaning of section 66 of the same chapter,
providing for leave to defend after judgment
where defendant was not personally served, al-
though he fails to deny that he received such copy
by due course of mail.-Bausman v. Tilley, (Minn.)
48 N. W. 459.
46 Minn. 66.
Decoying party into jurisdiction.
22. Where a person, by fraud and deceit, in-
veigles another into the jurisdiction of the court,
for the purpose of suing him, and of obtaining
service of summons upon him in that jurisdiction,
the summons and the service thereof should be set
aside as an abuse of judicial process.-Chubbuck
v. Cleveland, 35 N. W. 362, 37 Minn. 466.
Privilege of parties and witnesses.
23. A resident of another state, who has in good
faith come into this state to give evidence as a wit-
ness in a cause here, is exempt from service with
a summons in a civil action against him, in coming,
while in attendance, and for a reasonable time
thereafter in which to return.-Sherman v. Gund-
lach, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 549.
37 Minn. 118.
24. A non-resident party to an action is privi-
leged from liability to suits commenced by sum-
mons while attending the trial, or an examination
therein before a referee or master in chancery,
and such exemption extends to a summons to bind
one by a judgment previously renderer in pursu-
1805
1806
SUMMONS, II., III.
ance of Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 287.-First Nat. | controversy, "unknown claimants," and have
Bank v. Ames, (Minn.) 39 N. W 308.
Proof of service.
39 Minn. 179.
25. An affidavit of service of summons, made
by a private person, sufficient in form under the
statute, (Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 53,) is
good, though it does not comply with district
Court rule No. 30, requiring him to state that
he knew the person served to be the defendant,
as the rule, so far as it is inconsistent with the
statute, is void. Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 90,
(Gil. 72.)
26. The affidavit of a person serving a sum
mons, that the persons served are members of the
firm named in the summons as defendant, is suffi-
cient to confer jurisdiction over such persons.-
Gale v. Townsend, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 1064.
Admission of service.
45 Minn. 357.
may
service by publication upon such unknown claim-
ants. Held, that the statute must be strictly
construed, and that unknown persons claiming the
land in controversy under the patent title are
not bound by the service prescribed by the stat-
ute, where the person in whose name the patent
title appears of record is not named as defendant,
and the only persons who are named specially as
defendants are the holders of tax-titles.-Ware v.
Easton, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 775.
46 Minn. 180.
33. An action to foreclose a mortgage upon
real estate was within Laws 1864, c. 42, § 1, au-
thorizing service by publication in actions the
was real property, and in
subject of which
which the relief demanded consisted partly in
excluding defendant from any interest therein.-
Crombie v. Little, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
Affidavit for publication.
34. Under Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 54, authoriz-
ing the service of a summons by publication, up-
on proof by affidavit that the defendant cannot
with due diligence be found within the state,
etc., an averment in an affidavit in the language
of the statute, without setting out the facts and cir-
cumstances, is insufficient.-Mackubin v. Smith,
45 Minn. 367, (Gil. 296.)
27. Proof of service of a summons by written
admission of the defendant is insufficient, unless
the genuineness of his signature is proved.-
Masterson v. Le Claire, 4 Minn. 163, (Gil. 108.)
28. Admission of service of a summons, made
by an attorney, for his client, is insufficient with-
out proof of his authority and of the genuineness
of his signature. Masterson v. Le Claire,
Minn. 163, (Gil. 108.)
III. PUBLICATION.
When allowable.
29. Foreign corporations having property in the
state may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the
courts thereof, and served with summons by
publication, as provided by Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, §
54.-Broome v. Galena, D., D. & Minn. Packet Co.,
9 Minn. 239, (Gil. 225.)
30. Since Rev. St. U. S. § 5046, vested in the
assignee in bankruptcy all property conveyed by
the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors, the judg-
ment in an action by the assignee to set aside such
conveyance affects the land only, and hence, under
Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 64, subd. 5, a service of
summons by publication on a non-resident defend-
ant is proper in such action.-Lane v. Innės,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 4.
43 Minn. 187.
31. Though Pub. St. Minn. 1858, c. 72, § 36, relat-
ing to the jurisdiction of courts over natural per-
sons, did not make it a prerequisite to such juris-
diction in the case of a non-resident that he should
have property within the state "upon which the
plaintiff has acquired a lien by attachment or gar-
nishment," service by publication on a non-resi-
dent was only effectual where such property had
been brought under the control of the court, or
where judgment was sought as a means of reach-
ing it, or an interest therein.-Lydiard v. Chute,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 967.
45 Minn. 277.
32. Gen. Laws Minn. 1881, (Ex. Sess.) c. 81,
provides that, in actions to determine adversé
claims to land, plaintiff may include as defend-
ants, in addition to the names of such persons as
appear of record to have, and other persons who
are known to have, some interest in the land in
Distinguished in Gemmell v. Rice, 13 Minn. 406, (Gil.
375.
35. Under Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 54, providing
that an order for publication of a summons may be
made when it appears by affidavit that "defendant,
after due diligence, cannot be found" within the
state, an affidavit stating facts not inconsistent
with the presence or residence of defendant in the
state at the date of the affidavit is insufficient to
confer jurisdiction to grant the order for publica-
tion. Mackubin v. Smith, 5 Minn. 367, (Gil. 296.)
followed. - Harrington v. Loomis, 10' Minn. 366,
(Gil. 293.)
36. A statement in an affidavit for publication
of summons, "that defendant is a corporation or
company, established and doing business under
and by virtue of the laws of the state of Illinois, "
sufficiently shows defendant's corporate character.
-Broome v. Galena, D., D. & Minn. Packet Co., 9
Minn. 239, (Gil. 225.)
37. An affidavit for publication of summons
which shows defendant to be a foreign corporation
sufficiently shows that it cannot be found within
the state.-Broome v. Galena, D., D. & Minn.
Packet Co., 9 Minn. 239, (Gil. 225.)
38. The statute (section 64, c. 66, Gen. St. 1878)
authorizing a constructive service of a summons
by publication "upon the filing of an affidavit" of
the non-residence of the defendant, etc., makes
the filing of such an affidavit a condition precedent
to an authorized publication. The publication of a
summons, unless so authorized, is ineffectual to
confer jurisdiction, and a judgment entered there-
on is void, even though such an affidavit be filed
after the publication, and on the day of entry of
the judgment.-Barber v. Morris, (Minn.) 33 N. W.
559.
37 Minn. 194.
39. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 15, before
service by publication of the notice therein re-
1807
1808
SUMMONS, III., IV.
quired, on non-resident land-owners, or those |
whose residence is unknown, an affidavit must be
filed, showing the fact of the non-residence, or that
after diligent inquiry the residence of such owner
is unknown, or cannot be ascertained, and one
filed after publication, on presenting the petition,
gives no jurisdiction.-Brown v. St. Paul & N. P.
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 38 N. W. 698.
38 Minn. 506.
40. An affidavit in an action against a non-resi-
dent must state positively, and not on information
and belief, that the defendant has property within
the state.-Feikert v. Wilson, (Minn.) 37 N. W.
585.
38 Minn. 341.
41. In an action commenced against a non-resi-
dent by publication of the summons, where judg-
ment for want of an answer is properly entered,
except that the affidavit of publication is insuffi-
cient, if the summons was in fact duly published,
and no facts appear to show that it would be un-
just to the defendant, or would affect intervening
rights of third persons, the court should allow a
proper affidavit of publication to be filed nunc
pro tune, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, §§ 124,
125, allowing amendments of pleadings, process,
etc., and modification of judgments.-Burr v. Sey-
mour, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 715.
43 Minn. 401.
42. An affidavit for an order of publication
is not void because entitled in an action not act-
ually commenced when the affidavit was sworn
to.-Crombie v. Little, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
43. An affidavit for the publication of a sum-
mons need not be sworn to on the day on which
the action is commenced, but may be sworn to
within such reasonably brief period before the
publication that no presumption can fairly arise
that the state of facts has changed in the mean
time.-Crombie v. Little, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
44. Where an affidavit for an order of publi-
cation is sworn to before the deputy clerk of the
district court, a jurat signed by him, "A. B.,
Clerk, by C. D., Deputy," is good.-Crombie v.
Little, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
45. If the affidavit for publication of a sum-
mons is filed with the clerk of the district court,
the fact that he fails to keep his office at the
county-seat will not invalidate the publication of
the summons.-Crombie v. Little, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 823.
47 Minn. 581.
Order for publication.
46. Under Rev. St. Minn. 1866, c. 94, § 14, it
was not necessary that the order before publica-
tion, directing absent defendants to appear,
should be authenticated by the clerk. -Smith v.
Valentine, 19 Minn. 452, (Gil. 393.)
47. Omission to enter a rule to plead and order
for publication in a book, as required by rule of
court, is a mere irregularity, not available in a
collateral proceeding.-Smith v. Valentine, 19
Minn. 452, (Gil. 393.)
|
Time of publication.
dated January 18th, directed that a copy of the
48. An order for the publication of a summons,
the post-office, addressed to the defendant. The
summons and complaint be forthwith deposited in
first publication was on Sunday, the 19th, and cop-
ies were deposited in the post-office on the 20th.
The summons was published again on the 22d, and
once in each week for the statutory period there-
after. Held, that this was a sufficient compliance
with the order, for the deposit was made before
the first "legal publication. "-Cleland v. Taver-
nier, 11 Minn. 194, (Gil. 126.)
•
49. Where an action before a justice against a
non-resident is commenced by attachment duly
levied, and the sumnions is ordered to be served
by publication, but the return-day is fixed at less
than six days after the expiration of the period of
publication, as required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
65, § 102, a judgment rendered on such return-day
in favor of plaintiff, defendant not appearing, is
void.-Bird v. Norquist, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1132.
46 Minn. 318.
Proof of publication.
50. Proof, by affidavit, of publication for "six suc-
have been made "once in each week" for the pe-
cessive weeks" does not show the publication to
riod named.-Godfrey v. Valentine, (Minn.) 40 N.
W. 163.
39 Minn. 336.
51. An affidavit of service of summons by pub-
lication which states that the summons was Dub-
lished "seven" weeks, once a week, the date of the
first and last publication being shown, from which
under Gen St. Minn. c. 66, § 65, requiring publica-
it appears that six weeks was intended, is sufficient,
tion to be made for six weeks.-Lane v. Innes,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 4.
43 Minn. 137.
Presumption as to service.
52. The record of judicial proceedings stating
that the summons was served by publication
against a non-resident, who was beyond the juris-
diction of the court, it will not be presumed that
other proof of service was made, nor that the court
acquired jurisdiction, unless that is affirmatively
shown. Godfrey v. Valentine, (Minn.) 40 N. W.
163.
39 Minn. 336.
Construction.
IV. RETURN.
53. A return to a summons addressed to two
defendants, that the defendants, naming them
conjunctively, could not be found, will be con-
strued as meaning that neither of the defendants
could be found, and not that both of them could
W. 666.
not be found.-Blinn v. Chessman, (Minn.) 51 N.
Effect-Impeachment.
54. A return of an officer of the time of serv-
ice of a summons is, in that action, conclusive,
and cannot be contradicted.
3 Minn. 277, (Gil. 191,) followed.-Frasier v.
Tullis v. Brawley,
Williams, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil. 219.)
Doubted in Jensen v. Crevier, 23 N. W. 541, 33 Minn. 372.
Overruled in Crosby v. Farmer, 40 N. W. 71, 39 Minn.
306.
1809
1810
SUMMONS, IV.-SUPREME COURT.
55. The return of a sheriff showing personal
service of a summons, even though not regarded
as conclusive, is strong evidence of the facts as
to which the law requires him to certify, and
should ordinarily be upheld, unless opposed by
clear and satisfactory proof. Doubting Frasier
v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil. 219,) as to the
conclusiveness of the sheriff's return.-Jensen v.
Crevier, 23 N. W. 541, 33 Minn. 372.
56. The return of an officer of the service of a
summons is not conclusive on defendant, but may
be impeached by affidavit, on motion or other
direct proceedings in the action to set aside the
judgment on default. -Crosby v. Farmer, 40 N.
W. 71, 39 Minn. 305; Burton v. Schenck, 41 N. W.
244, 40 Minn. 52.
Distinguishing Hutchins v. Commissioners of Carver
County, 16 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Overruling Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277, (Gil. 191;)
Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil. 219.)
SUNDAY.
Sale of liquor on, see Intoxicating Liquors, 43.
Traveling on, see Death by Wrongful Act, 3.
Contracts-Execution on Sunday.
1. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 96, § 19, providing
that no person shall do "any manner of labor, bus-
iness, or work, " except only works of necessity or
charity, on Sunday, under penalty of fine, a note
executed on Sunday is void. - Brimhall v. Van
Campen, 8 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1;) Finney v. Callendar,
8 Minn. 41, (Gil. 23.)
2. The sale of a horse, consummated on Sunday,
is void, and an action on a warranty in such sale
will not lie.-Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194, (Gil.
179.)
3. Plaintiffs and defendant agreed on Sunday
that defendant should put up a quantity of ice
for the southern market, giving his personal serv-
ices in superintending the work without charge,
and that plaintiffs should furnish the money nec-
essary to pay the expenses of putting up the ice;
that plaintiffs, who were about starting south,
should look over the market and, determine
whether it was safe to put up the ice, and if they
decided that it was safe to notify defendant, who
was thereupon to commence the work. The
profits and losses were to be equally shared be-
tween plaintiffs and defendant. Held, an agree-
ment for the formation of a partnership in præ-
senti, and void because made on Sunday. -Durant
v. Rhenier, 4 N. W. 610, 26 Minn. 362.
4. In an action to foreclose an informal assign-
ment of real estate made to secure a promissory
note, it appeared that the assignment was dated
October 11th, a week-day; but defendant offered
evidence tending to prove that the agreement in re-
gard to the security was made on Sunday, October
14th, at which time the assignment was accepted
by plaintiffs. Held, that the evidence justified an
instruction that if the agreements were made on
Sunday plaintiff could not recover.-Hanchett v.
Jordan, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 617.
43 Minn. 149.
5. A bond signed and sealed on Sunday, not
delivered until a following secular day, is not
therefore invalid. -State v. Young, 23 Minn. 551.
|
|
|
6. A deed is not executed until delivery. There-
fore, though_signed and sealed on Sunday, yet, if
not delivered until a succeeding secular day, it is
valid. VANDERBURGH, J., dissenting Schwab
v. Rigby, 38 N. W. 101, 38 Minn. 395.
Performance on Sunday.
C
7. Demand for goods contracted for, made on
Sunday, is illegal and a nullity.- Brackett v
Edgerton, 14 Minn. 174, (Gil. 134.)
8. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 100, § 20, pro-
viding that no person shall do any manner of la-
bor, business, or work, except only works of ne-
cessity and charity, on Sunday, the issuing, pub-
lishing and circulating a newspaper on Surday is
unlawful.-Handy v. St. Paul Globe Publishing
Co., 42 N. W. 872, 41 Minn. 188.
charge and control of the real-estate advertising
9. A contract by which plaintiff is to have full
business in the daily, Sunday, and weekly editions
of a newspaper, the owner to receive certain rates,
the plaintiff to have all above those rates that he
may receive for advertising, the contract to con-
tinue for five years, is an entire and indivisible
contract, and as it provides for publishing and cir-
culating a newspaper on Sunday, the entire con-
tract is void under the above statute.-Handy v.
St. Paul Globe Publishing Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W.
872.
41 Minn. 188.
10. Sucn contract, having been entered into at
the time such statute was in force, was incapable
taint of illegality, although by the provisions of
of being ratified so as to relieve it of the original
Pen. Code Minn. $229, which went into effect after-
wards, newspapers may be sold in a quiet and or-
derly manner on Sunday.--Handy v. St. Paul
Globe Publishing Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 872.
41 Minn. 188.
Supplemental Pleading.
See Abatement and Revival, 25-28; Garnish-
ment, 49–53; Pleading, 182-185; Quieting Title,
27.
Supplementary Proceedings.
See Execution, 143–159.
Exemption of homestead, see Homestead, 34.
Imprisonment for disobedience of order, see Con-
stitutional Law, 159.
Supreme Court.
See Appeal and Error, 1–680.
Constitutional provisions as to jurisdiction, see
Constitutional Law, 39-41.
Issue of writ of prohibition, see Prohibition,
Writ of, 15.
Jurisdiction of certiorari proceedings, see Cer-
tiorari, 19.
of mandamus proceedings, see Mandamus,
1-5.
of quo warranto proceedings, see Quo War-
ranto, 7.
to enforce regulations of railroad commission-
ers, see Railroad Companies, 19.
to grant habeas corpus, see Habeas Cor-
pus, 4.
1811
1812
SURETYSHIP-SWINDLING.
Legislative request for opinion, see Constitu- | premises of an adjacent owner, an action will lie
tional Law, 36, 37.
Review of tax judgment, see Taxation, 153–156.
Suretyship.
See Principal and Surety.
What is.
SURFACE WATER.
1. Surface waters cease to be such after they
reach and become part of a permanent body of
water retained in a natural basin, forming a lake;
and, where such a lake is situated on lands of
different owners, neither can drain it without
the consent of the other.-Schaefer v. Marthaler,
26 N. W. 726, 34 Minn. 487.
Distinguishing Bennett v. Murtaugh, 20 Minn. 151, (Gil.
135.)
Obstruction and flowage.
2. The common-law rule as to the disposition
of surface water prevails in Minnesota, and, sub-
for the damages he sustains thereby.-Follmann v.
City of Mankato, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 192.
45 Minn. 457.
8. One land-owner has no right, independent
of a grant, to gather surface waters on his own
land, and, by means of ditches, cause them to
flow upon the land of another, where they would
not otherwise go.-Hoganon v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 17 N. W. 374, 31 Minn. 224.
9. The owner of an upper estate, on which he
waters which fall upon his roof into gutters, and
has erected a house, has no right to collect the
thence, by means of a conducting pipe, discharge
them, although upon his own land, at such a place,
and in such a manner, that necessarily they are
precipitated upon lower premises in an unnatural,
unusual, and injurious volume and quantity; and
injunction will lie against such acts.-Beach v.
Gaylord, (Minn.) 45 Ň. W. 1095.
43 Minn. 476.
Surgeons.
Surplus.
ject to the reasonable restriction that he must so See Physicians and Surgeons.
use his land as not to injure his neighbor, a land-
owner, in the use and improvement of his land,
may obstruct or hinder the natural flow of surface
water, and is not bound to provide drains or water-
ways to prevent the accumulation thereof upon ad-
jacent lands, except in the case of ravines in which
surface water is gathered into streams in well de-
fined channels.-Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 43 N. W. 76, 41 Minn. 384.
3. Where defendant has no easement to maintain
a ditch it has constructed on plaintiff's land, it is
not liable for damages to his crops, caused by clos-
ing the ditch on its own land, whereby the surface
water runs over plaintiff's land as it would have
done if the ditch was not in existence.-Olson v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 38 N. W.490.
38 Minn. 479.
4. A railroad company which takes earth from
one part of its premises for use in the construction
of its road-bed, thus leaving an excavation, incurs
no liability because the effect of such excavation
is to accumulate surface water, and cause it to
flow on the lands of an adjoining owner.-Jordan
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 849.
42 Minn. 172.
5. Where a municipal corporation, for the
purpose of improving its streets, raises or lowers
the surface so as to interfere with the flow of
Proceeds on foreclosure of mortgage, see Mort-
gages, 296–298.
Surprise.
As ground for new trial, see Criminal Law, 136;
New Trial, 40-48, 136.
Surrender.
Of lease, see Landlord and Tenant, 29-35.
policy, see Insurance, 32-34, 160.
tenancy, see Landlord and Tenant, 58.
Surveys and Surveyors.
Evidence of boundary, see Boundaries, 13, 14.
Government surveys, see Public Lands, 109.
Judicial notice of government surveys, see Evi-
dence, 11.
Survey of town plats, see Towns, 4.
referred to in deed, see Deed, 26–29.
Survival.
surface water, it has no right, when not neces- Of actions, see Abatement and Revival.
sary to the proper improvement of such streets,
to turn surface water in destructive currents up-
on the lands adjoining.-O'Brien v. City of St. Suspension of Power of Aliena-
Paul, 25 Minn. 331.
Distinguishing O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 18 Minn,
tion.
176. (Gil. 163;) Lee v. City of Minneapolis. 22 Minn. 13; See Trusts, 7, 8; Wills, 55-57.
Kobs v. Same, Id. 159; Alden v. Same, 24 Minn. 254.
6. Where a municipal corporation, in improv-
ing its streets, accumulates surface waters, it is
Swamp Lands.
its duty to take care of them, if reasonably prac- See Public Lands, 72, 75.
ticable, and prevent their injuring others.
O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 331.
7. Where the result of the change of grade of
Swindling.
a street by a municipal corporation is to collect See False Pretenses.
surface water into a stream and divert it upon the
1813
1814
TACKING-TAXATION, I.
Tacking.
Of successive possessions, see Adverse Posses-
sion, 28-30.
TAXATION.
TO
T.
I. POWER TO TAX-CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
In general.
1. Except where restrained by constitutional
limitation, the power of the legislature in the im-
position and apportionment of taxes is absolute.-
Sanborn v. Commissioners Rice County, 9 Minn.
273, (Gil. 258.)
I. Power to TAX-CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRIC-Purposes.
TIONS, 1-17.
II. TAXABLE PROPERTY, 18-34.
III. EXEMPTIONS, 35-42.
IV. ASSESSMENT AND EQUALIZATION, 43-59.
V. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT PENALTIES,
60-75.
VI. REMEDIES FOR ERRONEOUS TAXATION, 76-84.
VII. LIEN, 85.
VIII. SALE FOR NON-PAYMENT, 86-175.
IX. REDEMPTION, 176–205.
X. TAX-TITLES, 206–304.
a. In General, 206-233.
b. Deed, 234-256.
c. Actions to Try and Confirm Title,
257-274.
d. Reimbursement of Defeated Purchas-
ers, 275-304.
Advertising delinquent taxes, see Counties, 68,
69.
Appeal in proceedings for sale of land, see Appeal
and Error, 95.
Application of road taxes, see Towns, 11.
By city, see Municipal Corporations, 314-316.
Constitutional requirement of due process of law,
see Constitutional Law, 169, 170.
Covenant to pay taxes, see Landlord and Tenant,
25, 26.
Determination of claims to lien as purchaser at
tax sale, see Adverse Claim, 14–16.
Equality of taxation, see Bridges, 1, 5, 6.
Highway taxes, see Highways, 60.
Jury trial in proceedings to enforce payment, see
Constitutional Law, 147.
Nature of action to try validity of forfeiture for
non-payment, see Action, 16.
Of bank stock, see Banks and Banking, 25.
national bank shares, see Banks and Banking,
38-40.
railroads, see Railroad Companies, 101–140.
real estate of national bank, see Banks and
Banking, 37.
Recovery back of taxes paid, see Payment, 28-33.
Reimbursement after payment of void tax or of
payment of price of invalid tax sale, see Consti-
tutional Law, 82-84, 121.
Review of tax judgment, see Certiorari, 19.
Rights and liabilities of mortgagee, see Mort-
gages, 89, 90, 354, 424, 425.
Tax as cloud on title, see Quieting Title, 7-11.
deed as color of title, see Ejectment, 39-44.
titles in ejectment, see Ejectment, 7, 8.
Vacating tax judgment, see Appeal and Error,
125.
2. The "county purposes" for which, under
Laws Minn. 1867, c. 6, § 2, a maximum tax of
three mills only could be levied by the commis-
sioners, in certain counties named, without a
vote of the people, includes only the ordinary
expenses of the county. Neither the payment
of county debt, interest thereon, nor the $1,000
authorized by such act for extraordinary ex-
penses, are included in ordinary expenses, but the
amount for these purposes may be levied by the
commissioners under the general powers con.
tained in the first clause of the section. -McCor-
mick v. Fitch, 14 Minn. 252, (Gil. 185.)
3. Act Minn. February 25, 1887, authorized the
village of Sauk Rapids to issue bonds in aid of the
construction of a dam across the river, at that.
place, for the purpose of improving the water-
power, and also provided that the village might
secure the water-power for the use of the fire de-
partment, and that the piers of the dam might be
the foundation of a public wagon bridge. Held,
that the act provided for public taxation for private
purposes, and as such was unconstitutional, and its
unconstitutional character was not affected by the
fact that public purposes were also incorporated
in the act.— Coates v. Campbell, (Minn.) 35 N. W.
366.
37 Minn. 498.
Amount.
4. Laws Minn. 1861, c. 6, § 2, restricting the
right to levy a tax of only three mills for county
purposes to the counties therein named, operated
to repeal the general limitation of three mills im-
posed by Laws 1860, c. 1, § 73. Hence the com-
missioners of Meeker county could, in 1865, levy a
tax of four mills for current county expenses.-
Piper v. Branham, 14 Minn. 548, (Gil. 418.)
Valuation of property-Penalties.
auditor, as a penalty for refusal of owner to list
5. Laws Minn. 1860, c. 1, § 30, authorizing the
property, to add 50 per cent. to the assessor's
valuation, is in conflict with Const. Minn. art.
9, § 1, which provides that "all property on which
taxes are to be levied shall have a cash valua-
tion," and with section 3, which provides that
all property shall be taxed "according to its true
value in money. "-McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn.
252, (Gil. 185.)
Equality.
6. Substantial and not perfect equality in im-
posing the burden upon those for whose benefit
1815
1816
TAXATION, I., II.
the money is raised is all that is required in the
levy of taxes. Comer v. Folsom, 13 Minn. 219,
(Gil. 205.)
7. A tax cannot be imposed exclusively on any
subdivision of the state to pay any claim or indebt-
edness not peculiarly the debt of such subdivision,
or to raise money for any purpose not peculiarly
for the benefit of such subdivision.-Sanborn v.
Commissioners Rice County, 9 Minn. 273, (Gil.
258.)
>>
should be so construed as to avoid double taxa-
tion, unless a contrary construction is compelled
by express provision or necessary implication of
the statute.-Board County Com'rs Rice County
v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Faribault, 23 Minn. 220.
Exemption.
13. The levy of a poll-tax, under the city
charter of Faribault, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1872,
p. 114, § 8; p. 121, § 3,) is not repugnant to Const.
Minn. art. 9, § 1, requiring equality of taxation,
by reason of the exemption of members of fire
companies. -City of Faribault v. Misener, 20
Minn. 396, (Gil. 347.)
8. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 97, providing that
where a sale of land for taxes is adjudged void, the
amount paid by the purchaser or by the assignee
of the state shall be returned to him out of the
county treasury, does not violate Const. Minn. art. 14. Const. art. 9, §3, providing that "laws shall
9. § 1, which declares that "all taxes to be raised be passed taxing * * * all real and personal
in this state shall be as nearly equal as may be, property at its true value in money," does not
in that the statute makes no provision for charg-prohibit or render void the transfer by the state
ing back any part of the amount so paid out of the to the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company,
county treasury to the municipal bodies to which by a law passed after the adoption of the consti-
the county had paid it over.-State v. Cronkhite, tution, of the immunity from taxation originally
9 N. W. 681, 28 Minn. 197.
granted to its predecessor, the Transit Railroad
Company. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. v.
Parcher, 14 Minn. 297, (Gil. 224,) followed.-
State v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 315;
State v. Trustees of Southern M. R. Co., 21
Minn. 344.
"
9. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 5, provides that "if any
real or personal property shall be omitted in the
assessment of any year or years, and the property
shall thereby escape taxation, when such omission
shall be discovered the county auditor shall enter
such property on the assessment and tax-books for
the year or years omitted, and he shall assess the
same, and extend all arrearages of taxes properly
accruing against such property, with 7 per cent.
interest thereon from the time said taxes would
have become delinquent. Held, that the provis-
ion adding "back" interest to the tax was invalid,
as being unequal taxation, for the reason that un-
til the amount of the tax is ascertained the owner
has no opportunity of paying it, and is not in de-
fault, and a person is chargeable with interest
only upon contract to pay it, or for some default
of legal duty on his part.-State v. Certain Lands
in Redwood County, (Redwood County v. Wino-
na & St. P. Land Co.,) 42 N. W. 473, 40 Minn.
512.
15. Gen. Laws Minn. 1866, c. 3, as amended by
Gen. Laws 1867, c. 49, providing for the issue of
orders on city, county, or town treasurers for
amounts paid by soldiers, or their wives, widows,
or minor children, for taxes for paying bounties,
to such persons, to be received for taxes due, or to
become due, is unconstitutional, as being an at-
tempt, by evasion, to exempt from taxation prop-
erty of certain classes of persons which does not
fall within any of the exemptions allowed by the
constitution.-Le Duc v. City of Hastings, (Minn.)
38 N. W. 803.
39 Minn. 110.
16. Under Const. Minn. art. 9, §§ 1, 3, all prop-
erty, of which exemption is not permitted, must
be taxed, and no other exemptions are allowed
than those specified in section 3.-Le Duc v. City
of Hastings, 38 N. W. 803, 39 Minn. 110.
Indian reservations.
10. The statute (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 7, §§ 5,
7-9, as amended by Gen. Laws 1885, c. 103) requir
ing, as a condition precedent to probate proceed
ings for the settlement of estates, the payment to
the county treasurer of specified sums, arbitrarily
prescribed with reference to the value of the es-on
tate in question, is unconstitutional, as it is con-
trary to those clauses requiring equality of taxa
tion, and the dispensation of justice freely and
without purchase.-State v. Gorman, 41 N. W. 948,
40 Minn. 232.
Uniformity.
11. The action of the legislature, when re-
granting the franchises of the St. Paul & Sioux
City Railroad Company in 1861, whereby the
terms of the original charter were changed, so as
to provide for payment of a certain per cent. of
its gross earnings in lieu of all taxation, was
not in conflict with Const. Minn. art. 9, §§ 1, 3,
requiring taxes to be uniform, and to be imposed
on all classes of property, with certain excep-
tions.-City of St. Paul v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 23 Minn. 469.
Double taxation.
12. Under the constitutional requirement of
equality and uniformity in taxation, tax laws
17. The state has no authority to levy taxes up-
personal property within Indian reservations.
-Foster v. Board of County Com'rs Blue Earth
County, 7 Minn. 140, (Gil. 84.)
II. TAXABLE PROPERTY.
Real property-Land subject to ease-
ment.
metes and bounds, with the reservation of a strip
18. The grantee of a tract of land conveyed by
along one end for an alley, takes the fee of such
strip, and he, and not the owner of the easement
Winston v. Johnson, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 958.
to which it is subject, is liable for taxes thereon.
42 Minn. 398.
Riparian rights.
19. The right of a riparian owner on a naviga-
ble river to use the water flowing past his land
is real estate for the purposes of taxation.-State
v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 2 N. W. 839, 26 Minn.
229.
1817
1818
TAXATION, II.
Real property-Public lands.
20. After land was purchased from the United
States by locating upon it a land-warrant, the
warrant was canceled, and the issue of a patent
was suspended, on the discovery that the assign-
ment of the warrant was forged. Subsequently,
the grantee of the locator substituted money for
the warrant, and a patent was issued relating
back to the original location. Held that, as
against the grantee of the original locator, the
land was subject to taxation by the state
from the date of the original entry.-Wheeler v.
Merriman, 15 N. W. 665, 30 Minn. 372.
21.A pre-emption claimant under the laws of
the United States made final proof, paid for his
land, and received from the proper officer a final
receipt or certificate. Subsequently the commis-
sioner of the general land-office suspended fur-
ther proceedings in regard to such entry because
of an irregularity in the method of making said
final proof, and directed that further proof be sub-
mitted. Held that, as against the pre-emptor the
land was subject to taxation from the date of the
receipt, notwithstanding the fact that the order
in respect to further proof had not been com-
plied with.-State v. Hunter, (Polk County v.
(Polk County V.
Hunter,) 44 N. W. 201, 42 Minn. 312.
Railroad grants.
22. Act Cong. July 2, 1864, (13 St. at Large,
365,) granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company certain land to aid in the construction of
the road. The act provided that whenever 25
miles of the road should be completed, patents
should issue for a proportionate part of the land
granted. Held, that compliance with the terms
of the grant divested the interest of the United
of the grant divested the interest of the United
States in the land, and the same became taxable
under the state laws.-Counties of Cass, etc., v.
Certain Lands, 9 N. W. 761, 28 Minn. 257.
23. The “railroad land grant" lands reserved
and retained by the state, and subsequently sold
by it, pursuant to the provisions of Sp. Laws Minn.
1877, c. 201, § 9, are subject to taxation in the hands
of the grantees of the state; and no one but the
United States can raise the question of the au-
thority of the state to dispose of these lands for
the purposes expressed in the act referred to.-
Morrison County v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 982.
42 Minn. 451.
Personal property-Credits, trust funds,
etc.
26. Certain persons agreed in writing with a cor-
poration to sell and convey to it certain described
real estate for a sum named, of which a small
portion was paid down. The corporation agreed
in the same writing to pay the balance of the price
on certain specified days, with interest, payable
annually, and was given possession of the prop-
erty. It also agreed to pay the taxes on said prop-
erty Held, that the debt thus arising from the
corporation purchaser was an assessable credit,
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 4, defining "cred
its" as meaning and including "every claim and
demand for money or other valuable thing, and ev-
ery security or sum of money receivable at stated
periods, due or to become due, and all claims and
demands secured by deed or mortgage, due or to
become due." GILFILLAN, C. J., dissents.-State v.
Rand, (Minn.) 40 N. W 835.
39 Minn. 502.
27. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 3, and
§ 16, subd. 23, providing for the listing and tax-
ation of "credits," a credit consisting of part of the
purchase price of land formerly owned in common
should not be listed as a whole against the vendors,
even though they all live in the same taxing dis-
trict, but the interest of each should be listed
against him. On a citation against all the vendors
to show cause why they should not pay the tax, it
is error to enter judgment for the whole amount.
against those who were served and have appeared..
-State v. Rand, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 835.
39 Minn. 502.
by the governor was authorized "to convey" cer-
28. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 244, where-
tain lands to the Cannon River Manufacturing
by the governor was authorized "to convey
Association, for "the purpose of developing the
Cannon river, taking back from the company a
water-powers and manufacturing resources" of
bond in a specified penal sum, "conditioned for
the faithful application of the proceeds of said
lands," the title to the lands and the proceeds
thereof passed absolutely to said association, and
such proceeds are not held by it as trustee; and
therefore such proceeds while held by the asso-
ciation are subject to taxation.-Cannon River
Manuf'g Ass'n v. Board County Com'rs of Rice
County, 21 N. W. 738, 32 Minn. 516.
29. A corporation organized for the general
purpose of the "purchase, shipment, storage, and
sale of wheat and other cereals" was engaged
only in buying wheat for distribution among its.
members, making no profit thereby. The busi-
ness was conducted by a general agent, in ac-
cordance with its by-laws, which provided that.
all wheat wanted by the members of the associ-
ation, who were all engaged in operating flour-
chased by the general agent "for the associa-
tion," and divided among the members in a cer-
tain proportion, each member to pay to the agent
the money necessary for the purchase of his
proper share. Held, that wheat purchased by
the association with such moneys, and unexpend-
ed moneys remaining in its hands received for
the same purpose, were taxable as the property
of the corporation.-State v. Minneapolis Millers'
áss'n, 16 N. W. 151, 30 Minn. 429.
24. A mortgage debt is taxable as personal
property, though the mortgagor be wholly insoly-ing-mills in a certain county, should be pur-
ent, and payment depends solely on sale of the
mortgaged property, and though such property is
taxed at its full value to the mortgagor.-State
v. Jones, 24 Minn. 251.
25. Credits due from a resident of Minnesota
to a resident of another state, for moneys loaned
and invested by an agent of the creditor resident
in Minnesota, and which are managed and con-
trolled by such agent, are taxable in Minnesota.
-Washington County v. Estate of Jefferson, (In
re Estate of Jefferson,) 28 N. W. 256, 35 Minn.
215; Jefferson's Ex'rs v. Washington County, Id.
Distinguishing City of St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258,
(Gil. 198 1
Mortgages and funds of building
association.
30. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 4, declares that
"all claims and demands secured by deed or mort
1819
1820
TAXATION, II., III.
gage, due or to become due," shall be subjects of
taxation. Gen. Laws 1885, c. 78, § 22, provides that
building associations shall list all their property,
real and personal, for taxation, but that mort-
gages which are represented in their stock, and
assessed as stock, shall not be assessed as mort-
gages. Held, that the mortgages are taxable as
such where the stock of the association has not
been taxed.-State v. Redwood Falls Building &
Loan Ass'n, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 540.
45 Minn. 154.
36. Laws Minn. 1854, c. 43, incorporating "Ham-
line University of Minnesota," provided that "all
corporate property belonging to the institution,
both real and personal, is and shall be free from
taxation." Held, that this exemption applies to all
property of the corporation which it lawfully might
acquire and hold under the terms of the act, and is
not limited to property actually used and occupied
by it as a site for the university.-State v. Ham-
line University, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1119.
46 Minn. 316.
31. Gen. Laws Minn. 1885, c. 78, § 22, provides 37. Laws of the territory of Minnesota for 1854,
that "the monthly installments deposited in build- | c. 43, exempting the property of a university from
ing associations, and subject to withdrawal on de- taxation, were within the power of the territorial
mand, or on 30 or 60 days' notice, as provided by legislature to enact, and are binding on the state.
the by-laws of such associations, are an indebted-State v. Hamline University, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
ness which may be deducted" from their taxable | 1119.
property. Held, that such installments, when
loaned out, are not so subject to withdrawal; and
hence no deduction can be made on account of
them.-State v. Redwood Falls Building & Loan
Ass'n, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 540.
45 Minn. 154.
Personal property-Of non-residents.
32. Under Comp. St. c. 9, §9, providing that every
person shall be assessed in the district in which
he resides for all taxable personal estate owned
by him, or under his control in a fiduciary capacity,
no tax can be assessed upon the personal property
of a non-resident, except upon goods, wares, and
merchandise kept for sale, stock employed in me-
chanic arts, and capital and machinery employed
in some branch of manufactures or other busi-
ness, as provided by section 10.-City of St. Paul
v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258, (Gil. 198.)
Distinguished in Re Jefferson's Estate, 28 N. W. 258, 35
Minn. 218.
33. The provision in the charter of the city of
St. Paul (Laws Minn. 1858, c. 8, § 1) "that all prop-
erty, real or personal, within the city, except such
as may be exempt by the laws of the state, shall
be subject to taxation for the support of the city
government," does not change or extend the rule
prescribed by Comp. St. Minn. c. 9, so as to permit
the taxation of the property of non-residents.-
City of St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258, (Gil. 198.)
III. EXEMPTIONS.
|
46 Minn. 316.
Church property used for religious
purposes.
38. Laws Minn. 1860, c. 1, § 3, subd. 1, as
amended by Laws 1861, p. 16, exempting from taxa-
tion houses used exclusively for public worship,
books and furniture therein, and grounds attached
to such building, necessary for the proper oc-
cupancy, use, and enjoyment of the same, etc.,
though situated on the same lot as the church.—St.
does not extend to the parsonage of the church,
Peter's Church, Shakopee, v. Board of County
Com'rs Scott County, 12 Minn. 395, (Gil. 280.)
from taxation "churches, church property used
39. Under Const. Minn. art. 9, § 3, exempting
for religious purposes, and houses of worship," a
rectory or parsonage used primarily as the resi-
dence of the priest or minister is not exempt,
though the children from the parish school are
taken into the rectory for morning prayers, and
the sewing society and Sunday-school teachers
meet there, and the rector there hears recitations
by classes from the school.-Ramsey County v.
Church of the Good Shepherd, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 783.
45 Minn. 229.
40. A building occupied as the place of resi-
dence of a parish priest is not exempt from taxa-
tion as church property used for religious pur
poses.-In re Grace, 8 N. W. 761, 27 Minn. 503.
Property of charitable institutions.
34. Property belonging to non-residents, and
consigned to agents in this state for purpose of
sale, and not merely "to be stored or forwarded, "
41. A building on lot 10 in a certain block is
(Laws Minn. 1860, c. 1, § 11,) was subject to tax-lic generally. Those who are cared for in the
used for a hospital for the benefit of the pub-
ation here. - McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn. 252, hospital pay if they are able from $2 to $6 per
(Gil. 185.)
week, according to their ability, and those
who are not able to pay are cared for with-
out charge. Patients who are, a legal charge
on the county are charged to the county at
the rate of $6 per week. All the income de-
private contributions is used in the mainte-
10 and in the same inclosure, are used in connec-
nance of the hospital. Lots 8 and 9, adjoining lot
tion with the hospital as a garden, etc., solely
for the convenience of the hospital, and not for
profit. Held, that lots 8 and 9 are exempt from
taxation under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 5,
which
institutions of purely public charity, including
which provides that "all buildings belonging to
public hospitals, together with the land actually
occupied by such institutions, not leased or oth-
Property of schools, universities, etc.
35. Gen. St. Minn. c. 11, § 5, exempts from tax-rived from private and county patients and from
ation all public school-houses, academies, colleges,
universities, and seminaries, "and the grounds at-
tached to such buildings necessary for their prop:
er occupancy, use, and enjoyment, and not leased
or otherwise used with a view to profit." Held,
that the mere use and occupancy of premises for
educational purposes by a school or seminary, un
der a lease from the owner, do not entitle him to
claim the benefit of the exemption.-State v. Bell,
(County of Hennepin v. Bell,) 45 N. W. 615, 43
Minn. 344.
1821
1822
TAXATION, III., IV.
erwise used with a view to profit," shall be tion.-Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 295, (Gil.
exempt from taxation.—In re Lots 8 and 9, etc., in | 226.)
Nelson's Addition, 8 N. W. 595, 27 Minn. 460.
42. A building used solely as a parochial
school, where children of Roman Catholic pa-
rents are instructed in the common branches of
education, and in the principles of the Catholic
religion, without compensation, and where chil-
dren of Protestant parents are also received and
instructed on equal terms, with or without re-
ligious instruction, as such Protestant parents
may desire, and a reasonable amount of land used
in connection with such building as a play-
ground for the children, is exempt from taxation
as a "purely public charity" under Const. Minn.
art. 9, § 3.-In re Grace, 8 N. W. 761, 27 Minn.
503.
IV. ASSESSMENT AND EQUALIZATION.
Estimate by county commissioners.
43. In their estimate of taxes for county pur-
poses, the commissioners of a county undertook
to set apart, as a separate and distinct fund, the
amount estimated as necessary for a particular
road. Held, that the validity of the estimate or
levy of the tax was not affected thereby.-Board
County Com'rs St. Louis County v. Nettleton,
22 Minn. 356; Same v. Smith, Id.
44. Parol evidence is competent to show the
items of a gross estimate by county commission-
ers, for road purposes.-Board County Com'rs
St. Louis County v. Nettleton, 22 Minn. 356;
Same v. Smith, Id.
Duty of assessor on failure of owner,
etc., to list property.
45. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 27, authoriz-
ing the assessor to list a tax-payer's property who
refuses or neglects to do so, embraces all classes
of failure, neglect, or omission, from intent or
otherwise, of parties to make true statements of
all personal property, as required by said chap-
ter 11, and whether required to make such re-
turn in their individual or a representative ca-
pacity. Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 295,
(Gil. 226.)
46. An assessor may add to his assessment and
embrace in his return personal property omitted
by the tax-payer from the list required by Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 6, to be furnished the as-
sessor, under section 27, which authorizes the
assessor himself to list the property of a tax-
payer who refuses or neglects to furnish the as-
sessor with a statement of the same.-Thompson v.
Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 295, (Gil. 226.)
47. The omission of the assessor to enter in his
return, opposite the name of any one failing or
refusing to list his property, the remark, "Refused
to list." etc., required by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
11, § 27, in no way affects his power to add to
the return for taxation any property so omitted.
-Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 295, (Gil. 226.)
Return of assessment-Presumption.
48. From a return of an assessment for taxes
in the hands of the proper officer, and valid ou
its face, the presumption is that the tax is valid,
and it is for the tax payer to rebut such presump-
Correction by auditor.
49. The plaintiff, a church corporation, was the
south end of which it built, in 1861, a parsonage,
owner of two town lots lying contiguous, upon the
and some time in 1862 moved its church from
another lot onto the north end. Taxes were as-
sessed for 1861 and 1862 on both lots, and in 1863
and 1865 on the south half. Under Act Minn. 1860,
c. 1, the assessor, in his biennial assessment, was
required to state, where part of a lot was assessed,
the number of feet on the principal street upon
which it abutted, and to annually return a list of the
real property becoming subject to taxation since his
previous listing. Power was also given to the aud-
itor to correct errors in the valuation, description,
etc., and in case of omissions of land by the as-
sessor to place the same on his list, and notify the
assessor, who was then to ascertain the value, and
upon his failure the auditor could do so.
that the provision in regard to the assessor describ
ing land by reference to the number of feet on the
principal abutting street only applied to biennial
assessments, and the whole of the lots being
properly assessed in 1862, and a portion thereof
becoming exempt, the remainder could be returned
in his annual list by any particular description;
but upon his failure the auditor could properly
place them on his list by any sufficient description.
Com'rs Scott County, 12 Minn. 395, (Gil. 280.)
-St. Peter's Church, Shakopee, v. Board of County
Assessment by auditor.
Held,
50. A determination by the proper authority
of the purposes for which taxes should be raised
for a given period, and fixing the rate or specify-
ing the aggregate amount to be raised, consti-
tutes a levy of the tax upon the district; but un-
til the same is assessed by the auditor equally
upon all property subject to taxes, and extended
on the duplicate, there is no specific tax in ex-
istence.-McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn. 252, (Gil.
185.)
Description of property in assessment
roll.
51. Under Laws Minn. 1860, c. 1, §§ 18, 19, re-
quiring an assessor not only to assess but to list
property whereof the owner neglects or refuses
to return a statement, an assessment of a quan-
tity of wheat as "household goods" is invalid
and void.-Thompson v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 412,
(Gil. 333.)
52. The description of land in an assessment
roll was understood by both the owner and the
assessor to include an entire farm belonging to
the former, and the assessment and valuation
were made accordingly in his name, and the
taxes so levied were thereafter duly paid by him.
Held, that the entire tract was discharged from
any claim or lien of the state upon any part
thereof for such taxes, although the description
in fact covered only a portion of the farm.
Meller v. Hodsdon, 23 N. W. 543, 33 Minn. 366.
53. In a town consisting of lots and blocks, a de-
scription of the property assessed as the south
half of a certain numbered lot in a certain num-
bered block sufficiently designates premises con-
1823
1824
TAXATION, IV., V.
sisting of a parsonage erected on the south half of
a lot, upon which a church was erected. - St.
Peter's Church, Shakopee, v. Board of County
Comr's Scott County, 12 Minn. 395, (Ģil. 280.)
Board of review-Equalization.
54. Under Rev. St. Minn. 1851, p. 100, § 23 et
seq., providing for the examination of the assess-
ment rolls and the equalization of assessments by
the county commissioners, the equalization and
correction of the assessment rolls was essential to
a valid tax, and an omission thereof rendered the
assessment void.-Board of County Com'rs Dakota
County v. Parker, 7 Minn. 267, (Gil. 207.)
55. A block of land was assessed as one tract,-
$1,800 for the land, and $800 for the improvements,
nearly all of which were on one-third of the block.
The owner of that portion paid nine twenty-sixths
of the tax, and the tax on his third was canceled.
The remaining two-thirds were returned delin-
quent, and sold for the remainder of the tax. Held,
that the sale was void, for the assessment was a
violation of Const. Minn. art. 9, § 1, requiring taxes
to be equal, and levied on a cash valuation.-Bid-
well v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 78, (Gil. 45.)
56. A county board of equalization, when as-
sembled as required by Laws 1874, c. 1, § 69, re-
quiring them to meet "on the fourth Monday in
July annually,
* * and continue in session
during that week if necessary" for the purpose
of equalization, must continue in session until
the equalization is completed, and an adjourn
ment, except from day to day, is an irregularity
that will let in the defense that the tax was
"partially, unfairly, and unequally assessed,
to the prejudice of the objecting party, as pro-
vided in Laws 1874, c. 1, § 119.-Board County
Com'rs St. Louis County v. Nettleton, 22 Minn.
56; Same v. Smith, Id.
"
57. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 39, requires that
the board of tax review shall meet on the fourth
Monday of June, shall immediately proceed to ex-
amine and correct the assessment, and may adjourn
from day to day until they finish the hearing of all
cases presented on that day. The assessors are
required to return their assessment books to the
county auditor on or before the tirst Monday in
July. Held that, as to time, the stacute is directo-
ry merely, and where plaintiff, in response to a no-
tice from the board, appeared on the day after the
first Monday in July, and requested a delay of three
days, which was granted, and a hearing then had,
he cannot complain of the late action of the board.
-Faribault Water-Works Co. v. Board County
Com'rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 143.
44 Minn. 12.
58. One who appears before a board of tax
equalization in response to a notice of intention to
increase the valuation of his personai property can-
not afterwards object to the sufficiency of the no-
tice.-Faribault Water-Works Co. v. Board County
Com'rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 143.
44 Minn. 12.
59. Where a board of equalization increased an
assessment of personal property under the classi-
fication in which it was returned by the owner, the
latter cannot complain that it was improperly
classified.-Faribault Water-Works Co. v. Board
County Com'rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 143.
44 Minn. 12.
V. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT-PENALTIES.
Authority of officers.
60. Under Act March 9, 1860, prescribing the
duties of county treasurers, the county treasurer
of Ramsey county has the authority to collect
the city taxes of the city of St. Paul, as well
delinquent as other taxes, and is entitled to the
sale books and record of sales of lands sold for
taxes of said city.-Morgan v. Smith, 4 Minn.
104, (Gil. 64.)
Verification of list filed with clerk.
61. A defect in the verification of the tax-list
filed with the clerk of the court does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the proceeding.—
Bennett v. Blatz, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 319.
44 Minn. 56.
Certificate of auditor to tax-list.
62. A tax duplicate, duly certified by the coun-
11, § 52, apparently to give such duplicate greater
ty auditor, as required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
authenticity, is prima facie evidence of the due
levy of the taxes included in it. Distinguishing
Howes v. Gillett, 23 Minn. 231.- Washington
County v. Estate of Jefferson, (In re Estate of
Jefferson,) 28 N. W. 256, 35 Minn. 215; Jeffer-
son's Ex'rs v. Washington County, Id.
Publication of tax-list.
63. The charter of the city of St. Anthony (Sp.
Laws Minn. 1859-60, c. 8, § 13) provided that the
collector of taxes should give notice by publication
in the official paper of the city of the receipt of the
tax-list by him, requiring payment to be made
within 30 days, and made such publication equiv-
alent to a personal demand, and failure to pay
equivalent to a refusal to pay. Held, that where
no personal demand was made, or notice by publi-
cation given, the taxes could not be delinquent,
and proceedings for their enforcement as delin-
Water-Power Co. v. Greely, 11 Minn. 321, (Gil.
quent were therefore void.-St. Anthony Falls
225.)
Payment.
64. An owner of land may pay the tax thereon
for the current year and contest the taxes
claimed to be against it for previous years.-In
re Barber, (Olmsted County v. Barber,) 17 N. W.
473, 31 Minn. 256; In re Sedgewick," (Olmsted
County v. Sedgwick,) Id.
65. Where taxes on property taxable only to
a corporation have been assessed to and paid by
individual members of the association, payment
thereof by the corporation cannot be required..
State v. Minneapolis Millers' Ass'n, 16 N. W.
151, 30 Miun. 429.
Receipts.
66. Tax-receipts acknowledged payment of
taxes upon a subdivision of a governmental tract,
the description of which was followed by the
words "Exc. Oakland," or "Ex. Lots." Held
that, in the absence of any explanation of the
meaning of these words, the receipts should not
be taken as evidence of payment of taxes upon
the whole body of land described. -Knight v.
Valentine, 24 Ñ. W. 295, 34 Minn. 26.
1825
1826
TAXATION, V., VI.
67. Receipts of a county treasurer, acknowl-
edging payments in full for redemption of land
from ail delinquent taxes and tax-liens for the
years specified, have not the effect of the pay-
ment of taxes for other years, not actually paid;
there being no proof that the party was misled,
or that he supposed that he was paying all the
taxes charged upon the land.-Knight v. Valen-
tine, 24 N. W. 295, 34 Minn. 26.
Distinguishing Forrest v. Henry, 23 N. W. 848, 33 Minn.
434.
Penalties for non-payment.
68. Under Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, a penalty for
non-payment of taxes is the legal rate of interest
on the amount of the tax and costs, which may
be collected, under such chapter, in the same
manner as the taxes. -Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn.
480, (Gil. 358.)
69. "Penalties" for non-payment of taxes can
only be imposed after the tax-payer has had an op-
portunity to pay, and fails to do so. Hence, where
part of a tax is illegal, and the party has had no
opportunity of paying the legal part alone, and he
interposes and maintains a defense to the illegal
part, the 10 and 5 per cent. penalties previously
imposed under section 69 of the general tax law
(Minn.) as amended, 1885, were wholly unauthor
ized and invalid, (the party not having been then
in default,) and no part of them should be includ-
ed in the judgment.-State v. Certain Lands in
Redwood County, (Redwood County v. Winona
& St. P. Land Co.,) 42 N. W. 473, 40 Minn. 512.
•
70. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 113, as amend-
ed by Laws 1881, c. 5, § 1, providing for assess
ing taxes on property for past years in which
in which
such taxes had not been assessed, does not au-
thorize the including in such assessment of pen
alties for such years. -State v. Winona & St. P.
Land Co., (Brown County v. Winona & St. P.
Land Co.,) 40 N. W. 166, 39 Minn. 380; State v.
Winona & St. P. Land Co., (Redwood County v.
Winona & St. P. Land Co.,) 41 N. W. 465, 40
Minn. 512.
Liability of sheriff for uncollected
taxes.
71. The general tax law of Minnesota (section
62) provides that if a sheriff shall refuse or neg-
lect to collect any personal property tax, or to file
the list of delinquent taxes as prescribed, he shall be
liable for the whole amount of uncollected taxes.
Section 60 provides that no omission of anything
required to be done by any officer prior to the issue
of citation to delinquents shall invalidate taxes,
unless such omission has prejudiced the party ob-
jecting. Held, that the mere failure of a sheriff
to file the list of delinquent taxes until after the
time prescribed by law would not make him liable
for the uncollected taxes.-Gutches v. Board Coun-
ty Com'rs, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 678.
44 Minn. 383.
Enforcement of delinquent personal
property taxes.
72. Query, whether a tax is a debt, and, in the
absence of express statutory authority, can be
collected in an action at law?-City of Faribault
v. Misener, 20 Minn. 396, (Gil. 347.)
V.2M.DIG.-58
73. The county treasurer may, upon delinquent
list of personal taxes being delivered to him for
collection, proceed to collect the same by distress
or otherwise, as if upon a duplicate. Gen. St.
Minn. c. 11, § 75.-Piper v. Branham, 14 Minn. 548,
(Gil. 418.)
74. An order sustaining a demurrer to an an-
swer filed by a defendant in response to an issue
under the provisions of Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, in
proceedings for the enforcement and collection of
a personal property tax, is not appealable; the
mode of review in such case being provided by
the general tax-law, (Laws Minu. 1874, c. 1, §
120.)-State v. Jones, 24 Minn. 86.
75. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 80, pro-
viding that a tax judgment may be reviewed on a
certificate by the court below of the facts and its
decision, a tax judgment can be reviewed only on
such certificate. Following State v. Jones, 24.
Minn. 86.-County of Washington v. German-
American Bank, 10 N. W. 21, 28 Minn. 360.
VI. REMEDIES FOR ERRONEOUS TAXATION.
Restraining collection.
restrained at the suit of a private person unless
76. The collection of a personal tax will not be
there is some special circumstance attending it,
showing that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at
Clarke v. Ganz, 21 Minn. 387; Bradish v.
law, or that such remedy is practically valueless.
Lucken, 36 N. W. 454, 38 Minn. 186.
77. In proceedings tc restrain the collection of
a personal tax, the complaint alleged that defend-
ant, the collector, was about to proceed to enforce
the tax by levy and sale of plaintiffs' personal
injury, costs, and expenses, and involving them
property, thereby subjecting plaintiffs to great
tiplicity of suits, in order to keep control of
in expensive and vexatious litigation, and mul-
their property and prevent an unjust sacrifice
thereof. Held, that the complaint did not state
traversable facts, entitling the party to an in-
junction, but only an inference as to the conse-
quences of the threatened levy.-Clarke 7. Ganz,
21 Minn. 387.
Certiorari.
78. Proceedings for the collection of a tax,
equally affecting all tax-payers of a town, should
not ordinarily be arrested by a certiorari, prayed
by a part only, without notice to the others, or
their having an opportunity to be heard.-Libby
v. Town of West St. Paul, 14 Minn. 248, (Gil.
181.)
Distinguished in Sinclair v. Commissioners of Winona
County, 23 Minn. 407.
Action to recover taxes paid.
79. An action will lie against a county to recov
er taxes illegally assessed and received into its
treasury.-Foster v. Board of County Com'rs Blue
Earth County, 7 Minn. 140, (Gil. 34.)
SO. Where, in settlement with a tax collector,
the county charges him with the taxes illegally
collected, it will be liable for the amount to the
person from whom they were so collected.—Board
of County Com'rs Dakota County v. Parker, 3
Minn. 267, (Gil. 207.)
1827
1828
TAXATION, VI.-VIII.
•
81. In a proceeding attacking the validity of a
tax, it is to be presumed legal, and the burden of
showing its illegality is upon the plaintiff.-St.
Peter's Church, Shakopee, v. Board of County
Com'rs Scott County, 12 Minn. 395, (Gil. 280.)
82. Since, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 8,
personal property is to be assessed for taxation
at the place of residence of the owner, the action
of taxing officers, in assessing to the owner, for
the purposes of taxation at the place of his resi-
dence, personal property which is in another
county, and has been there properly assessed, by
reason of its relation to the business carried on
by the owner in the latter county, is not void
for want of jurisdiction, but erroneous merely,
and can only be remedied by the mode of proced-
ure prescribed by the statute.-Clarke v. Board
County Com'rs Stearns County, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 615.
47 Minn. 552.
Action to test validity of forfeiture to
state.
83. In an action under Gen. St. 1866, c. 11, §
154, as amended by Laws 1869, c. 23, to test the
validity of a forfeiture of lands to the state for
the non-payment of taxes, it will be presumed, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the
title to such lands remains in the state, and it
is not necessary to aver that the same have not
been purchased from the state. - Willard v. Board
County Com'rs Redwood County, 22 Minn. 61.
Estoppel.
84. An owner of property is not estopped by
failure to object to an assessment thereon which
the assessor has no authority to make.-City of St.
Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258, (Gil. 198.)
VII. LIEN.
Time of attaching.
* * *
85. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 9, § 98, which
provides that "all taxes assessed on any tract or
parcel of land
shall be a lien on such
land till paid," the lien of the state for taxes,
embraced in Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, attached to
the real estate when such taxes were assessed
thereon, or the amount was fixed and determined,
and a separate lien was acquired for each year's
taxes.-Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil.
394.)
VIII. SALE FOR NON-PAYMENT.
Jurisdiction.
86. Where a list of delinquent taxes is actually
filed by the county auditor with the clerk of the
district court, as required by Laws 1874, c. 1, no
defect in the afidavit verifying such list will
operate to affect the jurisdiction of the court in
the tax proceeding.-Board County Com'rs Mille
Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 178.
87. Where proceedings for a sale of land for
taxes are authorized by the fact that the taxes
thereon are delinquent, error in the amount of
tax included in the published list and in the judg-
ment is not jurisdictional, and does not affect the
validity of the judgment; Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
11. § 73, expressly providing that such mistakes
|
|
shall not affect the jurisdiction of the court, and
section 75 providing that the owner may interpose
on such ground by way of answer or objection. -
Kipp v. Dawson, 17 N. W. 961, 18 N. W. 96, 31
Minn. 373; Coffin v. Estes, 20 N. W. 357, 32 Minn.
367.
88. Where a tax-sale of land has been prop-
erly made as respects a delinquent tax for a par-
ticular year, the fact that it has been made also,
and improperly, for the paid tax of another year,
goes not to the jurisdiction of the court to enter
the judgment, but to its amount. The effect is
the same as that of an overstatement of the tax
for which judgment was properly rendered.
Stewart v. Čarter, 18 N. W. 98, 31 Minn. 385.
89. In a proceeding to sell land for non-pay-
ment of taxes, the fact that the land is exempt
from taxation does not deprive the court of juris-
diction, as that is one of the questions to be decid-
ed. In re St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Chisago Coun-
ty v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,) 6 N. W. 454, 27
Minn. 109.
90. In proceedings under Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 11, § 70, to enforce payment of taxes against
real estate, the fact that the taxes upon such real
estate have been previously paid does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court, or render a judg-
rent and sale for taxes void. Following In re
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 6 N. W. 454, 27 Minn.
109.-Chauncey v. Wass, 25 N. W. 457, 30 N.
W. 826, 35 Miun. 1.
§
91. The rule was not changed by the amend-
ment of Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, 97, by Laws 1881,
c. 10, § 19, providing for the refunding of the
amount paid on the sale or assignment from the
state, without a judgment declaring the sale
void. Chauncey v. Wass, 25 N. W. 457, 30 N. W.
826, 35 Minn. 1.
92. The court acquires no jurisdiction to ren-
der a tax judgment against land if the published
tax-list and notice by which judicial proceedings
are sought to be instituted does not describe the
land, and a judgment rendered upon a publica-
tion so defective is void, and the statute of lim-
itations is inapplicable.-Smith v. Kipp, (Minn.)
51 N. W. 656.
Limitation.
93. Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, providing that the
limitations "shall apply to the same actions when
brought in the name of the state, or in the name
of any officer or otherwise, for the benefit of the
state, in the same manner as to actions brought
by citizens," (section 12,) and naming the several
classes of actions, none of which are analogous
to proceedings to enforce payment of taxes, is in-
applicable to such proceedings.-State v. Web-
ber, (County of Brown v. Winona & St. P. Land
Co.,) 37 N. W. 949, 38 Minn. 397.
Overruled in State v. Certain Lands in Redwood
County, (Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,)
42 N. W. 474, 40 Minn. 512. See note.
94. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 12, provides that
the limitations prescribed "shall apply to the same
actions when brought in the name of the state, or
in the name of any officer, or otherwise, for the
benefit of the state, in the same manner as to
actions brought by citizens." Section 6 prescribes
1829
1830
TAXATION, VIII.
the limitation for "actions upon a liability created | ditor for publication by the clerk of the court
by statute" at six years. Held, that proceedings should be filed by the clerk in his office.-Bennett
under the tax law to obtain judgment against the v. Blatz, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 319.
land are an "action upon a liability created by
44 Minn. 56.
statute," and the six-years limitation applies.
Overruling State v. Webber, 38 Minn. 397, 37 Ñ.W.
949.-State v. Certain Lands in Redwood County,
(Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,)
42 N. W. 473. 40 Minn. 512.
Delinquent list What taxes included.
95. In proceedings to enforce payment of
taxes against real estate under Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 11, § 79, which makes the delinquent list
filed with the clerk prima facie evidence, that
the provisions of law in relation to the assessment
and levy of taxes have been complied with, the
list is evidence of the validity of the taxes there-
in contained, not only as to the taxes become de-
linquent in the current year, but as to all au-
thorized to be placed upon it; but the facts au-
thorizing the insertion in it of taxes for previous
years must be proved, and, with regard to taxes
refunded on the setting aside of a sale therefor
authorized to be included in the next delinquent
list by section 97, as amended by Laws 1881, c.
10, $ 19, such tax may be so included, although
there is no tax becoming delinquent in the cur-
rent year.-In re Barber, (Olmsted County v.
Barber,) 17 N. W. 473, 31 Minn. 256; In re Sedge-
wick, (Olmsted County v. Sedgwick,) Id.
96. The provision of Gen. Laws Minn. 1881, c.
135, § 1, for making a list of all taxes upon real
estate which became delinquent in or prior to
the year 1879, "at the time of making the list of
delinquent taxes for the present year, " refers to
the time of making the delinquent list for the
taxes of 1880, to be made in the year 1881, not to
the taxes of 1881.-Knudson v. Curley, 15 N. W.
873, 30 Minn. 433; Kipp v. Dawson, 17 N. W. 961,
18 N. W. 96, 31 Minn. 73.
97. Taxes for several years, regularly assessed
and levied and delinquent, but omitted from the
delinquent lists for the proper years, filed with the
clerk of the court, may be included in such delin-
quent list for a subsequent year.-State v. Web-
ber, (County of Brown v. Winona & St. P. Land
Co.,) 37 N. W. 949, 38 Minn. 397.
Certification.
98. Sp. Laws Minn. 1864, c. 18, providing for the
return and collection of delinquent taxes in the
city of St. Anthony, required that the city clerk
should return to the county auditor a list of all
taxes for certain years that were "unpaid and de-
linquent," etc., such list to be signed by the clerk,
and certified by him and the mayor as a true and
correct list of all "taxes assessed and levied in the
said city, remaining delinquent and unpaid for the
different years, as stated in said return." Held,
that a list of taxes "delinquent or unpaid, " even
if properly certified by the clerk and mayor, did
not comply with the statute, and was insufficient
to authorize a sale of land by the auditor under
such act.-St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v.
Greely, 11 Minn. 321, (Gil. 225.)
Delivery to auditor for publication.
99. It is not necessary that the original of the
notice required by Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 71, to
be attached to a copy of the list given to the au-
Designation of newspaper for pub-
lication.
100. Under Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 112, pro-
viding that a copy of the delinquent tax-list,
together with a notice attached thereto, shall be
published in a newspaper to be "designated by
resolution of the board of county commissioners
of the county in which the taxes are levied, at
their annual meeting," failure to make such des-
ignation vitiates the tax judgment rendered in
the proceedings.-Eastman v. Linn, 2 N. W. 693,
26 Minn. 215.
101. The adoption by the board of a resolution
"to give the printing of the delinquent tax-list to
D., editor of the Litchfield News-Ledger," is not
such a designation as is contemplated by the
statute.-Eastman v. Linn, 2 N. W. 693, 26 Minn.
215.
lished two newspapers, one called the "Minneap-
102. The Minneapolis Tribune Company pub-
olis Daily Tribune," and the other the "Minneap-
under Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 112, designated
olis Weekly Tribune. " The county board, acting
the Minneapolis Tribune as the paper in which the
delinquent list and notice should be published.
Weekly Tribune. Held, that there was no suffi-
The publication was made in the Minneapolis
cient designation of the newspaper, and no legal
publication of the list and notice.-Russell v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 N. W. 692, 36 Minn.
366.
Distinguished in Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, 49 N. W.
327, 46 Minn. 547.
103. A resolution of the county commissioners
designating "The Enterprise" as a newspaper for
the publication of a delinquent tax-list, is a suffi-
cient designation of the "Glencoe Enterprise;"
that being the only newspaper bearing that name
published in the county.-Knight v. Alexander,
(Minn.) 37 N. W. 796.
38 Minn. 384.
104. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 136,
providing that the county commissioners shall
designate the newspaper making the lowest bid
as the one in which the delinquent tax-list is to
be published, the commissioners may designate
one of several papers, whose bids are the same
and lower than any other made.-Godfrey v. Val-
entine, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 325.
45 Minn. 502.
105. Under Gen. Laws. Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 111,
providing that a certain notice shall be attached to
the delinquent tax-list, and section 112, providing
that both the list and the notice shall be published
in a newspaper designated by the county commis-
sioners, the notice need not be specifically men-
tioned in a resolution designating the newspaper
in which the list is to be published.-Godfrey v.
Valentine, (Minn.) 48 N. Ŵ. 325.
45 Minn. 502.
106. Under the Minnesota statutes, a tax judg-
ment is void for want of jurisdiction when no
1831
1832
TAXATION, VIII.
newspaper had been designated in which to pub.
lish the delinquent list, and the absence of such
designation may be proved by showing that there
is no record on file in the office of the county au-
ditor or the clerk of court of such designation.
Brown v. Corbin, 42 N. W. 481, 40 Minn. 508;
Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 N. W.
692, 36 Minn. 366; Merriman v. Knight, 45 N. W.
1098, 43 Minn. 493.
Distinguishing Bower v. O'Donnall, 12 N. W. 352, 29
Minn. 135.
107. The provision of Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135,
§ 1, for the sale of land for non-payment of taxes,
requiring that the forfeited list shall be ap
pended to the delinquent list, necessarily implies
that the two shall be published together in the
same newspaper, and a designation of the news-
paper in which the delinquent list shall be pub-
Îished is sufficient for both.-Kipp v. Dawson, 17
N. W. 961, 18 N. W. 96, 31 Minn. 373.
108. Under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, providing
that "the same proceedings shall be had with
reference to advertisement, judgment, and sale
of the property described" in the forfeited tax-
lists as are required by the general tax-law in
regard to property described in the regular delin-
quent lists, the omission of the county auditor to
desiguate a newspaper for the publication of the
delinquent list does not affect the validity of the
publication of the forfeited list in the newspaper
separately designated for the publication thereof,
it being appended to the delinquent list; nor is
the validity of such publication affected by the
fact that the delinquent list was followed by a
separate verification, and a separate heading and
summons for the forfeited list.-Coffin v. Estes,
20 N. W. 357, 32 Minn. 367.
109. A resolution passed by a county board in
January, 1884, designating the newspaper in
which "the real estate delinquent tax list for the
year 1883" should be published, means the list of
delinquent taxes for 1883, and not of taxes for
1882, which had become delinquent in 1883.-
Reimer v. Newell, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
110. A certified copy of the resolution of the
county board, designating the newspaper in
which the delinquent tax list shall be published,
is all that is required by Gen. St. Minn. c. 11, §
72, to be filed with the clerk of the district court;
and it is not necessary to file a copy of the pro-
ceedings of the board showing the vote by which
it was passed, and the validity of its passage.
Reimer v. Newell, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
111. The mere fact that a newspaper, designated
by the county board as the paper in which the
delinquent tax list shall be published, changes
its name between the time of the designation and
the time of the publication of the list, does not
destroy the identity of the paper, and render the
publication invalid.-Reimer v. Newell, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
112. Sp. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 205, which requires
the county commissioners of Hennepin county,
"on the first Monday in January," to designate
the newspaper in which the delinquent tax-list
|
shall be published, is, as to Hennepin county, a
substitute for prior general statutes requiring
county commissioners to make such designation
on the "first Tuesday in January. "-Reimer v.
Newell, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
113. Failure of the county commissioners to
designate the newspaper in which the delinquent
1874, c. 1, § 112, though going to the jurisdiction
tax list shall be published as required by Laws
of the court over proceedings to enforce pay-
ment under that act, is not matter of defense
to be set up by answer, but the objection should
be raised before answer, by objection, or mo-
tion to dismiss the proceedings.-Board County
Com'rs Houston County v. Jessup, 22 Minn. 552.
Delinquent list Restraining publica-
tion.
114. Injunction, and not certiorari, is the
of an individual tax-payer of the county, to re-
proper remedy, and will be granted, at the suit
strain the publication of the delinquent tax-list in
an unauthorized newspaper, or in a paper which,
though designated by the commissioners, is not
Com'rs Winona County, 23 Minn. 404.
a legal newspaper.-Sinclair v. Board County
Libby v. Town of West St. Paul, 14 Minn. 248, (Gil. 181.)
Distinguishing Scribner v. Allen, 12 Minn. 148, (Gil. S5;)
Sufficiency of publication.
115. The jurisdiction of the district court to
render judgment against lands for delinquent
taxes under Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, depends on
the publication of notice to all persons interested
by Laws 1875, c. 5, § 25, requiring them to file
therein, as prescribed by section 111, amended
answers within 20 days from the last publica-
tion; and a notice requiring the filing of such an-
swers within 10 days is insufficient to confer
jurisdiction.-Board Com'rs Stearns County v.
Smith, 25 Minn. 131.
116. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
11, § 72, as to the time within which the county
auditor shall cause the delinquent list to be pub-
lished, is directory only, not mandatory, being
in no way intended for the benefit of the tax-
payer, but merely to insure the publication in
time to allow the remaining proceedings to be
had according to law.
had according to law. Hence the fact that the
first publication of such list was made on July
22d, instead of July 15th, as required by statute,
does not affect the validity of the judginent; the
requisite two weeks' notice of application for
judgment having been given. -Kipp v. Dawson,
17 N. W. 961, 31 Minn. 373.
117. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 111, re-
quiring notice to be "attached" to the list of taxes
delinquent, it is not material whether it precedes
or follows the list, if it be attached to it when pub-
lished.-Chouteau v. Hunt, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 341.
44 Minn. 173.
118. A certificate of sale upon a tax judgment
entered in 1876, for taxes of 1875, where the record
shows that the clerk's notice attached to the de-
linquent list, requiring all persons interested to
file their answers, stating objections, etc., within
"ten, " instead of "twenty," days, as required by
Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 111, as amended by
1833
1834
TAXATION, VIII.
Laws 1875, c. 5, § 25, then in force, is void. Follow-
ing County of Stearns v. Smith, 25 Minn. 132.-
West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41 N.
W 1031.
40 Minn. 189.
119. The affidavit of the auditor returned with
the list of taxes delinquent is no part of the list,
and need not be published with it.-Chouteau v.
Hunt, (Minn.) 46 Ñ. W. 341.
44 Minn. 173.
120. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 1, provides that
at the time of making out the list of delinquent
taxes for that year the county auditor shall make
out and append to such list a list of all taxes
which appeared to have become delinquent in
1879 or any prior year.
Held that, where there
was a publication of the list of forfeited lands
for the taxes of 1879, and prior years, preceded
by the proper notice, and followed by proper ver-
ification, the mere fact that such list was sep-
arated from the delinquent list for 1981 by a half
a column of reading matter did not invalidate
the publication. -McQuade v. Jaffray, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 233.
47 Minn. 326.
Proof of publication.
121. Where the delinquent tax list is filed with
the clerk of the district court, and the list and
notice prescribed by Laws 1874, c. 1, are published
as thereby required, the court has jurisdiction of
such proceedings, although no affidavit of such
publication is filed; and the court may, at any
time before judgment, allow proof of the publi-
cation to be filed.-Board County Com'rs Mille
Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 178.
|
Delinquent list-Description of land.
124. In tax proceedings, a designation or de-
scription of land by which it is commonly known
is sufficient, although it be not technically or
properly exact. The question whether the land
scription is a question of fact.-Gilfillan v. Ho-
is commonly known by such designation or de-
bart, 24 N. W. 342, 34 Minn. 67.
125. The purpose of the description of property
in tax proceedings being to point it out distinctly,
a description which leaves the public no room
for mistake as to what property is intended is
sufficient, although it is not the literally exact
description found in the records; and testimony
to identify such a description with the techni-
cally proper description is admissible, but must
be such as to show that they necessarily refer to
the same property.-Stewart v. Carter, 18 N. W.
98, 31 Minn. 385.
126. In a delinquent tax-list, figures placed in
perpendicular columns, without any heading, to
show what they refer to, do not constitute a
sufficient description of the property upon which
the taxes are claimed to be due.-Knudson v.
Curley, 15 N. W. 73, 30 Minn. 433.
127. A published tax-list, under the Minnesota
delinquent tax law of 1881, describing certain frac-
tions of tracts of land indicated by numerals, un-
der the column-heading "Lots, "is not applicable
and sufficient, as a description of parts of sections
of land.-Kipp v. Fernhold. (Minn.) 33 N. W. 697.
37 Minn. 132.
128. A judgment against designated fractions of
sections, entered upon the publication of such a
tax-list, is void for want of jurisdiction, and does
not set in operation the statute of limitations.-
Kipp v. Fernhold, 33 N. W. 697, 37 Minn. 132.
129. The description in a published delinquent
tax-list, "N NE SENENE 4 of N W
4 section 23, township 114, range 30, 160 acres,"
does not sufficiently describe the N. % of the N. E.
4, the S. E. 4 of the N. E. 4, and the N. E. 4 of
the N. W. 4. of that section.-Knight v. Alexander,
(Minn.) 37 N. W. 796.
122. An affidavit of the publication of the delin-
quent tax-list was attached to a copy of the M. Week-
ly Tribune, which contained a printed tax-list, and
stated that the affiant was, during all the time
mentioned in the affidavit, foreman and printer in
the office of the Weekly Tribune, a newspaper
printed and published at the city of M., and that,
of his own personal knowledge, the delinquent
tax-list, a printed copy of which is herewith filed,
(in the copy of the M. Weekly Tribune, attached
to the affidavit,) was printed and published for
three successive weeks, giving the three dates of
130. In the publication of a delinquent tax-list,
publication, one of which is the date of the copy at the bottom of the ninth column, were the
of the newspaper attached. Held, that though words, "Town 32, range 21." The land in con-
the affidavit does not expressly state that the tax-troversy was located in said town and range, and
list was published in the Weekly Tribune, that
fact fairly appears from what is expressly stated,
and the affidavit is sufficient under the laws of
Minnesota relating to sales for delinquent taxes.-
Irwin v. Pierro, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 154.
44 Minn. 490.
Name of owner.
123. In Minnesota, proceedings to enforce the
collection of real-estate taxes are purely in rem;
and hence Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 70, and
Laws 1881, c. 135, § 1, requiring the owner's
name to be given in the published list of delin-
quent taxes, and, if unknown, to state that fact,
are merely directory; and an crroneous statement
of the owner's name in such list will not avoid
the tax judgment, where the land itself has been
correctly described. --McQuade v. Jaffray, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 233,
47 Minn. 326.
38 Minn. 384.
its description appeared at the head of the tenth
column, but no town and range were given. Lower
down in the tenth column, and extending across
it, were the words, "Town 32, range 22." Held,
that the description of the land was not sufficient-
ly certain to uphold a title claimed to have been
acquired at the tax-sale.-Olivier v. Gurney,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 887.
43 Minn. 69.
131. Where certain tracts of land had been
known as "Hoyt's Outlots" since 1852, and a plat
was filed on which they were delineated and
numbered, it was sufficient in tax proceedings to
describe them as in "Hoyt's Outlots. "-Godfrey
v. Valentine, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 325.
45 Minn. 502.
132. In tax proceedings against an irregularly
shaped tract of land, which could be described
1835
1836
TAXATION, VIII.
only by metes and bounds, a plat was made and
recorded, and the tract in question was desig-
nated in the tax proceedings as "lot No. 2" of a
certain governmental subdivision. The plat re-
corded embraced several tracts of land, and did
not indicate any particular tract as "lot No. 2, "
nor show upon its face any means of ascertaining
or identifying the tract referred to in the certifi
cate as lot 2. Held, that this defective plat was
not a compliance with Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11,
$108, providing for the making and recording of
such a plat in tax proceedings, and that "the de-
scription of the property in accordance with the
number and description set forth in such plat
shall be deemed a good and valid description of
the lot or parcels of land so described, " and that
a judgment and sale founded on such proceed-
ings was of no effect.-Williams v. Central Land
Co., 21 N. W. 550, 32 Minn. 440.
133. In the publication of a list of lands to be
sold for delinquent taxes, it is a sufficient de-
scription of, the land to state the township and
range in headings or cross-lines, instead of op-
posite the descriptions of the subdivisions of sec-
tions, provided it clearly appears from the pub
lished list whether the cross-line refers to the
descriptions following or those preceding it.
Olivier v. Gurney, 43 Minn. 69, 44 NW. 887
distinguished.--McQuade v. Jaffray, (Minn.). 50
N. W. 233.
47 Minn. 326.
Delinquent list-Statement of amount.
134. The same strictness as to definiteness and
certainty is not required in the statement of the
amount of tax against a tract of land in the pub-
lished list (which is merely notice to the land-
owner) as is required in the judgment which is
the final determination of the law as to the
amount to be enforced against the land. Collins
v. Welch, 35 N. W. 566, 38 Minn. 32.
135. In the published list at the head of the col-
umn denoting the amounts of taxes due there was
a dollar-mark, and throughout this and each suc-
ceeding column denoting the amounts of such taxes
the last two figures of each item or amount were
separated from the others by a broad space, but
there was no decimal-mark or perpendicular line
between them and those which preceded. Held
as sufficiently indicating that the last two figures
in each item meant cents, and those preceding
them dollars.-Collins v. Welch, (Minn.) 35 N. W.
566.
38 Minn. 62.
Limiting Tidd v. Rines, 2 N. W. 498, 26 Minn. 201.
136. Under Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, it is es-
sential to the jurisdiction of the court, as to any
tract of land, that the published delinquent list
state the amount of tax delinquent against such
tract; and the placing of two figures opposite the
description under a column headed "Amt," with-
out any dollar or other mark, is insufficient to give
jurisdiction.-Bonham v. Weymouth, (Minn.) 38
N. W. 805.
39 Minn. 92.
187. In a list of taxes delinquent, published as
required by Gen. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 112, in the
column headed "Amt., " and opposite a description
of a lot, appeared the figures "7 03." Held, that
they clearly indicated the amount of tax against
the lot as $7.03.-Chouteau v. Hunt, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 341.
44 Minn. 173.
Application for judgment-Defenses.
138. In application for judgment in tax proceed-
ings, under Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, where defend-
ant desires to object to the jurisdiction of the
court on account of the insufficiency of the notice
for judgment, it is proper to appear specially
for that purpose only, and present his objection
in writing signed by him.-Board Com'rs Stearns
County v. Smith, 25 Minn. 131.
law of 1874, (Laws 1874, c. 1, § 119,) which pro-
139. In proceedings under the Minnesota tax
vides for the relief of the tax payer against tax-
the owner of land may allege and show that a
es unequally assessed or levied to his prejudice,
tax levied thereon is void for want of authority
to levy it, without showing that he is prejudiced,
or that such tax is unequally assessed.--Board
County Com'rs St. Louis County v. Nettleton,
22 Minn. 356; Same v. Smith, Id.
taxation at five mills upon the valuation, as
140. County commissioners fixed the rate of
equalized by them. The state board of equaliza-
tion increased the valuation, but the rate was
left unchanged. Held, that the failure of the
county commissioners to remit the increased tax
caused thereby, as provided by Laws 1875, c. 10,
was a defense pro tanto to such tax, that could
be raised by answer in a proceeding to enforce
payment thereof.-Board County Com'rs Houston
County v. Jessup, 22 Minn. 552.
141. Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 75, gives the right,
in general and unrestricted terms, to persons in-
terested in land to file an answer setting forth
their defense or objection to the tax for which
judgment against the land is sought. Section 79
declares that if all the provisions of law in rela-
tion to the assessment and levy shall have been
complied with, of which the list filed with the
clerk shall be prima facie evidence, judgment
shall be rendered for such taxes; but no omis-
sion of any of the things by law provided in
relation to such assessment and levy, as of any-
to be
thing required by an officer or officers
done prior to the filing of the list, shall be a de-
fense or objection to the taxes "unless it be also
made to appear to the court that the taxes upon
such piece or parcel of land have been partially,
unfairly, or unequally assessed; and in such
case, but no other, the court may reduce the
amount of taxes upon such piece or parcel, and
give judgment accordingly. " Held, that it was
not intended to restrict the right of defense to
cases in which there should be some omission of
the statutory requirements, but that a land-own-
er may also show in defense of a tax that the
statutory requirement of equality in the assessment
has been intentionally disregarded, or that there
is error in the assessment so gross that it cannot
be accounted for on any ground of mere misjudg-
ment of value, but must have resulted, if not
from fraud, from a demonstrable mistake of fact.
-Otter Tail County v. Batchelder, (Minn.) 50
N. W. 596.
47 Minn. 512.
1837
1838
TAXATION, VIII.
Judgment-Entry and form.
142. A judgment entered 20 days after the last
publication of the list of taxes delinquent, is erro-
neous, but not void. The service is complete with
the last publication, and jurisdiction then at-
taches.-Chouteau v. Hunt, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 341.
44 Minn. 173.
143. In a tax judgment entered on default, re-
quired, by Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 116, to be
"substantially in the following form, " the omis-
sion of the recitals contained in the statutory
form that no answer has been filed, and that
more than 20 days have, elapsed since the last
publication of the list and notice, does not affect
its validity. The judgment raises a presumption
of jurisdiction in the court, which can be over-
come only by proof that it has not jurisdiction.
-Kipp v. Collins, 23 N. W. 554, 33 Minn. 394;
Gilfillan v. Hobart, 24 N. W. 342, 34 Minn. 67.
144. In entering judgment for taxes against
the lands described in the delinquent list in the
tax judgment book, (which was a blank book in
the form generally in use in Minnesota, each
page having at the top and bottom a printed
blank, as if designed for a separate judgment on
each page,) the clerk filled up the blanks on the
first and last pages, and signed the judgment on
these two pages; but on the intervening pages
(some 70 in number) he neither affixed his signa-
ture, nor filled up any of the blanks, except those
intended for the description of the property,
the name of the party to whom assessed, the
amount of taxes, and the amount of judgment.
Held, that this constituted a judgment only
against the land described on the first and last
pages, and not as to that described on the inter-
vening pages.-German-American Bank v. White,
38 N. W. 361, 38 Minn. 471.
Opening default.
145. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 79, § 3, provides that,
where the court snall find that one who applies
to nave a judgment of sale for unpaid taxes set
aside has an interest in the land, either as owner
or by virtue of any lien, and that, in addition,
among numerous facts and circumstances of equal
effect, the land is exempt from taxation, it may,
in its discretion, make an order setting aside a
judgment and allowing an answer to be filed.
answer to be filed.
Held that, where the petition only alleges that
petitioner has an interest in the land, and that
the land is exempt, its denial by the lower court
will not be disturbed on appeal.-Commissioners
Aitkin County v. Morrison, 25 Minn. 295.
146. The record in proceedings to sell land for
taxes showed that the citation was served on de-
fendant on July Sth, requiring him to appear and
show cause on November 11th following. Judg-
ment was entered in the following March, but de-
fendant made no appearance, and took no steps to
have the judgment vacated until May 18th, and
then the only excuse given for his failure to ap-
pear was the inadvertence of his attorney. Held,
that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny an
application made under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11,
$ 80, which provides that the court, "in its discre-
tion, and for good cause, " may open or vacate a
may open or vacate a
tax judgment at any time before the expiration of
the period of redemption.-County of Washington
v. German-American Bank, 10 N. W. 21, 28 Minn.
360.
Land charged-Description.
147. In proceedings under chapter 135, Laws
Minn. 1881, to enforce payment of taxes delinquent
in and prior to 1879, a judgment charging land not
described in the published delinquent tax-list is
void, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 73, which
enacts that when the last publication shall have
been made, the notice shall be deemed to have been
served, and the court to have acquired full and
complete jurisdiction to enforce, against each par-
cel of land in said published list described, the
taxes, etc., then delinquent.-Feller v. Clark,
(Minn.) 31 N. W. 175.
36 Minn. 338.
4
148. A description in a tax judgment of the
land against which the judgment purports to
have been rendered as "S. 2 N. E. and N. W.
* S. E. 4, " is insufficient.-Keith v. Hayden, 2 N.
W. 495, 26 Minn. 212.
4
as
149. In a county auditor's certificate of sale for
taxes and in the tax judgment the land sold was
described under a heading "Subdivision"
"S., 60 rods, W. %, S. E. 4, " followed by other
numbers under headings designating the section
or lot, township or block, and range. Held,
that these descriptions, being such as were com-
monly used and understood to denote a piece of
land running across the subdivision mentioned
from east to west, and 60 rods in width from
north to south, measuring north from the south
line of the subdivision, were sufficient. -Bower
v. O'Donnell, 12 N. W. 352, 29 Minn. 135.
3
150. In a tax-judgment, in a column headed "Sec.
or Lot" was given the figure 1, and in that headed
"Township or Block," the figure 3, while the col-
umn headed "Range" was vacant. Opposite was
written "town of St. Anthony. Held a suffi-
N. W. 341.
cient description.-Chouteau v. Hunt, (Minn.) 46
44 Minn. 173.
Taxes
amount.
included
Statement
of
151. Where the amount of a tax judgment is ex-
pressed in figures, without indicating what such
figures represent, and without any reference to
aid the omission, it is void for uncertainty.-
Tidd v. Rines, 2 N. W. 497, 26 Minn. 201.
Distinguished in State v. Ring, 11 N. W. 236, 29 Minn. 83;
Stewart v. Colter, 18 N. W. 99, 31 Minn. 389.
Limited by Collins v. Welch, 35 N. W. 567, 38 Minn. 64.
152. In a tax judgment, under a heading "Total
amount of judgment," appeared three figures,
the two at the right hand separated by a short
perpendicular line. Held, that such line might
be regarded as the decimal line commonly used
to mark the separation of dollars and cents, and
that the amount of the judgment was sufficiently
expressed, although there was no dollar-mark.
Gutzwiller v. Crowe, 19 N. W. 344, 32 Minn. 70.
Review by supreme court.
153. Under Gen. St. Miun. 1878, c. 11, § SO, re-
lating to the review of judgments for taxes by
the supreme court, and providing that the dis-
trict court shall "make a brief statement of the
1839
1840
TAXATION, VIII.
""
facts established
* and of its decision,
such statement of facts has the same effect as
the findings of a trial court in ordinary cases.-
Ramsey County v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
24 N. W. 313, 33 Minn. 537.
154. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 80, pro-
viding that in certifying to the supreme court pro-
ceedings for the enforcement of delinquent taxes
the trial judge shall "make a brief statement of the
facts established bearing on the point, and of its
decision," the trial judge should state what points
he certifies up, and also state the facts bearing on
such points, and his decision thereon. -Morrison
County v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 44 N.
W 982.
42 Minn. 451.
155. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 8, § 181,
which provides that the county attorney shall
"appear in all cases where the county is a party,
and prosecute or defend for the county," notice
of appeal from an order refusing to vacate a tax
judgment must be served upon the county attor-
ney.-Board County Com'rs Nobles County v. Sut-
ton, 23 Minn. 299.
156. Upon a case certified to the supreme court
from a district court, in proceedings to enforce
payment of taxes, under Gen. St. Minn. 1978, c.
11, § 80, no costs or disbursements are allowed to
either party.—In re Barber, (Olmsted County v.
Barber,) 17 N. W. 473, 31 Minn. 256. In re Sedge-
wick, (Olmsted County v. Sedgwick,) Id.
Authority to sell.
157. The delivery by the clerk to the county
auditor of a certified copy of a tax judgment, as
provided by Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 121, is not
essential to the authority of the auditor to sell,
as that depends on the statute and judgment only.
-Kipp v. Collins, 23 N. W. 554, 33 Minn. 394.
Notice of sale.
158. A notice of tax-sale embracing all lands as-
sessed, and not restricted to those delinquent, and
which designates no place of sale, is void.-Prin-
dle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 212, (Gil. 197;) Morehouse
v. Bowen, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 297.)
|
tice, and continue from day to day. Held, that
such notice must be published one week, or posted
10 days, before August 1st; that such publishing
or posting was essential to the validity of the sale;
and that a sale under a notice posted on July 29th
was void. -Prindle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 212, (Gil.
| 197;) Morehouse v. Bowen, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 297.)
160. A notice of the sale of lands for delinquent
taxes described the premises as "Robert & Ran-
dall's addition, lot 11, block 20, lot 12, block 20,"
and there was nothing to show in what county or
place they were situated, except that the notice
was headed: "Auditor's Office, Ramsey County,
Minn., St. Paul, December 8, 1862. " Held, that
this did not sufficiently describe the lands, and the
sale under such notice was void.-Bidwell v. Webb,
10 Minn. 59, (Gil. 41.)
161. A notice of a tax-sale, describing the prop-
erty as "two-thirds of block four" in certain lots,
is bad for uncertainty in not specifying what two-
thirds was intended, and the sale under such no-
tice is void, and passes no title.-Bidwell v. Cole-
man, 11 Minn. 78, (Gil. 45.)
162. An assignment of the title of the state to
land bid in at a tax-sale recited that the tax judg-
ment was entered August 19th, and that the sale
that this did not show an irregularity, in that the
took place on September 29th following. Held,
days after entry of the judgment, as the provis-
notice of sale must have been published within 20
ion of Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 122, that "after
20 days from the date of any tax judgment *
the county auditor shall sell," etc., does not for-
bid the auditor commencing publication of the
notice within 20 days. -Everett v. Boyington, 13
N. W. 45, 29 Minn. 264; Stewart v. Carter, 18 N.
W. 98, 31 Minn. 385.
*
163. A sale of lands delinquent for taxes com-
menced on Monday, September 19, 1881, and
continued from day to day and closed on Satur-
day. September 24th. Held, that notice of a sale
of the forfeited list for Monday, September 26th,
was valid, under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 4,
requiring the sale of the forfeited list to be made
"immediately following the delinquent sale. ".
Kipp v. Dawson, 17 N. W. 961, 18 N. W. 96, 31
Minn. 373.
the delinquent list, such a sale is not rendered
void by the fact that the published notice of sale
named the same day for the sale of both lists,
the sale on the forfeited tax list having in fact
immediately followed that on the delinquent list;
and that any irregularity in it might be cured by
the limitation clause in section 7 of the act, un-
less objection thereto should be properly taken
within the time limited.-Coffin v. Estes, 20 N.
W. 357, 32 Minn. 367.
159. The charter of the city of Wabasha (Sp.
Laws Minn. 1858, c. 5, § 10) provided that the
city marshal, on receipt of the tax-list, should 164. Under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, requiring
give one week's notice thereof in the official pa- that the sale of lands on the forfeited tax list
per, or should give 10 days' notice thereof by post-shall immediately follow the sale of lands on
ing up notices in three of the most public places
in the city; that such notices should specify that
taxes on personal property should be paid within
30 days from the first day of the publication of
such notice, or from the first day of posting the
same, and said taxes and assessments on real
estate before the 1st day of August following, or
the 1st day of December following, and if not
paid before August 1st certain penalties would ac-
crue, etc.; that all taxes and assessments specified
in the tax-list, upon which such taxes and assess-
ments should not be paid by December 1st, should 165. Under Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 122, requir-
be sold at certain times and places, to be therein ing the notice of sale under a tax judginent to
specified, for the payment of such taxes and as- be published "once in each of two successive
sessments, and the publication and posting of such weeks, the last publication to be not less than
notices should be deemed a demand, and failure 10 days before the day of sale, a publication on
to pay them within the specified time a refusal; the 2d and on the 9th of the month, of notice of
and also provided that the sale should commence a sale appointed for the 26th of the month, is
on the day and at the time designated in said no-sufficient; and it will be presumed that the au-
>>
1841
1842
TAXATION, VIII., IX.
ditor performed his duty in selecting for the pub- | under such act, notwithstanding section 9 of the
lication a newspaper of general circulation.-
Kipp v. Collins, 23 N. W. 554, 33 Minn. 394.
Time and conduct of sale.
166. The charter of the city of Wabasha (Sp.
Laws Minn. 1858, c. 5, § 10) required that the city
marshal, upon receipt of the tax-list, should give
notice thereof, and, if the taxes should not be
paid by a certain day, the property should be
sold at a time and place therein specified: pro-
vided, such sale should commence on the day or at
the time designated in said notice. Held that, un-
less a sale was commenced on the day specified in
such notice, the marshal had no authority to sell
afterwards.-Prindle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 212,
(Gil. 197;) Morehouse v. Bowen, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil.
297.)
167. A tax-sale, held on a day other than that
specified in the public notice of sale, is void.-
Sheeby v. Hinds, 6 N. W. 781, 27 Minn. 259.
168. A tax judgment sale under Gen. Laws Minn.
1881, c. 135, was advertised for September 26th.
On that day the auditor offered all the lands cov-
ered by the judgment, but did not sell the land in
question. Nothing further was done that day.
The sale was not adjourned. On October 4th, at
the auditor's office, a person offered the auditor a
certain sum for the land in question, and the offer
was accepted, and the auditor issued a certificate
of sale. Held without authority and void.-Bur-
dick v. Bingham. (Minn.) 38 N. W. 489.
38 Minn. 482.
169. No combination to prevent competition at a
tax sale is to be implied from the mere fact of a
joint purchase by two persons of tracts of land
struck off at such sale.-Kerr v. Kipp, (Minn.) 33
N. W. 116.
37 Minn. 25.
Sale in parcels.
170. Lands sold for delinquent taxes should be
sold in parcels, as assessed; and where a block in
a town, though subdivided into lots, is assessed as
one tract, it must be sold as one parcel.-Moulton
v. Doran, 10 Minn. 67, (Gil. 49.)
171. Under the provisions of Laws Minn. 1881,
c. 135, for the sale of lands for taxes, by which
the owner of the land sold is entitled to any sur-
plus, the requirement that each parcel shall be
sold separately is for his benefit, and a disregard
of it vitiates the sale.-Farnham v. Jones, 19 N.
W. 83, 32 Minn. 7.
172. Where a tax judgment under Laws Minn.
1881, c. 135, is against two blocks of land for one
entire sum, a sale of the two blocks together as
one tract is not invalid, as section 4 of the act
directs the sale to be made by the description
contained in the judgment.—Knight v. Valentine,
24 N. W. 295, 34 Minn. 26.
Unsold lands-Bidding in for state.
173. By section 2, c. 135, Gen. Laws Minn. 1881,
all the provisions of the general tax law as to ad-
vertisement, judgment, and sale of property for
taxes are incorporated into the act. Held, that the
provision of sections 83, 86, of the general tax law
requiring lands not sold to actual purchasers to be
bid in for the state was applicable to proceedings
act, which provides that all pieces or parts of land
remaining unsold at such sale shall be stricken
from the tax-list, etc.-Mulvey v. Tozer, 42 N. W.
387, 40 Minn. 384,
174. No right can be acquired by the state to
land, under the judgment for taxes provided for in
Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, unless it was offered for
sale by parcels as provided in section 4. The pro-
visions of section 9, permitting the auditor to as-
sign the rights acquired by the state, contemplate
offered.-Gilfillan v. Chatterton, (Minn.) 37 N. W.
that the land remains unsold after it has been so
583.
38 Minn. 335.
Proceeding to vacate sale.
175. In a proceeding under Laws Minn. 1862, c.
4, 87, to test the validity of a tax-sale, only errors
properly and peculiarly pertaining to the sale, as
distinguished from those occurring anterior to the
notice of sale, can be considered.-Moulton v. Do-
ran, 10 Minn. 67, (Gil. 49.)
IX. REDEMPTION.
Right to redeem, in general.
176. The right of redemption from a tax-sale is
governed by the law in force at the date of the
sale; it cannot be abridged or enlarged by subse-
quent legislation. -Merrill v. Dearing, 21 N. W.
721, 32 Minn. 479.
177. Where land is sold for taxes as one tract,
a person who afterwards becomes the owner of a
certain portion of such tract cannot redeem only
the part claimed by him, as Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
11, § 90, merely gives the right to a person having
an interest in land sold for taxes to redeem the
land so sold, but makes no provision for the re-
demption of a separate part.-State v. Schaack,
10 N. W. 22, 28 Minn. 358.
Limitation of time.
178. The officers of H. county having failed to
institute the proceedings prescribed by Laws
Minn. 1874, c. 2, to enforce payment of delinquent
taxes, Laws 1875, c. 7, provided, after reciting
the omission, that the county auditor should on
the third Monday in May, 1875, file the list re-
quired by the act of 1874, and that in all other
respects proceedings to enforce payment of such
delinquent taxes should "be as provided for in
said act." Pursuant to this, the land of relator's
intestate was sold on December 1, 1875, and bid
in by the state. On August 31, 1876, one H. paid
into the county treasury the amount for which
the land was sold, etc., and received an assign-
ment from the state, as provided by the act of
1874. Held, that all the provisions of the act of
1874, as well those provided after as before the
sale, are, within the act of 1875, "proceedings in
the matter of enforcing the payment" of taxes,
and relator could redeem only within the time
prescribed in such act of 1874.-State v. McDon-
ald, 1 N. W. 832, 26 Minn. 145.
179. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 91,
which provides that insane persons "having an
interest in or lien on land sold for taxes may re-
deem the same within two years after such disa-
1843
1844
!
TAXATION, IX.
bility shall cease," the right to redeem is not sus-
pended during the disability, but a suit there-
for may be brought during such disability, or
within two years after it ceases.-Goodrich v.
Florer, 6 N. W. 452, 27 Minn. 97.
180. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 90, provides
that any person having an interest in land sold
for taxes may redeem the same within two years
from the date of the sale. Section 91 provides
that any insane person "having an estate in or
lien on lands sold for taxes may redeem the same
within two years after such disability shall cease.
Section 92 provides that any person who has or
"
claims an interest in or lien on an undivided es-
tate in land sold for taxes may redeem such un-
divided interest. Held, that an insane person
having an undivided interest in land sold for
taxes can redeem only such undivided interest.
-Goodrich v. Florer, 6 N. W. 452, 27 Minz. 97.
181. The Minnesota act of March 6, 1877, (Gen.
Laws Minn. 1877, c. 6, § 25,) which extends the time
of redemption from tax sales to three years, ap-
plies to unforfeited lands bid in by the state at a
tax sale held before the passage of the act, and not
yet assigned to tax purchasers.-State v. Smith,
(Minn.) 32 N. W. 174.
36 Minn. 456.
Notice of expiration of time of redemp-
tion--When requisite.
182. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 6, § 37, which requires
every person holding a tax certificate to present
the same to the county auditor 90 days before the
expiration of the time to redeem, and requires
the auditor to give notice to the person in whose
name the land was assessed, does not apply to a
person who acquired such certificate before the
enactment of the statute.-State v. McDonald, 1
N. W. 832, 26 Minn. 145.
183. In the provision of Laws Minn. 1877, c. 6,
§ 37, requiring every person holding a tax certifi-
cate to present such certificate to the county au-
ditor at least 90 days before the expiration of the
time of redemption, and requiring the county
auditor thereupon to cause notice to be served on
the person in whose name the land is assessed,
etc., the term "tax certificate" is equally appli
cable to the certificate of sale prescribed by sec-
tion 84, and the certificate of assignment provid-
ed for in section 89, Gen. St. Minn. 1873, c. 11.
The statute is to be construed liberally and benefi-
cially, its object being to give the land-owner 60
days' time to redeem after the service of the re-
quired notice.-Merrill v. Dearing, 21 N. W. 721,
32 Minn. 479; Nelson v. Central Land Co., 29 N.
W. 121, 35 Minn. 408.
demption in the act of 1878, re-enacting similar
provisions of the law of 1874. Following Merrill
v. Dearing, 21 N. W. 721, 32 Minn. 479.—Gaston
v. Merriam, 22 N. W. 614, 33 Minn. 271.
185.. In Minnesota notice of the expiration of the
time for redemption is not required to be served
on behalf of the state.-State v. Smith, (Minn.) 32
N. W. 174.
36 Minn. 456.
19
186. Section 37, Gen. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 6, re-
quiring notice of the expiration of the time of re-
demption by "persons holding tax certificates,
held applicable to assignees of the interest of the
state before forfeiture, but inapplicable to an as-
signee or grantee acquiring such interest after for-
feiture, in which case, by the terms of the statute,
the conveyance is absolute and without redemp-
tion.-State v. Smith, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 174.
36 Minn. 456.
Duty of auditor to prepare notice.
187. The notice to redeem from a tax-sale, re-
quired by Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 121, providing
that the holder of a tax certificate shall present
the same to the county auditor, and thereupon
the auditor shall prepare the notice to redeem,
may be made out without presentation of the
auditor can obtain the necessary data for pre-
certificate, where it has been destroyed, since the
paring the notice from the records of his office,
and since the certificate is required to be pre-
sented only to save him the trouble of looking to
the records.-Hinkel v. Krueger, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 689.
47 Minn. 497.
Sufficiency.
188. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121, pro
viding that a notice to redeem from a tax-sale shali
specify when the period of redemption will expire,
and that the time for redemption shall expire sixty
days after the service of the notice, a notice, in
which it is stated "that the time for redemption
from said såle will expire sixty days after service
of this notice," is sufficient, the other requirements
of said section being observed.-Parker v. Branch,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 907.
42 Minn. 155.
189. A notice of the expiration of the time for
the redemption of land from a tax-sale which
states that the land was sold for taxes, "amount-
ing, with penalties, to 67-100 dollars, which sum,
with interest from the date last mentioned, at the
rate of 18 per cent. per annum, and subsequent
delinquent taxes and penalties and interest there-
on, amounting to the sum, in all, of one and 51-100
dollars, which last-mentioned sum, and interest
thereon from date, is the amount required to re-
deem said piece or parcel of land, " etc., suffi-
ciently shows the amount for which the land sold,
and the amount required to redeem the same.
Robert v. Western Land Ass'n, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
668.
184. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 6, § 37, requiring
holders of certificates of sale of land for taxes to
cause notice to be given, before the expiration
of the period of redemption, to the person in
whose name the property was assessed, was not
repealed by implication by the general tax law of
1878, (Laws 1878, c. 1,) which was entirely silent
on the subject of such notice, as was the act of
1874, of which it was a rearrangement and re- 190. The notice was inaccurate in stating that
enactment; and the provision of the act of 1877 interest was chargeable upon the amount therein
continued to be the law until repealed by Laws stated from the date of the judgment, instead of
1881, c. 10, § 22, and continued to modify or from the date of the sale, which was less than
qualify the provisions regarding the time of re-six weeks subsequent to the judgment. It ap-
43 Minn. 3.
1845
1846
TAXATION, IX.
1
peared from the record that the difference in the
amount would be merely trifling. Held, that the
inaccuracy was immaterial, under the maxim
that the law does not regard trifles. -Western
Land Ass'n v. McComber, 42 N. W. 543, 41 Minn.
20; Robert v. Western Land Ass'n, 44 Ñ. W. 668,
43 Minn. 3.
191. Land bid in by the state for taxes having
been assigned to a purchaser under Gen. St. Minn.
c. 11, § 89, the sum paid by him is the "amount
sold for "to be inserted in the redemption notice
-Sperry v. Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 328.
44 Minn. 207.
192. The county and state in which the land is
situate, sufficiently appears from a redemption no-
tice which describes a lot in a city named, and re-
cites that it was sold under a judgment of the dis-
trict court, county of H., state of Minn., and pur-
ports to be issued by the auditor of that county, in
which the lot is in fact situate, and the plat of the
city recorded.-Sperry v. Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 323.
44 Minn. 207.
193. A published redemption notice sufficiently
discloses the names of the owners, and the year
the taxes were levied, the year appearing at the
head of the list, and the names inserted opposite
each tract. -Sperry v. Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
328.
44 Minn. 207.
194. The notice of the expiration of the time of
redemption from a tax-sale was issued by the
auditor of Hennepin county, and described the
land as "lot 8, block 4, of Penniman's Addition,"
without mentioning the state, county, or city,
but stating that it had been sold pursuant to a
tax judgment of the district court of the county.
There was no other addition or subdivision of
""
land in Hennepin county platted or known by
any name embracing the word "Penniman's,
except "Penniman's Addition to Minneapolis, "
which was commonly known to and designated
by the inhabitants of Minneapolis and the gen-
eral local public simply as "Penniman's Addi-
tion." Held, that the notice sufficiently de-
scribed the property.-Reimer v. Newell, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
Service.
195. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121, pro-
viding that a notice of the expiration of the time
for redemption from a tax sale shall be served
on "the person in whose name such lands are as-
sessed, " notice of expiration was caused to be is-
sued by defendant's husband, who had bought at
the tax sale, and service was made upon defend-
ant, the wife, in whose name the lands were then
assessed, and who was in possession. Held, that
such service was properly made under the statute
whether the defendant was the real owner of the
land or not, at the time of issuing the notice.-
Western Land Ass'n v. McComber, (Minn.) 42 N.
W. 543.
41 Minn. 20.
196. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121, relating to
notice of expiration of time of redemption from
tax-sale, provides for its service upon the person
in whose name the land is assessed, or if he cannot
|
be found in the county upon the person in actual
possession, if there be one, if neither of these con-
ditions exist, of which facts the sheriff's return
shall be evidence, the auditor shall cause the no-
tice to be published. Held that, as the object of
the statute is to give interested parties notice, and
as the auditor can only act upon the return of the
sheriff, the statute requires the notice to be issued
in every case, and the case in which the holder of
the tax certificate is the person in whose name the
land is assessed, forms no exception.-Wakefield
v. Day, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 71.
41 Minn 344.
197. A redemption notice directed to one in whose
name the land was then assessed, as required by
Gen. St. Minn. c. 11, § 121, is sufficient, though it
does not state that it was then assessed in his
name, and is also directed to one in whose name it
was assessed when the tax was levied.-Sperry
v. Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 328.
44 Minn. 207.
198. The notice required to terminate the right
of redemption from a tax-sale, under Gen. St.
1878, c. 11, § 121, providing that it shall be direct-
ed to and served on the person in whose name
the land is assessed, must be served on such
person, even though he is the holder of the tax-
sale certificate.-Mitchell v. McFarland, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 610.
47 Minn. 535.
Publication.
A
199. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121, proof
of publication of a notice of the expiration of the
time of redemption is inadmissible without first
proving that it is addressed to the person in whose
name the land was assessed, and that it had been
delivered to the sheriff for service, and that he
had made return thereon to the county auditor.-
Muller v. Jackson, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 565.
39 Minn. 431.
>>
200. A redemption notice covered several pages
of a paper headed, "Minneapolis Tribune, and
"Minneapolis Tribune Supplement," while on the
The affidavit
title page appeared "The Tribune. "
The Tribune," a daily newspaper, printed and
of publication stated that the list was published in
published in the county of H. Held, that it suffi-
ciently appears that the list was published in a
paper designated by the county commissioners as
the "Minneapolis Tribune, a daily paper printed
and published in the county of H."-Sperry v.
Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 328.
44 Minn. 207.
201. The redemption notice as published differ
ing from the original only in the order in which
the facts are stated, and containing all the essen-
tials, the variance is not material.-Sperry v.
Goodwin, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 323.
44 Minu. 207.
202. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121, requires
notice of the expiration of the time of redemption
from a tax-sale to be given to the person in whose
rame the property is assessed, and provides that
the sheriff shall serve the notice, but that if the
land is vacant, and the person in whose name
the land is assessed cannot be found in the coun-
ty, notice may be given by publication. Held,
that the return of a deputy-sheriff showing the
C
1847
1848
TAXATION, IX., X. a.
facts warranting publication of the notice was | Certificate of sale-Effect as evidence.
equivalent to a return by the sheriff himself; and
the fact that the person in whose name the prop-
erty was assessed was the person who purchased
at the tax-sale does not affect the validity of the
notice.-Reimer v. Newell, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 865.
47 Minn. 237.
Sufficiency of redemption
paid.
Amount
203. Where land is sold at a tax-sale in a single
parcel the county officers have no power to allow
a redemption of a portion of the same without
payment of the whole tax.-Moulton v. Doran, 10
Minn. 67, (Gil. 49.)
204. Payment in good faith of the amount stat-
ed by the county auditor as necessary to redeem
land bid in for the state at a tax-sale is an ef-
fectual redemption, although the amount so stat-
ed is insufficient, by reason of mistake of the au-
ditor. Even though such payment does not in-
clude the taxes for a year following the sale,
which had become a charge upon the land, the
redemption discharges the land from all claim of
the state for the taxes for that year, and pro-
ceedings to enforce such taxes by judgment and
sale are void.-Forrest v. Henry, 23 N. W. 848,
33 Minn. 434.
Distinguished in Knight v. Valentine, 24 N. W. 296, 34
Minn. 28.
Redemption moneys.
205. Where lands sold for taxes are redeemed un-
der Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, § 9, which provides that
the amount for which the lands are sold, with inter-
est to the time of redemption, shall be paid to the
treasurer "for the use of the purchaser or his as-
signs," the treasurer cannot deduct his fees from
the amount received, but must pay the whole to
the purchaser.-Stuart v. Walker, 10 Minn. 296,
(Gil. 234.)
X. TAX-TITLES.
a. In General.
Illegality of tax.
206. Where land is sold for taxes, any portion of
which is illegal, the sale is void.-St. Anthony
Falls Water-Power Co. v. Greely, 11 Minn. 321,
(Gil. 225.)
Informality in proceedings for sale.
207. The provision in the charter of the city of
Wabasha, (Sp. Laws Minn. 158, c. 5, § 10,) that
no error or informality, not affecting the substan-
tial justice of a tax, shall affect its validity or
the title conveyed under a sale therefor, does
not embrace errors or informalities which go to
the jurisdiction of the officers, or the validity of
their acts, or which affect the notice of sale.
Prindle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 212, (Gil. 197;) More-
house v. Bowen, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 297.)
Inconsistent title.
208. As, under the tax-laws, the owner of real
estate may become the purchaser at a tax-sale,
a claim of title under a tax-sale is not necessarily
inconsistent with a claim of title antecedent to
it. -- Branham v. Bezansou, 21 N. W. 861, 33
Minn. 49.
209. Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, relative to the as-
sessment and collection of taxes, contemplate
that the auditor's certificate of tax-sale be exe-
cuted at the time of the sale, or within such time
thereafter as may be reasonably necessary for
that purpose. A certificate not executed until
many years after the sale is of no effect.-Stew-
art v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31 N. W.
351, 36 Minn. 355; Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 33 N.
W. 35, 37 Minn. 11; Kipp v. Hill, 41 N. W. 970,
40 Minn. 188.
210. In the provision of Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1,
§ 124, that a certificate of a tax-sale "may be sub-
stantially in the following form," the word
"may" is equivalent to "shall," and such a cer-
tificate, which does not contain the date of sale,
is not substantially in the prescribed form, and
is invalid; such date being a substantial part of
the certificate.-Gilfillan v. Hobart, 28 N. Ŵ. 222,
35 Minn. 185.
Distinguished in McQuade v. Jaffray, 50 N. W. 234, 47
Minn. 329.
211. Where there is a discrepancy as to the
date of a tax-sale between the certificate of sale
>>
issued by the auditor and the entry made by
him after the sale in the "copy judgment book,
in the absence of any other evidence as to which
is correct, the certificate of sale must control;
at least, where no question is involved as to
when the right of redemption expires. Gilfillan
v. Hobart, 35 Minn. 185, 28 N. W. 222, distin-
guished.-McQuade v. Jaffray, (Minn.) 50 N. W.
233.
47 Minn. 326.
212. A tax certificate, issued under Laws Minn.
1881, c. 135, which purports to have been made in
pursuance of "a real estate tax judgment entered
August 15, 1881," on "the 31st day of December,"
(year not stated,) was dated December 31, 1881.
It will be presumed that the sale was made De-
cember 31, 1881, and in the absence of any evi-
dence or finding on the subject, it will not be held
as matter of law that the special sale under that
statute must necessarily have been completed
prior to the date mentioned.—Sanborn v. Mueller,
(Minn.) 35 N. W. 666.
38 Minn. 27.
213. On a tax judgment sale made by the county
Luditor under Laws Minn. 1874, it was necessary
that the certificate issued to a purchaser or to the
state should recite that each tract or parcel was
first offered to the bidder who would pay the
amount for which it was to be sold for the short-
est term of years, etc. This was a matter of sub-
stance, and a certificate which did not show on its
face that this provision had been complied with is
invalid, and no evidence of title. It cannot be
helped by parol evidence, and is insufficient to set
the statute of limitations in motion. Vander
Linde v. Canfield, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 538.
40 Minn. 541.
214. When such certificate is admitted in evi-
dence, and the particular defect overlooked at the
trial, it is not error for the court to grant a new
trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evi-
dence to show that the party claiming under such
1849
1850
TAXATION, X. a.
certificate had acquired title, though the adverse
party had consented to its admission as evidence
under a mistake as to its legal effect.- Vander
Linde v. Canfield, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 538.
40 Minn. 541.
215. A certificate of sale of land for taxes un-
der Laws 1874, c. 1, § 124, as amended by Laws
1875, c. 5, § 29, was in the form required by sec-
tion 124 before such amendment, and stated that
the land was first offered for the amount for
which it was to be sold to the bidder for the
shortest term of years, and that no person offered
to pay such amount for a term of years. Held,
that this, being mere surplusage, did not vitiate
the certificate, which otherwise showed that the
auditor did, as authorized by the amended stat-
ute, offer to sell, and did sell, the fee to the
highest bidder, bidding not less than the amount
for which the land was to be sold.-Kipr v.
Collins, 23 N. W. 554, 33 Minn. 394.
216. A recital in a certificate for sale of taxes,
that the land "was offered for sale to the high-
est bidder," is not inconsistent with the provis
ions of Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 4, requiring it
to be offered first for the total amount of taxes,
etc., due thereon, and, if no bidder at that sum,
then to the highest bidder who should bid not
less than the state tax.-Kipp v. Dawson, 17 N.
W. 961, 18 N. W. 96, 31 Minn. 373.
217. Under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, providing
for the sale of lands for delinquent taxes, and
requiring each piece or parcel to be sold sepa-
rately, a certificate of sale showing on its face
that many distinct tracts and parcels separately
situated were sold as one parcel, for one price,
is not prima facie evidence of title; and the lim-
itation clause in section 7 of the act has no ap-
plication to such a case. -Farnham v. Jones, 19
N. W. 83, 32 Minn. 7; Brown v. Setzer, 40 N. W
70, 39 Minn. 317.
218.. A tax certificate issued under the sale made
in pursuance of Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, which
shows on its face that several separate and dis-
tinct lots are sold together in gross for one price,
is void; but where several village lots are contig-
uous, so that they may be used and assessed to-
gether as one tract, it will not be presumed from
the certificate that such sale thereof was irregu-
larly made in violation of the statute.-Sanborn v.
Mueller, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 666.
38 Minn. 27.
219. It is no objection to certificates of sale of
land for taxes that in naming the purchaser the
middle name or initial thereof is omitted; such
name not being a necessary part of a person's le-
gal name.-Stewart v. Carter, 18 N. W. 98, 31
Minn. 385.
220. The fact that two certificates of sale have
been issued by the county auditor,-one to the ef-
fect that he had sold a single tract for a certain
sum, and the other to the effect that at the same
sale he had sold to the same purchaser six sepa-
rate tracts, including the one named in the first
certificate, for a certain other and larger sum,
will not destroy the effect of the first-named cer-
tificate as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
in it.-Bennett v. Blatz, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 319.
44 Minn. 56.
221. Under the general tax-law of Minnesota of
1874, g 125, as amended by Laws 1875, c. 5, § 30,
providing that a certificate of sale for taxes or
the record thereof shall be “prima facie evidence
that all the requirements of the law in respect
to the sale have been complied with," as the cer-
tificate is not made evidence of the tax judgment
under which the sale purports to have been
made, the certificate is not admissible in evi-
dence without proof of such judgment. And this
rule of evidence is not affected by the fact that
the action in which the certificate is offered in
evidence is not brought within the five years from
the date of the sale, required by section 125, in
case of an action "to set aside such certificate or
to test the validity of such sale. "-Sanborn v.
Cooper, 17 N. W. 856, 31 Minn. 307.
222. A certificate of tax-sale has the prima
facie effect given it by statute, even where, be-
cause of its loss or destruction, its contents are
proved by parol.-Mitchell v. McFarland, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 610.
47 Minn. 535.
Proof of no redemption.
223. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 85, pro-
viding that a certificate of tax-sale shall be
"prima facie evidence * * of title in the
grantee therein after the time for redemption has
expired," proof that there has been no redemp-
evidence. The auditor's certificate of no
tion is not necessary to make the certificate such
demption, provided for in section 100, is only nec-
essary as a prerequisite to record. -Stewart v.
Carter, 18 N. W. 98, 31 Minn. 385.
re-
224. The county auditor's certificate that the
time for redemption of land sold for taxes has ex-
pired, is insufficient, by itself, to prove that the
notice required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 121,
has been duly given.-Jewell v. Truhn, (Minn.) 38-
N. W. 106.
38 Minn. 433.
225. Title will not be presumed to have been ac-
quired under a tax certificate, issued upon the tax
judgment and sale, until notice of the expiration
of the time of redemption has been served.-San-
born v. Mueller, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 666.
38 Minn. 27.
226. The burden rests on a party asserting title
in fee by virtue of a tax certificate, which is only
evidence of title after the expiration of the time
of redemption, to prove that notice, required by
statute, to limit the time of redemption, has been
duly served.-Nelson v. Central Land Co., 29 N.
W. 121, 35 Minn. 408.
Assignment of purchase by state.
227. An assignment of the right of the state in
land bid in at a tax-sale to one paying the
amount for which it was so bid in, with subse-
quent taxes, etc., which the county auditor is
directed by Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 129, to ex-
ecute to such person, is his official act, and is
properly executed by him in his official capac-
ity, and sealed with his official seal.-Everett
v. Boyington, 13 N. W. 45, 29 Minn. 264.
228. When land sold for taxes is bid in by the
state, there must be a certificate of sale issued to
1851
1852
TAXATION, X. a., b.
the state, and to sustain the title c the holder of a
state assignment certificate issued under Laws
Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 129, it is necessary for him to es-
tablish the execution in due form of a certificate of
sale to the state, by the county auditor, as an es-
sential muniment of title.-Philbrook v. Smith,
(Minn.) 41 N. W. 545.
40 Minn. 100.
229. The evidence showed that no certificate to
the state was delivered to plaintiff when he took
his assignment, and that he had never seen or had
any, not knowing one was necessary. The county
auditor then in office testified that he thought it
was the practice to issue the assignment of the
state and the certificate to the state at the same
time, both being delivered to the purchaser, but
was unable to say that the practice was uniform.
The business was sometimes transacted by a dep-
uty, and it appeared that witness had no sufficient
data or recollection to enable him to testify to the
facts. Held, that the issuance of the certificate
to the state was not established.-Philbrook v.
Smith, 41 N. W. 545, 40 Minn. 100.
230. At a sale of land in 1880 for taxes of 1879
the land was bid in by the state. In 1881, and
In 1881, and
while the state still held the interest so acquired,
the land was sold under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135,
providing for sales for taxes of 1878 and previous
years, but, without authority of law, the sale was
made for the taxes of 1879, as well as for the
taxes of previous years. Held that, under the
rule that a junior assessment of taxes and the
tax-sale had thereon are paramount to and take
precedence of a senior assessment and the sale
had upon it, one claiming under the sale in 1880
held the land free from any lien for taxes prior
to 1879, and unaffected by the sale for such taxes
in 1881.-Wass v. Smith, 25 N. W. 605, 34 Minn.
304.
231. Parol evidence is admissible to prove the
actual date when certificates of the assignment of
the rights of the state in land bid in for it at tax
sale were in fact delivered to the purchaser, and
the date when he paid the purchase price into the
county treasury.-Pigott v. O'Halloran, (Minn.) 35
N. W. 4.
37 Minn. 415.
232. On the fifteenth day of February, 1877, L.
went to the county auditor's office, and selected a
number of tracts which had been bid in for the
state at tax sale, and requested the auditor to
make out assignment certificates therefor, and, as
an evidence of good faith, deposited with the county
treasurer a check for a part of the amount neces-
sary to be paid. The county treasurer did not at
that time turn this into the county treasury, but
held it until the transaction should be closed. In
March, and subsequent to the sixth, the date when
Laws 1877, c. 6, went into effect, L. paid to the
county treasurer the balance of the purchase price,
and thereupon the certificates were then delivered
to him by the county auditor. Held, that L.'s
rights as purchaser from the state vested only
from the date at which the certificates were de-
livered to him, and consequently that he purchased
subject to the provision of section 37 of the act
cited, and his rights under the certificates would
not ripen into title until after notice of the time of
the expiration of the right of redemption had been
given, as required by the section referred to.-
Pigott v. O'Halloran, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 4.
37 Minn. 415.
233. A "state assignment certificate," executed
pursuant to Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 89, is only
evidence of title when accompanied by proof of
service of the notice of the expiration of the time
of redemption as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 11,
§ 121; and the burden of proof of service of such
notice rests upon the party asserting title in fee
under the certificate.-Muller v. Jackson, (Minn.)
40 N. W. 565. 89 Minn. 431.
Time of issuing.
b. Deed.
tax-deed might be issued before the expiration of
234. Under Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, §§ 5, 9, a
Minn. 480, (Gil. 358.).
the period of redemption.-Baker v. Kelley, 11
Validity and effect-In general.
235. A tax deed, to be valid, should disclose the
authority of the auditor to make it, and recite
the existence of material facts essential to its
validity.-Cogel v. Raph, 24 Minn. 194.
"a tax-deed prima facie evidence' in all cases of
236. Gen. St. Minn. c. 11, § 151, which makes
a legal and valid title in the party holding the
same," has no application where the deed fails
to show upon its face that the tax-sale was one
made by authority of law.-Cogel v. Raph, 24
Minn. 194.
237. A tax-deed reciting enough to show au-
thority to make it, and which is, in other re-
spects, operative as a deed at common law, is
regular on its face. -Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn.
372.
238. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, §§ 118-
122, authorizing the sale of land for delinquent
taxes, the tax-deeds must show on their face that
the taxes for which the land was sold were de-
linquent and unpaid at the time. Sheehy v.
Hinds, 6 N. W. 781, 27 Minn. 259; O'Mulcahy v.
Florer, 8 N. W. 166, 27 Minn. 449; Sherburne v.
Rippe, 29 N. W. 322, 35 Minn. 540; Gilfillan v.
Chatterton, 37 N. W. 583, 38 Minn. 335.
The case of O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 8 N. W. 166, 27 Minn.
449, distinguishes Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn. 372.
239. A tax-deed which purports to convey prop-
erty different from that authorized to be sold by
the tax judgment and that described in the tax
certificate, in pursuance of which it is given, is
void. -Flint v. Webb, 25 Minn. 93.
240. The statutory presumption that a tax-deed
is prima facie evidence of title has no effect
where proof is made of all the facts and circum-
stances on which it rests.-Flint v. Webb, 25
Minn. 93.
241. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, is supplemental to,
and not independent of, the general tax law;
and a tax-deed issued in pursuance of its provis-
ions is prima facie evidence of a valid title in
the grantee therein named.-Baker v. Kelley,
11 Minn. 480, (Gil. 358.)
1853
1854
TAXATION, X. b.
Minn.“ 372.
Distinguished in O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 8 N. W. 167, 27
Minn. 452.
242. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 143, pro- | delinquency of the tax.-Madland v. Benland, 24
viding that a sale for delinquent taxes of lands
charged on the duplicate in the name of one other
than the rightful owner shall not be invalid if the
land is in other respects sufficiently described on
the duplicate, and the taxes for which it is sold
are due and unpaid at the time of sale, a party re-
lying on the tax-deed of such lands as prima facie
evidence of title must show that the taxes for
which the sale was made were due and unpaid at
the time of sale.-Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minu. 345,
(Gil. 263.)
Distinguished in Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn. 379.
243. A tax-deed, to be prima facie evidence of
title, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, §§ 139, 140,
must be one of lands not redeemed at the time the
deed is made; and the party relying on such deed.
must, before it can be received as prima facie ev- |
idence under such sections, show that the land
has not been redeemed.-Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn.
345, (Gil. 263.)
244. A party relying on a tax-deed executed by
a county auditor under Gen. St. 1866, c. 11, §§
139, 140, which provide for the execution of
such deed, and that it "shall be received in all
courts as prima facie evidence of a good and
valid title in such grantee," etc., need do no
more than offer the deed and show that the land
has not been redeemed, the deed, in such case,
being prima facie evidence of title in the
grantee until impeached for irregularities in
prior proceedings.-Broughton v. Sherman, 21
Minn. 431.
Distinguished in Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn. 379.
245. Though Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, declares that
a tax-deed made under the provisions of that chap-
ter, and regular on its face, is prima facie evi-
dence of title, where defendant in ejectment
claims under such a deed, which is not regular on
its face, the burden is on him to show that all the
requirements of the law in relation thereto were
complied with.-Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 453.
45 Minn. 66.
Forfeited lands.
246. The effect of tax-deeds executed under
Gen. St. c. 11, § 138, as prima facie evidence of
title, is not affected by the repeal of such chapter
by Laws 1874, c. 1, § 168, their effect as such be-
ing saved by the provision of that section that
"all rights heretofore acquired under any act
hereby repealed" shall not be affected.-Madland
v. Benland, 24 Minn. 372.
247. Gen. St. 1866, c. 11, § 138, provides, with
respect to tax-sales, that "upon a sale of any
such lands by the state" the county auditor shall
execute a deed which shall be prima facie evi-
dence of title, etc. Held, that to make such a
deed, properly framed, prima facie evidence of
title, it is only necessary to show that the sale
evidenced was directed by the state auditor.-
Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn. 372.
Distinguishing Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 345, (Gil. 263;)
Broughton v. Sherman, 21 Minn. 431.
248. A recital in a tax-deed that lands have
been duly forfeited for non-payment of taxes is
a sufficient recital of the levy, assessment, and
249. A tax-deed recited that lands were duly
forfeited to the state for non-payment of taxes;
that they remained unsold at the expiration of
the period of redemption, and under certain sec-
tions of the statute became, and still were, the
absolute property of the state; and recited a di-
rection of the state auditor for their sale; an
offer by the grantee to purchase; that his was
the highest bid; and that the amount was paid
into the treasury, etc., and was otherwise suffi-
cient as a deed at common law. Held, that the
deed was "regular on its face," within the mean-
ing of Laws 1873, c. 55, providing that a person
holding land under such a deed regular on its
face should not be ejected until compensation
should be tendered him for improvements made
by him on the land previous to actual notice of
defects invalidating the deed.-Madland v. Ben-
land, 24 Minn. 372.
250. A tax deed of "forfeited lands, " executed
under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 138, or § 156, re-
lating to the sale of land forfeited to the state, is
not prima facie evidence of title, without prelim-
inary proof aliunde the deed of authority from the
state auditor to the county auditor to make the sale
recited in the deed. -Bonham v. Weymouth, (Minn.)
38 N. W. 805.
39 Minn. 92.
251. Such deed must recite a compliance with
the power, and the existence of such facts as are
essential to its validity; and no such fact not em-
braced in the recitals will be presumed. Where
the instructions to the county auditor were to sell
for the amount of taxes, interest, and charges due
a tract of land "to such persons as will pay there-
thereon," and the deed recited that the purchaser
offered to pay for the land a specified sum, "which
offer was accepted, being the highest offer there-
for," without stating that this sum was equal to
the amount of taxes, interest, and charges due on
the land, the instructions did not prove any au-
thority to the county auditor to make the sale re-
cited in the deed.-Bonham v. Weymouth, 38 N.
W. 805, 39 Minn. 92.
252. Where a tax-deed of land forfeited to the
state under St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 156, issued to a
purchaser by the county auditor at private sale,
fails to show by its recitals that the instructions
of the state auditor for the sale of such lands were
complied with, it is insufficient to establish a valid
legal title to the land.-West v. St. Paul & N. P.
Ry. Co., 41 N. W. 1031, 40 Minn. 189.
Lands in another state.
253. A tax-title derived under the tax-laws of
Wisconsin, relied upon and in issue, cannot be
proved by introduction of the tax-deed and cer-
tificate of sale, but a levy of the taxes, and oth-
er acts necessary to be done before a tax-sale
could be had under the laws of Wisconsin, must
also be shown.-Bisbee v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 555.
Distinguished in Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber Co., 46
N. W. 571, 44 Minn. 352,
254. A tax-deed of lands in Wisconsin, in accord
ance with the statutes of that state and the decis
1855
1856
TAXATION, X. b., C.
ions of its supreme court, is conclusive evidence
of title in the grantee, after the lapse of the stat
utory period of limitations; the land being unoc
cupied, but constructively in the possession of
the grantee in the tax-deed.-Bronson v. St. Croix
Lumber Co., (Minn.) 46 N. W. 570.
44 Minn. 348.
Distinguishing Bisbee v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 555; Musser
v. McRae, 38 N. W. 103, 38 Minn. 409.
Description-What lands included.
255. In the judgment, order, and certificate of
sale in tax proceedings, the land was described as
"lot 12, block, Rice & Irvine's addition, south
side of Fourth street. " In the tax-deed it was
described as "lot number twelve, (12,) in block
number seven, (7,) Rice & Irvine's addition to
the city of St. Paul, Ramsey county, Minnesota.
Such lot was in fact on the north side of and ad-
joining Fifth street. Held, that the tax-deed
was void.--Flint v. Webb, 25 Minn. 93.
256. A tax-deed issued to plaintiff described the
land conveyed generally as lying between a cer-
tain street and "the Mississippi river. " Held not
to include land conveyed by plaintiff's grantors to
defendant, to be used in connection with the wa-
ter-power of the latter, the land being under wa-
ter, and extending from low water-mark to the
margin of the river or water-line as permanently
raised by defendant's dams.-Eastman v. St. An-
thony Falls Water-Power Co., (Minn.) 44 N. W.
882.
43 Minn. 60.
c. Actions to Try and Confirm Title.
Who may maintain.
257. Mere failure to redeem land, or neglect to
pay taxes, will not per se divest the title, so as to
prevent the owner from maintaining an action
against the purchaser at a tax-sale to test the va-
lidity of the proceedings prior to such sale.-St.
Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Greely, 11 Minn.
321, (Gil. 225.)
258. Where the holder of school land certificates
abandons all claim to the lands, and for more
than 10 years utterly neglects to comply with the
conditions of the certificates, one who acquires
the lands at a void tax-sale, and who, on compli-
ance with the requirements of the law, subse
quently receives a patent for the lands, has an
equity in the lands superior to the holder of the
certificates, and the latter is in no position to
attack the validity of the tax sale. -Murphy v.
Burke, 49 N. W. 387, 47 Minn. 99; Same v. Mc-
Guire, 49 N. W. 388, 47 Minn. 103.
Limitation.
259. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 4, §§ 6, 7, providing
that no action testing the validity of a tax-sale
shall be brought after one year from the time of
recording the tax-deed is a statute of limitations,
and does not apply to an action of ejectment by
the original owner against the grantee in the
tax-deed; for in such case it would make the
commencement of the time within which the ac-
tion must be brought antedate the injury com-
plained of, which is the unlawful taking and
holding of the property, and not the registra-
tion of the tax-deed. -Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn.
480, (Gil. 358.)
260. The owner of land may, in an action of
ejectment against one in possession under a tax-
deed, impeach the tax-deed under which the de-
fendant claims possession, although such action
is not brought within one year from the reg.
istry of the tax-deed, as required by Laws Minn.
1862, c. 4, §§ 6, 7; for such statute, in barring
forever the right of the owner to test the va
lidity of the tax deed after the lapse of the
period prescribed, is in contravention of the
clause in the constitution prohibiting the legis
lature from denying to any person a certain rem-
edy in the laws for an injury or wrong which he
has suffered in his property.-Baker v. Kelley, 11
Minn. 480, (Gil. 358.)
Distinguished in Hill v. Lund, 13 Minn. 453, (Gil. 422;)
Burk v. Western Land Ass'n, 42 N. W. 479, 40 Minn. 507.
261. An action to remove a cloud upon title to
land created by a tax-deed issued under Laws
Minn. 1862, c. 4, and Laws 1863, c. 5, and Laws
1864, c. 5, is an action to "test the validity of the
tax-sale" within Laws 1862, c. 4, § 7, and is barred
after one year from the time the deed is recorded.
-Hill v. Lund, 13 Minn. 451, (Gil. 419.)
Distinguishing Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480, (Gil. 358,)
262. The limitation prescribed by Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 11, § 154, for the bringing of an action to
test the validity of tax proceedings, begins to
run from the time of the sale, and not from the
time of the forfeiture to the state. -Lambert v.
Slingerland, 25 Minn. 457; Langemoe v. Same, Id.
263. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11,
§ 154, as amended by Laws 1869, c. 23, requiring
actions to test the validity of any proceeding un-
der that chapter for the sale or forfeiture of land
for non-payment of taxes, or to determine any
claim made under such a proceeding, to be com-
menced within three years after such sale or
forfeiture, operated only to bar, after three years,
the remedies or forms of action mentioned, leav-
ing the property rights of the parties wholly un-
affected, and subject to be tested in other forms
of action. Hence, the repeal of the provision by
Laws 1874, c. 1, § 168, revived the right to bring
an action to test the validity of the proceedings
referred to, although a period of three years had
run before the repeal. The saving clause in the
repealing statute did not apply, as the mere im-
munity from certain forms of action was not a
right within the meaning of that clause saving
"all rights heretofore acquired under any act
And for the same reason the
hereby repealed."
act repealed was not revived by the repeal of the
repealing act by Laws 1875, c. 5, § 52, nor by the
provision of Laws 1878, c. 1, § 120, (Gén. St. 1878,
c. 11, § 120,) that all rights theretofore acquired
under the act repealed should be revived and
continued in force.-Kipp v. Johnson, 17 N. W.
957, 31 Minn. 360.
264. Under Laws Minn. 1975, c. 5, § 30, limiting
the time for bringing an action to set aside or
test the validity of a tax-sale to five years from
the date of the sale, a tax-sale made in 1875, up-
on a tax judgment regular on its face, cannot be
set aside in an action brought in 1881. -Bower v.
O'Donnell, 12 N. W. 352, 29 Minn. 135.
265. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 5, § 30, limits actions to
set aside tax-sales to five years from the date of
the sale. Act March 11, 1878, § 85, limits the
1857
1858
TAXATION, X. c., d.
time for bringing such actions to three years, but
does not expressly repeal the act of 1875. Held,
that the act of 1878 applies only to tax-sales made
after its enactment.-Mulcahy v. Florer, 8 N. W.
166, 27 Minn. 449.
266. A sale under a void judgment, rendered in
proceedings under Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, to en-
force payment of taxes delinquent in and prior to
1879, does not set in motion the limitation provided
in section 7 of the act cited, which declares that the
judgment and sale under the act shall not be ques
tioned, except the action in which the question is
raised be brought within nine months of the date
of the sale.-Feller v. Clark, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 175.
36 Minn. 338.
267. Where a county auditor does not attempt to
sell land for taxes at public sale under the statute
on the day appointed, but sells at a later day at
private sale, the limitation of nine months from
the date of sale for beginning an action to test the
validity of the sale under Gen. Laws Minn. 1881,
c. 135, § 7, never begins to run.-Burdick v. Bing-
nam, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 489.
Possession of land.
88 Minn. 482.
268. An action brought under Laws Minn. 1887,
c. 127, to test the validity of an adverse claim un-
der a tax deed or certificate, may be maintained by
the land-owner, without alleging or proving either
that the land is vacant or in the possession of him-
self or another.-Sanborn v. Mueller, (Minn.) 35
N. W. 666.
38 Minn. 27.
269. Gen. Laws Minn. 1887, c. 127, confers on the
owners of land the right, without regard to the
facts as to possession or occupancy, to prosecute
an action against one asserting an adverse claim
under tax proceedings to determine such adverse
claim. In such an action, the complaint need not
set forth specifically, as in a suit to remove a cloud,
the particular tax deed or proceedings upon which
the hostile claim is based.-Lewis v. Bartleson,
(Minn.) 38 N. W 707.
39 Minn. 89.
Evidence-Payment of tax.
270. To sustain a sale under a tax judgment it
is not necessary to show that the judgment had
not been paid.-Kipp v. Collins, 23 N. W. 554,
33 Minn. 394.
271. A judgment and sale of land for taxes for
several years cannot be avoided by proof of pay-
ment of the taxes for some of those years only:
-Knight v. Valentine, 24 N. W. 295, 34 Minn. 26.
272. Want of jurisdiction of the court to render
a tax judgment may be shown by evidence de hors
the record.-Brown v. Corbin, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 481.
40 Minn. 508.
Judgment-Operation and effect.
273. A judgment in an action between the
owner of land and the holder of a certificate of
sale thereof for taxes, involving the validity of
the tax and the sale, is not evidence of the facts
on which it was based, as against the state, in
proceedings to enforce the tax under Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 11, the provisions of statutes gov-
V.2M.DIG.-59
|
|
erning the two proceedings differing as to the
effect of omissions or irregularities in the assess-
ment or levy.-In re Barber, (Olmsted County v.
Barber,) 17 N. W. 473, 31 Minn. 256; In re
Sedgewick, (Olmsted County v. Sedgwick,) Id.
274. A judgment by default against the apparent
record owner, quieting the tax-title holder's title
against him, is res inter alios acta as to a prior
grantee from said owner, under an unrecorded
warranty deed, since the judgment is not such a
one "against the person in whose name the title to
such land appears of record" as is protected by
the recording act of 1858, (St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, §
21,) that act merely giving the same preference to
attachments and judgments creating a specific or
general lien as conveyances had over prior unre-
corded deeds.-Windom v. Schappel, (Minn.) 38
N. W. 757.
39 Minn. 35.
d. Reimbursement of Defeated Purchasers.
Enforcement of lien of state for taxes.
275. A complaint in an action, under Laws
Minn. 1862, c. 4, § 8, entitling a purchaser at a
tax-sale, whose title is "adjudged invalid" for ir-
regularities in the sale, to the lien of the state
for such taxes, and an action to enforce the same,
which does not set forth the facts showing the
invalidity of the tax-title, but alleges that the
title of the plaintiff is invalid from an irregu-
larity in the notice of such tax-sale, is bad as
pleading conclusions of law.-Webb v. Bidwell,
15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
276. If, in such an action, it is sought to en-
force liens for several years' taxes upon the
same land, and the complaint states the aggre-
gate amount of the taxes for the several years,
but not the amount for each year, it is not suffi-
ciently definite, and may be made more definite
and certain on motion. Such defect cannot,
however, be reached on motion for judgment on
the pleadings.-Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479,
(Gil. 394.)
277. The words "adjudged invalid," as used in
such section, embrace only a judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction, and plaintiff must
plead the judgment of such court in his com-
plaint, determining the invalidity of the title, or
set out fully the facts showing such invalidity,
and claim judgment declaring such title invalid,
and decreeing plaintiff's lien.-Webb v. Bidwell,
15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
278. The complaint in such case should defi-
nitely set forth each lien of the state which the
plaintiff claims to have acquired under the pro-
visions of the act, and which he seeks to enforce,
by stating the nature and amount of each year's
taxes embraced in the sale, and the particular
lot or parcel of land on which they were as-
sessed.-Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil.
394.)
279. In such a case, the power to tax appearing
from the complaint, and the taxes and property
upon which they are a lien being averred with
sufficient certainty, an allegation that such taxes
were "duly levied and assessed" is a sufficient
averment of the assessment of such taxes; and, if
1859
1860
TAXATION, X. d.
issue is taken thereon, proof of everything essen-
tial to the assessment of the tax is admissible.-
Webb v. Bid well, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
280. In an action under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
11, § 142, to recover of the proprietor of town
lots delinquent taxes, penalty, and interest for
which the lots have been sold at a tax sale
which has proved invalid, and taxes paid subse-
quent thereto, the tax duplicates of the county
are not evidence of the assessment and levy of
such taxes, or any steps anterior to such dupli-
cate.-Howes v. Gillett, 23 Minn. 231.
Distinguished in Re Jefferson's Estate, 28 N. W. 258, 35
Minn. 217.
Refunding purchase money.
281. Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 97, as amended by Gen.
Laws 1881, c. 10, § 19, relating to the recovery of
the purchase money for land purchased at void
tax-sales, and the taxes subsequently paid thereon
with interest, is by its terms retroactive, and is
valid.-Schoonover v. Galernault, (Minn.) 47 N.
W. 654.
45 Minn. 174.
282. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 97, prescribes the
form of a judgment declaring a tax-sale void, and
provides that "where any sale has been or herein-
after [hereafter] shall be so declared void, the
money paid by the purchaser at the sale, or by the
assignee of the state, "shall be returned to him
out of the county treasury. Held, that the statute
applies where a tax-sale was made before its pas-
sage, but the judgment declaring the sale void was
rendered afterwards.-State v. Cronkhite, 9 N.
W. 681, 28 Minn. 197.
283. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 142, which
provides that where a tax-sale "proves to be
invalid on account of any irregularity in the pro-
ceedings of any officer having any duty to perform
in relation thereto, the purchaser at such sale is
entitled to receive from the proprietor of such
land or lot the amount of taxes and penalty and
interest legally due thereon, and the amount of
taxes paid thereon by the purchaser subsequent
to such sale; and such land or lot is bound for
the payment thereof, ' " does not apply to a tax-
sale which proves invalid by reason of an ille-
gality in the assessment of the property and the
levy of the tax.-Barber v. Evans, 6 N. W. 445,
27 Minn. 92.
against the land for taxes, this constitutes a suf
ficient compliance with the requirement of Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 97, that, when a sale of land
for taxes is declared void, the judgment shall
state the reason, and entitles the purchaser to re-
cover the money he paid from the county.-Ger-
man-American Bank v. White, (Minn.) 38 N. W.
| 361.
38 Minn. 471.
286. The right to recover money paid on a void
tax sale from the county under Gen. Laws Minn.
1881, c. 10, § 97, does not depend on a statement in
the judgment therein mentioned of the reason for
which a tax sale has been set aside; nor is it es-
sential that there should have been a valid tax
levied.-Easton v. Hayes, (Minn.) 38 N. W 364.
38 Minn. 463.
St. 1878, c. 11, § 97,) as amended by Laws 1881,
287. Under Laws Minn. 1878, c. 1, § 97, (Gen.
C. 10, providing for reimbursement from the
county treasury of the purchase price paid at
void tax sales, to the purchaser "or to the party
holding his right," a grantee of the land from
the purchaser is entitled to such reimbursement.
Easton v. Hayes, 29 N. W. 59, 35 Minn. 418.
288. The heirs or devisees of a purchaser entitled
to recover taxes paid, by virtue of that statute,
are "persons holding his right, " within the mean-
ing the reof; and it is not material that, during the
minority of one of such devisees, the money to pay
such taxes is furnished or advanced and paid for
him by a parent or guardian, who is also tenant
in common of the same with such devisee.
Schoonover v. Galernault, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 654.
45 Minn. 174.
289. The proceeding under Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 11, § 148, amended by Laws 1881, c. 10, upon the
application of a holder of a tax-sale certificate to
have the amount paid by him for the certificate
and subsequent taxes refunded out of the county
treasury, is not judicial in its nature, and the du
than judicial officers.-State v. Dressel, (Minn.) 35
ties thereby imposed may be performed by other
N. W. 580.
38 Minn. 90.
290. After the time to redeem from a tax judg
ment sale has expired, the former owner cannot
be heard to question the regularity of the proceed-
ings, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 148, to re-
fund, upon an application made on the ground that
the tax judgment and sale were void for want of
jurisdiction in the court, nor to object to proceed-
ings to enforce the taxes if they were properly
levied; for if the sale was void, the taxes were
not satisfied by it; if it was valid, the former
owner has ceased to have any interest in the land.
284. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
11, § 155, for the return to a purchaser of the
money paid by him "when a sale of any lands,
as provided in this chapter, is declared void by
judgment of court," applied to a purchase of
lands forfeited to the state at a tax-sale, and sold,
under sections 137, 138, as well as to purchases
at tax-sales, and it applied to any case where the
sale or forfeiture was declared void by judgment-State v. Dressel, 35 N. W. 580, 38 Minn. 90.
of court in any form of action, not merely an ac-
tion brought under section 154, by a person inter-
ested, to test the validity of the sale or forfeit-
ure. And the right of the purchaser to a return
of his money could not be affected by the passage
of Laws 1881, c. 10, § 19, if construed as limiting
such right to the case of a tax-sale.-Fleming v.
Roverud, 15 N. W. 119, 30 Minn. 273.
285. Where the decision of a court states, as its
ground that no valid judgment was entered
291. Where a tax sale of one piece of land has
been adjudged void, even upon a ground common
to all the lands sold under the same general tax
judgment, the purchaser is not entitled, under Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 97, as amended by Laws
1881, c. 10, to a return of the money paid by him
on account of another piece sold under the same
tax judgment, as to which the tax-sale has not
been adjudged void, and a demand on the auditor
for a warrant for the moneys paid on account
1861
1862
TAXATION, X. d.
of both pieces is bad. -Corbin v. Morrow, (Minn ) | him, a purchaser cannot so tack the amount of
49 N. W. 201.
46 Minn. 522.
292. A person applying to a county auditor for his
warrant upon the treasurer for money paid by
him upon a void tax-sale, and subsequent taxes
paid on the land, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11,
§ 97, as amended by Laws 1881, c. 10, must furnish
to the auditor proof of his right to a return of his
money.-Corbin v. Morrow, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 201.
46 Minn. 522.
293. An action may be brought against a county
auditor, by a person entitled to require him to
issue his warrant upon the county treasurer for
money paid on a tax-sale subsequently adjudged
void, to compel him to issue it.-Corbin v. Mor-
row, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 201.
46 Minn. 522.
Recovery of taxes paid-Lien.
294. Defendant purchased land at a tax sale
and received a certificate of sale, and afterwards
a tax-deed, without notice of any claim of plain-
tiff, an insane person, to any interest therein.
Afterwards plaintiff brought an action to redeem
the land, as provided by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
11, § 91, where the land of an insane person is
sold for taxes. Held that, on redemption of the
land, defendant was entitled to compensation for
the taxes paid and improvements made by him,
under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 15, providing
that any person who, in good faith, and for a
valuable consideration, has purchased land, shall
not be ejected therefrom until payment has been
made for taxes paid and improvements made by
him.-Goodrich v. Florer, 6 N. W. 452, 27
Minn. 97.
295. In an action to foreclose a mortgage and
enforce a lien for taxes paid by the mortgagee the
court found specially the existence of certain ir-
regularities and defects in the tax proceedings,
which it held to be fatal to the right to the re-
lief sought. Held, that the case was within the
provision of Laws Minn. 1885, c. 261, for reim-
bursement of taxes paid by mortgagees in certain
cases where such taxes are adjudged void, al-
though the taxes in question were not in express
terms "adjudged void. "-Coles v. County Com'rs
of Washington County, 27 N. W. 497, 35 Minn.
124.
296. Where a tax sale is absolutely void, no rights
accrue to the purchaser, and the lien for taxes does
not pass, and the court cannot require payment of
them, as a condition of adjudging the sale void.-
Burdick v. Bingham, 38 N. W. 489, 38 Minn.
482.
297. Where a purchaser at a tax-sale, whose title
is void, seeks to enforce a lien on the land for the
amount of taxes paid subsequent to his purchase,
under Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 138, the county treas-
urer's receipt is only evidence of the fact of pay-
ment, but not of the existence of any tax against
the land.-Brown v. Corbin, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 481.
40 Minn. 508.
298. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 90,
which permits a purchaser of land at a tax-sale
to tack to the amount of his claim against the
land "any subsequent delinquent taxes" paid by
taxes for the year succeeding his purchase, vol-
untarily paid by him. The language of sections
88 and 98, referring to the payment by such pur-
chaser of the taxes for subsequent years, must be
construed with and limited by section 90.-Sprague
v. Roverud, 26 N. W. 603, 34 Minn. 475.
299. In Minnesota the holder of the state's lien
on real estate for taxes, acquired by purchase of
the real estate at a void tax sale, cannot, independ-
ent of the "occupying claimants'" law, defend his
possession of the real estate upon the lien, even
though he enter with the acquiescence of the own-
His rights are not like those of a mortgagee
in possession. Taylor v. Slingerland, (Minn.) 40
| N. W. 575.
39 Minn. 470.
er.
300. Under the Minnesota "occupying claimants'
law," (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 16,) the inter-
est to be allowed for taxes paid is 7 per cent. per
annum. The sum which the judgment in favor of
the owner requires him to pay the occupant, un-
der section 17, as a condition to the issuing of exe-
cution, does not bear interest.-Taylor v. Slinger-
land, (Minn.) 40 N. W 575.
39 Minn. 470.
301. The refunding out of the county treasury,
to an assignee of a tax-sale certificate, upon the
sale proving invalid, of the amount of taxes,
etc., paid by him, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
11, does not operate as a reassignment to the
state of the state's claim and lien for the taxes,
so that the state is bound, as in privity with
him, by the judgment against him in the action
between him and the owner of the land involv-
ing the validity of the tax and the sale.-In re
Barber, (Olmsted County v. Barber,) 17 N. W.
473, 31 Minu. 256: In re Sedgewick, (Olmsted
County v. Sedgwick,) Id.
Compensation for improvements.
302. A person who is in possession of land un-
der a tax-deed, which is irregular on its face, is
not entitled to the benefit of Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 75, § 15, which provides that any person who,
in good faith, and for a valuable consideration,
has purchased land, shall not be ejected there-
from until payment has been made for improve-
ments put on the land by him.-Mulcahy v.
Florer, 8 N. W. 166, 27 Minn. 449.
303. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 15-18, the
bona fide occupant, under color of title in fee de-
rived from tax sale, is entitled to an election to be
paid the value of his improvements as a condition
of the recovery of possession by a successful claim-
ant, unless the latter shows that he had no notice,
actual or constructive, of the possession of the
former in time to disclose or assert his claim be-
fore the improvements were made, and the burden
rests on the claimant, in the first instance, to bring
himself within the exception, in order to entitle
himself to an election to sell the land, instead of
reimbursing the occupant for his improvements;
and a general finding that the occupant entered,
and made improvements of a specified value, is in-
sufficient to charge the claimant with constructive
notice within the meaning of the act.-Jewell v.
Truhn, (Minn.) 38 N. W. 106.
38 Minn. 433.
1863 TAXATION, X. d.-TENANCY IN COMMON AND JOINT TENANCY.
1864
304. Plaintiffs did not seek to recover possession,
but to have the validity of the tax titles under
which defendants claim determined. Held, that
it was not error to refuse to assess or allow the
value of defendants' improvements.-Sanborn v.
Mueller, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 666.
38 Minn. 27.
Taxation of Costs.
See Costs, 18-41.
Teacher.
See Schools and School-Districts, 42–50.
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.
Injuries from telegraph wires, see Negligence, 13.
Telegrams as evidence, see Evidence, 250.
Transmission of message-Liability for
negligence.
De-
|
respondent at the former place, to use in buying
grain. The dispatch was duly received, and the
money in good faith forwarded by express, but
was intercepted and converted by the agent. Held,
that the telegraph company was liable for the loss,
whose proximate cause was the forged dispatch.-
McCord v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 N. W.
315, 39 Minn. 181; St. Paul Roller-Mill Co. v.
Western Union Tel. Co., 39 N. W. 318, 39 Minn.
186..
TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
Right of eminent domain.
The erection and maintenance of telephone
poles and wires in a city street, the fee of which is
in the adjacent proprietor, is an infringement of
the property rights of such proprietor, notwith-
standing that the proper public authorities had
consented to such a use of the street. (Affirmance
by divided court.)-Willis v. Erie Telegraph &
Telephone Co., (Minn.) 34 N. W. 337.
37 Minn. 347.
Tenancy.
1. July 12th, plaintiff, residing in St. Paul,
wrote a wholesale pork dealer, residing in Du- See Landlord and Tenant.
buque: "Have you any more north-western mess
pork or prime mess; also extra mess? Telegraph
price on receipt of this." He telegraphed in reply:
Letter received. No light mess here; extra
mess, twenty-eight seventy-five, ($28.75.)" Plain-
tiff received the message July 15th, and about 6
o'clock in the evening handed defendant, a tele-
graph company, the following dispatch to the
wholesale dealer, with request to forward same
without delay: "Dispatch received. Will take
two hundred extra mess at price named."
fendant had no other knowledge of the nature or
object of such message than was contained there-
in, and negligently failed to forward the same
until July 19th. From the morning of July 16th
to 19th pork advanced in price, and plaintiff
was obliged to purchase at advanced rates.
Held that, as the delivery of the message would
not have effected any contract for the delivery
of the pork at the price named, the measure of
plaintiff's damage against defendant was the price
paid for the message.-Beaupre v. Pacific & Atl.
Tel. Co., 21 Minn. 155.
TENANCY IN COMMON AND
JOINT TENANCY.
Actions between cotenants, see Action, 26.
Adverse claims to common property, see Adverse
Claim, 4.
Grant to husband and wife, see Husband and
Wife, 1.
2. A message delivered to a telegraph com-
pany for transmission was written on one of its
blank forms in common use, under printed terms
and conditions, one of which was: "No claim for
damages shall be valid unless presented in writ-
ing within 30 days after sending the message;"
and beneath the message and signature was
printed the following: "Read the notice and
agreement at the top. Held, that the sender of
the message must be presumed to have had notice
of such condition, and that it became part of the
contract between him and the company, and that
such condition was reasonable. and binding on
the sender.-Cole v. Western Union Tel. Co., 22
N. W. 385, 33 Minn. 227.
Fraud of agent.
>>
3. The local agent of a telegraph company, who
was also agent of an express company, sent a
forged dispatch to a merchant in a neighboring
city, requesting him to forward money to his cor-
Partnership between tenants in common, see Part-
nership, 1.
Rights and liabilities of mortgagee, see Mortgages,
95, 96.
Ouster and adverse possession.
not to be presumed unlawful or adverse to his co-
1. The possession of one tenant in common is
tenants.-Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn. 501, (Gil. 462.)
2. Where one tenant in common is in lawful
possession of an undivided moiety of land, he will,
in the absence of facts showing an ouster, be
presumed to be in lawful possession of the re-
mainder for his co-tenant.-Holmes v. Williams,
16 Minn. 164, (Gil. 146.)
3. Where a deed is made to run to two grantees
jointly, and one only enters into actual possession,
such possession is not to be deemed adverse to the
other joint owner or his heirs, until an ouster or
the assertion of some hostile claim denoting an in-
tention to hold adversely. - Lindley v. Groff,
(Minn.) 34 N. W. 26.*
37 Minn. 338.
Redemption from mortgage foreclosure.
4. One of two tenants in common of mortgaged
premises, which had been sold under the mortgage,
"for the purpose of effecting a redemption " from
the foreclosure sale, and after an "understanding"
with his co-tenant that he would make such re-
demption, paid the amount necessary to redeem,
and took to himself an assignment of the purchas-
1865
1866
TENANCY IN COMMON AND JOINT TENANCY.·
er's certificate of sale. Held that, as to the co-
tenant, the transaction will be treated in equity as
a redemption, and not as divesting the co-tenant of
his estate.-Holterhoff v. Mead, 29 N. W. 675, 36
Minn. 42.
5. One of several co-tenants of real property
agreed with the mortgagee of the property that
the latter should foreclose and purchase the
property and convey it to the former, after the
expiration of the time for redemption, on being
paid the mortgage debt and costs of foreclosure,
and the agreement was carried out. Held, that
the other co-tenants were entitled to share in the
benefits of the transaction on making contribu-
tion to the expense.-Oliver v. Hedderly, 21 N.
W. 478, 32 Minn. 455.
6. One of two co-tenants of lands that have
been sold at foreclosure sale, who has acquired the
legal title to the lands by redemption on an under-
standing with his co-tenant, cannot divest the lat-
ter of his equity in the lands by a tax-title, ac-
quired at his own request through a third person
with money furnished by himself.-Holterhoff v.
Mead, 29 N. W. 675. 36 Minn. 42.
Charges on the property.
7. Taxes paid by a tenant in common on the
common property, or an amount paid to procure
a conveyance from one who claimed title to the
same adversely and under a tax-deed, cannot be
made a charge upon the estate of a co-tenant
after it has passed into the hands of a purchaser
without notice; and the record of the tax-deed
and of the conveyance from the grantee therein
named is not notice of such a claim.-Welch v.
Ketcham, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 113.
Waste.
8. One tenant in common cannot, as a general
rule, have an action of trespass against his co-ten-
ant, but may have an action on the case, in the nat-
ure of waste, for misfeasance injurious to the com-
mon property.-Booth v. Sherwood, 12 Minn. 426,
(Gil. 310.)
Conversion by co-tenant.
9. One tenant in common cannot maintain an
action against his co-tenant for the conversion
of the joint property, unless the same has been
actually converted or destroyed by him. The
possession of one is the possession of both.-
Strong v. Colter, 13 Minn. 82, (Gil. 77.)
10. A sale and delivery as his own, by one of
several co-tenants, of personal property owned
jointly or in common with others, is a conversion
as to the other co-tenants.-Person v. Wilson, 25
Minn. 189.
11. Refusal by one tenant in common to
deliver joint property, in his exclusive posses-
sion, upon demand therefor made by other co-
tenants, on the ground that they are the exclusive
owners thereof, is no evidence of conversion,
though accompanied by a claim of exclusive
ownership in himself.-Person v. Wilson, 25
Minn. 189.
Use and occupation.
12. The owner of an undivided moiety of land,
in possession of the whole, is not liable to his
co-owner, in an action for use and occupation,
where there has been no demand of possession,
or knowledge of the latter's title.-Holmes
Williams, 16 Minn. 164, (Gil. 146.)
13. A complaint by a tenant in common against
his co-tenant, for use and occupation, which
fails to aver a demand on defendant for posses-
sion, or knowledge on his part of plaintiff's title,
is insufficient.-Holmes v. Williams, 16 Minn.
164, (Gil. 146.)
14. Where one of two equal co-tenants of
property is ousted by the other, the tenant so
ousted may, after obtaining partition of the
premises, and having his portion set off in sever-
alty, recover of his co-tenant the value of the
use and occupation of his undivided portion dur-
ing the period he was excluded from the prem-
ises; such action being in the nature of a com-
mon-law action of trespass for mesne profits. -
Cook v. Webb, 21 Minn. 428.
15. Plaintiff and defendant, in February, 1866,
as partners, took a lease of certain premises,
owned by two tenants in common, to expire
April 1, 1871, plaintiff and defendant owning
the building thereon. In October, 1866, plain-
tiff purchased an undivided half of the land,
plaintiff and defendant attorning and continuing
as tenants.
as tenants. Plaintiff and defendant dissolved in
February, 1870, defendant taking the lease.
Subsequently defendant procured a lease from
the owners of the other undivided half for a
term commencing April 1, 1871. After that time
defendant refused to let plaintiff into the use and
occupation of the premises. Proceedings for par-
tition were instituted, and in June, 1873, final
judgment for partition was entered and plain-
tiff's portion was set off in severalty. Held, that
defendant, in excluding plaintiff from the prem-
ises, had acted wrongfully, and was liable to
plaintiff for the use and occupation of the prem
ises during the time plaintiff had been excluded.
-Cook v. Webb, 21 Minn. 428.
16. Defendant, as tenant of one tenant in com-
mon of land, wrongfully excluded another tenant
in common from the enjoyment of the premises, and
was sued for the value of the use and occupation of
such undivided portion during the period of ex-
clusion. Held, that defendant could not com-
plain that the jury were instructed that, in as-
certaining the rental value, they were not con-
fined to the value for a term of the precise
length they were occupied by defendant, but
must give a verdict for the rental value of the
property generally for such period, and that it
was proper for them to estimate the rental value
of the whole premises, and then give judgment
for one-half the amount.-Cook v. Webb, 21 Minn.
428.
Products of common property.
*
17. Though Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 75, § 24,
provides that "one joint tenant or tenant in com-
mon *
* may maintain an action against
his co-tenant for receiving more than his just
proportion of the rents and profits," a tenant in
common is not, in the absence of an agreement
of the parties, and where he has not excluded his
co tenant from the enjoyment of the common
property, liable to such co-tenant for an appro-
1867
1868
TENANCY IN COMMON AND JOINT TENANCY-TENDER.
priation directly to his own use of the products | action therefor or by way of set-off. —Walter v.
of the joint property, which is in his exclusive Greenwood, 12 N. W. 145, 29 Minn. 87.
occupancy. -Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222.
18. Where one tenant in common recovers of
another for receiving more than his proportion
of rents and profits, the defendant should be al-
lowed to offset taxes paid by him within six
years upon plaintiff's share of the estate, as such
claim constitutes an equity such as defendant
is allowed to set up in his answer by Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 79, subd. 3.-Kean v. Connel-
ly, 25 Minn. 222.
19. One of two tenants in common of real
property cannot recover from his co-tenant for
the appropriation by the latter to his own use of
the products of the common property used and
possessed by him, where there is no agreement
between the parties making the latter liable to
the former on account of such appropriation,
and where the latter has not excluded the former
from the enjoyment of the common property.
The fact that the tenant who has received such
products has sold part of them is immaterial.
Following Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222.-
Hause v. Hause, 13 N. W. 43, 29 Minn. 252.
20. Trees cut by one co-tenant of land without
the consent of the other, although they become
personal property on being so severed from the
land, remain the property of the co-tenants; and,
if the wrong-doer sells the logs as his own with-
out the consent of the co-tenant, he is liable to
the latter for converting them, as in case of other
personal property.-Shepard v. Pettit, 14 N. W.
511, 30 Minn. 119.
24. Even if a tenant in common could be al-
lowed, as against his co-tenant, for the increase
in rents from the common property due to im-
provements made by him, an offer of proof on
that question, which does not show how much
the rent was increased thereby, is immaterial.
-Walter v. Greenwood, 12 N. W. 145, 29 Miun.
87.
Actions.
25. A tenant in common is entitled to possession
of the entire tract held in common as against every
one except his co-tenants, and he may maintain
ejectment for the entire tract against a stranger
to the common title.-Sherin v. Larson, 11 N. W.
70, 28 Minn. 523.
26. Where plaintiff in ejectment claims an undi-
vided interest in the premises, and the complaint
does not show that defendant is not a tenant in
common with plaintiff, defendant must allege and
prove that he is such co-tenant before he can re-
quire of plaintiff a denial of his rights or acts
amounting to an ouster.-Sherin v.
Sherin v. Larson, 11 N.
W. 70, 28 Minn. 523.
27. One tenant in common of personal property
may separately maintain an action against a stran-
ger for a wrong done to it, if his co-tenants refuse
to join with him as plaintiffs, and they are non-
residents of, and are out of, the state.-Peck v.
McLean, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 759.
36 Minn. 228.
456.
TENDER.
on pledge, see Pledge, 4, 5.
21. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 43, providing
for an action by one joint tenant or tenant in
common against his co-tenant "for receiving more of amount due on mortgage, see Mortgages, 454-
than his just proportion of the rents or profits of
the estate owned by them," does not apply to an
action by one co-tenant against another for a con-
version by the latter of logs cut from the land
and sold by him without the consent of the plain-
tiff, and plaintiff need not show that defendant
cut more than his proportionate share of the
trees on the land.-Shepard v. Pettit, 14 N. W.
511, 30 Minn. 119.
22. In an action by one co-tenant against an-
other for a conversion by the latter of logs cut
from the land owned by them in common, and
sold without the consent of plaintiff, plaintiff is
entitled to recover the enhanced value of the logs,
with interest from the date of conversion by the
sale. No deduction should be allowed for the
sum expended by defendant in preparing the logs
for and bringing them to market. Nor can the
damages be limited to the value of the trees on the
land, it not appearing that defendant acted in good
faith, or in the belief that he had a right to cut
the trees. Following Nesbitt v. St. Paul Lum-
ber Co., 21 Minn. 491.-Shepard v. Pettit, 16 N.
W. 271, 30 Minn. 481.
Improvements.
23. A tenant in common, making improve-
ments on the common property, cannot, in the
absence of any agreement or undertaking with
his co-tenant to that effect, recover from the lat-
ter any part of their cost or value, either in an
compensation awarded for property taken for
public use, see Eminent Domain, 153, 154.
deed, see Vendor and Purchaser, 35-40.
performance of condition of chattel mortgage,
see Chattel Mortgages, 89–92.
purchase money, see Specific Performance,
65-70.
To redeem from mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages,
109, 110; Mortgages, 414-423.
Necessity.
in a contract for the payment of money, the
1. Where no place of payment is designated,
debtor is not bound to go into another state to
tender payment to the creditor.-Gill v. Bradley.
21 Mină. 15.
Tender of payment-What is legal ten-
der.
2. The acts of congress of 1862 and 1863, mak-
ing treasury notes a legal tender for debts con-
tracted subsequent to their passage not spe-
cifically payable in coin, are constitutional and
valid.-Breen v. Dewey, 16 Minn. 136, (Gil. 123.)
3. Upon a contract for the payment of a sum
of money in dollars, coin not being specified,
made since the passage of the legal-tender acts
of congress of 1862 and 1863, a tender of the
1869
1870
TENDER-TIME.
2
amount in treasury notes is good.-Breen v.
Dewey, 16 Minn. 136, (Gil. 123.)
4. A tender of payment of a debt contracted
before the passage of the legal tender act was
made in treasury notes prior to a decision of the
supreme court of the United States, afterwards
overruled, holding such tender as to debts con-
tracted before the passage of the act invalid.
Held that, the tender having been made before
the promulgation of the decision of the supreme
court, the creditor could not have been misled
by such decision, and that the tender was good.
-Lovejoy v. Stewart, 23 Minn. 94.
Overdue note of creditor.
5. A debtor owning an overdue promissory.
note of his creditor cannot tender the same in pay-
ment of his indebtedness.-Barker v. Walbridge,
14 Minn. 469, (Gil. 351.)
Amount.
6. There having been seven different deliver-
ies of wheat to secure separate advances, plain-
tiff tendered a sum sufficient to cover the whole
amounts due for four of the advances, including
the expenses. Held, that this was a good ten-
der, and entitled plaintiff to recover the value
of the wheat delivered as security therefor.
Nelson v. Robson, 17 Minn. 284, (Gil. 260.)
7. Plaintiff delivered wheat to defendant to
secure advances, which were to be repaid, with
interest and charges. Afterwards plaintiff, be-
ing ignorant of the amount of the charges, asked
to be informed thereof, which defendant refused.
Plaintiff thereupon tendered a sum of money not
sufficient to cover the whole sum due, but de-
fendant refused to receive it, saying that he had
bought the wheat. Held, that plaintiff was en-
titled to go to the jury on the question whether
this was not a waiver of tender of a larger sum.
-Nelson v. Robson, 17 Minn. 284, (Gil. 260.)
8. A note stipulated that, if the sum named
therein should not be "paid when due and the
same is sued, " $10 additional to defray the ex-
penses of the suit should be entered up as part
of the judgment. Before suit was brought on
the note, the debtor tendered the amount due on
the note, which the creditor refused to receive.
Afterwards suit was brought on the note, though
no subsequent demand was made.
Held, that
plaintiff was not entitled to the $10 additional,
though it did not appear that the debtor, at all
times after the tender, had the money ready to
pay.-Pinney v. Jorgenson, 6 N. W. 376, 27 Minn.
26.
Production of money.
9. Where a tender is pleaded, and the evi-
dence shows that the money was not produced,
but_the debtor offered to pay, and informed the
creditor that he had the money with him, but the
creditor refuses to take the amount offered, it is
error to exclude evidence that the debtor then
had the money with him ready to pay.-Pinney
v. Jorgenson, 6 N. W. 376, 27 Minn. 26.
Keeping tender good.
10. A tender of payment of a note payable at
a particular bank, but not left there for collec-
tion, to operate as a bar to subsequent interest
and costs, must be kept good by leaving the
money at the bank, or in some other place, so
that the same shall be accessible to the holder of
the note.-Balme v. Wambaugh, 16 Minn. 116,
(Gil. 106.)
11. Tender of the amount due upon a promis-
sory note secured by a chattel mortgage, though
made after the note has matured, extinguishes and
discharges the lien of the mortgage, and it is not
necessary to keep the tender good by bringing the
money into court in case an action is thereafter
brought by the mortgages to obtain possession of
the chattels.-Moore v. Norman, (Minn.) 45 N. W.
857.
43 Minn. 428.
Pleading.
12. A tender is sufficiently pleaded if the
amount tendered is so alleged that it can be made
certain.-St. Paul Div. No. 1, Sons of Temperance
v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157, (Gil. 144.)
Payment into court.
13. In order to constitute a payment into court
such payment must be under a rule or order of
court to that effect.-Davidson v. Lamprey, 16
Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)
Bringing amount into court.
14. In an action on a life insurance policy
which has never been delivered, the premiums
on which have been tendered, but refused, it is
not necessary to bring the amount of the tender
into court, for, if plaintiff is entitled to recover,
it could be deducted from the amount recovered.
Schwartz v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 18 Minn.
448, (Gil. 404.)
Territories.
Judgments of territorial courts, see Judgment,
208, 209.
See Duress.
Threats.
As evidence, see Assault and Battery, 31; Hom-
icide, 60, 61.
Timber.
Damages for cutting, see Damages, 65-70.
Entry of public lands under timber culture act,
see Public Lands, 11-14.
Replevin for, see Replevin, 2-5.
Rights of mortgagee, see Mortgages, 87.
of purchaser on foreclosure, see Mortgages,
313, 314.
TIME.
Discharge of surety by extension of time to prin-
cipal, see Principal and Surety, 14-19.
Essence of the contract, see Specific Perform-
ance, 61, 62; Vendor and Purchaser, 41–49.
Judicial notice of calendar, see Evidence, 16–19.
Laches, see Equity, 74-81; Specific Performance,
71-77.
1871
1872
TIME-TOWNS.
Of application for new trial, see New Trial, 3-5.
delivery of goods sold, see Sale, 34-43.
Tolls.
filing claim for mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' For driving, etc., logs, see Logs and Logging, 20,
Liens, 96-105.
pleadings, see Practice in Civil Cases, 53,
54.
issuing bonds in aid of railroads, see Railroad
Companies, 76.
making requests for instructions to jury, see
Trial, 77, 78.
motion for change of venue, see Venue in Civil
Cases, 13, 14.
payment of promissory note, see Negotiable
Instruments, 11, 150.
performance of contracts, see Contracts, 98-
102.
publication of summons, see Summons, 48, 49.
redemption from mortgage, see Mortgages,
448-453.
sale of land for nonpayment of taxes, see Tax-
ation, 166-169.
on foreclosure, see Mortgages, 216-218.
service of papers, see Practice in Civil Cases,
57-61.
of summons, see Summons, 15.
taking appeal, see Appeal and Error, 134-142.
effect of statutes, see Statutes, 55-57.
proceeding by certiorari, see Certiorari,
21, 22.
Statute of limitations, see Limitation of Actions.
Computation.
Though Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 82,
is a section of the Code of Civil Procedure, its
provision that time shall be computed by exclud-
ing the first day and including the last is not
confined to matters of practice, but is a general
rule for the construction of statutes.-Spencer v.
Haug, 47 N. W. 794, 45 Minn. 231.
Title.
Abstracts of, see Abstracts of Title.
By adverse possession, see Adverse Possession.
Cloud on title, see Quieting Title.
Deposit of title deeds, see Mortgages, 2.
Effect of patent to pass title, see Public Lands,
110.
Of city ordinance, see Municipal Corporations,
54, 55.
mortgagor to lands mortgaged, see Mortgages,
83.
vendor, to land sold, see Specific Performance,
35-42.
On conveyance of land, see Vendor and Pur-
chaser, 22-34.
sale of goods, see Sale, 21-33.
Tax-titles, see Taxation, 206–304.
Title of statutes, see Statutes, 18-47.
To fee of highway, see Highways, 77–80; Munici-
pal Corporations, 125-128.
lands granted in aid of railroads, see Public
Lands, 65-71.
of state insane asylum, see Insane Asy-
lum.
of state university, see University of Min-
nesota, 1, 2.
office, see Quo Warranto.
real estate, as affecting jurisdiction, see Courts,
23-25.
support ejectment, see Ejectment, 1–3.
Warranty, see Sale, 63-69.
21.
TORTS.
See, also, Assault and Battery; Conversion of
Personal Property; Death by Wrongful Act;
Deceit; False Imprisonment; Forcible Entry
and Detainer; Libel and Slander; Malicious
Prosecution; Malpractice; Negligence; Nui-
sance; Seduction; Trespass; Waste.
Joint wrongdoers, see Contribution, 4; Nuisance,
Measure of damages, see Damages, 51-79.
of servant, see Master and Servant, 18-24.
wife, see Husband and Wife, 12, 13.
24.
Joint liability-Separate answer.
1. Where, in tort, the wrong complained of
was joint and several as to several defendants,
the separate answer of one, showing a good de-
fense as to all, will inure to the benefit of all.
Williams v. McGrade, 13 Minn. 46, (Gil. 39.)
Mutilation of corpse.
2. The right to the possession of a dead body
for the purposes of preservation and burial be-
longs, in the absence of any testamentary dispo-
sition, to the surviving husband or wife or next
of kin, and the right of the surviving wife, if
living with her husband at the time of his death,
is paramount to that of the next of kin. This right
is one which the law recognizes and will pro
tect, and for any infraction of it, such as an un-
lawful mutilation of the remains, an action for
damages will lie.-Larson v. Chase, (Minn.) 50
N. W. 238.
47 Minn. 307.
TOWNS.
See, also, Municipal Corporations; Schools and
School-Districts.
Action against town to restrain acts of supervis-
ors, see Highways, 28.
Entry of town sites, see Public Lands, 15-53.
Indebtedness for bounties, see Bounties, 2, 3.
Liability for expenses of construction of bridges,
see Bridges, 5, 6.
Powers of supervisors respecting highways, see
Highways, 53, 54, 63, 64.
Organization.
1. The township organization act of August
13, 1858, (Laws 1858, c. 75,) was properly passed
and adopted. -Board Sup'rs Ramsey County v.
Heenan, 2 Minn. 330, (Gil. 281.)
2. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 67, which amends Laws
1860, c. 14, art. 1, § 1, by providing that whenever
a majority of the legal voters of any township,
etc., shall petition to be organized as a town, the
county board shall fix boundaries, etc., does not re-
peal section 23 of the earlier act, which provides
that no town shall be vacated or divided without
first submitting the question to a vote of the elect-
ors of a town. - Supervisors of Town of Maple
1873
1874
TOWNS.
&
Lake v. Board of Com'rs Wright County, 12 Minn. I to whom wheat was furnished. These notes were
403, (Gil. 287.)
3. County commissioners cannot, upon petition
of a number of the inhabitants of an organized
town containing no more than 36 sections, set off a
portion of the territory and organize the same into
a separate town, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 8, §
104, which in such case requires a vote of the
people, nor under chapter 10, § 2, which requires
that the petition must be by the town as a corpo-
ration, not by the electors.—State v. Mantor, 14
Minn. 437, (Gil. 327.)
Town plats-Recording.
4. A town plat, signed by certain persons and
recorded, contained the certificate that on Febru-
ary 28, 1849, "personally appeared before me the
undersigned owners of lots in the town of St. Paul,
and acknowledged the annexed to be a true plat of
the town aforesaid, according to the survey made
by me," and was signed by the surveyor, and also
by 2 persons as justices of the peace, after which
followed 14 names, among which were the names
of the justices. Held, that such acknowledgment
was not sufficient, under the statute relating to
town plats, (Comp. St. Minn. c. 26,) to entitle the
plat to record.-Baker v. City of St. Paul, 8 Minn.
491, (Gil. 436.)
Officers-Appointment.
collected by the agents, and paid to plaintiff, ex
cept a sum retained to pay the expenses of certain
litigation, the nature of which is not disclosed. The
case was tried by all parties on the theory that the
special act was void. Held, that the agents were
personally liable for the amount retained to pay ex-
penses.-Powell v. Heisler, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 411.
45 Minn. 549.
9. Town bonds having been issued under a void
statute, the agents of the town, who sell the bonds,
and dispose of the proceeds as directed by the stat-
ate, are not personally liable for the price paid by
one who purchased with notice of the act under
which the bonds were issued, and the purpose for
which the money would be used.-Powell v. Heis-
er, (Minn.) 48 Ň. W. 411.
45 Minn. 549.
Liability for negligence in maintaining
highways.
10. A statutory town is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from the disrepair
of a public highway, although by statute it is
made the duty of towns to keep highways in re-
pair. The rule of liability applicable to munici-
pal corporations having special charters with
provisions imposing the care of streets upon
them is not applicable to such towns.-Altnow
v. Town of Sibley, 14 N. W. 877, 30 Minn. 186.
Distinguishing O'Gorman v. Village of Morris, 3 N. W.
349, 26 Minn. 267.
Distinguished in Peters v. Town of Fergus Falls, 29
N. W. 587, 35 Minn. 551.
Application of road taxes.
5. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 10, § 48, provides
that, whenever there is a vacancy in a town
office, "the justices of the peace of the town, to-
gether with the board of supervisors, or a ma-
jority of them, shall fill the vacancy by appoint-
ment, by warrant under their hand. " Section
49, relating to officers composing the board of 11. Where a town, organized from a congres
appointment of town officers, provides that "in sional township previously forming a part of an
case of a vacancy the remaining officers of such other town, seeks to make the town from which
appointing board shall fill any vacancy thus oc- such township had been detached liable for con
curring." Held, that the justices and supervis- version of road taxes collected within the terri-
ors act as a board in filling such vacancies, and tory so detached, under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
unless notice of a meeting for that purpose is 10, 15, as amended by Act March 5, 1869, pro-
given, the appointment is invalid, though a ma-viding that "where more than one entire con-
jority of the board meet and concur in the ap-gressional township is included within an
pointment. -State v. Guiney, 3 N. W. 977, 26 Minn.
313.
Town meetings.
6. After a special town meeting has been
neld, pursuant to sufficient notice, it will be
presumed, in the absence of evidence to the con-
trary, that such notice was properly posted in
the requisite number of places.-State v. Sup'rs
Town of Lime, 23 Minn. 521.
7. The question whether the persons sub.
scribing a written statement for a special town
meeting, under the provisions of Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 10, § 16, are legally freeholders, is one of
fact for the town-clerk to determine, before giv-
ing notice of the meeting, and his decision is
conclusive upon any town officer upon whom is
imposed any act or duty as a result of such
meeting.-State v. Sup'rs Town of Lime, 23
Minn 521.
Issue of bonds-Liability of agents.
8. Under a special act, a town issued bonds to
supply seed wheat to sufferers from the ravages of
grasshoppers. The agents of the town sold the
bonds to the plaintiff. Notes were taken from those
organized town" such taxes must be expended
within the limits of the town in which they were
raised, the complaint must show when the con-
version took place, and that it was subsequent to
the separation.-Town of Clayton v. Town of
Bennington, 24 Minn. 14.
Indebtedness.
12. Towns have no powers except those ex-
pressly conferred, and neither towns nor super-
visors of towns have any authority to appropriate
money, levy taxes, or issue any evidences of
indebtedness of the town to indemnify individuals
who have advanced money for the payment of
bounties to volunteers.-Čover v. Town of Bay-
town, 12 Minn. 124, (Gil. 71.)
13. A board of county commissioners voted
$200 for the construction of a bridge in the town
of Stanton, county orders to be issued thereon on
the order of the chairman of board of supervisors,
town of Stanton. The town voted $700 for the
bridges, especially the one mentioned by the
commissioners and another. A contract was then
made by the town authorities for the construction
of these bridges for $900, payable in town and
county orders. Held, that the contract would
1875
1876
TRADE-MARKS-TRESPASS.
be presumed to have been made with reference
to these two appropriations, and was not void as
one incurring a town debt for an amount greater
than was authorized by the vote of the town
mecting.-Evans v. Town of Stanton, 23 Minn.
368.
TRADE-MARKS.
What will be protected.
1. The Cigar-Makers' Union, having many thou-
sands of members, adopted a symbol or device to
be used by their several members by placing it on
boxes of cigars made by members; such device
not indicating by what persons the cigars are
made, but only that they are made by some mem-
ber of one of such unions, the right to use the de-
vice belonging equally to each of all the members,
and continuing only while the person remains a
member. Held not a legal trade-mark. MITCH-
ELL and VANDERBURGH, JJ., dissenting.-Cigar-
Makers' Protective Union v. Conhaim, (Minn.) 41
N. W. 943.*
40 Minn. 243.
Infringement-Right to sue.
2. A complaint in an action brought by Louis
E. Allen and others, as "officers and members of
the Cigar-Makers' Protective Union No. 98, of the
state of Minnesota, a branch and member of the
Cigar-Makers' International Union of America,
composed of local union societies, " to restrain de-
fendant from putting up, selling, stamping, or of-
fering for sale any boxes containing any cigars
whatever, having posted, placed, or put thereon a
label or trade-mark in imitation of plaintiffs' label,
and having thereon the words "Union-Madé
Cigars," shows a proprietary interest in plaintiffs
in the trade-mark or label entitling them to main-
tain the action. (Affirmance by divided court.)-
Allen v. McCarthy, (Minn.) 34 Ñ. W. 416.
37 Minn. 349.
Train-Wrecking.
Criminal liability, see Wrecking Trains.
Transactions with Decedents.
Testimony to, see Witness, 16-32.
Transit Railway Company.
Land grants, see Public Lands, 60, 68.
Petit treason.
TREASON.
The crime of petit treason has no existence
in Minnesota.-State v. Bilansky, 3 Minn. 246,
(Gil. 169.)
Treasurer.
County, see Counties, 29-45, 55-61.
Trees.
Bounties for growing, see Bounties, 6.
Damages for cutting, etc., see Damages, 65–70.
TRESPASS.
By agent, see Principal and Agent, 97.
Damages for taking away animal held as estray,
see Animals, 8.
for taking lands for public use without com-
pensation, see Eminent Domain, 245-258.
for trespass to lands, see Damages, 57-64.
Liability of railroad company for injury to tres-
Injunction against, see Injunction, 11.
passer, see Railroad Companies, 214-217.
Possession of plaintiff.
con-
1. In trespass, possession, actual or
structive, at the time of the commission of the
injury complained of, and not at the commence-
ment of the action, must be shown.-Williams v.
McGrade, 18 Minn. 82, (Gil. 65.)
2. A plaintiff cannot recover in trespass quare
clausum when he negatives possession in his
pleadings; for without possession, actual or con-
structive, trespass cannot be maintained.-Moon v.
Avery, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 257.
42 Minn. 405.
3. Actual possession is sufficient evidence of
title to support trespass against a stranger.-Witt
v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 35 N. W 862.
38 Minn. 122.
4. The actual possession of personal property
by a bailee is sufficient to sustain an action for an
injury thereto by a mere trespasser.-Laing v. Nel-
son, (Minn.) 43 Ñ. W. 476.
N.
Justification.
41 Minn. 521.
5. One who wrongfully enters upon lands in
the possession of the owner cannot justify his
act upon the ground that he has color of title
thereto; and in an action of trespass against him
it is proper to exclude a void tax-deed offered to
show such color of title.-Sanborn v. Sturtevant,
17 Minn. 200, (Gil. 174.)
Who liable.
6. One who, previous to a trespass, consents
thereto, or requests its commission, is liable as
a trespasser.-Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn.
200, (Gil. 174.)
7. Plaintiffs owned and were in possession of
a leasehold estate in certain mill property on
Hennepin island, at the Falls of St. Anthony.
Defendants, for their own purposes, excavated a
tunnel under the whole length of the island, and
for 300 feet under the river and pond above it.
The water from the river broke through the roof
of the tunnel, and flowed through the tunnel with
such violence as to wash out and undermine the
land on which plaintiffs had a right of way, and
on which their mill stood, injuring their mill,
machinery, and warehouse. Held, that defend-
ants were liable for such injury without negli-
gence on their part in the construction and main-
1877
1878
TRESPASS.
tenance of the tunnel, and their liability was not
affected by the fact that they did not own the
soil through which the tunnel was dug, or that
they gave the excavation to others, nor by the
fact that, after the water first broke in, the own-
ers of the soil took possession, and endeavored
to keep the water out of the tunnel, and conduct-
ed themselves with such negligence that after a
temporary stoppage the water again broke into
the tunnel, and caused the injury complained of.
-Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324, (Gil. 292;)
Knapheide v. Same, 20 Minn. 478, (Gil. 432.)
8. The taking of a "supplemental" lease from
the lessor of land adjoining that held under the
first lease, in which second lease the lessor re-
serves to itself and parties under it the right to
construct a tunnel under such premises, the les-
sees to construct their buildings in such manner
as not to interfere with the building of the tun-
nel or its operation, does not operate as an agree-
ment, consent, or license, as far as concerns the
premises constructed under the first lease, which
will relieve the persons building the tunnel from
liability for injuries caused thereby.-Knapheide
v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 478, (Gil. 432.)
9. Where one having a valid title to land,
which is in the possession of another under a
void title, peaceably enters and takes possession,
he is not a trespasser.-Sharon v. Wooldrick, 18
Minn. 354, (Gil. 325.)
Parties.
10. As joint trespassers are each severally liable,
it is immaterial that some of them are not made
parties.-Heartz v. Klinkhammer, (Minn.) 40 N.
W. 826.
39 Minn. 488.
Pleading.
14. In an action against a railroad company
for trespass defendant answered that the acts
complained of were done by subcontractors of
the railroad company, with which defendant
had contracted for the construction of a certain
railroad which defendant was engaged in con-
structing, and that, in order to construet the
same, it was necessary to enter upon plaintiff's.
land, etc. Held, that this was, in effect, an ad-
mission that defendant had directed the acts com-
plained of to be done, and that its liability was
|
the ordinary liability of one who commands or
directs the commission of a trespass.-Leber v.
Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 31, 29
Minn. 256.

Evidence.
15. In trespass upon unoccupied lands, construct-
ive possession is established by proof of title.-
Booth v. Sherwood, 12 Minn. 426, (Gil. 310.)
16. Defendant A. sold the stumpage of certain
lands, of which plaintiff was the owner, to B.
and C., who entered upon the land and cut the
sale of such timber to a third person, reciting
timber thereon. They joined in an instrument of
the cutting of the timber, the purchase of the
right by B. and C. from A., and guarantying the
title to such timber. Held, that these acts by A.
rendered him liable as co-trespasser with B. and
C., and, in an action by plaintiff against them
for such trespass, such instrument was competent
as an admission of the facts stated therein.
Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 200, (Gil. 174.)
17. The trespass complained of was the construc-
tion by defendant of a boom in a river which flowed
past plaintiff's land, whereby the land was over-
flowed and logs deposited thereon, thus entirely
depriving plaintiff of the use of such land. Plain-
tiff, to show the value of the use, introduced a
lease in which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a
11. A complaint in trespass for the wrongful certain sum for a like use of the same premises for
taking of personal property, if it allege facts a term immediately preceding the alleged trespass.
showing the wrongful taking, is good, even if i. Defendant offered to show in rebuttal that it exe-
does not, in terms, allege that such taking was against it in plaintiff's favor, and that it had no
cuted the lease when an injunction was pending
wrongful.-Buck v. Colbath, 7 Minn. 310, (Gil. alternative but to accept plaintiff's terms, or to let
(Gil.gainst
238;) Colbath v. Buck, 8 Minn. 85, (Gil. 60.)
its logs go down the river and lose them. Held,
that the offer was improperly excluded, as defend-
ant had a right to show the circumstances under
which the lease was executed.-Weaver v. Missis-
sippi & Rum River Boom Co., 11 N. W. 113, 28 Minn.
542.
12. A complaint alleged, in substance, that on
or about October 21, 1868, defendant unlawfully
took, or caused to be taken, from plaintiff's pos-
session, and carried away, a buck, the plaintiff's
property, of the value of $25; that on or about
the 23d day of said October plaintiff was entitled
18. In an action for a trespass on land by which
to the possession of the buck, and defendant, be plaintiff was deprived of the use thereof, it is com-
ing then and there in possession of it, unlaw-petent to show what defendant had agreed to pay
fully converted and disposed of it to his own plaintiff for the use of the land in question for a
use, thereby depriving plaintiff of the possession, term immediately preceding the trespass, as an ad-
and also the use, of it, to plaintiff's damage in mission of the value of such use.- Weaver v. Mis-
the sum of $75. Held, that the second statement sissippi & Rum River Boom Co., 11 N. W. 114, 28
might be disregarded, as surplusage; and the
complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action
in the nature of an action of trespass de bonis
asportatis. Clague v Hodgson, 16 Minn. 329,
(Gil. 291.)
13. A complaint which alleges a trespass on
plaintiff's land, that plaintiff was thereby deprived
of the use of such land, and that such use was
reasonably worth a certain sum, is sufficient,
though it does not allege in terms that plaintiff
was damaged.-Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum
River Boom Co., 11 N. W. 113, 28 Minn. 542.
Minn. 534.
19. In trespass for entering on plaintiff's prem-
ises and carrying away her grain, where defend-
ants justify under the authority of plaintiff's hus-
band, the fact that some of defendants had been
present at the trial of the husband for removing
other grain, where plaintiff's right of ownership
was fully discussed, is competent to prove defend-
ants' knowledge and willfulness, and warrants an
instruction on exemplary damages. -Heartz v.
Klinkhammer, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 826.
39 Minn. 488.
1879
1880
TRESPASS-TRIAL, I.
42 Minn. 541.
Treble damages.
20. In trespass for carrying away plaintiff's grain, | tortious acts.-Ziebarth v. Nye, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
where defendants justify under authority from 1027.
plaintiff's husband, receipts given by third per-
sons to said husband for such grain, whose pro-
ceeds he volunteered to use in part to pay debts
connected with the expenses of the farm, are in-
competent and immaterial, since his offer would
be no defense to the action, and the receipts as to
plaintiff are mere hearsay.-Heartz v. Klinkham-
mer, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 826.
39 Minn. 488.
Verdict.
21. Where, in trespass à bonis, two defendants
are found jointly liable for a portion of the goods,
and one severally liable for the balance, the ver
dict may be according to the facts as found.-Bey-
ersdorf v. Sump, (Minn.) 41 N. W 101.
39 Minn. 495.
Damages.
22. If, while an actual trespasser is in plain-
tiff's close, he commits other trespasses, such
acts and their consequences may be shown in
aggravation of the original trespass.-Spencer v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 29.
23. In an action in the nature of trespass de
bonis asportatis, plaintiff cannot recover dam-
ages for his expenses in recovering possession of
the property, unless such expenditures are al-
leged as special damages. -Gray v. Bullard, 22
Minn. 278.
24. Defendants unlawfully entered on plaintiff's
farm, and dug two parallel ditches, 30 feet apart,
and threw up earth between them into a turnpike,
erroneously claiming that the locus in quo was a
public highway. Held, that the acts constituted
a single trespass, and gave only a single cause of
action, in which plaintiff was entitled to recover
all damages, present or prospective, resulting from
the trespass.-Ziebarth v. Nye, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
1027.
42 Minn. 541.
25. The difference in value is not to be estimat-
ed on the basis that the strip of land is to be per-
manently devoted to highway purposes; nor on
the assumption that the ditches and turnpike are al-
ways to remain, for, if it appears that the cost of re-
storing the land in statu quo would be less than
the injury that would result to the land by letting
the nuisance remain, such cost would be the amount
to which the value of the land would be deemed
to have been lessened. But the court cannot as-
sume that the cost of restoring the property would
be less than the diminution in the value of the land
from the trespass; if such is the fact, it is incum-
bent on the defendants to prove it.-Ziebarth v.
Nye, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 1027.
42 Minn. 541.
26. The court instructed the jury that the meas-
ure of damages was "the difference in the value
of the farm with the ditches and turnpike and
without them." Held, that as a general statement
of the rule this was correct, and if defendants de-
sired more specific instructions, they ought to have
so requested.-Ziebarth v. Nye, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
1027.
42 Minn. 541.
27. The measure of damages would be the dim-
inution of the value of the land by reason of the
master, the defendant, entered plaintiff's field and
28. A servant, without express orders from his
took hay to feed defendant's team. Held, that
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 269, providing for treble
damages in trespass where the trespasser carries
off hay or grass, does not apply against one who
is in law deemed guilty only by reason of his re-
lation to the actual trespasser. Potulni v. Saun-
ders, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 379.
37 Minn. 517.
29. Where treble damages are allowable under
the statute for trespass, (Gen St. c. 75, § 28,)
the court may instruct the jury to assess the
actual damages, and treble the amount, or that
they may return single damages, and determine
whether the trespass was willful or involuntary,
when the court may treble the damages found
where a verdict is general; but, if no instruc-
tions are given, and a general verdict is re-
turned, the presumption will be that it includes
all to which plaintiff is entitled.-Tait v. Thom-
as, 22 Minn. 53%.
TRIAL.
I. CONDUCT OF TRIAL, 1-5.
II. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE, 6-19.
III. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, 20-48.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, 49-51.
V. INSTRUCTIONS, 52–119.
VI. VERDICT, 120-161.
VII. TRIAL BY COURT, 162-198.
New
See, also, Case and Bill of Exceptions; Contin-
uance; Evidence; Judgment; Jury;
Jury;
Trial; Practice in Civil Cases; Witness.
In criminal cases, see Criminal Law, 43–53, 104–
Notice of, see Practice in Civil Cases, 21-25.
107; Homicide, 80–96.
Of actions on contracts, see Contracts, 173–177.
On appeal from award in condemnation proceed-
ings, see Eminent Domain, 163–235.
Review of conduct of, see Appeal and Error,
holiday, see Holidays, 1.
356-358, 453-462.
Right to jury trial, see Constitutional Law, 130-
155; Jury, 41-47.
I. CONDUCT OF TRIAL.
Requiring physical act by party.
1. In an action for personal injuries the court
has power, in a proper case, to require the plain-
tiff to perform a physical act before the jury that
will illustrate or demonstrate the extent and
character of his injuries. But the propriety of
such an order must usually rest largely in the
discretion of the trial court.-Hatfield v. St. Paul
& D. R. Co., 22 N. W. 176, 33 Minn. 130.
2. In an action for personal injuries plaintiff
testified that she had thereby been rendered
lame, and caused to limp in walking, and this
was corroborated by several others, her neigh-
bors, or members of her family, who had seen
1881
1882.
TRIAL, I.-III.
her almost daily since the accident. Held, that-Foster v. Berkey, 8 Minn. 351, (Gil. 310;)
it was not error to refuse a request on behalf of Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24;) Grif-
defendant that plaintiff be directed to walk across fiths v. Wolfram, 22 Minn. 185; Crandall v.
the court-room in presence of the jury.-Hatfield Mcllrath, 24 Minn. 127; McDonald v. Peacock,
v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 22 N. W. 176, 33 Minn. 35 N. W. 370, 37 Minn. 512.
130.
View by jury.
3. In an action for damages from an obstruc-
tion in the street to lots abutting thereon, where
a view of the premises is allowed to the jury, it
is error to instruct them that they may use their
own examination and judgment, as well as the
judgment of the witnesses, in estimating the
damages. Following Chute v. State, 19 Minn.
271, (Gil. 230.)—Brakken v. Minneapolis & St.
L. R. Co., 11 N. W. 124, 29 Minn. 41.
4. A refusal to allow a jury to witness ex-
periments with street-cars outside the court-
room, as bearing upon the question of the nature
of an alleged collision, is not error, cot being
within statutory provisions allowing a view by
the jury.-Smith v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 18 N.
W. 827, 32 Minn. 1.
Taking pleadings to jury room.
5. It is not error to permit the jury to take with
them, into the jury-room, the pleadings in the case.
-Brazil v. Moran, 8 Minn. 236, (Gil. 205.)
II. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
Offer of evidence.
6. It is not error to exclude evidence offered
by defendant tending to prove facts which, if
true, would not be inconsistent with plaintiff's
claiín.-Tozer v. Hershey, 15 Minn. 257, (Gil.
197.)
7. Where evidence is offered as a whole, and
part thereof is inadmissible, the whole offer is
properly rejected.-Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn.
494, (Gil. 448;) Muller v. Jackson, 40 N. W:
565, 39 Minn. 431; Beard v. First Nat. Bank,
43 N. W. 8, 41 Minn. 153; Reynolds v. Frank-
lin, 49 N. W. 648, 47 Minn. 145.
8. An offer of testimony must be sufficiently
full to enable the court to see that it is mate-
rial; otherwise it may be rejected, even though
the adverse party does not object to it.-Austin
v. Robertson, 25 Minn. 431; Lucy v. Wilkins,
23 N. W. 861, 33 Minn. 441; Wolford v. Farn-
ham, 49 N. W. 528, 47 Minn. 95.
9. A general offer to prove the facts stated in
a pleading is not proper. The offer should specify
the facts proposed to be proved.-Alexander v.
Thompson, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 534.
42 Minn. 498.
10. A question, on cross-examination, not spe-
cific enough to show that the answer would
throw any light on the matter in controversy,
where there is no offer to show by the answer
any facts bearing on the matter, is properly ex-
cluded.—State v. Herrick, 12 Minn. 132, (Gil.
75.)
Order of proof.
11. The order in which the proofs shall be
made on a trial is in the discretion of the court.
12. The admission of declarations of a pretend-
ed agent before the establishment of the agency
is not improper, being a mere matter of order of
proof, discretionary with the trial judge.—
Woodbury v. Larned, 5 Minn. 339, (Gil. 271.)
13. It is discretionary with the court whether
rectness of a copy of an alleged lost instrument
a witness shall be allowed to testify to the cor-
original.-Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24.)
before testifying to the prior existence of the
14. The order in which preliminary proof of
the existence and loss of a paper should be re-
Ceived as a foundation for secondary evidence of
and will not be reviewed except for abuse of
its contents is discretionary with the trial court,
discretion.-Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24.)
15. The admission in rebuttal of testimony
which should have been offered in chief rests in
the sound discretion of the court. -Plummer v
Mold, 22 Minn. 15.
16. A party cannot introduce a part of his own
case in chief by cross-examination of his oppo
nent's witnesses.-Schmidt v. Schmidt, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 598.
47 Minn. 451.
Preliminary examination of expert.
17. The preliminary examination of a proposed
"expert" witness by the opposite party before
permitting him to give his opinion is not a mat-
the court in its discretion.-Finch v. Chicago, M.
ter of right, and may be permitted or denied by
& St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 915.
Recalling witness.
46 Minn. 250.
18. The matter of recalling a witness after he
has been examined and dismissed is within the
discretion of the court.-Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn.
184, (Gil. 128;) Keating v. Brown, 13 N. W.
909, 30 Minn. 9.
19. After counsel had partially summed up,
he was informed that a witness who had sworn
that the consideration for a certain deed was not.
paid would, if allowed to explain, testify that
such consideration was in fact a precedent debt.
Leave to recall him was made and denied. Held.
that, as the fact might have been called out by
proper cross-examination, such denial was not.
error.-Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
III. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.
Sufficiency of objections.
ground of objection is stated is properly over-
20. An objection to evidence for which no
Weide v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 327, (Gil. 258.)
ruled.-Tozer v. Hershey, 15 Minn. 257, (Gil. 197;)
21. If testimony is admissible for any pur-
pose, it is not error to receive it upon a general
offer and against a general objection.—Stearns
v. Johnson, 17 Minn. 142, (Gil. 116.)
1883
1884
TRIAL, III.
22. Where a party offers evidence for a spe-
cific purpose, and it is objected to, the court, in
ruling upon the admissibility, is not obliged to
take into consideration any other view than the
one advanced by the party offering it.-Bond v.
Corbett, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209.)
23. An objection to testimony must be so defi-
nite as to enable the court to intelligently rule
upon it, and the adverse party, if he so desires,
and the case will permit, to remove the objection
by other evidence.-Gilbert v. Thompson, 14 Minn.
544, (Gil. 414.)
24. If evidence offered is competent for any
purpose, or in favor of any defendant, a general
objection thereto should be overruled.-Schell v.
Second Nat. Bank of St. Paul, 14 Minn. 43, (Gil.
34.)
25. An objection to the admission of a deed in
evidence, "that it was not executed in form to
admit to record; that in form the deed was an
absolute nullity, as it was not in the form required
for conveyances of real estate," does not point out
the specific objection to the deed, and is insuffi-
cient.-Gilbert v. Thompson, 14 Minn. 544, (Gil.
414.)
26. The point that a question is too general or
leading cannot be raised by simply objecting
that it is incompetent and irrelevant.-Clague v.
Hodgson, 16 Minn. 329, (Gil. 291.)
27. In an action for damages to plaintiff by
ill-treatment from defendants, with whom
plaintiff had been living, plaintiff testified to
blows inflicted by defendants on one of her
arms, without specifying which arm. Plaintiff's
arms being exhibited to the jury, one of them
appeared to have sustained some injury, and she
was asked to state what was "the matter with
that arm. Held, that an objection to the ques-
tion as "incompetent and immaterial" was not
sufficiently specific to present the objection that
it did not appear which arm had been struck by
defendants. Cannady v. Lynch, 8 N. W. 164, 27
Minn. 435.
28. On an issue as to whether plaintiff was in
possession of certain premises as the tenant of de-
fendant, plaintiff introduced in evidence a notice
to quit, purporting to be signed by defendant, and
which had been served on plaintiff. It appeared
that the notice had not been signed by defendant
himself, but had been written and caused to be
served on plaintiff by a person who was acting as
agent for defendant. Defendant objected to the
notice as "irrelevant and inadmissible." Held, that
such objection was not sufficient to raise the ques-
tion as to whether the notice had in fact been au-
thorized by defendant.-Craig v. Cook, 9 N. W. 712,
28 Minn. 232.
29. An objection that a written instrument of-
fered in evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, and
immaterial, does not involve the point that prelim-
inary proof of its execution had not been made.
McDonald v. Peacock, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 370.
37 Minn. 512.
30. The proper objection to a general offer to
prove facts stated in a pleading is that it is not
sufficiently definite and specific. The objection
that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial
is insufficient.-Alexander v. Thompson, (Minn.)
44 N. W. 534.
42 Minn. 498.
31. After a specific objection to evidence as
incompetent has been once made and properly
sustained, the court may afterwards sustain a
mere general objection to an offer of substantial-
ly the same evidence.-Griswold v. Edson, 21 N.
W. 475, 32 Minn. 436.
32. Where evidence is objected to as incompe-
tent for certain specified reasons, the objection is
to be deemed limited to the grounds specified, and
Jones, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1113.
will not cover others not specified.- Triggs v.
46 Minn. 277.
Joint objection.
33. Where evidence admissible as to one defend-
ant is offered, a joint objection by all is properly
overruled. Appleton Mill Co. v. Warder, (Minn.)
43 N. W. 791.
-
42 Minn. 117.
Evidence partly admissible.
34. A general objection to evidence will not
avail where any part of such evidence is not sub-
ject to the objection.-Craig v. Cook, 9 N. W. 712,
28 Minn. 232.
Disclosing purpose of question after
objection.
35. On an objection to a question asked a wit-
ness, if it is not apparent that a favorable an-
swer would be material, and there is no offer of
further evidence to make it material, the ques-
tion may properly be excluded.-Norris v. Clarke,
24 N. W. 128, 33 Minn. 476; McAlpine v. Foley,
25 N. W. 452, 34 Minn. 251; Scofield v. Walrath,
28 N. W. 926, 35 Minn. 356.
36. In an action for the price of a map which
plaintiffs alleged they duly delivered to defend-
ant upon his written order, signed in their order
book, defendant, testifying on his own behalf,
on being shown the order book, which had been
received in evidence, denied the genuineness of
the signature, and stated that he did not write
his name in a book, but on a paper. Thereupon
his counsel asked him, "What did you write
your name for, and what induced you to write
your name on the paper?" On objection to the
question as immaterial under the answer, it was
excluded. Held that, as the answer admitted
that defendant did sign the order "in a book,
the exclusion of the question could not be re-
garded as error, in the absence of any further
statement or offer showing the connection of the
question with the defense alleged, that the sig-
nature was procured by fraud.-Warner v. Fish-
bach, 13 N. W. 47, 29 Minn. 262.
""
37. An offer to produce evidence, the nature of
which was not particularly disclosed, being ob-
jected to, obviously upon the assumption that the
proposed evidence related to transactions with a
decedent, and the objection being sustained, it
was incumbent upon the party offering the evi-
dence to obviate the objection by such further of-
fer or statement as would show that in fact it was
not of the objectionable character specified in the
objection.-Rhodes v. Pray, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 86.
36 Minn. 392.
1885
1886
TRIAL, III.-V.
Receiving evidence subject to objection.
38. Where evidence is received, "subject to the
objection" of the other party, it is not in the case,
but is subject to the ruling of the court on the
objection.-Perkins v. Morse, 13 N. W. 911, 14 N.
W. 879, 30 Minn. 11.
Striking out testimony.
39. Striking out evidence received without
objection, upon the ground that the same is not
warranted by the pleadings, is discretionary
with the trial court. State v. Johnson, 23 Minn.
569, followed.-Brady v. Brennan, 25 Minn. 210.
40. Improper evidence, admitted without objec-
tion, may, on application of the party against
whom the same is given, and in the discretion of
the court, be excluded from the jury.-Russell v.
Schurmeier, 9 Minn. 28, (Gil. 16.)
41. Where the answer of witness to an inter-
rogatory is objectionable as not being responsive,
the party desiring to avail himself of the objec-
tion must move to strike out.-Marsh v. Webber,
16 Minn. 418, (Gil. 375.)
42. Where on cross-examination in garnish-
ment proceedings a witness stated, of his own
accord, certain matters of hearsay evidence, the
fact that the same was not objected to is no ob-
jection to a motion to strike out.-Davis v. Men-
denhall, 19 Minn. 149, (Gil. 113.)
43. After testimony by defendant to a verbal
warranty, it appeared on his cross examination
that a written warranty had been subsequently
delivered to him, whereupon plaintiffs moved to
strike out the evidence of the verbal warranty.
Held, that the motion was properly denied, as a
party aware of an objection to the competency of
evidence cannot wait until the ground of it ap-
pears to the court in the progress of the trial,
but is bound to make the objection when the ev-
idence is offered.-C. Aultman & Co. v. Kennedy,
23 N. W. 528, 33 Minn. 339.
44. Where testimony given upon direct exam-
ination as if upon personal knowledge is shown on
cross-examination to be hearsay, it should be
stricken out on motion. Wolford v. Farnham,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 295.
44 Minn. 159.
45. Where a party testifies to a conversation
with a deceased person, the opposite party waives
his right to have the evidence stricken out by
cross-examining as to the details of the conversa-
tion.-Brown v. Morrill, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 328.
45 Minn. 483.
46. A motion to strike out "all" the testimony
of a witness should not be allowed, where any
part of the same had been properly received, and
was material.-Bennett v. Minneapolis & P. Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 44 N. W. 10.
42 Minn. 245.
Effect of failure to object.
47. Failure to object to one cine parties to a
contract testifying in reference thereto, on the
ground that the other party is dead, until after
such party has testified, will be deemed a waiver
of such objection.—Levering v. Langley, 8 Minn.
107. (Gil. S2.)
48. Where evidence is given of items of dam-
age not included in the complaint, and no objec-
tion is made thereto until the evidence is closed,
the court may direct the jury to consider such
items, though not alleged in the complaint.-
Isaacson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 8 N.
W. 600, 27 Minn. 463.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF Counsel.
Right to open and close.
49. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 227, providing
that the plaintiff in an action shall open the case,
and conclude the argument to the jury, unless for
special reasons the court otherwise directs,
leaves it to the sound discretion of the court to
say when defendant may open and close the argu-
ment.-C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum, (Minn.) 50
N. W. 471.
47 Minn. 414.
Reading law-books to jury.
law-books in arguing a case to the jury.-Steffen-
son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 51
N. W. 610.
50. Counsel should not be allowed to read from
Comment on matter not in evidence—
Instructing jury to disregard.
51. In proceedings to ascertain the damages to
premises by son of the condemnation of a por-
tion thereof for railroad purposes, plaintiff offered
evidence of the cost of the building, which was
excluded. His counsel in arguing the case to the
jury referred to the description of the buildings,
and said: "I ask you to say whether they could be
put there for $7,000." Held, that such reference
to matter as to which evidence had been excluded
did not prejudice defendant in view of the em-
phatic charge of the court to the jury, that the
cost of the buildings was not in issue, and that
gard to it, except as the cost was involved in the
they were to disregard any statement made in re-
market value.-Johnson v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
| (Minn.) 35 N. W. 438.
37 Minn. 519.
V. INSTRUCTIONS.
Questions of law.
52. Whether a question of reasonable time is
one of fact or of law must depend on the partic-
ular facts of each case. If it can be determined
by the application of well-settled legal princi-
ples, it is one of law; but otherwise if the cir-
cumstances are such as to prevent such applica-
tion.-Derosia v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18
Minn. 133, (Gil. 119.)
53. In a charge to the jury the court instruct
ed them that they were to accept and act upon a
principle of law as applicable to the case, be-
cause it had been agreed upon by the attorneys
for both parties; but this instruction was ac
companied by statements to the effect that the
weight of authority and of reason was opposed
to the proposition charged, and that the court
did not believe it to be the law. Held that, the
rule in question being a correct statement of the
law, the accompanying statements indicating
that in the opinion of the court the law was
=
1887
1888
TRIAL, V.
otherwise were erroneous, and ground for re-
versal.-Fitzgerald v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 13 N. W. 168, 29 Minn. 336.
54. In an action to recover for services as book-
keeper and general manager, a charge that plain-
tiff could recover only by showing "the best of
faith," while not pertinent to the issue, is not prej-
udicial where the jury finds a verdict for plaintiff
for a large amount.-Dunlap v. May, (Minn.) 44 N.
42 Minn. 309.
W. 119.
Matters of fact-Reviewing evidence.
55. An instruction which assumes as true a
fact disputed is erroneous. Schwartz v. Ger-
mania Life Ins. Co., 21 Minn. 215.
56. In an action for a balance due on a sale of
goods, defendant set up a breach of warranty of
value, and that a portion of the goods only were
delivered, which were invoiced by him at a cer-
tain amount. Held, that a charge that the meas-
ure of damages was the difference between the
amount warranted and the invoice was improper,
as assuming the existence of controverted facts,
and was ground for reversal.-Smith v. Dukes,
5 Minn. 373, (Gil. 301.)
57. Where a fact is established by the evidence
beyond any reasonable doubt, the assumption
by the court of its existence in its charge is not
error.-Alden v. City of Minneapolis, 24 Minn.
254.
58. An instruction based upon an hypothetical
statement of facts relevant to the issue is not er-
roneous, where there is sufficient evidence in its
support to go to the jury.-Chandler v. De Graff,
25 Minn. 88.
59. In an action against a sheriff to replevy
a piano, plaintiff claimed title through a sale and
delivery by the execution debtor. The judge
charged the jury that he "knew nothing that
went to show that the delivery was not valid
under all the circumstances. " Held, that the
charge was improper in expressing an opinion
upon the facts, without informing the jury that
they were the exclusive judges of the facts, as
required by Pub. St. Minn. c. 61, § 22.-Caldwell
St. Minn. c. 61, § 22.-Caldwell
v. Kennison, 4 Minn. 47, (Gil. 23.)
Overruled in Ames v. Cannon River Manuf'g Co., 6 N.
W. 789, 27 Minn. 248, by reason of repeal of statute.
60. In charging the jury the court instructed
them that certain facts, if proved, raised a strong
presumption that could only be overcome by
"strong and convincing proof" to the contrary.
Held, that such expressions, taken in the con-
nection in which they occurred, were equivalent
only to the term "strong evidence," and were
not objectionable on the ground of expressing an
opinion on the part of the judge as to the facts of
the case.-McArthur v. Craigie, 22 Minn. 351.
62. Instructions to the jury as to the effect of
a particular fact in the case, "independently of
any other testimony," and other suggestions as
to the insufficiency of such fact for a particular
purpose, without other evidence, are not to be
regarded as erroneous, although there was other
evidence on the point in question, where the
court in other parts of the charge distinctly re-
ferred such evidence to the jury, and there was
no request for further or more specific instruc-
tions, nor any suggestion that the case had been
so presented as to lead the jury to overlook or
disregard such evidence.-Wass v. Atwater, 22
N. W. 8, 33 Minn. 83.
63. Where defendant alleged that he had been
damaged by the injudicious use by plaintiff of a
certain dam, the court properly refused to charge
"that there is no evidence of any damage to the
defendant by reason of the manner in which the
dam was operated, and the jury will not allow any
damages to the defendant by reason of any alleged
improper use of the dam," as such charge would
mislead the jury.-Beard v. Clarke, (Minn.) 39 N.
W. 63.
38 Minn. 547.
64. In its instructions to the jury the trial court
is not bound, at the request of either party, to go
over the evidence on behalf of such party, and it
cannot be assigned as error that it derlines to do
so.-Lowe v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., (Minn.)
34 N. W. 33.
87 Minn. 283.
65. In an action on the first of a series of notes
given to plaintiff by defendant for the price of a
machine, defendant pleaded breach of warranty,
and asked damages therefor. Held, that a charge
that whatever sum was awarded defendant for
breach of warranty should be given in the present
action was proper, and was not equivalent to di-
recting a verdict for defendant.-C. Aultman &
Co. v. Falkum, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 471.
47 Minn. 414.
Directing verdict.
66. When the evidence on both sides is closed
without any motion to dismiss, it is not error in
the court to decline to pass on the evidence and
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, (Gil. 473.)
direct a verdict for defendant. -Price v. Phoenix
67. Although the evidence on the part of the
plaintiff, standing alone, would justify submit-
ting a case to the jury, yet if, on the whole evi-
the plaintiff to stand, it may direct a verdict for
dence, the court could not permit a verdict for
P. Ry. Co., 16 N. W. 266, 30 Minn. 482; Thomp-
the defendant.-Abbott v. Chicago, M. & St.
235; Giermann v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 43
son v. Pioneer Press Co., 33 N. W. 856, 37 Minn.
N. W. 483, 42 Minn. 5.
68. In an action for libel in charging embezzle-
ment by a book-keeper, and a subsequent attempt
by him to blow open his employers' safe and steal
61. The trial court in its charge to the jury their books, the evidence of such attempt was
may express its opinion on a question of fact, and, given by one witness, circumstantially corrobo-
if a party fears that the jury will be unduly in-rated, and was contradicted by plaintiff. Held, that
fluenced by such opinion, his remedy is to re-
quest a charge that the jury are exclusive judges
of the facts. Overruling Caldwell v. Kenni-
son, 4 Minn. 47, (Gil. 23.)-Ames v. Cannon Riv-856.
er Manuf'g Co., 6 N. W. 787, 27 Minn. 245.
the court was not justified in directing a verdict
for defendants. GILFILLAN, C. J., dissenting.
Thompson v. Pioneer Press Co., (Minn.) 33 N. W.
37 Minn. 285.
1889
1890
TRIAL, V.
Lo
69. Where the evidence on the issue as
whether fixtures were sold to plaintiff or to de-
fendant's assignor shows that the bill of sale was
made to plaintiff, and that he provided the money
for fixing up a saloon in which the fixtures were
placed, but that defendant's assignor leased the
saloon, took out licenses, and carried on the busi-
ness alone, listing the property for taxation as his
own, and insuring it, and that, when he became in-
solvent, he inventoried it as his own, it is error to
direct a verdict for plaintiff, and the question is for
the jury.-Dailey v. Linnehan, (Minn.) 40 N. W.
250.
39 Minn. 346.
70. A direction to a jury to find that a certain
deed was executed is not improper where its ex-
ecution is so well proved, and the testimony to
the contrary is so worthless, that, if the jury
should find against the execution, it would obri-
ously be the duty of the court to set aside the
verdict. -Dawson v. Helmes, 14 N. W. 462, 30
Minn. 107.
71. Where, in the course of a charge which cov-
ers three printed pages the court states and reiter-
ates that the jury are the sole judges of the facts,
and states what facts must be found before a ver
dict can be given for plaintiff, but afterwards, at
plai..tiff's request, gives a charge that "your verdict
should be for the plaintiff in this action for such
damages as you shall assess," it will be presumed
that this language was inadvertently used, and
that the jury did not understand it as a direction
to find for plaintiff.-Klimple v. Boelter, (Minn.)
46 N. W. 306.
44 Minn. 172.
76. In an action against an officer for wrongfully
taking plaintiff's oats upon an execution against
her son, defendant claimed that the son, who lived
with plaintiff and worked her farm, was a renter
for a share of the crop, and the oats belonged to
him. The only witnesses were the mother and
son, who both denied any agreement as to renting.
The jury were instructed that they must judge
what the agreement was, or, if there was no express
agreement, what was the implied agreement, but
were not told what effect their finding was to
have upon their verdict. Held, that plaintiff can-
not complain of the omission when he asked no ad-
ditional charge. -Bowe v. Hyland, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 142.
44 Minn. 88.
Time of making.
77. The rule of court that "the points on which
a party desires the jury to be instructed must be
furnished in writing to the court before he com-
mences his argument to the jury, or the same
may be disregarded," is permissive only, and
may be waived by the court. -Sanborn v. School-
Dist. No. 10, Rice County, 12 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
78. The court may, in its discretion, properly
refuse to give a charge requested in addition to
points previously submitted, and which was not
presented until after the close of the general
charge, which contained proper instructions on
the point.-Shartle v. City of Minaeapolis, 17
Minn. 308, (Gil. 284.)
Submission to opposing counsel.
79. Requests to charge should be submitted to
the opposite counsel.-Roehl v. Baasen, 8 Minn.
26, (Gil. 9.)
72. If, when the evidence on both sides is
closed, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to a
verdict, the proper practice is to request the court
to direct a verdict in his favor; but to order judging
ment, instead of directing a verdict, is, at most, an
irregularity without prejudice, and no ground for
a new trial.-Duluth Chamber of Commerce v.
Knowlton, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 2.
42 Minn. 229.
Several propositions.
80. Where several requests to charge, embody-
ing separate propositions, some one or more of
which are erroneous, are submitted to the court,
it is not error for the court to reject the whole.
It is only bound to look far enough to see if there
is error in the request, and not to sift out the
good from the bad. Per FULLER, J.-Castner v.
Distinguishing Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 17 N. W. The Dr. Franklin, 1 Minn. 73, (Gil. 51;) Bond
387, 31 Minn. 268.
Requests to charge-Necessity.
73. Where a party apprehends danger to him-
self from the generality of an instruction or
charge, he should ask for more specific instruc-
tions on the point.—Warner_v. Myrick, 16 Minn.
91. (Gil. 81:) Jaspers v. Lano, 17 Minn. 296,
(Gil. 273;) Egan v. Faendel, 19 Minn. 231, (Gil.
191) Le Clair v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co.,
20 Min. 9, (Gil. 1.)
74. If parties have reason to suppose that the
jury will be misled by any testimony in a case,
they should request the court to properly instruct
them with reference thereto.-Nininger v. Knox,
8 Minn. 140, (Gil. 110.)
75. Where an instruction as a whole is correct,
but it is desired to prevent possible misapprehen-
sion from the omission of a proper qualification in
a part of the charge, the court's attention should
be called to the omission. -McKnight v. Chica-
go, M.& St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 46 N. W. 294.
44 Minn. 141.
V.2M.DIG.-60
v. Corbett, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209;) Village of
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243;)
Simmons v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 18 Minn. 184,
(Gil. 168.)
Not involving questions of law.
81. A refusal to instruct the jury to consider
whether certain inferences should not be drawn
if a certain state of facts should be found is not
error, as such instruction involves no legal ques-
tion. -Kellogg v. Village of Janesville, 24 N. W.
359, 34 Minn. 132.
Not applicable to issues.
82. Refusing or qualifying requests to charge,
upon issues not made by the pleadings, is not
error, or ground for a new trial.-Coit v. Waples,
1 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
83. It is not error for the court to refuse a re-
quest to charge, based upon an unqualified offer to
perform, where the evidence showed only a con-
ditional offer.-Cowley v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 92,
(Gil. 86.)
:
1891
1892
TRIAL, V.
84. It is not error to refuse an instruction rel-
evant only to a question about which there is no
dispute. Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17
Minn. 308, (Gil. 284.)
85. A request to charge, which, in itself, is
abstractly correct, but relating to the sufficiency
of proof as to a fact not within the issues, should
be refused.-Wilcox v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 269.
fendant, who proceeded to clean and sack it.
After he had cleaned and sacked about 15 bushels,
he notified plaintiff that he would not take the
wheat, because it was not of the same quality as it
appeared on top. Defendant requested the court
to charge, on the question of acceptance, that "de-
fendant could receive the wheat to see whether he
would accept it or not: and, if he then refused to
accept it," the jury must find for defendant. Held,
that such request was properly refused as assuming
that there was no acceptance prior to or contem-
son v. Krumdick, 10 N. W. 18, 28 Minn. 352.
Requests to charge-Assuming disputed poraneously with the receipt of the wheat.-Simp-
facts.
86. Instructions which assume as facts mat-
ters in dispute are properly refused.-Lake Su-
perior & M. R. Co. v. Greve, 17 Minn. 322, (Gil.
299;) Hocum v. Weitherick, 22 Minn. 152;
Starkey v. De Graff, 22 Minn. 431; Chandler v.
Same, 25 Minn. 88; Jones v. Town, 2 N. W.
473, 26 Minn. 172; Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 902, 29 Minn. 465; Macy v.
St. Paul & D. Ry. Co., 28 N. W. 249, 35 Minn.
200.
87. A request which calls upon the court to
determine any controverted fact is improper, and
its refusal not error.-Siebert v. Leonard, 21
Minn. 442.
88. A request to charge, which, in effect,
withdraws from the jury a controverted question
proper for their consideration, should be refused.
Wilcox v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24
Minn. 269.
ment.
89. In an action on a contract, defendant set
up a counter-claim, to which plaintiff replied pay-
Held, the evidence being contradictory
as to whether there was anything due on the
counter-claim, that a request to charge that de-
fendant is entitled to all that the jury "find
from the evidence to be proved" was correctly
refused, as implying that nothing had been paid.
-Conehan v. Crosby, 15 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
90. In an action for defendant's failure to
comply with an agreement to furnish plain-
tiff with all the ice he might need in his business,
the court, after instructing the jury fully what
facts would entitle plaintiff to a verdict, at the
request of plaintiff further charged that the fact
that the plaintiff required more ice in his business
in the warmer months, and requested defendant
to furnish him a greater quantity than he had
furnished during the preceding months, would
not release the defendant from the contract, or
from damages sustained by the plaintiff, unless
defendant was willing to furnish the amount
required by the contract, and plaintiff refused to
receive it. Held that, taken with other portions
of the charge, it would not mislead the jury by
assuming the liability of defendant.-Egan v.
Faendel, 19 Minn. 231, (Gil. 191.)
91. In an action for the price of wheat, it ap-
peared that defendant had orally agreed to buy a
lot of wheat in a pile in defendant's warehouse.
Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that defendant
was satisfied with the wheat, and agreed to take
it as it was. Defendant's evidence was to the ef-
fect that the wheat was to be of the same quality
throughout the pile as it appeared on top. De-
fendant was to clean, sack, and weigh the wheat
in the warehouse, and remove it therefrom.
Plaintiff delivered the key of the warehouse to de-
92. The refusal of a request for an instruction
to the jury on the subject of the meure of
damages for a breach of warranty of a machine,
consisting in a defect causing a part of it to
break, that the actual damage was the cost of
the repairs, is not error, where the cost of the
repairs was not shown.-Johnston Harvester Co.
v. Clark, 17 N. W. 111, 31 Minn. 165.
93. In an action to recover the balance for cut-
ting certain hay, alleged to be due after a payment
by defendant on the basis of a measurement by
one G., an instruction that the parties were bound
by G.'s measurement unless it was waived by both,
that they ever agreed to submit the measurement
is properly refused, where there is no evidence
to G.-Weber v. McClure, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 150.
44 Minn. 407.
Misleading or indefinite.
94. It is not error to refuse to give instruc-
tions which are fairly liable to a construction
that would mislead the jury as to a principle of
law applicable to the case.
law applicable to the case.-Shartle v. City of
Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308, (Gil. 284.)
95. It is not error to refuse a request embody-
ing a correct proposition, but so worded that un-
less qualified or explained it will mislead the
jury. -Hayward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 430.
in a civil action, which leaves in doubt the ques
96. A request for an instruction to the jury,
tion whether the jury are to find according to
preponderance of evidence, or must be satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt, should be refused.
Hocum v. Weitherick, 22 Minn. 152.
Repetition.
97. Refusal to give an instruction requested
is not error when the subject is fully covered by
the general charge.-O'Leary v. City of Manka-
to, 21 Minn. 65; Hocum v. Weitherick, 22 Minn.
152; State v. Mims, 2 N. W. 494, 683, 26 Minn.
183; Wright v. Ames, 10 N. W. 21, 28 Minn.
362; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 15
N. W. 239, 30 Minn. 227; Loucks v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 N. W. 651, 31 Minn.
526; Kolsti v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 19
N. W. 655, 32 Minn. 133; Ladd v. Newell, 24
N. W. 366, 34 Minn. 107.
Compliance with request-Modifi-
cation of instructions.
98. A party nas a right to have his legal prop-
ositions, if correct, submitted to the jury in the
very terms selected, although covered by the in-
structions already given. The court may refuse
•
1893
1894
TRIAL, V.
his requests or qualify them, and if given in a
qualified form ought to immediately follow a re-
fusal. Per EMMETT, C. J.-Selden v. Bank of Com-
merce, 3 Minn. 166, (Gil. 108.)
Declared to be obiter and disapproved in State v. Mc-
Cartey, 17 Minn. 88, (Gil. 66.) See, also, following cases.
99. Where requests to charge are made they
may be given or refused, or given with such ex-
planations and modifications as justice may re-
quire.-Dodge v. Rogers, 9 Minn. 223, (Gil. 209.)
100: A charge given substantially, though not
literally, as requested, is a sufficient compliance
with the request.-Dodge v. Rogers, 9 Minn. 223,
(Gil. 209.)
101. The court may modify a request to charge,
abstractly correct, so as to make it applicable to
the case.-Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326,
(Gil. 299.)
102. In an action seeking to charge a defend
ant as a partner upon an admission made by him
under circumstances calling for an explicit ad-
mission or denial, his counsel requested an in-
struction to the jury that "admissions are the
lowest class of proof, and should be received and
considered by the jury with great caution,"
which the court refused to give, but substituted
a charge that, "with respect to verbal admis
sions, they ought to be received with great cau-
tion."
Held, that this was proper.-Tozer v.
Hershey, 15 Minn. 257, (Gil. 197.)
Adding sarcastic comments.
103. It is improper for a judge, having given an
instruction asked in the very terms of the re-
quest, to weaken its force by sarcastic comment,
so as to leave the jury in doubt as to whether the
Horton v.
instruction was given or refused.
Williams, 21 Minn. 187.
Personal remarks.
104. In an action for damages for an alleged in-
decent assault, it is not error to caution the jury in
the course of the charge not to lose their heads, and
return a verdict for a lady (the plaintiff) on gen-
eral principles.-Bingham v. Bernard, 30 N. W. 404,
36 Minn. 114.
108. The giving of contradictory Instructions is
reversible error.-McCormick v. Kelly, 9 N. W.
675, 28 Minn. 135.
109. Where a general proposition in a charge is
incorrect, but the court in another part of its
charge states the correct rule, as applied to the
facts of the case, in such terms that the jury could
not have misunderstood it, the error in the gen-
eral proposition will be disregarded.-Simpson v.
Krumdick, 10 N. W. 18, 28 Minn. 352.
Modifying or withdrawing instructions.
110. Where a request to charge is qualified, but
afterwards substantially given, or the qualification
is such that, considered in connection with the
general charge, the jury cannot reasonably be mis-
led, there is no ground for exception.-Bartlett v.
Hawley, (Minn.) 37 N. W. 580.
38 Minn. 308.
111. Where, upon an exception to a proposition
in a general charge, the court withdraws it, and
instructs the jury to disregard it, it will be pre-
sumed that the jury accepted and acted on the cor-
rection.-Goodsell v. Taylor, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 873.
41 Minn. 207.
Giving further instructions.
112. Upon an application by the jury for further
instructions both parties consented that they
might take the minutes of all the testimony upon
the disputed point. Through an inadvertence the
court failed at the time to give them a portion of
such testimony, but afterwards recalled them
and read the omitted portion. Held not error.
-Coit v. Waples, 1 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
113. It is not error for the court, when the jury
return for further instructions, to answer the
questions propounded, in open court, though plain-
tiff and his counsel are absent.-Hudson v. Min-
neapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 46 N. W. 314.
44 Minn. 52.
114. An exception to instructions on the ground
that they were given in the absence of counsel
cannot be sustained where it appears that, after
Construction as a whole-Contradictory the adjournment of the court for the day, the jury
instructions.
105. In charging the jury it is not necessary
that all exceptions and modifications of a legal
proposition be stated in the same connection, but
if made in the charge, and there is nothing in
the charge so obscure, absurd, or contradictory
as to mislead or confound the jury, it is suffi-
cient.-Gates v. Manny, 14 Minn. 21, (Gil.
13.)
106. Where a proposition, standing alone, in a
charge to the jury, is bad, yet if, taking the
charge as a whole, the correct rule is stated, no
objection can be made to the charge.-Spencer v.
Tozer, 15 Minn. 146, (Gil. 112.)
107. The whole charge must be considered to-
gether; and an omission to state the whole law of
the case in one instruction is not error, if the omis-
sion is fully supplied elsewhere, so that the charge,
as a whole, fully and fairly presents the law ap-
plicable to the issues.-Peterson v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 39 N. W. 485.
38 Minn. 511.
desired further instructions which the court gave
after returning to the court-room, and that coun-
sel had left the court-room on adjournment with-
out informing the court where they could be found.
or making any arrangement for their being called
in case of need.-Reilly v. Bader, (Minn.) 48 N.
W. 909.
46 Minn. 212
Sufficiency of exceptions.
115. Numerous instructions having been asked,
and some given and others refused or qualified, a
general exception to the refusal of instructions
asked is insufficient.-Carroll v. Williston, (Minn.)
46 N. W. 352.
44 Minn. 287.
116. An exception to a portion of a charge em-
oracing several distinct propositions, some of
which are unobjectionable, will not be considered.
-Main v. Oien, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 523.
47 Minn. 89.
1895
1806
TRIAL, V., VI.
117. Exceptions to instructions given by the trial |
court to a jury in a cause, made after trial and
verdict, are ineffectual, and are not available on a
motion for a new trial, or upon appeal.-Barker v.
Todd, (Minn.) 34 N. W. 895.
37 Minn. 370.
118. In an action for the wanton and malicious
tearing down of plaintiff's house, the court charged
that if defendants had acted maliciously plaintiff
was entitled to recover three times the value of
his house; thereby failing to take into account
the value of the materials composing it, which
remained in plaintiff's possession. Held, that an
exception to the charge, on the ground "that there
is no evidence to support such a finding," is in-
sufficient to point out the real error in the in-
struction, since the exception is based on a denial
of plaintiff's right to recover treble damages.-
Carlson v. Dow, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 232.
47 Minn. 335.
119. The court having assumed to incorporate in
its charge to the jury several requested instruc-
tions, and having announced to counsel that such
requested instructions have been given, an excep-
tion to "any qualification" of the requested instruc-
tions is not sufficient to call attention to the fact
that a qualifying word has been added in giving
one of such requests.-Bishop v. St. Paul City Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 927.
VI. VERDICT.
Jurors' knowledge of facts.
120. Jurors are not permitted to decide matters in
issue upon their own private knowledge of the
facts, but may be aided by their general knowl-
edge and expe ience upon such subjects.-Johnson
v. Hillstrom, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 547.
Compromise verdict.
37 Minn. 122.
121. It is irregular for a jury to make up a ver-
dict by agreeing to each name a sum, and then
divide the aggregate by 12; but, if the sum thus
found is afterwards agreed upon as their verdict,
it is good.-St. Martin v. Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156,
(Gil. 131.)
Receiving and recording.
122. Where there is no agreement as to receiv-
ing the verdict, the judge, after adjournment of
court, has no authority, in the absence of par-
ties, to receive a verdict until the court is again
opened.-Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. 235, (Gil.
155.)
123. A verdict in a civil action was received
and recorded by the clerk, in the absence of the
presiding judge, but before the adjournment of
the court, and in pursuance of a stipulation of
the parties. Held, that neither party should be
permitted to object to it for such irregularity
merely.-Bedal v. Spurr, 22 N. W. 390, 33 Minn.
207.
124. The form of the verdict as recorded by the
clerk must control in case of variance between
it and the written verdict brought into court by
the jury.-Leftwich v. Day, 21 N. W. 731, 32
Minn. 512.
Polling jury.
125. Neither party has a right to poll the jury
after a verdict is recorded. -Steele v. Etheridge,
15 Minn. 501, (Gil. 413.)
126. In a proper case for a sealed verdict the
bringing in of such a verdict does not affect the
right of the parties to poll the jury.-Steele v.
Etheridge, 15 Minn. 501, (Gil. 413.)
Sealed verdict.
after agreeing upon and sealing it) may be sub-
127. A sealed verdict (the jury having separated
mitted again to the jury for correction, when they
bring it into court, and declare that it is not as
agreed upon.-Loudy v. Clarke, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
25.
45 Minn. 477.
Sending jury back.
128. A jury came into court with a sealed ver-
dict, they having separated after having sealed
the same, and announced that they had agreed,
but had made a mistake in figuring, whereupon
the court, without opening the same, directed
them to again retire and reconsider their verdict,
which they did. Held no error.-Nininger v.
Knox, 8 Minn. 140, (Gil. 110.)
129. Where the jury return into court, and hand
the judge a paper designed as a verdict in favor
of plaintiff, but informal and defective, the court
may, in its discretion, in ordering them to re-
turn and reconsider their finding, require them
to return a written finding on a particular ques-
tion of fact; but refusing to require them to find
on a question irrelevant or immaterial, or too
uncertain or indefinite to admit of a categorical
answer, is not error.-Jaspers v. Lano, 17 Minn.
296, (Gil. 273.)
180. Under the instructions of the court, and
with the consent of the parties, the jury sealed
up their verdict, and, after separation overnight,
brought it into court the next morning, and, after
the clerk had reduced it to form, and entered it
upon his minutes, and had read the same to the
jury, but before they had been asked if it was
their verdict, counsel called attention to the fact
that they had not found upon a question submit-
ted. Held, that the court, in the exercise of
its discretion, could again send out the jury to
find upon such question.-Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20
Minn. 139, (Gil. 122.)
Form and sufficiency.
131. A verdict was in the following form: "The
jury find and return a verdict for said plaintiffs,
and against said defendants, and costs of suit."
Held not necessarily void for uncertainty, and
that the words "and costs of suit" might be re-
jected, as surplusage.-Coit v. Waples, 1 Minn.
134, (Gil. 110.)
132. A verdict was in the following words:
"The jury in the above case return a verdict for
the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars.
N. B. O. F. Jenkins and Joseph Moody excepted
in the above action." The persons named were
originally defendants in the action, but there
had been no service upon one of them, and the
action had been dismissed as to the other. Held.
1897
1898
TRIAL, VI,
that there was no irregularity in the form of the
verdict. -Desnoyer v. McDonald, 4 Minn. 515,
(Gil. 402.)
133. In the title to a verdict and in the verdict
itself the party for whom it was rendered was
described as "Adam Sture, appellant," instead
of "Andrew Sture, appellant." Held. that the
verdict was sufficiently certain as a verdict for
the appellant by reference to the record; the
name of the party being superfluous.-Red River
& Lake of the Woods R. Co. v. Sture, 20 N. W.
229, 32 Minn. 95.
134. In an action against J. and E. for services,
E. denied that the services were rendered for her.
J. admitted that the services were rendered for
him, and alleged that he had settled with plain-
tiff therefor, and had given a certain note, de- |
scribing it, for the amount found due, which
plaintiff accepted. The jury found "in favor of
the plaintiff and against J. and E. for the amount
set forth in the note, with interest to date, and
said note to be canceled." Held, that the verdict
was void for uncertainty as to amount. -Fryber-
ger v. Carney, 1 N. W. 807, 26 Minn. 84.
Distinguished in Jones v. King, 15 N. W. 671, 30 Minn.
371.
135. The only issue under the pleadings in an
action was whether defendant or a third party
was liable to plaintiff, the amount to which
the amount to which
plaintiff was entitled being admitted; and the
case was tried on that issue alone. The verdict
was, "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff,"
Held, that the verdict was sufficient to sustain a
judgment for the amount sued for, being respon-
sive to the whole issue, and capable of being
made certain as to the amount by reference to
the pleadings. The requirement of Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 238, that upon a verdict for
plaintiff in an action for the recovery of money
"the jury shall also assess the amount of the re-
covery," is not indispensable where such amount
is not in issue; and in such a case the omission
is at most a harmless irregularity. Distinguish-
ing Fryberger v. Carney, 26 Minn. 84.-Jones v.
King, 15 N. W. 670, 30 Minn. 368.
186. The complaint set forth a cause of action
arising on contract, and admitted a payment of
$25. The answer alleged the contract made to
have been entirely different, denied the payment,
and contained two counter-claims, one being a loan
of $25 to plaintiff. This loan was put in issue by
the reply, and there was nothing in the record to
show that the payment admitted by the plaintiff
and the loan alleged by the defendant were the same
transaction. The verdict was: "We, the jury in
the above-entitled action, find a verdict in favor of
the plaintiff in the sum of the (twenty-five) $25
dollars, now in his possession; " and on this verdict
judgment was entered against the plaintiff. Held,
that the verdict was too uncertain to sustain the
judgment.-Moriarty v. McDevitt, (Minn.) 48 N.
W.684.
46 Minn. 136.
137. From the mere fact that, by their verdict,
the jury assessed plaintiff's damages at a specified
sum, "plus" another specified sum, which latter
amount was the same as that demanded in the
complaint for special damages, it is not to be in-
ferred that the latter sum was awarded by the jury
as special damages. --Bishop v. St. Paul City Ry.
Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 927.
138. In a cause submitted to a jury generally, a
verdict for the plaintiff on one only of several
issues will not sustain a judgment in his behalf.
Meighen v. Strong, 6 Minn. 177, (Gil. 111;)
Armstrong v. Hinds, 9 Minn. 356, (Gil. 341.)
When special verdict required.
139. A party desiring a special verdict as to any
particular facts must request the court to instruct
the jury to find specifically.-Board of County
Com'rs Dakota County v. Parker, 7 Minn. 267, (Gil.
207.)
140. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 218, pro-
viding that the court "may instruct" the jury to
find upon particular questions of fact, it is discre-
tionary with the court to direct the jury to find a
special verdict.-McLean v. Burbank, 12 Minn.
530, (Gil. 438.)
141. In the exercise of its discretion the court
may refuse to submit special findings to the jury.
-Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 41
N. W. 1040.
40 Minn. 273.
142. Where the principal issue was as to wheth-
er, as against an unrecorded deed of property, held
by plaintiffs, the defendants were purchasers of
the same in good faith and for a valuable consid-
eration, it was error for the court to order judg-
ment against the plaintiffs without finding as a
fact that the defendants were purchasers in good
faith, and for a valuable consideration, or facts
equivalent to such a finding.-Roussain v. Patten,
(Minn.) 48 N. W. 1122.
46 Minn. 308.
Sufficiency of special findings.
143. Where there is no general verdict, but
special findings only, all the material issues must
be passed on to authorize a judgment.-Coleman
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 N. W. 638, 38
Minn. 260; Lane v. Lenfest, 42 N. W. 84, 40 Minn.
375; Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co.,
48 N. W. 198, 45 Minn. 441.
144. Objections that special findings are not
sufficiently direct and definite are waived unless
taken when the verdict is rendered. -Varco v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 921, 30
Minn. 18.
145. Where a special verdict, including find-
ings upon particular issues, is rendered, and
there is no general verdict, an omission to find
upon some of the issues is not waived by a fail-
ure to except by either party.-Crich v. Williams-
burg City Fire Ins. Co., 48 N. W. 198, 45 Minn.
441.
146. Where the issues not passed upon in spe-
cial findings are entirely distinct from those that
are answered, the court may order a retrial of those
particular issues only, or in proper cases, where
there can be no doubt or dispute, and the defect is
merely formal, or resulting from inadvertence, the
court may amend the verdict.-Crich v.
burg City Fire Ins. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 198.
45 Minn. 441.
Williams-
1899
1900
TRIAL, VI., VII.
1
147. A finding at variance with the issues made | cific question submitted to them, the general ver-
by the pleadings will not be treated as erroneous,
unless it appears from the record that the evidence
in support thereof was objected to.-Abbott v.
Morrissette, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 416
46 Minn. 10.
148. A finding that there was no evidence as to
a particular issue is a finding against the party
having the affirmative of the issue.-Watson v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W.
1129.
46 Minn. 321.
Construction and effect of general and
special findings.
149. In an action to recover land from a default-
ing purchaser, the jury found that plaintiff should
have possession of certain of the property, and
that defendant should retain possession of another
part thereof, unless plaintiff should pay defend-
ant a certain sum. Held, that the verdict was
neither general nor special, within Gen. St. 1866,
c. 66, § 217, which provides that a special verdict
is one in which the jury "find the facts only,
leaving the judgment to the court," but partook
of the character of an award of arbitrators or
decree in chancery, and should be set aside.
Cummings v. Taylor, 21 Minn. 366.
150. Where there is a general verdict and also
a special finding of fact, and the court, if it de-
sires to reserve the case for further considera-
tion, fails to make such order on the coming in
of the verdict, as required by Gen. St. 1866, c.
66, § 222, the party in whose favor the general
verdict is rendered may enter judgment thereon,
and the other party may raise the question only
by appeal, whether the special finding shall pre-
vail over or modify the general verdict.-Newell
v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 13.
151. In an action by an employe for damages
resulting from defective machinery the jury
found a general verdict for defendant, and, in
answer to certain specific questions, found that
defendant was guilty of negligence causing the
injury, and that plaintiff was not guilty of neg-
ligence or want of ordinary care. Held, in view
of the fact that the court had instructed the jury
that there was a difference between commissive
contributory negligence and such as might be
imputed to plaintiff for voluntarily submitting
himself to known dangers and risks arising from
defendant's negligence, that, while such distinc·
tion might not be of practical value, the special
findings were not inconsistent with the general
verdict.-Goltz v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 22
Minn. 55.
152. Where the jury are directed to find specially
in answer to certain material questions submitted
to them for their consideration, and the jury
bring in a general verdict without answering
them, the court is not at liberty without the con-
sent of the parties to withdraw or disregard them,
and if not finally answered it will be held equiva-
lent to a finding, as to the matters involved there-
in, against the party having the burden of proof.
-Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Wadsworth, (Minn.)
42 N. W 541.
40 Minn. 547.
153. Where the jury find a general verdict in
favor of the plaintiff, but fail to agree upon a spe-
dict is properly received, unless a finding in favor
of the defendant on the specific question submit-
ted would be conclusive against plaintiff's right to
recover. -Schneider v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
(Minn.) 43 N. W. 783.
42 Minn. 68.
154. When there is a general verdict, and also
special findings of fact, it is not proper practice to
move to set aside one of the findings of fact as con-
trary to the evidence, without asking for a new
trial of the whole issue or of that particular ques-
tion of fact, especially if setting it aside would re-
quire a judgment different from what would be re-
quired if it were allowed to stand.-Jordan v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 849.
42 Minn. 172.
Correcting verdict.
155. Under Pub. St. c. 61, § 32, providing that
an informal or insufficient verdict may be cor-
rected, it cannot be corrected after it has been
recorded, and no statement of the court below as
to what was intended by it will be received in
explanation. -Dana v. Farrington, 4 Minn. 433,
(Gil. 335.)
Setting aside verdict-Time.
156. After judgment is entered, a motion to set
aside the verdict cannot be entertained.-Eaton
v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 134, (Gil. 80.)
Impeachment by jurors.
157. Two days after a verdict had been rendered
court and stated that the verdict was not such as
and the jury discharged, the jurors came into
they had intended. Held, that the verdict would
not be set aside on such ground, as it could not
gomery, 6 N. W. 456, 27 Minn. 108.
be impeached by the jurors.-Stevens v. Mont-
158. Ordinarily, the affidavit of a juror is not ad-
missible, on motion to set aside the verdict, to
show that the officer in charge was guilty of mis-
conduct affecting the verdict.-Knowlton v. Mc-
Mahon, 13 Minn. 386, (Gil. 358.)
159. Affidavits of jurors that the bailiff con-
versed with them during their deliberations, and
that he stated to them the amounts of former
verdicts in plaintiff's favor on previous trials of
the action, are not admissible to impeach their
verdict.-Gardner v. Minea, (Minn.j 50 N. W.
199.
47 Minn. 295.
160. A verdict cannot be impeached by the affi.
davits of individual jurors. State v. Mims, 2 N.
W. 494, 683, 26 Miun. 183; Bradt v. Rommel,
5 N. W. 680, 26 Minn. 505.
161. It is not admissible to impeach a verdict
to show by affidavit of the jurors that the amount
was arrived at by each man naming a sum, and
then dividing the aggregate by 12.-St. Martin
v. Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156, (Gil. 131;) Bradt v.
Rommel, 5 N. W. 680. 26 Minn. 505.
VII. TRIAL BY COURT.
Submission of issues to jury-Special
findings.
162. In that class of cases which, by Gen. St.
Minn. 1886, c. 66, § 199, are triable by the court, it
1901
1902
TRIAL, VII.
}
has the same power to try the issue itself, or send
it to a jury, as when courts of law and equity were
separate; and may, on its own motion, or that of
a party, send an issue to the jury. When done, it
should be by formal order, before the trial is en-
tered upon, stating the issue to be tried.-Berkey
v. Judd, 14 Minn. 394, (Gil. 300.)
163. In an action to reform an insurance policy,
and to enforce it as reformed, a jury was impan-
eled, and, without any order or consent as to the
issues they should try, the plaintiff introduced
evidence on both branches of his case. Held,
that the question of reformation was for the
court, and, until it decided this question in the
affirmative, there was nothing for the jury to
try.-Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 17 Minn.
104, (Gil. 83.)
Distinguished in Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 364, (Gil. 323.)
164. An action to abate a mill-dam as a nui.
sance, and to recover damages for its overflow,
being not within the exceptions of Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 66, 3 198, is properly triable by the court,
unless parties otherwise. consent; and acquies-
cence in the calling and swearing of the jury is
a substantial consent to the trial of the issues of
fact in the case by jury, and their verdict for
plaintiff, ascertaining his damages, will sustain
a money judgment in his favor in such case. -
Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil. 315;) Brown
v. Lawler, 21 Minn. 327.
The case of Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil. 315,) dis-
tinguishes Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 13 Minn. 278,
(Gil. 256.)
165. Where, in a case triable by the court, sub-
ject to the right of the parties to consent, or of
the court to order, that the case be tried by a
jury, if either party allow a jury to be impaneled
without objection, it will be held a consent that
the jury should try the case instead of the court.
-Brown v. Lawler, 21 Minn. 327; Brown v.
Nagel, 21 Minn. 415.
166. In an equity case, the court may of its own
motion submit specific questions of fact to the
jury.-Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 91, (Gil. 77:)
Russell v. Reed. 1.9 N. W. 86, 32 Minn. 45; Cobb
v. Cole, 46 N. W. 364, 44 Minn. 278.
167. It is error to refer to a jury the settlement of
partnership accounts.-Berkey v. Judd, 14 Minn.
394, (Gil. 300.)
Distinguished in Cummings v. Taylor, 24 Minn. 432.
168. In an action to recover damages for waste
and detention of real property, a special interrog-
atory may be submitted to the jury, as to whether
plaintiff has been damaged by reason of the
waste and detention charged. Such interrogatory
does not involve the taking of accounts, nor the
submission of books of account to the jury.-
Cummings v. Taylor, 24 Minn. 429.
Distinguishing Berkey v. Judd, 14 Minn. 394, (Gil. 300.)
169. In an action to restrain defendants from
diverting the waters of a natural water course,
and turning them upon plaintiff's land, the jury
specially found that defendants had, simply by
defendants had, simply by
digging a ditch and removing materials from the
water-course, removed artificial obstructions,
artificial obstructions,
such as sand, gravel, and wood, which had
washed into the natural channel, and constitutel
|
an obstruction of the natural bed of such water-
course, and they also specially found that de-
fendants had obstructed the said natural water-
course so as to cause more of the said waters to
flow upon the premises of plaintiff than would
flow over them if said water-course was in its
natural condition. Held, that the findings were
too ambiguous and inconsistent to support a
judgment for defendant.-Pint v. Bauer, 16 N.
W. 425, 31 Minn. 4.
170. Specific issues having been tried before a
jury by order of the court, leaving other material
issues untried, the court, upon the verdict of the
jury, ordered judgment for defendant. Held, that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial for such
error, but only to a trial of the untried issues, upon
motion being made therefor. Cobb v. Cole,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 364.
44 Minn. 278.
171. In an action for reformation of a written
contract the court cannot, by its judgment, make
special verdict, but must follow such verdict.
the contract different from the one found by a
Wilson v. McCormick, 10 Minn. 216, (Gil. 174.)
172. The verdict of a jury upon a specific ques
tion of fact submitted in an equitable action, not
having been set aside or vacated, controls the
determination of that question in the trial court.
-Niggeler v. Maurin, 24 N. W. 369, 34 Minn. 118.
173. In an action triable by the court specific
questions of fact were submitted to a jury, but,
though the whole case was presented, the ques-
tions submitted to the jury were not sufficient
for the determination of one of the issues as it
was developed. On the return by the jury of
their verdict no order was made reserving the
case for further consideration, but the court long
afterwards made findings of fact upon questions
not included in the findings of the jury, and, upon
such findings, with those of the jury, directed
judgment to be entered. Held, that this was not
error.-Schmitt v. Schmitt, 16 N. W. 543, 31 Minn.
106.
Findings by court-Duty to make.
174. Under Rev. St. c. 71, § 41, which provides
give its decision in writing, stating the facts
that in a trial without a jury the court shall
give its decision in writing,
found and conclusions of law separately, a judg-
ment entered in such cause, without such writ-
ten decision, is irregular. Bazille v. Ullman, 2
Allison, 3 Minn. 83 (Gil. 41.)
Baldwin v.
Minn. 134, (Gil. 110,) followed.
Allison, 3 Minn. 83 (Gil. 41.)
175. In the trial of a cause by the court without
issues in the case.-Lowell v. North, 4 Minn. 32,
a jury it is its duty to find upon all the material
(Gil. 15.)
176. Where an action before a referee or court
is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, no
findings of fact are necessary.-Thompson v. My-
rick, 24 Minn. 4.
177. In a cause tried by the court the action
may be dismissed without stating findings of
fact, if the case does not justify findings and
judgment in favor of plaintiff.—Miller v. Miller,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 612.
47 Minn. 546.
1903
1904
TRIAL, VII.
Findings by court-Scope of issues.
178. A trial court need not make further findings
upon matters not within the pleadings, unless the
parties have by consent litigated such matters as
though they were within the issues.-Dean v.
Hitchings, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 240.
40 Minn. 31.
Evidence to support.
179. In an action tried by the court the plaintiff
introduced evidence which would have supported
a decision of the issues of fact in his favor, and
rested. Thereupon the court, on motion of de-
fendant, "ordered judgment in favor of defendant
upon the evidence introduced by the plaintiff."
Held error.-Chickering & Son v. White, (Minn.)
44 N. W. 988.
42 Minn. 457.
Sufficiency of findings.
180. A complaint averred certain specific facts,
and a general conclusion of mixed law and fact
based entirely upon such facts. The specific facts
were put in issue by the answer. The court found
the specific facts against, and the general con-
clusion in favor of, plaintiff, and ordered judg-
ment according to the general conclusion. Held
erroneous.-Dana v. Porter, 14 Minn. 478, (Gil.
355.)
181. The facts required to be found by the court
are the ultimate facts forming the issues presented
by the pleadings, and not those merely evidentiary
of them. Neither evidence, argument, nor com-
ment has any legitimate place in findings of fact.-
Conlan v. Grace, (Minn.) 30 N. W. S80.
>>
36 Minn. 276.
182. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 242,
providing that in case of trial by the court "the
facts found and the conclusions of law shall be
separately stated, a finding of the ultimate fact
of a payment of a certain amount, so described
as to identify it, is sufficiently specific, and the
court is not required to state when, where, to
whom, or how, or in what manner, or for what
purpose, the payment was made. -Butler v.
Bohn, 17 N. W 862, 31 Minn. 325.
183. A finding of fact to the effect that a person
"sold" his interest in a mill implies that he re-
ceived value therefor, when there is nothing to
indicate the contrary.-Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn.
342, (Gil. 320.)
184. Findings on a trial by the court which
contain mere statements of evidence, with no
finding on any issuable fact, are insufficient to
sustain a judgment.-Wagner v. Nagel, 23 N. W.
308, 33 Minn. 348.
185. On trial by the court of an action to re-
cover a trunk and its contents, the only findings
relative to the taking or detention of the prop
erty were, in substance, that plaintiff was in-
debted to defendant; that one B., named as de-
fendant's partner, but not distinctly found to
be such, removed the trunk from the place where
it had been left by plaintiff, without plaintiff's
knowledge; that plaintiff demanded possession of
it from defendant, who said he knew where it was,
and would return it if plaintiff would pay what he
owed or give security, which, being refused, de-
fendant refused to give up the trunk. Held,
that from these facts responsibility on the part
of defendant could not be affirmed, the findings
being of evidence merely, not of issuable facts;
and a judgment for plaintiff could not be sus-
tained.-Schneider v. Ashworth, 26 N. W. 233,
34 Minn. 426.
facts which, if established, entitle the party
186. When a pleading specifically sets forth
pleading to relief, as a legal conclusion, a find-
ing by the court of the truth of the allegations of
the pleading is sufficient.-School-Dist. No. 73 v.
Wrabeck, 16 N. W. 493, 31 Minn. 77.
187. A finding by the court that all the allega-
tions of the complaint are true is insufficient to
support a judgment for plaintiff, where the com-
plaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action. -Knudson v. Curley, 15 N. W.
873, 30 Minn. 433.
188. A finding on trial by the court "that the
allegations of fact in the complaint are not
proved" is sufficient to sustain a judgment for
defendant on appeal; no objection that the find-
ing was not sufficiently specific having been taken
in the trial court.-Hewitt v. Blumenkranz, 23 N.
W. 858, 33 Minn. 417.
189. Findings are sufficient if they cover all the
issues made by the pleadings, and are sufficient as
a foundation for a judgment; and the court is not
required to set forth or explain the means or pro-
cess by which he arrived at such findings.—Ĉɔn-
lan v. Grace, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 880.
36 Minn. 276.
190. Findings of fact must be sufficient in them-
selves to support the judgment, and the evidence
cannot be resorted to to supplement the findings.
-Hodge v. Ludlum, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 805.
45 Minn. 290.
191. In an action tried before a court without a
jury, after finding the facts, the decision concluded,
"Ordered, that plaintiff have judgment as prayed
for in his complaint." Held, that this was a suffi-
cient compliance with the statute requiring con-
clusions of law to be stated.-Von Glahn v. Som-
mer, 11 Minn. 203, (Gil. 132.)
Modification or correction.
192. A court may on motion, after its findings
have been filed, and before the entry of judgment
thereon, change or modify its conclusions of law
from the facts found, without ordering a new trial.
-Jones v. Wilder, 9 N. W. 707, 28 Minn. 233.
193. A trial court has jurisdiction, after appeal
from a judgment, until the return is transmitted
to the supreme court, to correct mistakes and
omissions in its findings, so as to make them con-
form to the decision actually made.-State Sash
& Door Manuf'g Co. v. Adams, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 360.
47 Minn. 399.
Omission to make or file findings.
194. The remedy for failure of the court to find
upon a material issue, in a cause tried before it,
is by motion for an amendment of the findings.
-Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 457, (Gil. 411.)
1905
1906
TRIAL, VII.—TRUSTS, I.
195. The failure, after judgment has been or-
dered, to file findings of fact and conclusions of
law, as prescribed by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, §
242, is an omission which the trial court can sup-
ply under section 125 of that act by a nunc pro
tunc order, and is not ground for vacating the
judgment.-Swanstrom v. Marvin, 37 N. W. 455,
38 Minn. 359.
196. Where an action is tried by the court, and it
fails to find specifically on all the material issues,
the proper remedy is not a motion for a new trial,
but an application_to_the_court for further find-
ings.-Warner v. Foote, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 935.
40 Minn. 176.
197. Where a cause is tried by the court with-
out a jury, and is fully submitted for adjudica-
tion, and the court thereupon directs a judgment
on the merits, without making any express find-
ings upon the issues, the remedy for this omis-
sion of the court is by application to the court
to correct it, and not by appeal from the judg-
ment.-Williams v. Schembri, 46 N. W. 403, 44
Minn. 250.
Time of filing decision.
198. Comp. St. Minn. c. 61, § 41, requiring a
judge, before whom a cause is tried without a jury,
to file his decision within 20 days after the term,
is directory merely.-Vogle v. Grace, 5 Minn.
294, (Gil. 232.)
Trover.
See Conversion of Personal Property.
Trust Companies.
Power to act as guardians, see Constitutional
Law, 53; Insanity, 3, 4.
TRUSTS.
I. EXPRESS TRUSTS, 1-12.
II. IMPLIED TRUSTS, 13-33.
III. TRUSTEES, 34-40.
IV. REMEDIES, 41–46.
See, also, Executors and Administrators; Guard
ian and Ward: Wills.
Limitation of actions, see Limitation of Actions,
40, 41.
Oral agreements, see Frauds, Statute of, 49, 50.
Powers in trust, see Powers.
Resulting trust for creditors, see Fraudulent
Conveyances, 27-35.
Secret trusts, see Fraudulent Conveyances, 36-41.
Trustee of town site, see Public Lands, 29, 41-50.
Who may sue as trustee of express trust, see
Principal and Agent, 101, 102.
I. EXPRESS TRUSTS.
What constitute-Validity.
>>
face purported to convey the land to certain per-
sons described as "trustees of M. E. Church,
who were, with one exception, trustees of said
association, "in trust that said premises shall be
used, maintained, and disposed of as a place of
divine worship for the use of the ministry and
membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States, " etc. Thereupon the members
of such religious association, acting in its behalf,
took possession under the deed, and in good faith
proceeded to erect a church building thereon, with
the knowledge and approval of the plaintiff, and
thereafter continued in possession, with his ac-
quiescence. Held, that no title passed by the
deeds to the association, not being made to it or
its members, or in trust for them, but upon a
trust public and general in its character, not au-
thorized by statute.-Little v. Willford, 17 N.
W. 282, 31 Minn. 173.
2. An absolute deed of land, made with the
intention of creating a trust, and an agreement
properly executed by the parties declaring the
trust, may be construed together as parts of one
transaction, and as establishing the trust. And
where the trust sought to be created is not among
those permitted by the statute of uses, but other-
wise would be valid as an express trust, if it is
intended to authorize "the performance of any
act which may be lawfully performed under a
power, as provided by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
43, § 14, it may be valid as a power in trust, al-
though the instrument is not in form a power in
trust, as defined by the statute. Randall v.
Constans, 23 N. W. 530, 33 Minn. 329.
>>
3. Under Comp. St. Minn. c. 32, § 31, subd. 5, re-
quiring a trust to be "fully expressed and clearly
defined upon the face of the instrument creating
it," a conveyance of real estate to certain persons
in trust for an unincorporated association, and
"for the use and benefit of the several members
thereof, according to their respective interests, " is
void for uncertainty as to the beneficiaries, and
cannot be enforced even after the incorporation of
such association.--German Land Ass'n v. Scholler,
10 Minn. 331, (Gil. 260.)
4. The owner of land conveyed it in trust,
directing that the trustees should sell it, and pay
over the net proceeds for the endowment of a
specified hospital, to be used for the support of
the charity patients therein, in case the Episco-
pal churches in the city where the hospital was
situated should prove to the satisfaction of the
trustees that they would permanently sustain it
as a church hospital; and, in case said churches
should not so satisfy the trustees, then to pay the
proceeds over to another specified "hospital.
Held, that the trust is not void on the ground
that the conditions are indefinite, and the trust
undefined, nor on the ground that the provisions
of the deed are so vague and uncertain as to be
incapable of enforcement by judicial decree.-
Atwater v. Russell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 629.
5. The owner of land conveyed it in trust, di-
recting the trustees to sell it, and appropriate
the proceeds to the endowment of a certain hos-
1. Plaintiff, in pursuance of previous negotia-pital, to be used for the support of charity pa-
tions with certain members of a religious asso-
ciation known as the "Trustees of M. E. Church"
for E., and at their request, executed a deed of
a lot of land for a church building, which on its
tients therein, if certain churches should prove
to the satisfaction of the trustees that they would
permanently sustain the hospital; and, in case
the churches should not fully so satisfy the trus-
1907
1908
TRUSTS, I., II.
tees, then to pay over the proceeds to another
specified hospital. Held, that either one or the
other of the hospitals was the beneficiary, and
not the charity patients of the first specified hos-
pital, and the trust was not void for indefinite-
ness of the beneficiary. Atwater v. Russell,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 629.
6. The owner of land conveyed it in trust,
and directed the trustees (1) to take possession,
collect the rents and profits, and apply the same
to pay the taxes, and the expenses of carrying
out the trust, and, if there should be any de-
ficiency, to charge the same on the land; (2) to
sell the land, and to pay over any portion of the
proceeds that might remain in their hands to the
beneficiary. Held, that the subject-matter of
the trust was not indefinite, though the amount
to be paid over to the beneficiary could not be
determined until the time for paying it over.-
Atwater v. Russell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 629.
7. A conveyance of land in trust, directing
that the trustees shall sell the land as soon as, in
their judgment, it can be sold for a reasonable
price, compared with other lands in the vicinity,
and expressly requiring that the sale shall be
made "within the next ten years, "does not sus-
pend the power of alienation.-Atwater v. Rus-
sell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 629.
8. The owner of land conveyed it in trust,
and directed the trustees to sell it as soon as, in
their judgment, it could be sold for a reasonable
price, and, in any event, within the next 10
years, and to appropriate the net proceeds for
the endowment of a certain hospital, if the Epis-
copal churches in a certain city should prove to
the satisfaction of the trustees that they would
permanently sustain the hospital as a church
hospital, said proceeds to be used for the support
of the charity patients; and provided that in
case the churches should not fully satisfy the
trustees that they would sustain the hospital,
they should pay over the proceeds to another
specified hospital, whenever they should be sat-
isfied that the churches were not disposed to
carry out the trust. Held, that the ownership
of the proceeds of the land was not unlawfully
suspended.-Atwater v. Russell, (Minn.) 51 N.
W. 629.
9. After foreclosure of a mortgage, the mort-
gagor had "a secret understanding and agreement"
with C., by which the latter was to purchase the
property after the period of redemption had ex-
pired, and hold it for the benefit of the mortgagor,
C. purchased the property with her own funds, and
subsequently conveyed to a third party. It was
not shown that the mortgagor refrained from re-
deeming in reliance upon the understanding with
C., or that the mortgagee was a party thereto, or
conveyed to C. in pursuance thereof, or that C. ob-
tained the conveyance for a less price than she
would otherwise. Held, that the facts were not
sufficient to create a trust in favor of the mortga-
gor.-Jacoby v. Crowe, 30 N. W. 441, 36 Minn. 93.
10. A parol agreement that a grantee of lands
will hold them for the grantor until sold, and then
pay over the proceeds, is void as an attempt to
create a trust by parol, and the land and the money
obtained for it belong to the grantee; and a mere
intention to pay over the money to the grantor, or
to invest it for him, does not make him the owner
of it.-Wolford v. Farnham, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 295.
44 Minn. 159.
Construction and effect.
11. In an action to have defendant declared trus-
tee of certain lots, which it was alleged he had
agreed to purchase and convey to plaintiff, the only
positive evidence as to the existence of the agree-
ment was that of the parties, who flatly contra-
dicted each other. A memorandum of agreement,
executed at the date of the agreement in question,
stated the terms of a contract by which defendant
was to convey to plaintiff certain lots, but was silent
as to the lots in question. When plaintiff first
made a claim to the latter lots he put it upon the
ground that they were covered by a quitclaim deed
of all of defendant's interest in the addition in
which they were located. Held, that a finding for
defendant would not be disturbed. — Dearing v.
Merrill, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 695.
41 Minn. 1.
12. E. conveyed land to a trustee, in trust for
his heirs, to whom it was to descend upon his
death; plaintiff, his heir, being then in ventre
sa mere. Subsequently the trustee, for the ex-
pressed purpose of terminating the trust, recon-
veyed to E. Held that, upon the execution of
the trust-deed, a future vested estate in the heirs
of E. was created; that the trust could not be
destroyed, either by a revocation by the gran-
tor, or by a violation of the trust by the trustee,
or both, and hence that the deed of reconvey-
ance, being not in execution of the trust, but in
contravention of it, was void.-Ewing v. Warner,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 603.
47 Minn. 446.
II. IMPLIED TRUSTS.
Resulting trusts.
13. Where plaintiff settled upon government
land, and improved the same, and afterwards,
and while in possession, allowed defendant to
enter it at the land-office in his (defendant's) name,
upon a parol agreement that he should convey it
to plaintiff upon repayment to him of the pur-
chase price, no trust arose in his favor, whether
the land was paid for by his money or defend-
ant's. Wentworth v. Wentworth, 2 Minn. 277,
(Gil. 238.)
14. The facts that plaintiff continued to im-
prove and cultivate the land, and to reside there-
on with his family, did not constitute a part
performance sufficient to take the case out of the
statute.-Wentworth v. Wentworth, 2 Minn. 277,
(Gil. 238.)
15. The presumption of a resulting trust in fa-
vor of one furnishing the consideration for the
purchase of land, the title to which is taken in the
name of another, may be rebutted.-Irvine v. Mar-
shall, 7 Minn. 286, (Gil. 216.)
16. Comp. St. Minn. c. 32, concerning uses and
trusts, applies to real property only, and does not
prevent the application, to a case of the purchase
of personal property with the funds of another by
one who takes the title in his own name, of the eq-
uitable rule that a trust results in favor of the par-
ty furnishing the consideration.-Baker v. Terrell,
8 Minn. 195, (Gil. 165.)
1909
1910
TRUSTS, II.
17. Where a deed purports to have been made
upon a valuable consideration, as by acknowl-
edging the receipt of such consideration, the fact
of such receipt cannot be contradicted for the
purpose of raising a resulting trust for the gran-
tee.-McKusick v. County Com'rs Washington
County, 16 Minn. 151, (Gil. 135.)
18. Real estate was purchased by the husband,
and the title taken in the name of the wife, for
the sole purpose, known and assented to by her,
of providing her with a home in case she should
survive him, and with a mutual understanding
and agreement, intended to be but never in fact
put in writing, that, in case she should die first,
the title should vest in him and descend to his
heirs. Held, that no trust, express or implied,
was created or resulted in favor of the husband,
and that specific performance of such agreement
could not be enforced.- Johnson v. Johnson, 16
Minn. 512, (Gil. 462.)
19. After the expiration of the period of re
demption of land of a husband sold on foreclos-
ure, the wife purchased the same with money
borrowed upon her own credit, secured by a
mortgage on such land, and subsequently paid
the mortgage off from the rents and profits of
the land. Held, that no trust arose in favor of
the husband upon the conveyance of such land to
the wife. -Baker v. Baker, 22 Minn. 262.
20. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 43, § 7, provides that,
"when a grant for a valuable consideration is
made to one person, and the consideration there-
for is paid by another, no use or trust shall result"
therefrom, except in favor of the creditors of the
person by whom such payment is made. Held,
that such trust could only arise upon some deed or
conveyance; and that, therefore, when A. verbal-
ly agreed with H. to convey to H. certain real es-
tate whereof H. paid the consideration, and di-
rected a conveyance to whomsoever B. should di-
rect, and B. directed the property to be conveyed
to P., no trust resulted in favor of the creditors of
H. until the conveyance to P. by A.-Durfee v.
Pavitt, 14 Minn. 424, (Gil. 319.)
21. Gen. St. Minn. c. 43, § 7, provides that when-
ever a grant is made to one person, another pay-
ing the consideration, no trust can result in favor
of the latter, but that the title shall vest in the
person named as the alienee, an exception, how-
ever, being made where the alienee has taken the
conveyance in his own name without the knowl-
edge or consent of the person paying the consider-
ation. Held, that no resulting trust arose where
land was conveyed to R., and the consideration
was paid by J., in pursuance of a verbal agree-
ment by which R. was to hold the land in trust for
H., although the latter had no knowledge of the
agreement.-Connelly v. Sheridan, (Minn.) 42 N.
W. 595.
41 Minn. 18.
22. If an agent employed to purchase lands for
his principal, and with his money, upon the pur-
chase thereof, takes the title thereto in his own
name without the knowledge or consent of the lat-
ter, he will be adjudged to hold the title as trustee
for his principal, and, if sold and transferred by
him, the proceeds in his hands will be impressed
with a similar trust, and the court will compel him
to account therefor.-Kraemer v. Deustermann,
35 N. W. 276, 37 Minn. 469.
23. A guardian of an infant having purchased
land chiefly with the money of his ward, he, how-
ever, contributing a portion, and taking title in his
own name, a trust results in favor of the infant,
who may claim afterwards, not merely a lien as
security for the money, but a proportionate share
of the land, and, on death of the guardian, the
court may compel a transfer of the legal title. The
ward is not debarred from enforcing such transfer
by having filed a claim against the guardian's es-
tate for the money invested, that proceeding hav-
ing been discontinued without any action upon the
claim.-Bitzer v. Bobo, 38 N. W. 609,* 39 Minn. 18.
24. Plaintiff, incorporated for the purpose of
conducting a female seminary, proposed to pur-
chase and improve a certain lot, to belong to the
subscribers in proportion to their subscription.
Defendant, one of the subscribers, purchased the
lot, and took title in his own name, paying there-
for out of the proceeds of a mortgage executed
thereon. The subscriptions of the stockholders
were all paid up, and used in improving the lot.
Thereafter defendant purchased the entire stock of
the corporation, and was authorized by the stock-
holders to sell and dispose of the property. Held,
that no trust attached to the property in defend-
ant's hands in favor of plaintiff.-Bennett Female
Seminary v. Whitney, 49 N. W. 58, 46 Minn. 353.
25. In ejectment for land claimed by plaintiff
through L., his father, who had located land
warrants thereon and received patents, defend-
ants claimed through P., claiming that the land
warrants had been entered in his own name by
L., but in reality in trust for P. Several wit-
nesses who were uncontradicted testified to facts
showing that P. had given land warrants to L.,
had said he had land warrants to locate for P.;
who was an attorney, to locate for him; that L.
and it did not appear that any warrants were
entered in P. 's name. It also appeared that dur-
ing 38 years, for more than half of which a claim-
ant under P. was in possession of the land, no
claim was made under L. Held, that the evi-
dence required a finding that L. had located the
warrants as agent and trustee for P.-Lambert v.
Stees, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 662.
Constructive trusts.
47 Minn. 141.
26. A person obtaining property by fraud ac
quires no title to it, but it is held by him, and all
persons claiming under him with notice, in trust
for the original owner.-Third Nat. Bank v. Still-
water Gas Co., 30 N. W. 440, 36 Minn. 75.
27. A., who owned 160 acres of land, conveyed
40 of it to plaintiff. Before the deed was re-
corded, A., without plaintiff's consent, mort-
gaged the whole 160 acres to B., who had no no-
tice of plaintiff's deed, and who recorded his
mortgage before the deed was recorded. B. fore-
closed, and purchased the land. Before the time
to redeem expired, A. sold the tract, excluding
plaintiff's 40 acres, to defendant, who, as part
of the consideration,
of the consideration, agreed to discharge the
lien of the mortgage, and relieve the 40 acres
therefrom. This he failed to do, but he allowed
B.'s title to become absolute, and then took a
deed from him for the whole 160 acres. Held,
1911
1912
TRUSTS, II., 111.
that he holds the 40 acres in trust for plaintiff. | ciary relation, or the terms of the trust, and be-
-Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 91, (Gil. 77.)
28. Sp. Laws Minn. 1862, c. 56, granted to cer-
tain persons 10,000 acres of swamp lands within
certain limits. Afterwards one of the grantees
conveyed to plaintiff so much of his share of the
grant as would amount to 800 acres. He then ac-
quired the entire interest of the other grantees,
and received from the state a conveyance of all
the swamp lands within the designated limits,
which was less than 10,000 acres, whereupon he
conveyed the whole to defendant, reserving the
800 acres sold to plaintiff. Held, that defendant
became a trustee for plaintiff to the extent of 800
acres, which he would be required to convey to
plaintiff on repayment by her of her proportion
of the taxes paid by defendant prior to a demand
by plaintiff for a conveyance of such 800 acres. -
Goodwin v. Rice, 1 N. W. 25, 26 Minn. 20.
29. The United States granted land to the state
of Minnesota to aid the construction of a railroad
between certain points. The state granted its
interest to plaintiff company, deeds to be given
by the state to plaintiff when its road should be
completed. After plaintiff had complied with
the terms of the grant to it, defendant company
procured from the state a deed of the lands in
question. Held, that defendant would be de-
creed a trustee for plaintiff as to the lands in
question, and would be required to convey the
same to plaintiff.-Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 2 N. W. 489, 26 Minn. 179.
30. An absolute conveyance of land was made |
on a parol agreement by the grantee to hold the
land in trust for the wife of the grantor until
it could be sold advantageously, and to collect
the rents, pay taxes and incumbrances, and sell
the land, and pay over the proceeds to the wife
of the grantor. Held that, as such trust or
power was not created or declared by deed or
conveyance in writing, as required by statute,
the promise to pay over the proceeds could not
be enforced in an action on the agreement; that,
as no fraud or artifice was shown in the incep-
tion of the agreement, mere failure or refusal to
perform it did not convert the grantee into a
trustee, so as to enable the court to enforce the
trust on that ground; but that any recovery must
be on the ground that an interest of value to the
parties passed to the grantee on the faith of the
contract which he refused to perform; the relief
being a decree for restitution, or its equivalent,
to the party entitled.-Randall v. Constans, 23
N. W. 530, 33 Minn. 329.
31. A son, with intent to put his property be-
yond the reach of any judgment in an anticipated
litigation, conveyed it to his mother, who accept-
ed the conveyance with knowledge of its purpose,
and orally promised to reconvey the property to
the son when the litigation should be terminated
or settled. After the anticipated danger had
passed, the mother, with the intention of per-
forming her agreement, executed to the son an
instrument in the form of a deed of the premises,
but, by reason of her husband not joining therein,
the deed was void, and the son thereafter de-
manded a deed from both, which was refused.
Held, that a reconveyance to the son could not
be compelled, there being neither an express nor
a constructive trust in his favor; that the deed
from the mother did not create a valid express
trust, as it did not disclose facts creating a fidu-
cause, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 69, § 2, a
married woman cannot create or declare such a
trust unless her husband shall join with her in
the deed; and the mere refusal to perform the
oral promise of the mother, void under the stat-
ute of frauds, was not a fraud for which the court
could declare and enforce a constructive trust.-
Tatge v. Tatge, 25 N. W. 596, 26 N. W. 121, 34
Minn. 272.
32. An agreement between several to purchase
real estate to sell for their joint benefit establishes
a fiduciary relation, and where one of them in-
duces his associates to sell the property for a
price which is in fact all it is worth, he having a
which he realizes a still larger sum from the prop-
secret agreement with the purchaser, pursuant to
erty than his associates, they are entitled to an ac-
counting, and to recover from him their share of
that excess.-Newell v. Cochran, (Minn.) 43 N. W.
84.
41 Minn. 374.
33. The purchaser who pays the larger price to
one of the associates, pursuant to the secret agree-
ment, cannot be required to pay equal sums to the
41 Minn. 374.
others.-Newell v. Cochran, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 84.
Removal.
III. TRUSTEES.
34. Any one interested in the execution of an
express trust to sell property and pay debts may
bring an action, on behalf of himself and others,
to enforce its execution, or for the removal of
the trustee. Such a proceeding is not in the nat-
ure of a creditors' bill, and may be instituted
by one who is a simple contract creditor.-Gon
celier v. Foret, 4 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
35. Under Pub. St. c. 32, § 26, providing that
any person interested in the execution of an ex-
press trust may bring an action for the removal
of the trustee, etc., all the persons interested in
the trust need not be joined in the action.
Goncelier v. Foret, 4 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Dealings with trust property-Account-
ing for profits.
36. A mortgagee under an absolute deed with
an unrecorded defeasance, who exchanges the
mortgaged premises for other land, which he
afterwards sells, is chargeable, on accounting
with the mortgagor, for the full value of the land
received in exchange, though he did not realize
that value on selling it.-Darling v. Harmon,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 686.
47 Minn. 166.
Purchase of trust property.
37. A purchase by a trustee in his own name
of the trust property is not void, but voidable at
the option
the option of the cestui que trust only.-Bald-
win v. Allison, 4 Minn. 25, (Gil. 11.)
chase of trust property by a trustee.-Kerò v.
38. Only a cestui que trust can question a pur-
Chalfant, 7 Minn. 487, (Gil. 393.)
39. The rule which disables a trustee from
purchasing for his own benefit at a sale made by
him in the discharge of a fiduciary duty is not
applicable to the guardian of minor heirs, who
purchases land belonging to the ancestor's estate
at a sale conducted by the administrator under
1913
1914
TRUSTS, III., IV.
the order of the probate court, since the guardian
has no power or control over such sale. -Barber
v. Bowen, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 684. 47 Minn. 118.
40. When a partner who is a trustee of the
firm to settle its affairs, and also an executor of
his father's estate, to which the firm is indebted,
mortgages the firm's land to his co-executors to
secure the debt, in pursuance of a valid power
from his copartner, such mortgage is, in effect,
the mortgage of the copartner, and on a fore-
closure thereof the trustee may rightfully pur-
chase the land in his own name, as executor.
The rule that a trustee cannot purchase the prop-
erty of his cestui que trust does not apply. -Wil-
son v. Bell, 17 Minn. 61, (Gil. 40.)
40. K. was indebted beyond his ability to pay
at once without sacrificing his real estate. His
wife also owned a large amount of real estate.
They both conveyed the greater part of their
real estate to R. by deeds absolute in terms. At
the same time K. and R. executed an agreement
in writing, acknowledging the conveyances as
made for security on advances to K., and con-
taining provisions in respect to future advances
of money and credit, which R. covenanted to
make, to enable K. to pay his debts, and save so
much of his property as might remain after dis-
posing of enough to reimburse R. for all ad-
vances. The contract gave to R. peculiar powers
with respect to the holding and disposition of the
lands conveyed. Held, that such a relation of
trust and confidence was created between the
parties as disabled R. to purchase under judg-
ments or mortgages or bankruptcy proceedings,
and hold against K., for his own benefit, prop-
erty of K., whether included in the deeds ex-
ecuted as security or not.-King v. Remington,
29 N. W. 352, 36 Minn. 15.
IV. REMEDIES.
Action to set aside trust-deed.
41. In an action against a trustee to vacate
and set aside a trust-deed, a cestui que trust
need not be made a party defendant, although
he may, on proper cause shown, (as in the case
of collusion between the plaintiff and trustee,)
and in the discretion of the court, be permitted
to appear and defend.-Winslow v. Minnesota
& P. R. Co., 4 Minn. 313, (Gil. 230.)
Action to determine title to trust prop-
erty.
42. The complaint in an action alleged that a
certain conveyance by plaintiff to R. was merely
in trust, and that the trust had ended, and asked
that the title of the property be adjudged in him.
The answer alleged title in defendants, not mere-
ly under the deed from plaintiff to R., but also
under various other deeds from other sources,
and asked, as affirmative relief, that the title be
adjudged in them. Held that, the action being
therefore one to determine the title, defendants
were not limited to asserting a claim under the
deed from plaintiff to R., on the theory that the
action was to foreclose the equities of that deed
-Cheever v. Converse, 28 N. W. 217, 35 Minn.
179.
Distinguishing Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 208.
Action for accounting.
43. After the decease of a trustee, no succes-
sor in the trust having been appointed, and the
trust property and all right thereto having
passed to the cestui que trust, the latter may
maintain an action for an accounting and parti-
tion of the trust property, as the real party in
interest.—Judd v. Dike, 15 N. W. 672, 30 Minn.
380.
44. In an action for an accounting for property
alleged to be held in trust by defendant the court
found that certain bonds were so held by him, as
to a one-fourth interest therein, for plaintiff.
Held, that plaintiff was entitled to her propor-
tionate share of the price received for them, with
interest on the same from the time it was re-
ceived, not merely from the time when the
money was demanded.-Judd v. Dike, 15 N. W.
672, 30 Minn. 380.
Tracing trust funds.
45. Equity will follow money or other property
through any number of transmutations, and pre-
serve it for the owner, either in its original or sub-
stituted form, and, so long as it can be traced and:
identified in either form, it belongs to the original
owner, if he elects to claim it.-Third Nat. Bank
v. Stillwater Gas Co., 30 N. W. 440, 36 Minn. 75.
Participation in purchases by co-bene-
ficiaries to protect trust.
in the benefit of assignments of purchases of the
46. Co-cestuis que trustent, desiring to share.
trust, subject, under a prior lien, to other cestuis
que trustent, must elect to do so by proper con-
of nine years, unexcused by want of notice, or
tribution within a reasonable time, and a delay
fraud on the part of the other cestuis que trust-
ent will be deemed a waiver of such right of
participation. -Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 479.
1915
1916
ULTRA VIRES-UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
U.
Ultra Vires.
Indebtedness subject to garnishment, see Garnish-
ment, 1.
Corporate powers, see Corporations, 16-18; Mu- Land office, see Public Lands, 115–119.
nicipal Corporations, 104.
Undertaking.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 684, 685.
Undue Influence.
In procuring deed, see Equity, 58-64.
will, see Wills, 11, 19.
UNION DEPOT COMPANIES.
Right to use depot.
The St. Paul Union Depot Company, or-
ganized under Gen. St. Minn. c. 34, tit. 1, was
authorized to provide and maintain a union de-
pot and tracks in the city of St. Paul, "open
alike to all railroads now constructed, or which
may hereafter be constructed, to or into St.
Paul. " The companies desiring to use the depot
were to become stockholders. Laws 1879, c. 318,
accepted by the depot company, provided that
any railroad company desiring to use its depot
might subscribe to the capital stock of the depot
company, and further declared that there should
be no unjust discrimination against or in favor
of any railroad company using or desiring to use
the tracks and depot, but that the terms and con-
ditions adopted for the same should be, as far as
practicable, uniform, and apply alike to all rail-
roads. Provision was made for apportioning the
number of shares any railroad company desiring
to use the depot should take, but no price to be
paid therefor was named. The stock was only to
be owned by the companies using the depot, and
the only profit to be realized was from such tolls
and rentals as they might pay in. Five railroad
companies became stockholders, buying the stock
at par, and afterwards defendant railroad com-
pany, desiring to use the depot, sought to be-
come a stockholder. Held, that defendant was
entitled to its proportion of the stock at par,
whatever might be its alleged value, and that,
if all the stock was taken by the other com-
panies, they might be compelled to surrender so
much of their stock as might be necessary.-St.
Paul Union Depot Co. v. Minnesota & N. W. R.
Co., (Minn.) 49 N. W. 646.
47 Minn. 154.
UNITED STATES.
Action on contract made by agent, see Action, 3.
Claims for goods sold to Indians, see Indians,
4. 5.
Courts, see Courts, 31-35; Removal of Causes.
Lien upon goods belonging to.
A common carrier has no lien upon goods
transported by him belonging to the United
States.-Dufolt v. Gorman, 1 Minn. 301, (Gil. 234.)
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.
Exemption of property from taxation, see Taxa-
tion, 35-37.
Lands subject to be taken for public use, see Emi-
nent Domain, 21.
Title to property.
1. The title to the lands reserved for the use
and support of the state university remains in the
state, and not in the corporation; and all property
acquired by the regents, or funds placed at their
disposal, remain the property of the state, of
gents of State University v. Hart, 7 Minn. 61, (Gil.
which they are the mere trustees or agents.-Re-
45.)
2. In Minnesota an injunction will not be granted
to restrain the condemnation by a railroad of a right
of way through university lots, on the ground that
they had been appropriated by the state for the use
of the university, where it appears that, pursuant
to the recommendation of the professor of agricult-
ure, the executive committee purchased the lots
without the direct authority of the board of re-
gents, taking title in the name of one of their num-
ber, and that this action had not been ratified by
the regents, and that both the state and the holder
of the legal title had been parties to the condemna-
tion proceedings though the university had not.
University of Minnesota v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry.
Co. (Minn.) 31 N. W. 936.
36 Minn. 447.
Board of regents-Power to contract.
3. The board of regents of the University of
Minnesota are made a corporation by Comp. St.
Minn. c. 23, p. 350, and have power to contract only
within the limits fixed by statute, of which all per-
sons are presumed to have notice.-Regents of
State University v. Hart, 7 Minn. 61, (Gil. 45.)
4. The board of regents of the state university,
not having power to contract or incur indebted-
ness beyond the fund provided by the legislature,
cannot make a negotiable promissory note; and in
an action on such a note, given for a valid indebt-
edness, judgment will be restricted in its enforce-
ment to such fund.-Regents of State University
v. Hart, 7 Minn. 61, (Gil. 45.)
Unlawful Detainer.
See Forcible Entry and Detainer.
1917
!
USAGE USURY, I.
1918
:
Usage.
See Custom and Usage.
USE AND OCCUPATION.
USURY.
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES, 1-21.
II. EFFECT On Contract, 22–31.
III. REMEDIES OF DEBTOR, 32-40.
IV. USURY AS A DEFENSE, 41-49.
Liability of tenant in common, see Tenancy in Authority of agent to take, see Principal and
Common and Joint Tenancy, 12–16.
When action lies.
1. An action for use and occupation will not
lie against a party in possession of real estate by
the license of the owner.-Reed v. Lammel, (Minn.)
42 N. W. 202.
Pleading.
40 Minn. 397.
2. A complaint in an action for use and oc-
cupation, which contains no allegations of facts
showing the relation of landlord and tenant be-
tween plaintiff and defendant, fails to state a
cause of action, and it cannot be sustained on the
theory of waiving a tortious entry and occupa-
tion of the premises, and suing upon an implied
contract.-Hurley v. Lameraux, 12 N. W.‍447,
29 Minn. 138.
3. Where, in an action for use and occupation
of land, plaintiff alleges title in himself, which de-
fendant denies in his answer, but, on the trial, the
title of plaintiff is undisputed, it is error to submit
the issue to the jury.-Reed v. Lammel, (Minn.) 42
Lammel, (Minn.) 42
N. W. 202.
40 Minn. 397.
Evidence.
4. In an action for use and occupation, it is
competent for defendant to show that he did not
occupy the whole of the premises; and in such
case, an admission that the value of the use and
occupation of the whole premises is as stated in
the complaint, goes for nothing.—Steele v. Thayer,
(Minn.) 30 N. W. 758.
36 Minn. 174.
Agent, 34, 35.
Included in amount for which mortgaged prem-
ises are sold on foreclosure, see Mortgages, 247.
Repeal of statute relating to, see Statutes, 65.
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES.
Retention by lender of part of money
loaned.
1. On a loan of money, for the amount of which
the borrower gives his promissory notes, the re-
tention of a part of the money by the lender,
without any satisfactory reason or explanation
thereof, is sufficient to justify the jury in finding
that such money was retained as usurious inter-
est.-Egbert v. Peters, 29 N. W. 134, 35 Minn. 312.
2. Defendants, having applied to plaintiffs
for a loan of $100, were informed that they could
have it for a bonus of $20 and interest, and there-
upon they made their note for $120, with interest,
and delivered it to plaintiffs, who gave them a
check for $120, saying that defendants might
take $100 of the amount, and that a third party
would get $20 of the amount and bring it back;
and this was done. Held, that making the check
for $120 was a mere device to conceal the usuri.
ous character of the transaction. - Elston v.
Kelley, 26 N. W. 229, 34 Minn. 409.
Taking note for a sum in excess of
loan.
3. When money is borrowed and a note for a
larger amount is given, it being understood that in-
Thayer,terest is added to make up the face of the note, and
5. In an action for use and occupation of prem-
ises which defendant went into possession of with-
out authority from plaintiff, and tried unsuccess-
fully to obtain a lease of, a notice sent by plain-
tiff's agent to defendant to vacate the premises,
and to pay a certain sum for occupation, offered
in evidence by defendant, held properly excluded.
But evidence offered by defendant, to show an ar-
rangement made by him with plaintiff's agent,
whereby defendant was to remain in possession
until plaintiff could be communicated with, held
admissible.-Steele v. Thayer, 30 N. W. 758, 36
Minn. 174.
Amount of recovery.
6. Where plaintiff sues for the use and occu-
pation of land, and not for rent reserved by ex-
press contract between the parties, he can re-
cover only the value of such use and occupation
of the premises as defendant is shown to have
actually enjoyed.-Sanford v. Johnson, 4 N. W.
43, 26 Minn. 314.
See Trusts.
Uses.
the amount thus added is in excess of the lawful
rate, the agreement is usurious.-W. B. Clark In-
vestment Co. v. McNaughton, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 412.
46 Minn. 8.
tionally included therein a sum greater than the
4. Evidence that the payee of a note inten-
amount loaned, with 10 per cent. interest on the
face amount of the note, whereby he secured to
himself a greater compensation for the forbear-
ance of the sum actually loaned than the statute
allows, is sufficient to support the charge of usury.
-Holmen v. Rugland, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 189.
46 Minn. 400.
Mistake in rate of interest.
5. A chattel mortgage was conditioned for
the payment of a sum named, "according to a
certain note of even date, with interest at 12 per
cent." Held, upon evidence showing that, as re-
spects the rate of interest, there was a mistake
in the mortgage, the rate of interest in fact se-
cured by the note being 10 per cent. only, that
the mortgage was not usurious, within Laws
Minn. 1879, c. 66, § 3, making void all contracts
"whereupon or whereby there shall be reserved,
secured, or taken any greater sum or value for
the loan or forbearance of any money" than at
1919
1920
USURY, I.
the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The statute
avoids a contract for actual usury, not for a false
appearance of usury.-Ward v. Anderberg, 17 N.
W. 630, 31 Minn 304.
Lapse of time before delivery of sum
loaned.
6. Where the negotiation of a loan is transact-
ed through the mails, and a reasonable time trans-
pires between the date of the execution of the se-
curities, which bear interest from their date and
their final acceptance, and the delivery to the
mortgagor of the sum loaned, and there is no in-
tention to pay or exact an unlawful rate of inter-
est, the securities are not void for usury because
of such intervening lapse of time.-Daley v. Min-
nesota Loan & Investment Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W.
1100.
43 Minn. 517.
Guaranty of sum due on usurious note.
7. A guaranty, made upon the sale of a past-
due promissory note, that a certain sum is due,
and that it bears interest at a certain rate, which
the guarantor believes to be valid, it not being un-
usual, exorbitant, or at that time judicially de-
clared invalid, is binding upon him for the full
amount and specified interest, though the rate of
interest is not valid, and a portion of the sum
specified as due is made up from a calculation of
interest at such rate.-Hendricks v. Banning, 7
Minn. 32, (Gil. 17.)
Transactions through agents
agents — In gen-
In gen-
eral.
such illegal exaction.-Stein v. Swensen, (Minn.)
46 N. W. 360.
44 Minn. 218.
Compensation of agents-Bonus.
11. The taking out of money loaned, by agents,
for their own benefit, of a sum as a bonus for
procuring the loan. but without any collusion
with the lender, if he neither authorizes nor rat-
ifies the act, nor derives any benefit trom it, is
not presumptively a cover for usury on his part,
and does not make the loan usurious.-Acheson
v. Chase, 9 N. W. 734, 28 Minn. 211; Jordan v.
Humphrey, 18 N. W. 450, 31 Minn. 495; Strait
v. Frary, 22 N. W. 295, 33 Minn. 194.
12. Receiving a mortgage given to secure such
loan, and attempting to enforce it for the amount
actually loaned, with lawful interest, does not
amount to a ratification.-Jordan v. Humphrey, 18
N. W. 450, 31 Minn. 495.
13. Defendant authorized one A. to lend money
for him at the lawful rate of interest, and to take
securities therefor in defendant's name. Under
the contract of agency, A. was to receive no com-
pensation from defendant for making loans, but
was authorized to collect from the borrowers a
reasonable compensation for such services. A.
loaned $500 to plaintiff, taking plaintiff's note and
mortgage for that sum in defendant's name, charg-
ing plaintiff a bonus of $50 for making the loan.
Defendant never authorized the taking of any
bonus, nor did he ever receive the benefit of any
bonus. Held, that the taking of the $50, so far as
it was a mere bonus, and not intended as a reason-
authorized act on the part of A., and was not usury
able compensation for making the loan, was an un-
W. 734, 28 Minn. 211.
on the part of defendant.-Acheson v. Chase, 9 N.
Distinguished in Avery v. Creigh, 29 N. W. 154, 35 Minn.
457.
8. H., the payee of an overdue usurious note,
pretending to L., the maker, to refuse to renew it,
referred him to K., from, whom he said he could
borrow the money to pay it. L. thereupon applied
to K. for the loan, which K. pretended to make to
him, taking from him a note running to himself
and giving him a check on H.'s bank, which L. in-
dorsed over to H., receiving in exchange therefor
14. A broker loaning money for a principal
merely his old note. In fact the pretended loan by without compensation from him, under an ex-
K. was merely colorable, the transaction being a press agreement with the borrower, charged him,
mere device by H. to evade the usury law, K. being in addition to interest, a commission for procur-
his agent, and the new note in fact belonging to Hing the loan, examining certain personal property
and being taken in substitution for the first one.
on which security was to be given, and drawing
Held, that L. could recover the value of property sion for his own exclusive use, the principal re-
the necessary papers, and received such commis-
taken on a chattel mortgage executed to secure
the new note on the ground that it was usurious, ceiving only the interest. Held, it not appear-
although at the time of its execution he was igno ing that the commission charged was excessive
rant of the fact, and supposed that it was made to or unreasonable for the services performed for
secure an actual loan made to him by K.-Lukens the borrower, that the transaction was not usu-
v. Hazlett, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 265.
rious.-Mackey v. Winkler, 29 N. W. 337, 35 Minn.
37 Minn. 441.
9. Where one, as agent, sold notes and a mort
gage securing them, executed by his principal to
himself, to defendants, at a discount greater
than the rate of interest allowed by law, but de-
fendants made the purchase in good faith, not
knowing the relation of the seller to the maker of
the notes, there was no usury.-Jackson v. Travis,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 316.
42 Minn. 438.
10. Where a general agent loaning the money of
his principal makes an illegal exaction from the
borrower solely for his own benefit, and without
the knowledge or sanction of his principal, who in
no manner ratifies it, the latter is not affected by
513.
15. A note given for a sum agreed to be paid to
the payee, in consideration for his services in se-
curing a loan for the maker from a third person,
and not shown to be unreasonable in amount, or a
cover for usury, is presumptively valid.-Thomas
v. Miller, (Minn.) 40 N. W 358.
39 Minn. 339.
16. An agent, authorized to loan money of his
principal without compensation from the latter
for his services, but "to make what he could out
or it," made a loan of $15 for a month, and de-
ducted from the amount a month's interest and
$6.46 as commission, paying the remainder in
cash. Held, it not appearing that he had ren-
dered any services in regard to the loan for which
1921
1922
USURY, I., II.
such commission would not be unreasonably large,
that the deduction was a mere cover for usury.
-Avery v. Creigh, 29 N. W. 154, 35 Minn. 456.
Distinguishing Acheson v. Chase, 9 N. W. 734, 28 Minn.
211.
17. An agent having general authority to make
loans, a note taken by him for $17, with interest at
the highest legal rate, but in fact given for a loan
of $15 only, the extra $2 being charged as addition-
al interest, is usurious and void.-Kemmitt v.
Adamson, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 327.
44 Minn. 121.
Expenses incident to loan.
18. A charge made in good faith, which is rea-
sonable in amount, to cover expenses for examin-
ing title and the preparation of the writings nec-
essary to secure a sum loaned to a mortgagor, is
not usurious.-Daley v. Minnesota Loan & Invest-
ment Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. 1100.
43 Minn. 517.
Renewal-Compound interest.
19. Defendant, being indebted to plaintiff on
certain notes, took them up, and gave instead new
notes, whose amount was determined by taking
the amount, principal and interest, actually due
on the old notes, and adding thereto a sum reached
by computing compound interest on the old notes
at a given per cent. Held that, as to this latter
amount, the new notes were usurious where the in-
terest on the old notes was at the highest rate
allowed by law.—Simpson v. Evans, (Minn.) 46
N. W. 908.
44 Minn. 419.
cannot be enforced.-Brown v. Nagel, 21 Minn.
415.
23. Under Laws Minn. 1879, c. 66, § 3, which de-
clares that "all bonds, bills, notes, assurances, con-
veyances, chattel mortgages, and all other con-
tracts and securities whatsoever" which are usu-
rious shall be void, where a contract for a usu-
rious loan of money is evidenced by a note secured
by bill of sale, the contract, as well as the note
and bill of sale, are void, and there is no valid in-
debtedness for the money loaned.-Ormund v. Ho-
bart, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 213.
Giving new note.
36 Minn. 306.
24. On an accounting and settlement for notes
past due, drawing more than the legal rate of 7
per cent. after due, the maker consented to the
allowance of interest at the rate stipulated in
the contract over 7 per cent., and voluntarily
gave new notes for the aggregate amount found
due by including such interest. Held that, in an
action brought on such new notes, he was not en-
titled to deduction for the excess of interest in-
cluded therein, but was liable for the full face;
for by giving such new notes he waived his right
to be relieved in equity from such excess of in-
terest. Whitacre v. Fuller, 5 Minn. 508, (Gil.
401,) overruled. -Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 67,
(Gil. 45.)
Explained and distinguished in Simpson v. Evans, 46
N. W. 909, 44 Minn. 421.
Substitution of new security.
Explaining and distinguishing Martin v. Lennon, 19 all securities given therefor absolutely void, the
Minn. 67, (Gil. 45.)
Expenses of procuring.
25. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 23, prohib-
iting usury, and making the usurious contract and
effect of the statute is not avoided by the sub-
stitution of a new security for one infected with
usury.-Jordan v. Humphrey, 18 N. W. 450, 31
Minn. 495.
•
20. Where a borrower authorized an agent in
writing to negotiate a loan for him, and thereby
agreed "to pay him
dollars" for securing 26. The giving up by a creditor of security for
extensions of the loan, it was competent for the a usurious debt, and taking new mortgages on the
borrower, in an action to recover the loan, to same property, will not remove the taint of usury.
show by parol testimony that the amount there--Exlev v. Berrvhill, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 567.
after verbally agreed to be paid the agent, nomi-
nally for procuring an extension, was really a
part of the consideration of the loan, and shift
to cover a usurious transaction -Stein v. Swen-
sen. (Minn.) 49 N. W. 55.
Question for jury.
46 Minn. 360.
21. Whether the purchase of securities or other
property, or the execution of a collateral contract
by the borrower in connection with a loan, and as
a part of the consideration and inducement there-
for, will make the transaction usurious, is ordina-
rily to be determined as a question of fact in the
trial court.-Chase v. New York Mortg. Loan Co.,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 816.
II. EFFECT ON CONTRACT.
In general.
22. Under Gen. St. 1866, c. 23, § 1, which
provides that "no contract for a greater rate of
interest than $12 upon $100, for a year, shall be
valid for the excess of interest over 12 per cent.,'
an executory promise to pay a rate of interest
greater than 12 per cent. per annum is void, and
V.2M.DIG.-61
37 Minn. 182.
27. Where plaintiff in replevin claims the prop-
erty only under a mortgage given to secure a note
which defendant alleges and proves to be usurious,
plaintiff cannot recover under a former mortgage
on the same property, in renewal of which the
evidence shows that the mortgage under which he
claims was executed, and which was not tainted
with usury.-Barrows v. Thomas, (Minn.) 45 N.
W. 443.
43 Minn. 270.
Extension of time of payment.
28. A note not originally usurious is not made
so by a subsequent extension, granted in consid-
eration of payment of usurious interest. -Avery
v. Creigh, 29 N. W. 154, 35 Minn. 456.
29. A contract for the loan of money for a
stated time, at a rate of interest not usurious, is
not avoided, and the original debt forfeited, by
a contemporaneous agreement, not intended as a
means of evading the usury law, that at the op-
tion of the borrower the time of payment may be
extended by the payment of more than the legal
1923
1924
USURY, II-IV.
rate of interest for the period of the extension.-
Stein v. Swensen, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 360.
44 Minn. 218.
illegal interest for which the property was sold.
Held, that it is not necessary to wait until the
foreclosure has become complete by expiration of
the time allowed for redemption before such ac-
Bona fide purchasers of negotiable pa- tion can be maintained.-Beal v. White, 8 N. W.
829, 28 Minn. 6.
per.
30. An indorsee of a negotiable note transferred
to him before maturity, and without notice of
any usury affecting the same, is, if he surrenders
other securities in consideration of the transfer
of the note to him, a purchaser for value, within
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 23, § 4, declaring a usu-
rious note void except as to bona fide purchasers
in good faith, for value, before maturity. First
Nat. Bank of Rochester v. Bentley, 6 N. W. 422,
27 Minn. 87.
31. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 66, § 3, by the terms of
which "bona fide purchasers of negotiable paper"
are protected from the avoiding effects of usury,
does not apply to mortgages securing negotiable
paper.-Scott v. Austin, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 89.*
36 Minn. 460.
III. REMEDIES OF DEBTOR.
Right to recover back interest paid.
32. One who, without any written contract
stipulating the rate of interest, voluntarily pays
a rate in excess of the legal one, cannot recover
back such excess.-Nutting v. McCutcheon, 5
Minn. 382, (Gil. 310.)
Equitable relief-Cancellation of securi-
ties.
38. In a suit to cancel a mortgage as void for
usury, and as having been paid, the burden of
proof is on the plaintiff, and the finding of the
court in favor of defendant on conflicting evidence
will not be disturbed.-Bishop v. Corbitt, (Minu.)
41 N. W. 1030.
40 Minn. 200.
39. Under Laws Minn. 1879, c. 66, § 6, which
provides that whenever it appears that any bond,
etc., has been taken for usury, "the court shall
declare the same to be void, and enjoin any pro-
ceeding thereon, and shall order the same to be
canceled and given up, one who, as a plaintiff,
seeks the avoidance and cancellation of securities
for usury, need not, as a condition of obtaining
such relief, offer to pay what he has received,
with legal interest. Scott v. Austin, 32 N. W.
89, overruled.-Scott v. Austin, 32 N. W. 864, 36
Minn. 460; Exley v. Berryhill, 33 N. W. 567, 37
Minn. 182.
Minn. 445.
And compare Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 21 N. W. 472, 32
40. The fact that a mortgage, void for usury,
33. Under Gen. St. c. 10, § 1, which provides has been foreclosed by sale under a power, the
that "no contract for a greater rate of interest purchaser having notice of the usury, does not
than twelve dollars upon one hundred dollars for prevent the mortgagor from avoiding the sale and
a year shall be valid for the excess of interest the mortgage by an action for that purpose.-
over twelve per cent., one who voluntarily Scott v. Austin, 32 N. W. 864, 36 Minn. 460; Ex-
pays such excess cannot recover the same.-Wool- ley v. Berryhill, 33 N. W. 567, 37 Minn. 182.
Wool-ley
folk v. Bird, 22 Minn. 341.
">
34. Illegal interest voluntarily paid or allowed
to be collected by foreclosure of a mortgage can-
not be recovered back by the debtor.-Taylor v.
Burgess, 6 N. W. 350, 26 Minn. 547.
35. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 23, § 1, which
provides that no contract for a greater rate of in-
terest than 12 per cent. per annum shall be valid
for the excess over that, but which provides no
prohibition or penalties against paying, receiv-
ing, or contracting for any rate of interest, a debt-
or who voluntarily pays such excessive interest
cannot recover the excess or have it credited on
the unpaid residue of the debt. Following Wool-
folk v. Bird, 22 Minn. 341; Taylor v. Burgess, 6
N. W. 350, 26 Minn. 547.-Cornell v. Smith, 6 N.
W. 460, 27 Minn. 132.
36. Except in favor of a bona fide purchaser,
a foreclosure sale, made under a power contained
in a mortgage void for usury, works no estoppel
against the mortgagor. Distinguishing Taylor
v. Burgess, 26 Minn. 547.-Jordan v. Humphrey,
18 N. W. 450, 31 Minn. 495.
Right to recover penalty.
37. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 24, provides
that "the mortgagor, his heirs or assigns, at any
time within one year after foreclosure, may re-
cover from the owner of the mortgage at the
time of foreclosure" three times the amount of any
IV. USURY AS A DEFENSE.
Who may assert the defense.
41. A sheriff holding property under a writ of
attachment against the property of a mortgagor
may assert the invalidity of the mortgage for us-
ury.-Stein v. Swensen, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 360.
44 Minn. 218.
42. An insolvent debtor having made a general
assignment of all his property for the benefit of
creditors, the assignee may assert the invalidity,
by reason of usury, of mortgages upon the as-
signed property given by the assignor prior to the
assignment.-Stein v. Swensen, (Minn.) 46 N. W.
360.
44 Minn. 218.
Pleading and proof.
43. Where a note provides that interest shall
be paid thereon after maturity at the rate of 5
per cent. per month, an objection that the pro-
vision as to interest is void as being in the nat-
ure of a penalty is a defense, which, if not as-
serted at the proper time, will be deemed
waived.-Bidwell v. Whitney, 4 Minn. 76, (Gil.
45.)
44. Where the defense of usury has not been in
made in another state usurious, although, upon its
terposed, the court will not declare a contract
face, it bears interest at a rate in excess of that
1925
1926
USURY, IV.
allowed by the law of Minnesota.-Reiff v. Bak-
-Reiff v. Bak-
ken, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 348.
36 Minn. 333.
45. In an action on a promissory note, executed
by defendant B. to defendant C., and by the latter
indorsed to plaintiff's son before maturity, and by
the latter indorsed to plaintiff, likewise before ma-
turity, defendants alleged that plaintiff corruptly,
through his son and agent, contracted with them
for usurious interest. Held, that the question of
the good faith of a transfer of the note by the son
to the father did not arise in the case.-Hass v.
Camp, 42 N. W. 20, 40 Minn. 329.
46. Where a mortgagee of chattels brings an ac
tion to recover the possession thereof, alleging
title and ownership generally, and upon the trial
relies upon the mortgage to establish his title, the
defendant may, under a general denial of plain-
tiff's title in his answer, show that the mortgage
is void for usury.-Adamson v. Wiggins, (Minn.)
48 N. W. 185.
45 Minn. 448.
47. In a suit on a note, the answer being a gen- |
eral denial, and alleging that the note was a renew-
al of a prior usurious note, and also that interest in
excess of the lawful rate was paid on the note in
suit when it was given, defendant may show the
payment of interest in excess of the lawful rate on
the note in suit.-W. B. Clark Investment Co. v.
McNaughton, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 412.
46 Minn. 8.
Evidence-Admissibility.
48. In an action to recover a loan alleged by
defendant to have been usurious, it was proper
for him to prove the general manner in which
the agent transacted the business of his princi-
pal in loaning money, as that he ordinarily used
a certain kind of blanks, made loans for only one
month at a time, and extensions for only one
month at a time, and charged commissions of a
percentage on the amount upon each loan and ex-
tension.-Stein v. Swensen, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 55.
46 Minn. 360.
49. The unreasonableness of a sum charged by
an agent as compensation for negotiating a loan
for a borrower may be shown, in an action to re-
cover the loan, as tending to prove that the sum
charged was really in the interest of the princi-
pal, as a cover for a usurious loan.-Stein v.
Swensen. (Minn.) 49 N. W. 55.
46 Minn. 360.
1927
1928
VACATION-VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I.
i
Vacation.
Of highway, see Highways, 53-57.
judgment, see Judgment, 29-57, 240-272.
Variance.
V.
Between indictment and proof, see Bigamy, 7;
Criminal Law, 84-87; Homicide, 38-42; Indict-
ment, 14-16; Larceny, 24; Nuisance, 32.
pleading and proof, see Adverse Claim, 24;
Appeal and Error, 325, 326; Conversion of
Personal Property, 27; Insurance, 129-137;
Libel and Slander, 74; Malicious Prosecution,
19, 20; Mechanics' Liens, 158-160; Negotiable
Instruments, 209, 210; New Trial, 7, 9; Plead-
ing, 235-277, 295, 296; Sale, 161–164.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
I. THE CONTRACT, 1–50.
II. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, 51-118.
III. VENDOR'S LIEN, 119-129.
IV. BONA FIDE PURCHASERS, 130-167.
Interest subject to levy, see Execution, 18-22.
Mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' Liens, 21-29, 108.
Oral agreements, see Frauds, Statute of, 51-62.
Purchase-money mortgages, see Mortgages, 46-49.
Rights of purchasers as against attaching cred-
itors, see Attachment, 46-49.
Sale by agent, see Factors and Brokers; Princi-
pal and Agent, 25-32.
I. THE CONTRACT.
What constitutes, generally.
1. A bond for a deed of lands, upon the per-
formance of certain conditions, will ordinarily
be construed by a court of equity as an agreement
to convey.-Dahl v. Pross, 6 Minn. 89, (Gil. 38.)
2. A conveyance of land executed by an attor
ney in fact, which is inoperative as a transfer of
the legal title because the power was not under
seal, is a valid contract of sale, and will vest an
equitable title in the grantee superior to the
legal title of a subsequent grantee thereof, who
takes with notice of the letter of attorney and
conveyance by agent.-Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn.
44, (Gil. 24.)
3. In ejectment defendant claimed that he
was in possession, and had been before L., plain-
tiffs' grantor, conveyed to them, under an agree-
ment with L. to take care of her for life in con-
sideration that she should convey the land to him.
Defendant testified as to the agreement, and that
it was contained in letters which passed between
him and his wife and L., but the letters were not
produced on the trial. It did not appear wheth-
er, if an agreement was' made, it was to convey
the land to defendant by deed or by will, or
whether it was to be given to him or his wife.
It appeared that, while L. and her husband lived
on the land, defendant and his wife came there
and lived until the husband died, and after
that until L. died. After the husband's death,
defendant filed and proved against his estate
a claim for the board and maintenance of de-
ceased and L. Held, that the court was war-
ranted in finding that there was no agreement to
convey the land to defendant.-Leyde v. Silvis,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 361.
47 Minn. 412.
Consideration.
4. Covenants by the grantees to deliver to the
grantors one-third of all the crops grown on a cer-
tain tract of land, and to keep a specified number
of cows and sheep, and to furnish grantors a team
and wagon to attend church on Sundays, are a
sufficient consideration for the conveyance of the
land.-Somerdorf v. Schliep, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
1084.
43 Minn. 150.
Execution.
5. An executory contract to convey lands need
not be under seal, and if so executed by one whose
authority rests in parol only, the seal may be
rejected as surplusage, and the instrument will
be valid as a simple contract.― Minor v. Wil-
loughby, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.)
6. Where a written agreement shows that it was
contemplated that each of the seven vendees should
execute the contract before it could be complete,
and contains mutual covenants to be subsequently
performed by the vendees in consideration of the
conveyance, and only four of the vendees execute
it, it is not binding on the vendor, and no recovery
can be had against him in an action for damages
for its breach, though the vendees entered on and
improved the land with his knowledge and con-
sent.-Stub v. Grimes, (Minn.) 37 N. W 444.
Parol modification.
38 Minn. 317.
7. A contract for the sale of lands canno rest
partly in writing and partly in parol, and any
modification of a written contract imposing new
conditions on one of the parties must be in writing.
Heisley v. Swanstrom, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1029.
40 Minn. 196.
Misrepresentations or fraud.
8. Where it is immaterial to the purchaser
who the owner is, it is not a fraud upon him for
the seller to represent himself as an agent, when
in fact he is himself the owner.-Huffman v. Long,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 355.
40 Minn. 473.
9. Representations made without fraud, in
the course of negotiations for the sale of real es-
tate, that the property is free from incumbrance,
are merged in the subsequent deed of conveyance
executed on the consummation of the sale.-Fritz
v. McGill, 18 N W. 753, 31 Minn. 536.
1929
1930
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I.
10. Plaintiff negotiated with M. for the pur-
chase of land for $10,000, knowing at the time
that M. was acting as agent for the owner. Aft-
erwards, M. proposed to unite with plaintiff in |
purchasing the land in common at the price be
fore named, which proposal was accepted by
plaintiff, and carried into effect by a warranty
deed to them from the owner. In fact M. was
entitled, by agreement with the owner, to re-
ceive all that he might sell the property for in
excess of $8,000. Held, that plaintiff, knowing
of the agency, was chargeable with knowledge
that M. might be entitled to some compensation
therefor, and that, there being no misrepresen-
tation or deception, the conduct of M. did not
constitute a fraud on plaintiff.-Miller. v. Mil-
ler, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 612.
47 Minn. 546.
Certainty-Description of land.
11. A bond to convey "one-half" of a certain
piece of land, without specifying which half, is
to be construed to mean an undivided half of the
whole.-Baldwin v. Winslow, 2 Minn. 213, (Gil.
174.)
12. The reservation in a bond for a deed of
12. The reservation in a bond for a deed of
"two acres on the east side of the creek," al-
though it is too uncertain to be available, will
not render the bond to convey void.-Baldwin v.
Winslow, 2 Minn. 213, (Gil. 174.)
13. An agreement "to execute and deliver to
each and every lot-owner who may have title
thereto from J. B. and wife, or either of them, in
any portions of lot known as lot four, section
twenty-nine, town one hundred and eleven north,
of range ten west, state of Minnesota, a good and
sufficient deed in fee-simple," is void for uncer-
tainty, there being nothing to show what land is to
be conveyed by such deed.-Sharpe v. Rogers, 10
Minn. 207, (Gil. 168.)
14. A description of land in a contract to con-
vey, as “lot 6, lying within the city limits of St.
Paul, amounting to six and seventy hundredths
acres, according to the government survey there-
of, upon the Mississippi river," is sufficiently defi-
nite.-St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, (Minn.) 43 N.
W. 782.
42 Minn. 73.
17. Defendant contracted to convey, and plain-
tiff to receive, in part payment of a certain lease-
hold interest, 320 acres of good, tillable land in
Dakota, to be situated within nine miles of a rail-
way station. Held, that this conferred upon the
defendant the right to select and appropriate to
the contract the tract or tracts of land, subject to
the requirements as to quality, quantity, and loca-
tion, mentioned.—Brown v. Munger, (Minn.) 44 N.
W. 519.
42 Minn. 482.
18. A contract provided that out of 40 acres of
land, which was to be selected from a certain quar-
ter section, the vendee was to have 10 acres in a
body, averaging, in value and quality, with the
whole. Held, that the land was sufficiently de-
scribed, and the contract was valid, and the vendor
had the right to select the particular tract of land
to be conveyed, subject to the conditions of the
contract in respect to quality and value.—Burgon
v. Cabanne, (Minn.) 44 N. W 118.
42 Minn. 267.
19. Defendants executed to plaintiff a writing
agreeing to convey a piece of land out of a certain
80-acre tract, to be not less in area than 40x120
feet, and to front on a public street or road; the
particular location and description to be thereafter
mutually agreed on. The particular location and
description never were agreed on. Held not a
contract.-Scanlon v. Oliver, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 1031.
42 Minn. 538.
Payments.
20. A contract for the conveyance of land pro-
vided that half the price should be paid when
"deed with good title was ready, and the bal-
ance in equal payments in one or two years, with
interest annually; interest to commence when
possession is given, and that to be by" Septem-
ber 1st. Held, that the time in regard to de-
ferred payments commenced to run from the
deed; and, if possession was not given
time of payment of cash price and delivery of
at the
time stipulated, interest on deferred payments
did not commence until possession was given..
Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil. 414.)
"}
21. A memorandum provided for the delivery of
the deed on receipt of the cash payments, and "the
securities for the deferred payments, without
specifying the kind or character of the securities.
Held bad for uncertainty.-George v. Conhaim,
15. Reference to the ownership in such a con-
tract makes the following description sufficiently
definite: "Whatever lots lands
owned by the parties of the first part in the plat of 37 N. W. 791, 3S Minn. 338.
Montville, aforesaid, " etc.-St. Paul Land Co. v. Title of vendor.
Dayton, (Minn.) 43 Ń. W. 782.
42 Minn. 73.
16. Plaintiff sold to defendant a leasehold es
tate in land, together with the improvements there
on, in consideration of a certain sum of money,
part of which was to be paid in cash, the balance
in 5,000 acres of pine lands in Georgia, also 320
acres of land in Dakota; “said 320 acres of Dakota
lands to be situate within nine miles at least of
a railroad station, and to be good, tillable land."
Held, that the contract was not void for lack of
mutuality because of indefiniteness and uncer-
tainty in that part of the contract relating to the
Dakota lands.-Brown v. Munger, (Minn.) 44 N.
W. 519.
42 Minn. 482.
22. It is not necessary to the validity of a bond
to convey land that the obligor should have owned
the land at the execution of the bond. Want of
ownership is a matter of defense in an action on
the bond.-Montgomery v. McEwen, 7 Minn. 351,
(Gil. 276.)
23. In every contract for the sale of lands the
vendor, unless acting in a mere ministerial or
fiduciary capacity, or there is something to the
contrary in the instrument, engages not merely
to give a good title, but a deed with the usual
covenants.-Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil.
414.)
24. Under a contract to sell and convey real es-
tate by a warranty deed the vendee is entitled to a
1931
1932
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I.
clear title, free of defects and incumbrances.-
Murphin v. Scovell, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 1.
41 Minn. 262.
25. A vendee has a right to insist on a perfect
title of record in the vendor at the time of the de-
livery of the deed.—George v. Conhaim, (Minn.)
37 N. W. 791.
38 Minn. 338.
26. A vendor of land who has contracted that he
will thereafter, on demand, convey the property by
good and sufficient deed in fee-simple, is in default
if he fails to have a perfect title when such de-
mand is made.-Gregory v. Christian, (Minn.) 44
N. W. 202.
42 Minn. 304.
27. Defendant sold a certain tract of land to
plaintiff by an agreement in which he did not in
terms expressly agree to convey the land to plain.
tiff, but did stipulate that the form of conveyance
should be a warranty deed. Held, that plaintiff
was not obliged to accept the deed of a third party,
but was entitled to a conveyance from defendant,
and had a right to insist that the title to the land
be perfect in the defendant at the time of the de-
livery of the deed.-Steiner v. Zwickey, (Minn.) 43
N. W. 376.
41 Minn. 448.
28. A contract providing for "a reasonable time
to be allowed said owner to perfect the title, should
defects be found by said purchaser, "does not give
the vendor a reasonable time to obtain a title if he
has none.-Benedict v. Williams, (Minn.) 38 N. W.
707.
39 Minn. 77.
""
29. A contract for the sale and conveyance of
land for a certain sum was expressed to be " on
terms as follows, viz.: One-fourth cash on de-
livery of warranty deed with perfect title, " etc.;
and by a subsequent clause it was agreed "that,
if the title of said premises is not good, and can-
not be made good within 60 days from date here-
of, this agreement shall be void, and the above
two hundred dollars refunded; but if the title to
said premises is good, and not taken, the said
two hundred dollars to be forfeited. The ven-
dor never had title to a part of the land either in
himself or in his control, but was merely guara-
ian of the ward whose land it was. Held that,
as his title was not good at the date of the
agreement, and could not be made good within
60 days from that date, the agreement was at an
end, and neither party any longer bound to per-
form it, except that the vendees were entitled to
have the $200 refunded. The provision quoted
was not to be construed as giving the vendees an
option or election to abandon or dissolve the
agreement.-Mackey v. Ames, 16 N. W. 541, 31
Minn. 103.
30. Upon payment by plaintiff to defendant of
part of the purchase money on a contract for the
sale of real estate, he received from defendant a
memorandum dated May 1st, acknowledging re-
ceipt of such payment, and an agreement for a
further payment within 30 days, and agreeing
"that, if the title to said premises is not good,
this agreement shall be void," and the amount
received should be refunded; "but if the title to
said premises is good, and the property is not
|
taken on the above terms, " the money received
should be forfeited. Defendant had no title to
the premises at the time of executing the con-
tract, but be procured title thereto on May 31st.
In the mean time, on May 15th, plaintiff had ten-
dered payment and called on defendant to convey.
Held, that plaintiff was entitled to a conveyance
at any time after the contract was executed on
making the further payment required, allowing
defendant the time reasonably necessary for the
execution of the papers, and that it was the duty
of defendant to have repaid the money received
on May 15th, and plaintiff could recover the
same from him.-Goetz v. Walters, 25 N. W.
404, 34 Minn. 241.
31. The pendency of proceedings (not completed)
to condemn real property for public use, is, as be-
tween vendor and purchaser, such a defect in the
title that the latter, under a contract to convey
to him good title, is not obliged to take the title so
affected.-Cavenaugh v. McLaughlin, (Minn.) 35
N. W. 576.
|
38 Minn. 83.
32. Plaintiff, who sought specific performance
of a contract by defendant to purchase certain
land, derived title from a railroad company by a
deed which contained the clause: "Reserving,
however, a strip of land one hundred and fifty feet
wide, to be used by the said railroad company for
a right of way, or other railroad purposes, where
the main line of this road, or any of its branches,
as now located and constructed, or hereafter to
be constructed, is laid, or may pass over said land. ”
Held, that the easement depended on the fact of
the then location of the line; and as the evidence
showed that no line had then been located, and
as the matter could be easily and readily proved at
any time, the clause did not make plaintiff's title
unmarketable.-Hedderly v. Johnson, (Minn.) 44
N. W. 527.
42 Minn. 443.
Distinguishing Carlson v. Duluth S. L. Ry. Co., 37 N.
W. 341, 38 Minn. 305.
33. A contract for the sale of land provided that
if the title should not be good, and should be re-
fused on that ground, the contract should be void,
and the earnest money returned. If the title should
be good, but should not be accepted in the time
limited, the earnest money should be forfeited. If
there were defects which could be cured, 10 days
should be allowed for that purpose. Part of the
land was subject to a mortgage. After the time
limited for acceptance, the vendor gave notice that
the contract would be terminated if the purchaser
did not by the next day accept a conveyance and
pay the agreed price. The latter declined doing
this, and demanded a return of earnest money,
which the vendor refused. Held, that the vendor
was not bound to cure the defect; that a tender of
a conveyance was not necessary to an avoidance
of the contract by him; and that the purchaser
could not have specific performance, though he is
now willing to take the land subject to the mort-
gage.-Long v. Miller, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 409.
46 Minn. 13.
34. A contract for the sale of land bound the
vendees to make a cash payment within 10 days,
and the vendor stipulated to furnish the vendees
with an abstract of title immediately, and "in
case of sale to deed by quitclaim. "
quitclaim." At the expi-
I
1933
1934
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I.
ration of the 10 days, the vendees made a part of
the cash payment, and the time for the payment
of the balance was extended for two days, by a
writing wherein the vendor agreed "to deed by
special warranty." Held that the two agreements,
construed together, clearly showed that the ven
dees had bargained for the transfer of only such
title as was held by the vendor, and that they
could not recover the cash payment made by them
on the ground that the vendor's title had proven
defective.-McManus v. Blackmarr, (Minn.) 50 N.
47 Minn. 331.
W. 230.
Performance by vendor.
35. A contract for a "good and sufficient war-
ranty deed in fee-simple, free from all incum-
brances," requires a deed not only sufficient in
form, but one conveying a good title, free from
incumbrances; and a tender of a deed containing
covenants of good title, the land being incum-
bered, does not comply with the contract.-Cogan
v. Cook, 22 Minn. 137.
36. The vendee in a contract for the purchase
of real estate, before the last day specified for
the payment, tendered such payment, and de-
manded a deed. Held, that the vendor was en-
titled to a reasonable time, within the specified
time of payment, in which to prepare a deed,
and that 11 days, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, was not an unreasonable time.—
Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 137.
37. Plaintiff did certain work for aefendant
under a contract by which he was to be paid $200
in cash, and to receive from defendant à deed of
a town-lot. Ten days after the work was per-
formed and accepted, plaintiff demanded the deed,
but defendant refused to convey until after a set-
tlement with plaintiff. Two days later defendant
tendered plaintiff a deed of the lot. Held, that
defendant tendered the deed within the reasona
ble time after plaintiff's demand to which he was
entitled, and he did not lose his right to such
reasonable time by his refusal to convey until
he had a settlement.-Porter v. Montgomery, 1 N.
W. 844, 26 Minn. 118.
38. The vendor is entitled to a reasonable time
after demand in which to prepare and deliver the
conveyance, but not reasonable time within which
to complete and make good a defective title.-Greg-
ory v. Christian, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 202.
42 Minn. 304.
39. Under a contract for the sale of land, pro-
viding for a part payment within 20 days after an
abstract showing a clear title should be presented
to the purchaser, upon which payment the con-
veyance was to be made, if the vendee notifies
the vendor that he is unable, for want of funds,
to perform the contract, the vendor need not pre-
sent an abstract of title or tender a deed; and it
is not important that there was a cloud upon the
title which the vendor was able and willing at
once to remove.-Johnston v. Johnson, (Minn.) 44
N. W. 668.
43 Minn. 5.
40. By the contract for the sale of a lot it was
agreed that it should be exclusive of a street to
be opened through the tract of which it formed a
part, and that it should be so selected that
no part of it should lie within that street. The
parties, without knowing what would be the lo-
cation of the street, selected a lot which they
supposed was exclusive of this street, and a con-
veyance was made and accepted. The street was
afterwards opened, and a part of the lot taken
therefor. Held, that the grantee was not entitled
to a decree for specific performance of the agree-
ment, as it has already been performed.-Gavin
v. Murphy, 25 Minn. 142.
Performance by purchaser-Time of
the essence.
41. A contract for the sale of land contained
no stipulation declaring the intention of the par-
ties that the time fixed for performance should
be of the essence of the contract, although it
was agreed that plaintiffs were "to pay as here-
in provided, or forfeit the $100 this day paid."
It did not appear that the vendor needed or had
engaged to use the money or security to be re-
ceived from the vendees at any particular time
or for any special purpose. No change of resi-
dence nor any business changes or undertakings
contract, or were the inducement for making it.
were dependent on the prompt fulfillment of the
Held, that the time was not to be deemed essen-
tial.-Austin v. Wacks, 15 N. W. 409, 30 Minn.
335.
42. In a contract for sale of real property
time was not made essential, either expressly or
by implication. The vendees were absent on
business until after the day fixed for perform-
ance, leaving the matter in charge of their agent;
but they did not give him any written authority.
Because of their absence, although he made ex-
ertions to communicate with them, he was unable
to procure the execution of the mortgage required
by the agreement. Thereupon he offered to the
vendor to make the cash payment required, and to
consent to any arrangement then possible, includ-
ing the deposit of the deed in escrow, to secure
the deferred payment. This the vendor refused,
and tendered his deed, and demanded of the
agent a strict compliance with the contract, and,
on the day after that fixed for performance, noti-
fied the agent of his rescission." Three days after-
wards the vendees tendered the money and mort-
gage required, which were refused, on the ground
that the contract was rescinded. Held, that the
court might relieve the vendees from the conse-
quences of their delay; the situation of the ven-
dor not having changed in the interval, although
the land had risen in value.-Austin v. Wacks,
15 N. W. 409, 30 Minn. 335.
43. On a contract for the sale of land, in which
time is not made of the essence by its terms, it
cannot be shown by parol that it was understood
by the parties when the agreement was executed
that time was to be essential, and that a failure
by the vendees to complete the agreement within
the time named should release the vendor; al-
though parol evidence of facts tending to show
that time was impliedly essential, which were
orally disclosed to the vendees, is admissible.
Austin v. Wacks, 15 N. W. 409, 30 Minn. 335;
Judd v. Skidmore, 22 N. W. 183, 33 Minn. 140.
44. A contract under seal for the sale and con-
veyance of land, the purchase price to be paid in
installments at stated times, provided that, “upon
1935
1936
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I., II.
* * *
the just and full payment of said sum at the
times above stated, time being made the essence
of this contract, the party of the first part will,
at her own expense, execute and deliver to the
party of the second part a good and sufficient war-
ranty deed,
and the said party of the
second part agrees to make payment
promptly at the times above stated, *
and, in case of a failure to make payment as
aforesaid, at the option of first party this agree-
ment may be declared null and void, and all pay-
ments thereon be declared null and void, and
forfeited." Held, that the party of the first part
could treat time as essential by declaring the
contract null and void, and not otherwise; that,
until such declaration was made, the tract
was not annulled, but in force; and that, it ap-
pearing that a strict performance by the pur.
chaser of the terms as to payments had been
waived, and a substituted performance agreed
upon, tender of which had been duly made by
the purchaser, he was entitled to specific per-
formance by the vendor.-Coles v. Suepard, 16
N. W. 153, 30 Minn. 446.
45. A lease contained a stipulation granting to
the lessees "the right and privilege to purchase
the leased premises of and from the party of the
first part at any time before the expiration of
this lease," for a sum named, "to be paid down
in cash to the party of the first part, upon the
demand of a deed prior to the expiration of this
lease." Held, that payment of the sum stipu-
lated, or a tender thereof, within the time lim-
ited, was an essential condition to the making of
a contract of sale.-Steele v. Bond, 18 N. W. 830,
32 Minn. 14.
46. Upon a stipulation in a lease giving to the
lessees an option to purchase at any time before
the expiration of the lease, in which time is es-
sential on the face of the stipulation, equity can- |
not extend the time of such option to purchase,
nor require an accounting of moneys paid to se
cure such option, in the absence of any default or
fraud on the part of the lessor.-Steele v. Bond,
18 N. W. 830, 32 Minn. 14.
47. As the result of negotiations for the re-
newal of a lease, the lessor made a proposition
in writing to the lessee to sell the premises to
him on certain terms, offering to him also that
he might occupy the same on rental for a year,
and that, in case of opportunity to sell, the lessor
would give him the refusal on the terms stated.
The lessee occupied the premises under this offer
until nearly a year after it was made, when he
notified the lessor that he had decided to pur
chase under the terms proposed, to which the
lessor refused to accede. Held that, as no time
was expressed for the acceptance of the lessor's
proposition, the acceptance must be within a rea-
sonable time; the lessor was not bound to hold
open the original offer, nor to keep the property
in market, and that the court might determine,
as matter of law, that the acceptance was not
tendered within a reasonable time. Store v.
Harmon, 19 N. W. 88, 31 Minn. 512.
48. A contract for the sale of land on specified
terms provided, among other things, that the
vendor should furnish to the vendee an abstract
of title, and ended with the clause: "This con-
tract to be void if the settlement of this purchase
is not had within 20 days from the delivery of
|
the abstract." Held, that this clause made time
of the essence of the contract; that it required
the vendee, within 20 days after delivery of a
proper abstract of title, to signify to the vendor
his acceptance of the title; and that the vendee,
while making unsubstantial objections to the
title shown by the abstract, having failed to sig-
nify his acceptance within the 20 days, his right
to demand specific performance was at an end,
in the absence of a waiver on the part of the
vendor. Judd v. Skidmore, 22 N. W. 183, 33
Minn. 140.
49. After default in payments on a contract
for the purchase of land, the vendors, on payment
of the accrued interest, consented to extend the
time for making the payments, but not for any
specified period. Held, that a strict perform-
ance of the contract in respect to the time of
such payments was thereby waived, and a rea-
sonable time and opportunity should have been
allowed the purchaser to make payment; and his
rights were not terminated by a notice by the
vendor of a purpose to sell the land to another at
the first opportunity, although also offering to
accept payment if made before such sale should
be effected.-Quinn v. Olson, 26 N. W. 230, 34
Minn. 422.
Default-Penalty or damages.
50. In a contract to sell real estate, a clause by
which the vendor promises to pay, in case hẹ re-
fuse to sell, a specified sum, is by way of penalty
or stipulated damages, and does not give the ven-
dor an option to refuse to sell.-Wilson v. Fair-
child, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 642.
45 Minn. 203.
II. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
Rights of parties in respect of the
property.
51. On a contract to convey land, the land be-
descendible to his heirs, and the vendor a trus-
comes in equity the property of the purchaser,
tee of the legal title for the purchaser, subject to
the vendor's lien for the unpaid purchase money,
which trust continues notwithstanding default in
the payment of the purchase money according to
the contract.
the contract.-Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 331,
(Gil. 263.)
52. The vendor of lands, giving a contract for
the sale of the same, is the legal owner so long
as any portion of the purchase price conditioned
to be paid is unpaid, and his estate therein is
bound, subject to the rights of the vendee, by the
lien of a judgment against him docketed in the
county, and is subject to sale upon execution is-
sued on such judgment.-Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382.
53. An executory agreement, for the sale of
land, provided that the vendee in possession
should, during certain years, plant the entire
cultivated portion of the land, not less than 50
acres of which should be in wheat, and not
less than 5 acres in sugar cane, and granted
to the vendor, during said years, control over
any 50 acres of wheat and 5 acres of sugar cane
he might select, as security for certain payments
to be made.
to be made. Held, that the vendor acquired no
right in any specific portion of the crop until he
1937
1938
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II.
made his selection under the contract.-Prentice | making payment, devising the land to his wife
v. Nutter, 25 Minn. 485.
54. One who has inade a contract to purchase
land is to be regarded as the equitable owner,
and his equitable interest may be the subject of
a trust or power in trust.-Randall v. Constans,
23 N. W. 530, 33 Minn. 329.
for life, remainder to plaintiff. Subsequently A.
died, bequeathing the notes and his interest in
the lands to his residuary legatees, who, with
intent to relieve the land from further payment
by B.'s estate, wrote "Canceled" on the notes;
and with the intent and to carry out such object,
and for no additional consideration, made and
delivered a deed thereof to B.'s widow, who aft-
erwards died intestate. Held, that the claim for
the unpaid purchase money was not thereby trans-
ferred to B.'s widow, and that her heirs held
the land as naked trustees for the devisees of B.
Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 331, (Gil. 263.)
Rescission by vendor.
55. The sale under execution of the fee in land
in which the execution debtor has only an equí-
table interest under a contract of purchase,
where the execution directs only the interest
of the execution debtor in such land to be sold,
is void as against the vendor who holds the legal
title as security for the unpaid purchase money.-
Smith v. Lytle, 6 N. W. 625, 27 Minn. 184.
Distinguished in Reynolds v. Fleming, 45 N. W. 1100, 43 to defendants provided that in case defendants
Minn. 516.
56. Where a contract contemplates that the
vendors were to remain trustees of the legal title
of the lands described therein until payment of the
balance of the purchase price remaining unpaid,
which was to be derived from sales, and that by
necessary implication they were authorized to
make conveyances to purchasers in order to con-
vert such lands into money and securities, as pro-
vided by the contract, and that until such payment
of the purchase price no conveyance was to be
made to the vendee under the contract, the vendee
ís not entitled to a conveyance against a subse-
quent purchaser from the vendor, without alleging
payment of the purchase money, or that the sub-
sequent sale was unauthorized. Thorsen v. Per-
kins, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 557.
39 Minn. 420.
61. A contract for the sale of land by plaintiff
failed to perform all the stipulations of the con-
tract strictly, then plaintiff "shall have the right
to declare this contract null and void; and all
rights and interest hereby created or then exist-
ing in favor of the said second parties, (defend-
ants,) or under this contract, shall utterly cease
and determine, and the premises hereby contract-
ed shall revert to and revest in said first party,
(plaintiff,) without any declaration of forfeiture or
act, or without any other act by said first party to
be performed, and without any right of said sec-
ond parties of reclamation or compensation for
money paid or improvements made, as absolutely,
fully, and perfectly as if this contract had never
been made. " Held, that on default by defendants
the contract, became void only at the election of
plaintiff.-Higbie v. Farr, 10 N. W. 592, 28
Minn. 439.
62. A contract to sell and convey land express-
57. Where one sells land to another who cove.ly stipulated that certain conditions precedent
nants to reconvey on payment of a certain sum should be strictly performed on time, and that,
within a given time, the vendor has an equitable on failure to perform, the vendor should be re-
title to the land, which he may convey to a third leased from the obligation to convey. Held that,
person, who will then be entitled to a conveyance on a failure of the purchaser to perform, not ex-
of the legal title from the vendee, on performance cused, a court of equity would regard the con-
of the specified condition.-Wilson v. Fairchild, tract as at an end, and might, in its discretion,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 642.
cancel it.-Schumann v. Mark, 28 N. W. 927, 35
Minn. 379.
45 Minn. 203.
58. Where there are two vendees named in such
a contract to sell, they are tenants in common of
the equitable title, and one of them may pass his
interest in it by his deed purporting to convey the
land, so that his grantee may perform the condi-
tions of the contract and be entitled to a convey-vided
ance of the undivided interest in the land of such
vendee.—Wilson v. Fairchild, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
642.
45 Minn. 203.
Transfer of contract.
59. An unrecorded assignment by a vendor of a
contract for the sale of land is void as against a
subsequent judgment creditor of the vendor, who
had no notice of the assignment: Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 40, § 21, providing that "every conveyance
by deed, mortgage, or otherwise of real estate,
shall, until recorded, be void as against any judg-
ment against the grantor.-Wells v. Baldwin, 10
N. W. 427, 28 Minn. 408.
>>
60. A. sold certain lands to B., retaining title
until notes for the purchase money should be
paid. B. went into possession, and died before
63. A contract for the sale of land prescribed
definite times for the payment of the purchase
price, and provided for punctual payment and
strict and literal performance at the times spe-
cified, the time of payment being stated to be of
the essence of the contract; but it further pro-
vided that, in case of any default in such strict
performance, the vendor should have the right
to declare the contract null and void; and pro-
vided also for an increased rate of interest on
overdue payments. Held, that the vendor had
an election to determine whether strict perform-
ance should be required; that, in the absence of
a determination to require strict performance,
and of reasonable notice of such election, the
mere default of the purchaser to make the pay-
ment specified did not extinguish his equitable
rights; and that a subsequent declaration of
forfeiture by the vendor, without notice and
reasonable opportunity to make payment, was
also ineffectual. O'Connor v. Hughes, 29 N.
W. 152, 35 Minn. 446.
64. In an action for the cancellation of a contract
for the sale of land, in which time was made es-
sential, where it appeared that though the strict
1939
1940
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II.
requirements of the contract as to time were
waived by plaintiff, so as to entitle defendants to
reasonable notice of her intention to terminate the
contract upon non-performance on their part, yet
that by subsequently refusing to accept a proffered
conveyance from plaintiff on the sole ground that
her title was not good, (when it was in fact unex-
ceptionable,) they waived and surrendered their
rights to further time or notice, and thereupon the
plaintiff was justified in putting an end to the con-
tract.-Cummings v. Rogers, (Minn.) 30 N. W. 892.
36 Minn. 317.
65.. The owner of a piece of land authorized an
agent to sell it, so that it would bring a specified
net sum to her, the agent to have for making the
sale all above that sum for which he might sell.
The agent discovered a fact in the condition of the
land increasing its value, of which the owner was
ignorant, and made a sale without disclosing it to
her. The purchaser was aware of the fraud.
Held, that the owner, in order to rescind the sale,
need tender a return of only what she received.-
Hegenmyer v. Marks, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 785.
——
37 Minn. 6.
66. And need not tender a return of what the
agent received and retained. Hegenmyer v.
Marks, 32 N. W. 785, 37 Minn. 6.
Distinguished in Barringer v. Stoltz, 38 N. W. 809, 39
Minn. 64.
67. In a contract for the sale of real estate, the
vendee agreed to erect a certain building on the
land, and to lay the foundation in the summer of
1886; and the vendor reserved the right, in case of
failure to lay the foundation during that summer,
to rescind the contract on repaying all payments,
and interest. The last payment was to be made
in February, 1887. Held, that the election was to
be promptly exercised, within a reasonable time
after it accrued, and the parties, after the ven-
dor knew it had accrued, having dealt so as to rec-
ognize the continued existence of the contract, the
right was gone.-Paine v. Harrison, (Minn.) 37 N.
W. 588.
38 Minn. 346.
68. In a contract for the sale of real estate was
this clause: "It is further understood and agreed
that the property shall be sold subject to the ap-
proval of the title by K." K. having disapproved
the title, the purchaser gave the vendor notice that
she would not accept his deed, and on a tender of
a deed refused to accept it and perform the con-
tract. Held, that the vendor might treat the con-
tract as at an end.-Dean v. Hitchings, (Minn.) 41
N. W. 240.
40 Minn. 31.
89, (Gil. 38;) Yoss v. De Freudenrich, 6 Minn. 95,
(Gil. 45.)
Distinguished in Belote v. Morrison, 8 Minn. 91, (Gil.
66.)
71. Where there has been a partial payment
of the
of the purchase price, and default as to the re-
mainder, the court will, in an action brought for
that purpose, unless the obligee can excuse or
justify his default, cancel a bond to convey real
estate. Mere financial stringency, or deprecia-
tion of the value of property, will afford no such
excuse. -Yoss v. De Freudenrich, 6 Minn. 95,
(Gil. 45.)
up
72. To a complaint in an action to cancel a bond
to convey title to defendant the answer set that
plaintiff took title to the land on its sale on mort-
gage foreclosure, to secure a loan to defendant of
the amount necessary to pay the mortgage debt,
etc., but did not allege that the sum advanced was
less than the full value of the land, or that defend-
ant would be injured by the granting of the relief
prayed, nor was there any tender of payment of
the loan. Held, that the answer was demurrable.
-Belote v. Morrison, 8 Minn. 87, (Gil. 62.)
Distinguishing Dahl v. Pross, 6 Minn. 89, (Gil. 38;) Yoss
v. De Freudenrich, 6 Minn. 95, (Gil. 45.)
73. In an action for the cancellation of a bond
for the conveyance of real estate, the time limited
by the court within which the obligee may per-
form and avoid a cancellation is discretionary, and
not reviewable except for abuse of discretion.
Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 301, (Gil. 231.)
74. In an action for the cancellation of a bond.
for the conveyance of real estate on default of the
obligee, the court may, in granting the obligee an
opportunity to relieve himself from default, im-
pose such terms as may be proper and equitable,
as that he pay the obligor the amount the latter
has paid for taxes on the land.-Drew v. Smith,
Minn. 301, (Gil. 231.)
75. A bond for the conveyance of land is not a
mortgage, nor can the rights of the obligee be re-
garded as the same as those of a mortgagor.—
Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 301, (Gil. 231.)
Rescission by purchaser.
76. A vendor of land made an innocent mistake
as to quantity and description in selling and con-
veying the land. The vendee was familiar with
the land, and had ample facilities for detecting
the mistake before conveyance; the initial point
of the description in the deed being a govern-
mental subdivision. Held, that the rule caveat
emptor applied, and that plaintiff was not enti-
tled to a rescission of the contract.-Brooks v.
Rescission by vendor-Action to cancel Hamilton, 15 Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
bond to convey.
69. A bond conditioned for the conveyance of
real estate may be canceled by the court for a de-
fault of the obligee to perform its conditions.
Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 301, (Gil. 231.)
70. One who has executed a bond for a con-
veyance of land upon the performance of cer-
tain conditions, such bond being recorded, may,
upon failure of the obligee to perform such con-
dition on offering to surrender notes received,
bring an action to cancel such bond, without
making tender of a deed. -Dahl v. Pross, 6 Minn.
77. Where the obligor in a contract for the sale
of land justifies a refusal to perform under a pro-
vision in the contract authorizing him to declare
it void "in case the title cannot be made good," the
burden is upon him to prove that fact. Where the
alleged defect is a sale of the land for taxes, he
must prove that the period for redemption has ex-
pired. Deakin v. Underwood, (Minn.) 33 N. W.
318.
37 Minn. 98.
78. Defendants agreed with plaintiff in writing
to convey a piece of land in a certain 80-acre tract,
1941
1942
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II.
to be not less than 40x120 feet, the particular location |
and description to be thereafter agreed on. Held
that, while the matter thus rested in mere nego-
tiation, either party had a right to withdraw, and
demand back money paid in expectation of the
making of the contemplated contract, distinguish-
ing it from a case of money paid on an oral con-
tract actually made, but not enforceable, because
not in writing, as required by the statute of
by the statute of
frauds.-Scanlon v. Oliver, Minn.) 44 N. W. 1031.
42 Minn. 538.
79. A contract for the purchase of real estate
provided that time was an essential condition of
the agreement, in that if the vendee should fail to
pay any installment of the purchase price at the
time specified, or should fail to perform any of the
covenants to be performed by him, all moneys paid
should be forfeited, and the vendor should be for-
ever discharged from any liability under the con-
tract, which should become void. Held, that such
provision was intended for the benefit of the vendor,
who might waive it, and that the vendee was not
entitled to avoid the contract for his own default.
-Dana v. St. Paul Investment Co., (Minn.) 44 N.
W. 55.
42 Minn. 194.
80. A vendee of land who has completed his
purchase by the acceptance of a conveyance has
no other remedy for a defect in title, in the ab-
sence of fraud, than an action on his covenants.
-Miller v. Miller, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 612.
47 Minn. 546.
81. In the complaint in an action to rescind
a purchase of land it is not necessary to al-
lege a disaffirmance, or a previous offer to recon-
vey, nor to make an offer in the pleading to do
what the court may require as a condition of
granting relief.-Knappen v. Freeman, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 533.
47 Minn. 491.
For fraud and misrepresentations.
82. The mere giving of a warranty deed of real
estate, while there was a "warranty deed of rec-
ord," conveying the same property to another per
son outstanding, is not per se fraud; but where
the grantor represents to the grantee facts about
the possession and ownership which he knows to
he false, and thereby induces him to enter into a
contract, such contract is fraudulent and void.-
Brown v. Manning, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
Distinguished in Lowry v. Hurd, 7 Minn. 366, (Gil. 288.)
83. One who has been induced by fraud to en-
ter into a contract to perform work and furnish
materials to be paid for by a conveyance of land,
may, on discovery of the fraud, rescind the con-
tract and bring an action for the value of the
work done or materials furnished, whether the
contract is by parol or in writing.-Brown v.
Manning, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
84. A complaint which alleges that, at the
time of making a contract for work to be paid
for by the conveyance of certain land, defendant
well knew that he was not the owner of the land
nor in possession, but falsely represented himself
to be, with intent to deceive plaintiff, and that
plaintiff, relying upon these representations, was
induced to enter into the contract, etc., sufficient-
ly avers the fraud, notwithstanding it does not al-
|
lege the nature of the estate or interest in the
land that had been previously conveyed by de-
fendant.-Brown v. Manning. 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
85. An action to rescind a conveyance of real
estate, and recover the consideration paid on
fraudulent representations by the vendor as to
the title, may be maintained without a previous
tender of reconveyance.-Kiefer v. Rogers, 19
Minn. 32, (Gil. 14.)
86. In a suit to set aside a conveyance on ac-
count of false representations of the vendor as
to incumbrances, tender of a quitclaim deed of
the land executed by plaintiff, reciting a nominal
consideration, and containing covenants against
the acts of plaintiff, is a sufficient tender of re-
conveyance. Kiefer v. Rogers, 19 Minn. 32,
(Gil. 14.)
87. Where a grantor has falsely represented
that the property conveyed was free from incum-
brances other than those of which he informed
the grantee, the latter's right to rescind on the
ground of the existence of such other incum-
brances is not affected by the grantor's offer to
indemnify him against them, and to procure a
release of them.-Kiefer v. Rogers, 19 Minn. 32,
(Gil. 14.)
88. In an action for the rescission of a convey-
ance, on the ground of fraudulent representations
as to incumbrances, where defendant produces
and tenders a release of the additional incum-
brance, it is within the discretion of the court to
refuse an amendment pleading such tender in
bar of the action.-.Kiefer v. Rogers, 19 Minn.
32, (Gil. 14.)
89. Where one purchases land on the faith of
the vendor's positive representations that it is
free from incumbrances, the vendor cannot resist
a rescission of the sale on the ground of the false-
hood of such representations, by saying that the
incumbrances were of record, and that since the
vendee neglected to examine the records the rule
of caveat emptor applies.-Kiefer v. Rogers, 19
Minn. 32, (Gil. 14.)
of land the vendor represented that the lot con-
90. In negotiations for the sale of a platted lot
tained five acres.
the purchaser knew, and the area, exclusive of
A street ran across the lot, as
the street, was less than five acres. The price
(at a specified sum per acre) was fixed on the
basis of the area being five acres. Held, that the
representation should not be deemed fraudulent,
and the contract rescinded, merely because there
street.-Michaud v. Eisenmenger, (Minn.) 49 N.
were not five acres in the lot exclusive of the
W. 202.
46 Minn. 405.
91. A vendee of land situated in another state,
who examines it shortly after the sale, and who
for six months thereafter deals with it as his own,
and endeavors to dispose of it, thereby waives.
his right to rescind on the ground of the vendor's
misrepresentations, made before the sale.-Mar-
shall v. Gilman, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 688.
47 Minn. 131.
92. In an action on a note, an answer alleging
that the note was given upon a purchase of land
by defendant from plaintiff; that defendant was
1943
1944
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II.
induced to make the purchase by the fraud of
plaintiff, (setting it forth;) that, as soon as de-
fendant discovered the fraud, he commenced suit
to rescind, and tendered a reconveyance on con-
dition that plaintiff surrender the note, -is good.
-Knappen v. Freeman, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 533.
47 Minn. 491.
Release or waiver of right of action.
93. In a quitclaim deed was this clause: "This
quitclaim deed is given to clear a certain contract of
record dated January 22nd, 1887, filed," etc., "oL
page 303," etc., "in the office of the register of
deeds," etc. Held a release of the contract re-
ferred to, it being a contract to convey real estate;
and of existing causes of action upon it, both for
specific performance and for damages for its
breach.-Wood v. Rusher, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 127.
42 Minn. 389.
94. Where the breaches of covenants by the
grantee in a deed to deliver a portion of the crops
grown on the land to the grantors, to repair, etc.,
are not substantial and material, failure to com-
plain to the grantee will be presumed to be a
waiver of such breach.-Somerdorf v. Schliep,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 1084.
43 Minn. 150.
Action by vendor-Purchase money.
95. Where a party has settled upon land, and
made lawful improvements thereon, as required in
order to be entitled to enter and purchase the same
under the laws of the United States, and, without
fraud on his part, subsequent to the entry thereof,
sells and conveys the same to a purchaser who
knows the nature of the title, and that the same is
subject to be contested by another claimant, he
may recover of the purchaser the sum agreed to
be paid as the consideration of such deed.—Bemis
v. Bridgman, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 793.
42 Minn. 496.
96. A vendor delivered to a vendee the contract
for the sale of land, and, at the same time, what
purported to be receipts by him to the vendee for
the money, but which were in the handwriting of
a third party. Held, that the receipts, in connec-
tion with the fact of their delivery with the con-
tract, were admissible against the administrator of
the vendor, to prove that the vendor intended
them to stand as his receipts for money paid on the
contract. In re Mosseau's Estate, (Minn.) 44 N.
W. 193.
42 Minn. 212.
Restitution of land.
97. A vendee in a contract for the sale of
lands was in possession, had made improvements,
and paid part of the purchase money, but was in
default as to the remainder, and, notwithstand-
ing the tender of a deed and demand for payment,
continued in default. Held, that the vendee, not
excusing his default, nor offering to make it
good, nor demanding a specific performance, was
not entitled to retain possession as against the
legal title of the vendor.-Williams v. Murphy,
Williams v. Murphy,
21 Minn. 534.
98. The rights of a vendee in a contract for the
sale of lands, who is in default for non-payment
according to the terms of such contract, are not
enlarged by the fact that the vendor, at the time
of commencing an action of ejectment to recover
the premises, still has the vendee's note for the
remainder of the purchase money, especially
where the vendor surrenders the note at the trial.
-Williams v. Murphy, 21 Minn. 534.
99. A complaint alleged that plaintiff, being
the owner and in possession of certain land, gave
defendants a bond for the conveyance of the same
terms of defendants' seven promissory notes; that
to them on payment of $5,807, according to the
defendants entered into possession of the land
and have ever since been in possession thereof;
that the first and second notes have been paid;
that plaintiff recovered judgment on the second
and third notes, and issued execution thereon;
that defendants brought an action to vacate the
levy of such execution on the ground that the
property levied on was exempt, which action was
still pending; that apart from the land so levied
on, and the land bonded to defendants by plain-
execution; that no part of the fifth note, which
tiff, defendants have no property not exempt from
fell due before the commencement of this action,
or of the sixth and seventh notes, which were not
the bonded lands to be sold for taxes; and that
then due, has been paid; that defendants allowed
the rents and profits of the lands were of the
yearly value of $300, and that the lands were
worth $5,000. The prayer of the complaint was
that the court ascertain the amount due to plain-
tiff; that an early day be fixed for the payment
of the same; and that in default thereof the bond
be declared forfeited, and that plaintiff have res-
titution of the bonded premises, or such other and
further relief as may be just and equitable. Held,
that the complaint stated a cause of action. -Den-
ton v. Scully, 4 N. W. 41, 26 Minn. 325.
Damages.
100. A vendor of land, who has necessarily been
put to expense to enable him to fulfill his contract
of sale, may recover damages on account thereof
from the vendee who wrongfully refuses to per-
form the contract of purchase on his part.-Kelley
v. West, (Minn.) 32 Ñ. W. 620.
36 Minn. 520.
Action by purchaser-Deficiency
quantity of land.
in
101. Upon an executory contract for the sale
of a tract of land, which the vendors expressly
covenanted and represented contained a certain
number of acres, at a certain price per acre,
after the delivery of the deed and payment of
the price it was discovered that the number of
in the contract.
acres in the tract was less than that covenanted
Held, that relief might be
given, notwithstanding the performance of the
mistake of fact.-Thwing v. Davison, 22 N. W.
contract, as in other cases of fraud or mutual
293, 33 Minn. 186.
Reformation of deed.
102. The delivery, in pursuance of an agree-
ment to sell and convey a certain parcel of land,
described by the name by which it was known,
and the boundary of which had been pointed out
by the vendors to the purchaser, of a deed con-
veying less than the whole parcel, is a false and
fraudulent representation; words are unneces-
sary.-Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 219, (Gil. 198.)
1945
1946
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II.
103. In an action to reform a deed in respect of
the quantity of land conveyed, alleged to be less
than that agreed upon between the parties, rep-
resentations made by the vendors to the vendee
negotiating such agreement, as to the boundaries
and quantity of the land, and an abstract of title
thereto, furnished by the vendors to the vendee,
describing the land, are admissible.--Place v.
Johnson, 20 Minn. 219, (Gil. 198.)
104. A lease containing an agreement to sell
the demised premises is admissible in evidence
in an action to reform the deed given in pursu-
ance of such agreement, although the agreement
is void, where the objection is made, not to the
contract of sale, but to the lease as a whole.-
Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 219, (Gil. 198.)
Recovery of price paid.
105. Where a grantee, with covenants, etc.,
acquires any estate in the land, he cannot, in
the absence of fraud, set up defects in, or want
of, title in his grantor, as a defense in an action
for the purchase money, nor can he rescil the
contract and recover back what he has paid, but
must rely upon his covenants. -Brown v. Man-
ning, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
106. In an action to recover back money paid on
a contract for the purchase of land, where the
owner, having conveyed to a third person, is un-
able to perform, a tender of the balance of the pur-
chase money and demand for the conveyance is not
necessary.-Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn. 326, (Gil.
216.)
107. Where part payment on an agreement to
convey realty is made in specific articles at an
agreed price, such price is prima facie the amount
the vendee is entitled to recover on breach of the
agreement.-Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn. 326,
(Gil. 216.)
Distinguishing Dayton v. Warren, 10 Minn. 233, (Gil.
185.)
108. Plaintiff paid defendant $50, "us and for a
part of the purchase price" of land, which de-
fendant orally agreed to convey to plaintiff
whenever thereto requested. No time was speci-
fied for the payment of the balance of the pur-
chase money. Held, that the balance was to be
paid on the conveyance of the land to plaintiff,
and plaintiff could not recover the $50 so paid
without alleging and proving an offer by him to
pay the balance of the purchase money, and a re-
fusal by defendant to convey.-Sennett v. She-
han, 7 N. W. 266, 27 Minn. 328.
109. Under an oral agreement for sale of land,
plaintiff paid a portion of the purchase money, and
went into possession, with the understanding that
a deed would be made upon payment of the bal-
ance. Defendant demanded the balance, and, upon
refusal, sold the land to a third person.' Held, in
an action for the purchase money already paid, a
tender of a deed at the time of the demand was es-
sential to put plaintiff in default, and that without
it he was entitled to recover the amount already
paid.-Wyvell v. Jones, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 43.
37 Minn. 68.
110. Under a contract by a vendor to furnish an
abstract of title, and if the vendee should ascertain
the title to be so unmarketable as to warrant a re-
|
fusal to complete the trade, and on that account
should refuse, the vendor would return the money
paid, a complaint by the vendee to recover said
money, alleging that the abstract so furnished
failed to show any title in defendant, marketable
or otherwise, and that plaintiff thereupon returned
the abstract, and refused to proceed, is not met by
averments that defendant has a good title to, and
good right to convey, the premises; and that he is
anxious, willing, and able to give a good and mar-
ketable title, and complete it to plaintiff's satisfac-
tion; and that he so informed plaintiff, (after the
latter's refusal to proceed,)—since plaintiff had a
right to regard solely the abstract of title.-Horn
v. Butler, (Minn.) 40 N. W 833.
39 Minn. 515.
111. Plaintiff bought land of defendant, the con-
tract reciting that $3,500 of the purchase money
was paid. Defendant being unable to fulfil his.
agreement, plaintiff sued for the $3,500 paid. It
appeared that but $2,000 was actually paid on the
contract, and there was evidence that $1,500 was
paid by plaintiff to one M., who had paid that sum
to defendant on a contract for the purchase of the
same land, which contract M. had failed to per-
form. Defendant allowed plaintiff to withhold
this sum without objection. Held, that it was.
error to charge that defendant must have expressly
directed plaintiff to pay M. the $1,500 before plain-
tiff could recover it of defendant, as such a direc-
tion might be implied from the evidence.-Mur-
phin v. Scovell, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 1.
41 Minn. 262.
112. The want of a proper demand will not de-
feat an action to recover the purchase price of land
paid by plaintiffs to certain parties as agents of
defendants, where the latter deny the agency, and.
that they were interested in the land sold.-Jensen
v. Weide, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 688.
42 Minn. 59.
113. Where the intended vendee in a contract of
sale accepts the benefit of payments made by an-
other person under a subsisting contract for the
same land, which are applied on the vendee's pur-
chase money, he thereby assumes the vendor's lia-
bility to reimburse the party to the first contract,
a request of the vendor for such assumption being
implied from his consent to apply the payments
under the first contract on the second; and, where
the vendor fails to make title, the vendee is enti-
tled to recover of him the payments made by the
other party under the first contract, which the
vendee has refunded to him.-Murphin v. Scovell,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 256.
44 Minn. 530.
114. In an action by the purchaser to recover the
price paid, on the ground of failure to deliver a
deed, evidence showing incumbrances and servi-
tudes upon the land is inadmissible.-Miller v.
Irish Catholic Colonization Ass'n, (Minn.) 31 N. W.
215.
36 Minn. 357.
Damages.
115. Plaintiff sold and conveyed to defendant a
tract of land, and, as part payment, defendant
caused to be conveyed to plaintiff a large quantity
of land in another state, by the warranty deed of
another party, in whom defendant asserted the le-
gal title to be. In fact, plaintiff took nothing by
1947
1948
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, II., III.
said deed, because neither his grantor nor defend- |
ant had any title whatsoever to the land. Held,
that plaintiff could recover from defendant the
value of the land at the time it was conveyed, with
legal interest.-Donlon v. Evans, (Minn.) 42 N. W.
472.
40 Minn. 501.
116. In such case, statements as to value made by
defendant during the negotiations, and the consid-
eration expressed in the deed to plaintiff, (to which
defendant was a subscribing witness, and which he
delivered in accordance with his agreement tu
cause the land to be conveyed to plaintiff,) were
competent evidence of value.-Donlon v. Evans,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 472.
40 Minn. 501.
117. Where defendants contract for the sale of
land to plaintiff, falsely representing that they
have title, and plaintiff takes possession, and erects
a building, but is evicted by the real owner, he
may recover of defendants the cost of the build-
ing, in addition to the sum paid for the land.-
Erickson v. Bennet, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 157.
39 Minn. 326.
118. In an action to recover damages for failure
to convey land, proof that a person refused to
purchase the land offered for sale to him at a
specified price does not go to show that it was
not of a greater value than the price named, and
is inadmissible for that purpose.-Reynolds v.
Franklin, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 648.
III. VENDOR'S LIEN.
When lien attaches.
47 Minn. 145.
119. A vendor of lands took in part payment
from the vendee certain land-warrants, to which
the vendee though acting in good faith, had in
fact no title, the assignments thereof having been
forged. Held that, as to the portion of the pur-
chase money represented by such warrants, it re-
mained unpaid, and the vendor retained an equi-
table lien on the land.-Duke v. Balme, 16 Minn.
306, (Gil. 270.)
120. Where, on an exchange of land, $200 was
due plaintiff, and $200 was to be deposited in a
bank to be paid plaintiff when he should build a
cellar on defendant's lot, and the $200 due plaintiff
was to be deposited to secure plaintiff's perform-
ance of the contract, and defendant did not deposit
the money, plaintiff is entitled to recover the $200,
and to a lien on the property given in exchange.
Brown v. O'Brien, (Minn.) 38 N. W 637.
39 Minn. 13.
121. A vendor's lien does not arise in the case of
a sale of both real and personal property, for one
entire sum or consideration, without any distinct
price being set upon the real property.-Peters v.
Tunell, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 867.
43 Minn. 473.
122. A vendor is not entitled to a lien where the
consideration is an agreement to support the gran-
tor during life, as it is of such a nature that the
court cannot accurately ascertain and define the
amount of the charge to be thus imposed upon the
land.-Peters v. Tunell, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 867.
43 Minn. 473.
Who entitled to.
123. On a conveyance of lands to his wife, de-
fendant paid part of the consideration in cash,
and gave his note for the balance, which was sub-
sequently transferred to plaintiff. Held, in an
action to set aside the conveyance as in fraud of
creditors, that plaintiff had no vendor's lien on
the land.-Massey v. Gorton, 12 Minn. 145, (Gil.
83.)
124. The wife of B. loaned him a certain amount
of her separate property, upon an agreement
that the same was to be invested in lands or other
purchases in his own name, but when requested
he was to account for the said loan, and transfer
to her the funds or any lands purchased with
them. B. purchased certain land-warrants, which
quently, at the request of his wife, transferred
he exchanged for lands for himself, and subse-
the lands to her at an agreed valuation, to ap-
Held, the title to the warrants
ply on the loan.
having proved defective, that B.'s wife was not
a bona fide purchaser for value, and the lien of
the original vendor would attach to such lands
in her hands. Duke v. Balme, 16 Minn. 306,
(Gil. 270.)
Assignment.
125. As a general rule, the equitable lien of a
grantor of real estate for the price thereof is not
assignable.-Hammond v. Peyton, 27 N. W. 72,
34 Minn. 529; Law v. Butler, 47 N. W. 53, 44
Minn. 482.
Waiver or release of lien.
126. A vendor of land, by taking security for
the purchase price other than the personal obliga-
tion of the vendee, waives his equitable lien, un-
less it be retained by express agreement. Selby
v. Stanley, 4 Minn. 65, (Gil. 34,) followed.
Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 443, (Gil. 304.)
127. Wherever, in the sale of real estate, the
vendor takes any security whatever for the pur-
chase price thereof other than the personal obli-
gation or promise of the vendee, such fact will
be deemed conclusive as to his intention to aban-
don his equitable lien, unless it is by express
agreement retained.-Selby v. Stanley, 4 Minn.
65, (Gil. 34.)
128. A large tract of land was conveyed, and a
mortgage for part of the purchase money was
taken back on the whole. The purchaser platted
the land, and sold two lots to a married woman,
by Pub. St. c. 61, § 106, upon a release of the
who, without her husband's consent, as required
lots by the original mortgagee, executed to him a
mortgage for $400, which was recorded, and sub-
sequently conveyed the property free from all in-
cumbrances, informing the purchaser of the ex-
istence of the mortgage. Held, that the mort-
gagee had no lien against the lands in the hands
of the last purchaser, who had no notice of the
real consideration of the mortgage.-Selby v.
Stanley, 4 Minn. 65, (Gil. 34.)
Action to enforce.
129. The complaint in an action to enforce a
vendor's lien for the purchase money of real es-
tate alleged a sale of the land for an agreed price,
payable on the delivery of the deed, and that
when the deed was delivered the purchaser paid
1949
1950
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, IV.
a part of the price only, "and agreed to pay to
the plaintiff the balance of said purchase money
within a few days thereafter. ” Held, that this
averment did not show an agreement postponing
the payment to an indefinite time subsequent to
the giving of the deed.-Walter v. Hanson, 24
N. W. 186, 33 Minn. 474.
IV. BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.
Who are bona fide purchasers-Consid-
eration.
130. A grantee of lands simply relinquishing
a precedent debt is not a bona fide purchaser,
but takes subject to all equities against the gran-
tor. Minor v. Willoughby, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil.
154;) Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
131. To constitute one a bona fide purchaser
for a valuable consideration, and without notice,
he must be without notice not only at the time
of his purchase, but also at the time of actually
paying the money. Minor v. Willoughby, 3
Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.)
Actual notice.
132. A purchaser of land is chargeable with no-
tice of any incumbrance thereon, recited in any
deed occurring in his chain of title, whether such
incumbrance be recorded or not.-Daughaday v.
Paine, 6 Minn. 443, (Gil. 304.)
|
ant's deed. There was no evidence that defendant
had ever seen the stubs in question, but the ev-
idence tended to show that an abstract maker
does not examine stubs showing payment of taxes,
but looks for delinquent taxes only. Held, that
the stubs offered in evidence did not tend to show
that defendant had notice of plaintiff's title, and
it was error to admit them.-Morton v. Leland,
6 N. W. 378, 27 Minn. 35.
Notice to agent or attorney.
137., A., desiring to obtain a sum of money from
his brother B., offered, in consideration thereof, to
procure for him a conveyance of certain real estate
from a third party, which offer was accepted.
There was a defectively recorded mortgage on the
premises, of which A. was aware. Held, that he
was not an agent of B. in procuring the convey-
ance, so as to affect B. with notice of such mort-
age.-Peppard v. House. (Minn.) 33 N. W. 790.
37 Minn. 280.
Constructive notice, generally.
138. A purchaser who has knowledge of facts
sufficient to put him on inquiry, which would
lead to a knowledge of an adverse title, cannot
be regarded, with reference to such adverse title,
Minn. 282, (Gil. 201.)
as a bona fide purchaser.-Martin v. Brown,
139. Whether the purchaser of land, with suffi-
cient notice to put him on inquiry as to the
equitable title of a person other than his vendor,
has actual knowledge of such title, is immaterial.
against-Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24.)
133. Notice of a vendor's equitable lien, dis-
closed in the chain of title, is sufficient as against
a subsequent purchaser.-Daughaday v. Paine,
Minn. 443, (Gil. 304.)
134. Notice to defendant that plaintiffs were
claiming title to the land in controversy as exclu
sive owners, and that they asserted and claimed
that they had purchased the entire remaining in
terest of their grantor in the government subdi-
vision which included the lots in controversy, was
sufficient to put the defendant upon inquiry in re-
spect to plaintiffs' title, and to support a finding of
actual notice to him.-Cummings v. Finnegan,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 796.
42 Minn. 524.
135. Plaintiff, claiming title under a quitclaim
deed from L., brought ejectment against deferd-
ant, who held under a prior unrecorded assignment
of a sheriff's certificate of sale of the land under
execution to L. It was shown that plaintiff before
obtaining his deed had brought an action against L.
for the same land, which was dismissed after a
partial trial. Held, that plaintiff had notice of de-
fendant's possession and title, and was not a bona
fide purchaser.-Wolf v. Zabel, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 81.
44 Minn. 90.
136. Plaintiff in ejectment claimed title under
an alleged lost warranty deed executed in 1861,
and never recorded. Defendant claimed under
a quitclaim deed executed in 1878 by the same
grantor. Plaintiff introduced evidence that de-
fendant was engaged in the abstract business in
the county in which the land lay, and as such
was in the habit of examining the county audi-
tor's books for the purpose of making abstracts.
He then offered in evidence books from the audi-
tor's office containing tax-receipt stubs for
three years preceding the execution of defend-
Acts of ownership and possession.
140. Possession of land is, as a general rule,
notice to a purchaser of the title claimed by the
occupant. Minor v. Willoughby, 3 Minn. 225,
(Gil. 154;) Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 422, (Gil.
325;) Seager v. Burns, 4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93;)
Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24;) Siebert
v. Rosser, 24 Minn. 155.
141. Actual possession by one other than the
vendor is notice sufficient to put the purchaser
on inquiry as to the title of the occupant; and,
if such occupant is the tenant of another, his oc-
cupancy is notice of the claims of the landlord.
-Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 422, (Gil. 325;)
Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24;) New
v. Wheaton, 24 Minn. 406.
142. Repairing fences on cultivated but unoccu-
pied ground is not sufficient, as an act of owner-
ship and possession, to give constructive notice
to third persons of the rights of the person mak-
ing such repairs. -Smith v. Gibson, 15 Minn. 89,
(Gil. 66.)
143. Acts of ownership done by a party prior to
his purchase of land are not constructive notice
of his rights therein after such purchase.-Rob-
erts v. Grace, 16 Minn. 126, (Gil. 115.)
144. Where there is no visible change of pos-
session, the mere fact that a tenant of the gran-
tor of land, after its conveyance, attorns to the
grantee, is not constructive notice of the gran-
tee's rights therein, so as to supply the want of
registry of the conveyance. -Roberts v. Grace, 16
Minn. 126, (Gil. 115.)
1951
1952
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, IV.
145. Where a conveyance of land to three per-
sons as tenants in common is placed upon record,
the possession of such land by one of the ten-
ants will be referred to such title, and is not no-
tice of a conveyance to him by his co-tenants,
which he fails to have recorded.-Dutton v. Mc-
Reynolds, 16 N. W. 468, 31 Minn. 66.
146. A tenant in common of real estate in pos-
session is presumed to be in under his own title,
and not in right of his co-tenant; and the posses-
sion is therefore, of itself, no notice of the co-ten-
ant's title.-Wilcox v. Loominster Nat. Bank,
(Minn.) 45 N. W. 1136.
43 Minn. 541.
147. A judgment creditor asserting a lien upon
land of his debtor, which is occupied by a tenant,
is not chargeable with constructive notice that the
debtor, in whom is the record title to the land, has
sold it to a third person, where the deed is not re-
corded, and the tenant has not recognized the gran-
tee therein as his landlord, though he has been in-
formed of his purchase.-Wilkins v. Bevier, 45 N.
W. 157, 43 Miñn. 213; Same v. Bell, 45 N. W. 160,
43 Minn. 219.
148. A deed of land was delivered, but never
recorded, and a mortgage taken back. Two days
thereafter the purchaser conveyed, delivering
the unrecorded deed to his grantee, who went
into and retained possession for two years. Dur-
ing his occupancy he procured a quitclaim from
the original grantor, and subsequently conveyed
to defendant, who was, and had been for some
time, a member of his family. In an action to
foreclose the mortgage, defendant denies the
mortgagor's title. Held, that his knowledge of
his grantor's possession before the quitclaim,
and the fact that he had made a partial exam-
ination of the record, which if properly made
would have disclosed the true title, were suffi-
cient to put him upon inquiry as to the unre-
corded deed, and that he was not a bona fide
purchaser.-Martin v. Brown, 4 Minn. 282, (Gil.
201.)
149. A person who takes a quitclaim deed of land
then in the actual possession of the tenants of one
who has a prior, though unrecorded, conveyance
from the other's grantor, is chargeable with no-
tice of such adverse claim, and is not a bona fide
purchaser.-Wolf v. Zabel, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 81.
44 Minn. 90.
Who are bona fide purchasers-Record.
150. Where the owner of a tract of land whose
deed is not recorded sells the land and takes a
mortgage thereon to secure the purchase money,
such mortgage will not operate as notice of the
owner's title to a subsequent purchaser from the
grantor of such owner.-Burke v. Beveridge, 15
Miun. 205, (Gil. 160.)
151. Notice, to put one on inquiry, must be suffi
cient information to enable him to conduct an
inquiry to a successful termination, otherwise
the rule applies that a title shall not be im-
peached for uncertainties; hence a purchaser is
not bound by the record of a deed which incor-
rectly describes the property granted.--Roberts
v. Grace, 16 Minn. 126, (G11. 115.)
152. The record of a deed which gives, as a nec-
essary boundary to the land intended to be con-
veyed, a boundary so untrue that the lands as
claimed could not agree with it, and the deed
would have to be reformed in equity before it
would pass the estate, as between the partics,
cannot operate as constructive notice to a subse-
quent purchaser.-Roberts v. Grace, 16 Minn.
126, (Gil. 115.)
ive notice of entries in the index or reception
153. Purchasers are not charged with construct-
book in the register's office, not required by law to
be made.-Ahern v. Freeman, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
677.
46 Minn. 156.
154. Under Gen. Laws 1862, c. 19, requiring a
sheriff's certificate of sale, on foreclosure of a
mortgage by advertisement, to be recorded within
20 days after the sale or be void, a sheriff issued
his certificate, sufficiently describing the mort-
gage, and had it recorded in time, but by mistake
of the register of deeds in copying it the prop-
erty was erroneously described. After about 25
years it was again recorded, and correctly. The
names of the parties to the mortgage appeared
correctly on the first record, and there was no
other mortgage between them. The mistake,
boo, was a most noticeable one. Held, that there
was sufficient in the first record to put a subse-
quent purchaser from the mortgagor "on inquiry,
which would have shown the mistake.-Cable v.
Minneapolis Stock-Yards & Packing Co., (Minn.)
50 N. W. 528.
47 Minn. 417.
155. H. executed on the same day two convey-
ances of real estate, one to W. and one to G., each
conveying what is now lot 6, block 129. The deed
to W. gained priority by priority of record. It de-
scribed the lot as lot 6, block 66, in a plat never
filed, and stated other facts as elements of descrip-
tion which would put one on inquiry such as, if
followed with diligence, would show the identity
of said lot 6, block 66, with lot 6, block 129, in
the plat subsequently filed. Held, that defendant,
who claimed through G., had no right to rely on a
description in a conveyance between the grantees of
W., either to estop plaintiff from claiming that the
deed to W. passed the title to lot 6, block 129, or to
excuse himself from pursuing the inquiries sug-
gested by the facts stated in that deed.-Briggs v.
Ripley, (Minn.) 33 N. W. 120.
37 Minn. 78.
156. Where the description of land in a deed is
insufficient to pass the title because of omissions
therein, made through the mistake of the parties,
and, after it is recorded, the same land is conveyed
to another, who has no actual notice of the prior
deed, the record is not constructive notice to the
equitable rights of the former pur-
latter of the o
chaser.-Bailey v. Galpin, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 1054.
40 Minn. 319.
157. Where the title to certain lands appears of
record to be in the assignees under a deed of as-
signment, a bona fide purchaser from them,
whose deed is first recorded, will be preferred to a
previous grantee of the assignor in an unrecorded
outstanding conveyance of the same land, exe-
cuted before the assignment. -Strong v. Lynn,
(Minn.) 37 N. W. 448.
38 Minn. 315
1953
1954
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, IV.-VENUE IN CIVIL CASES.
158. Where the title to land appears of record to
be in testator at the time of his death, and his will,
made in another state, is afterwards proved in
Minnesota, and the lands are conveyed by the dev-
isee to a bona fide purchaser for value, whose
deed is duly recorded, the title of the latter will be
preferred to that of the grantee in a deed of the
same lands, executed by testator before his death,
but recorded after the first deed.-Lyon v. Gleason,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 286.
40 Minn. 434.
159. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 28, the
record of an executory contract for the sale of
lands is constructive notice to a subsequent pur-
chaser of the same lands, but the prior record of
such contract does not entitle the holder thereof
to a preference over the grantee in a deed given
before the execution of such contract.-Thorsen v.
Perkins, (Minn.) 40 N. W. 557.
39 Minn. 420.
166. Defendant took a conveyance and went
into possession of a piece of land, subject to a
prior outstanding contract to
convey, under
which the contractee was entitled to possession,
circumstances indicating that such contractee had
abandoned his contract. Held, that defendant,
having acted in good faith, could not be held
chargeable for more than actual profits of the
land prior to the time of his having actual no-
tice of the claims of contractee or his assigns.-
Smith v. Gibson, 15 Minn. 89, (Gil. 66.)
Pleading.
167. A party claiming as a bona fide purchaser
without notice, and for a valuable consideration,
must deny notice of prior equities, even though
it be not charged, and this denial must be full,
positive, and precise, negativing the possibility
of his having knowledge.-Minor v. Willoughby,
3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.)
Vendor's Lien.
160. The record of a contract to convey real es
tate, there being nothing to show that it had been
enforced, or the right to enforce it extended, See Vendor and Purchaser, 119-129.
ceases to be notice of the vendee's rights under it,
or of anything done pursuant to it, when, accord-
ing to the record, the statute of limitations has
barred the right to enforce it.-Byers v. Orens
stein, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 129.
42 Minn. 386.
161. Where a conveyance of land in fee is duly
recorded, subsequent purchasers take with notice
of and subject to an express condition in the deed
that intoxicating liquors shall not be sold on the
land.-Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, (Minn.)
51 N. W. 905; Same v. Davis, Id. 907.
Against what claims purchaser pro-
tected.
162. An equitable lien for the purchase money,
even when clear, will not follow the lands into
the hands of a bona fide purchaser of the vendee
who takes them without notice of such lien.-
Selby v. Stanley, 4 Minn. 65, (Gil. 34.)
163. The fact that a conveyance of land was
procured from a grantcr through fraud will not
affect the title of a subsequent innocent bona
fide purchaser, for value and without notice,
from the fraudulent grantee.-Cogel v. Raph, 24
Minn. 194.
164. On an exchange of lands by warranty
deeds between V. and P., the equitable lien of
V. as vendor, on the land conveyed by him to P.,
by reason of the failure of the title to the land
conveyed to him by P. in exchange, cannot
prevail against a subsequent creditor of P., who
had no notice of the claim of V. against P. for
such breach of warranty.-Dawson v. Girard
Life Ins., A. & T. Co., 8 N. W. 142, 27 Minn. 411.
165. When the title to land appears of record
to have been in an intestate at the time of his
decease, and thereafter the property has been
conveyed by the heir at law to a bona fide pur.
chaser for value, the latter acquires title, as
against a grantee named in an unrecorded deed
executed by the intestate in his life-time.-Welch
v. Ketcham, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 113.
V.2M.DIG.-62
Venire.
See Jury, 7-9.
De novo, see New Trial.
Venue.
Of affidavit, see Affidavit, 5, 6.
criminal complaint, see Criminal Law, 18.
VENUE IN CIVIL CASES.
Review of order for change of venue, see Appeal
and Error, 449.
Actions against public officers.
1. Under Rev. St. c. 70, § 43, providing that
an action against a public officer for an act done
by him by virtue of his office must be tried in
the county where the cause of action arose, sim-
ply gives the officer a personal privilege, which
he may waive, and does not affect the jurisdic-
tion.-Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277, (Gil. 191.)
2. Under Rev. St. c. 70, $ 43, providing that
an action against a public officer for an act done
by him officially must be tried in the county
where the cause of action arose, an objection by
a sheriff, in an action against him, that the action
was brought in the wrong county, cannot be taken
for the first time on a motion for a new trial.
Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277, (Gil. 191.)
3. An action against a sheriff for the recovery
of personal property, wrongfully taken by him,
may be brought in the county where plaintiff re-
sides, under the proviso of Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 66, § 49, that such an action "may be brought
and maintained in the county where the wrong-
ful taking occurred, or where the plaintiff re-
sides;" notwithstanding the provisions, previ-
ously enacted, of section 47, covering all actions
for the recovery of personal property detained
for any cause, that such actions shall be tried in
1955
1956
VENUE IN CIVIL CASES.
the county in which the subject of the action or
some part of it is situated, and of section 48, that
actions against a public officer for an act done by
him in virtue of his office shall be tried in the
county where the cause of action or some part of
it arose.-Leonard v. Maginnis, 26 N. W. 733, 34
Minn. 506; Hinds v. Backus, 47 N. W. 655, 45
Minn. 170.
Actions against foreign corporations.
4. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, '§ 40, corre
sponding to Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 49, as amend-
ed by Laws 1877, c. 68, provided that actions
should be tried in the county in which the de-
fendants, or any of them, should reside; "or, if
none of the parties shall reside or be found in
the state, or the defendant be a foreign corpora-
tion, the same may be tried in any county which
the plaintiff shall designate in his complaint."
An amendment of this section by Laws 1878, c.
38, struck out a proviso at the end of it defining
the place of residence, within the meaning of the
act, of corporations existing under the laws of
the state, and added the following: "A corpora-
tion shall be deemed to reside in any county
where it has an office, agent, or place of busi-
ness, within the meaning of this section." Held,
that the amendment did not affect the privilege
of plaintiff, in an action against a foreign corpo-
ration, to designate the place of trial.-Olson v.
Osborne, 15 N. W. 876, 30 Minn. 444.
Actions concerning land.
5. The district court of the county designated
in the complaint has jurisdiction to try an action
brought to determine a right or interest in real
property situated in another county, unless, be-
fore the time for answering expires, a demand
be made for a change of place of trial to the
proper county, and the venue be actually changed,
even though the summons was served by pub-
lication only.-Kipp v. Cook, (Minn.) 49 N. W.
257; Id. 258.
46 Minn. 535.
Death of party.
6. An action of tort brought in the district
court for the county in which but one of three de
fendants resides, is properly triable in said county,
notwithstanding the death of said resident defend
ant before either of the three appears or answers
in the action, where no steps are taken to change
the place of trial, as provided in Gen. Laws Minn.
1881, c. 132, § 1, or Ex. Sess. 1881, c. 25, § 1.-Collins
v. Bowen, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 719.
Waiver of objections.
45 Minn. 188.
7. Rev. St. Minn. 1851, c. 70, § 41, providing
that an action must be tried in the county in
which the parties, or one of them, reside at the
commencement of the action, etc., is not manda-
tory, and an objection that the proper county is
not named in the complaint must be taken by mo-
tion on the part of the defendants who have an-
swered.-Merrill v. Shaw, 1 Minn. 287, (Gil.
223;) Same v. Same, 5 Minn. 148, (Gil. 113.)
8. Where, in an action in the district court,
the county designated in the complaint is not the
proper county for the trial of the cause, the
court does not lose jurisdiction; but the case
may nevertheless be tried in the designated
|
county, unless, before the time for answering
expires, a written demand for a trial in the
proper county is granted, and the place of trial
thereupon changed, as provided in Gen. St. 1866,
c. 66, § 42.-Gill v. Bradley, 21 Minn. 15.
9. A party waives his right to a change of
venue allowed by Laws Minn. 1876, c. 51, in an
action brought in one county to recover personal
property detained in another, by consenting to a
reference to take the testimony to be reported
to the district court of the county where the ac-
tion is brought, the case to be then heard on no-
tice.-Sherman v. Clark, 24 Minn. 37.
Change of venue
of venue - In
proceedings.
condemnation
10. Upon appeal from the award of commis-
sioners in condemnation proceedings, appointed
under the provisions of Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
34, tit. 1, the district court, to which such appeal
is taken, may, upon proper application and show-
ing, by either party, change the place of trial to
another county, the same as in other cases.-
Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 19
Minn. 464, (Gil. 406;) Curtis v. Same, 20 Minn.
28, (Gil. 19.)
Prejudice of judge.
11. Repeated erroneous rulings in a cause, on
the part of a district judge, are not sufficient evi-
dence of prejudice or ill will to entitle the party to
a change of venue on that ground.-Burke v. May-
all, 10 Minn. 287, (Gil. 226.)
To what court.
12. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, tit. 4, relating to
tended only to provide for such change from the
a change of the place of trial, having been in-
district court for one county to the district court
for another county, does not authorize the transfer
of an action from the municipal court of Minne-
apolis to a district court.-Janney v. Sleeper, 16
N. W. 365, 30 Minn. 473.
Time for application.
13. After a defendant's time to move for a
change of venue, as a matter of right, has ex-
pired, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 49,
with the expiration of his time to answer, the
him by an order granting him leave to answer.—
right to make such a motion is not restored to
Allen v. Coates, 11 N. W. 132, 29 Minn. 46.
14. An action having been brought in a county
other than that in which defendant resided, a de-
mand for a change of venue to that county was duly
made, as provided by statute, on plaintiff's at
torney, whereupon he stated that he would sign
a stipulation for such change at any time, and
that a motion therefor need not be made. Held,
that a delay of seven months thereafter, and after
issue was joined, before applying for an order for
change of venue, was sufficient ground for a de-
nial of the motion, even regarding the agreement
of plaintiff's attorney as an excuse for delay, in
view of rule 21 of the district court, requiring
due diligence in such cases; and that a motion
for a change of the place of trial for the conven-
ience of witnesses was also properly denied.-
Waldron v. Cy of St. Paul, 22 N. W. 4, 33
Minn. 87.
1957
1958
VENUE IN CIVIL CASES-VOTERS.
Change of venue-Notice of application.
15. Where a change of venue for convenience of
witnesses is granted on the application of part on-
ly of the defendants, without notice to the others,
and a trial is had in the county to which the cause
is removed, without objection from the defendants
who were not notified of the application for the
change of venue, plaintiff cannot object that such
notice was not given.-Wilson v. Richards, 9 N.
W. 872, 28 Minn. 337.
Petition.
16. A verified petition for a change of venue on
the ground of prejudice or ill will on the part of
the judge, which makes a general charge or con-
clusion of ill will or prejudice, but fails to show
facts on which it is founded, is insufficient, under
Comp. St. Minn. c. 60, § 44, which requires that such
petition shall set forth the cause of application,
and be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the
"facts stated in the petition."-Burke v. Mayall,
10 Minn. 287, (Gil. 226.)
Hearing and determination.
Venue in Criminal Cases.
See Criminal Law, 37-41.
Proof of venue, see Criminal Law, 95, 96.
Verdict.
Against joint defendants, see Assault and Bat-
tery, 8; Trespass, 21.
Aider by, see Pleading, 297-304.
Directing, see Trial, 66-72.
In civil actions, see Ejectment, 30; Malicious
Prosecution, 44; Nuisance, 13-15; Replevin,
68–74; Trial, 120–161.
condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Do-
main, 218-220.
criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, 120–
123; Homicide, 92-96; Indecent Assault, 5,
6; Larceny, 37-41; Rape, 15-19.
Objections to, see Appeal and Error, 385–387;
New Trial, 29-33.
Review on appeal, see Appeal and Error, 437-
439, 488-495.
See Affidavit.
Verification.
Of pleading, see Justices of the Peace, 69, 70;
Pleading, 159-165.
statement for mechanic's lien, see Mechanics'
Liens, 92-95.
17. The charter of the St. Paul & Chicago
Railway Company (Laws Minn. Ex. Sess. 1857,
c. 1, § 13) provided that, on an appeal to the dis-
trict court from an award of commissioners ap-
pointed in condemnation proceedings, either
party should be entitled to a change of venue
upon affidavit filed stating the belief of the affi-
ant that a fair trial could not otherwise be had;
the change to be to the nearest county where a
fair trial could be had. Held, that it did not
impose on the court the burden of determining
which was the nearest impartial county, without See Admiralty; Maritime Liens; Shipping.
proof from the moving party as to which was
such county, and in the absence of proof it was
not error to deny the motion. -Simmons v. St.
Paul & C. Ry. Co., 18 Minn. 184, (Gil. 168.)
Vessels.
Vested Rights.
See Constitutional Law, 119-129; Dower, 1, 2.
Vice-Principal.
18. On a motion by one of two defendants for
a change of venue, which was resisted by the
plaintiff on the ground of convenience of wit-
nesses, such defendant put in counter-affidavits
upon that question. Held, that he thereby waived Negligence, see Master and Servant, 72–75.
any strict right to insist upon the granting of his
application, without reference to any considera-
tion other than that his co-defendant had been
joined with him for the purpose of evading the
statute as to such a change, and was a consent
that the question of convenience of witnesses
might be heard together with his application.
Keith v. Briggs, 20 N. W. 91, 32 Minn. 185.
19. In an action brought against four defend-
ants in the county wherein one resides, it is not
error for the court to deny a motion for change
of place of trial to a county agreed upon by three
of the defendants, and in which two reside, when
the plaintiff will lose the benefit of a term of the
court held in the county to which the change is
demanded, and where said defendants have neg-
lected to move for a change until the case is called
for trial.-McNamara v. Eustis, (Minn.) 48 N. W.
1123.
46 Minn. 311.
View by Jury.
See Criminal Law, 47; Eminent Domain, 181;
New Trial, 22-24; Nuisance, 35, 36; Trial, 3, 4.
Villages.
Incorporation and government, see Constitutional
Law, 54-56; Municipal Corporations, 7, 8.
Voluntary Payment.
See Payment, 20-34; Subrogation, 1; Usury, 32-
36.
Voters.
See Elections and Voters.
1959
1960
WAGER-WAREHOUSEMEN.
Wager.
See Gaming.
Wages.
See Master and Servant, 11–17.
Exemption, see Exemptions, 15, 16.
Liens, see Liens, 8, 9.
See Estoppel.
Waiver.
W.
Of breach of covenant, see Vendor and Pur-
chaser, 94.
of warranty, see Sale, 83-90.
conditions in insurance policy, see Insurance,
79, 80.
upon sale of goods, see Sale, 201.
defects in pleading, see Pleading, 278-304.
in summons, see Justices of the Peace,
demand and notice, see Negotiable Instru-
6-10.
ments, 141-145.
exemption from execution, see Sheriffs and
Constables, 28.
homestead right, see Homestead, 60-62.
irregularity in service of order, see Practice
in Civil Cases, 60.
WAREHOUSEMEN.
Liability of carrier as, see Carriers, 27, 29.
Warehouse receipts.
1. The title to warehouse receipts may be
passed by a sale, transfer, and delivery for a val-
uable consideration, not in the form of an in-
dorsement, though Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 124,
§ 17, makes such receipts negotiable and trans-
ferable by indorsement and delivery.-State v.
Loomis, 8 N. W. 758, 27 Minn. 521.
2. A warehouseman issued receipts for wheat
received by him, describing it as a certain number
of bushels of "No. 2 wheat." The wheat was in-
ferior to No. 2, and was kept in a bin by itself.
The owner sold the wheat to parties who sold it to
plaintiff, in each case the receipt being delivered, to-
gether with a written order for the wheat. Held,
that plaintiff only acquired the right to the wheat
that the owner had, and that an offer on the part
of the warehouseman to deliver the identical
wheat stored was a sufficient offer to perform the
contract.-Robson v. Swart, 14 Minn. 371, (Gil
287.)
3. In a warehouse receipt there was a clause
whereby the warehouseman stipulated to deliver
mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' Liens, 118-123.
a specified number of gallons of whisky on re-
objections, see Appeal and Error, 624-627, turn of the receipts and "payment of the whisky,
748; Appearance; Contempt, 5: Eminent the U. S. government and state tax, interest,
Domain, 236-239; Insurance, 84-87; Refer-
ence, 4; Venue in Civil Cases, 7-9.
obligation to fence railroad, see Railroad
Companies, 232.
performance of contract, see Contracts, 107,
108.
privilege by witness, see Witness, 66.
right to appeal, see Appeal and Error, 21-23;
Criminal Law, 152.
to compensation for property taken for
public use, see Eminent Domain, 62-64.
to jury trial, see Jury, 43-47.
to peremptory challenge of juror, see
Jury, 24, 25.
to prove claim in insolvency proceedings,
see Insolvency, 83, 84.
to redeem from execution, see Execution,
118.
to redeem from mortgage, see Mortgages,
381.
riparian rights, see Riparian Rights, 3.
statutory provisions, see Statutes, 62.
right to new trial, see New Trial, 105, 106.
tender, see Tender, 7.
vendor's lien, see Vendor and Purchaser,
126-128.
War.
|
and charges. " Held that, though the words
"payment of the whisky" were indefinite and am-
biguous, it was obvious that a prepayment of
some character was required in addition to the
government and state tax, interest, and charges,
and the clause was sufficient to put a purchaser
of the receipt on inquiry as to its meaning.-
Stein v. Rheinstrom, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 827.
47 Minu. 476.
Demand for goods stored.
4. An agent lawfully in charge of the business
of a warehouse in which goods, the title to which
is in dispute, are deposited is the proper party up-
on whom to make demand for the delivery thereof.
-Lundburg v. Northwestern Elevator Co., (Minn.)
43 N. W. 685.
42 Minn. 37.
Lien for carrier's charges.
5. In the absence of an agreement or custom
to that effect, a warehouseman acquires no lien
upon property stored with him for carrier's
charges paid by him.-Bass v. Upton, 1 Minn,
408, (Gil. 292.)
Sale for charges-Liability for excess-
ive sale.
6. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 199, §§ 1, 2, give a lien
Effect on running of interest, see Interest of for storage charges, and provide that, if they are
Money, 27.
Ward.
See Guardian and Ward.
not paid within three months, the bailee may sell
the property, and apply the proceeds to discharge
the lien and costs, the remainder, if any, to be paid
over to the owner. A number of articles were de-
1961
1962
WAREHOUSEMEN.
posited at one time. The bailee advertised and
sold the property article by article, and continued
the sale after enough had been realized to pay the
charges more than three months past due and the
costs. Held, that the authority to sell terminated
when that amount was realized, and, it not appear-
ing which of the articles were sold before that, the
bailee was liable in trover for the value of all of
them.-Jesurun v. Kent, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 784.
45 Minn. 222.
7. A bailee having unlawfully sold a chiffonier
and a lounge deposited for storage, he is liable in
trover for the value of articles locked in the chif-
fonier, and others wrapped and inclosed in the
lounge, though he had no notice that the articles
were there.-Jesurup v. Kent, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
784.
45 Minn. 222.
Liability of warehouseman for removal
vitiating insurance.
8. Defendants, warehousemen, received from
plaintiff, for storage, certain goods, she to bear
the risk from fire, and she had the goods insured
in the warehouse where they were. In contemn-
plation of their removing the goods, at some in-
definite time, to another warehouse, they agreed
with her to give her notice when the goods were
removed, so that she might have the insurance
continued upon them in such other warehouse.
They removed the goods, and failed to give her
notice. By the removal the insurance became
void. The goods were destroyed by fire. They
had no authority from her to make any ar-
rangement for the insurance. Defendants testi-
fied, but it was denied by the agent for the in-
surance company, that they informed such agent of
the removal, and he promised to make the neces
sary change in the policy. Held that, conceding
plaintiff might, when informed of this, after the
fire, have adopted or ratified what defendants so
testified to, as an agreement by the insurer to
continue the policy, she was not bound to do so,
and that, though found by the jury to be as de-
fendants testified, it is no defense to an action
for neglecting to give notice of the removal.-
Conover v. Wood, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 227.
Storage of grain-Rights of parties.
9. A deposit of grain for storage is a bailment,
the title remaining in the depositor so that he is
deemed to be the owner of grain in the warehouse
to the amount of his deposit, although the identi-
cal grain he deposited has been removed, and
other grain, of like kind and quality, substituted
in its stead. -Hall v. Pillsbury, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
673.
43 Minn. 33.
10. The holders of receipts for grain of the
same kind and quality, deposited in a warehouse
for storage, are tenants in common in the mass
of grain or that kind and quality in the warehouse;
the interest of each being limited to the amount
called for by his receipt. - Hall v. Pillsbury,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 673.
43 Minn. 33.
11. The warehouseman may be tenant in com-
mon with depositors of grain in his warehouse, as
where he puts his own grain in the warehouse or
purchases from a depositor. His interest in the
mass is limited to the excess above what is neces-
sary to meet his outstanding receipts, which ex-
cess he may dispose of as his own.-Hall v. Pills-
bury, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 673.
43 Minn. 33.
12. In an action for the conversion of wheat
by a warehouseman, where the plaintiff had
surrendered to the defendant's agent, though
without any intention to transfer the property,
certain "inspector's tickets," calling for the
wheat, and had taken in place thereof certain
"exchange tickets," it is immaterial that such
"exchange tickets" were issued without the au-
thority of the defendant, and that the wheat had
been delivered under the "inspector's tickets" to
some person other than the plaintiff.-Lewis v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 20 Minn. 260, (Gil. 234.)
Pledge by warehouseman.
13. A miller engaged in purchasing wheat
and manufacturing it into flour, and who was
not a general warehouseman, and had no ware-
house except an elevator which was part of his
mill, was accustomed to receive wheat for stor-
age in his mill from farmers until such time as
they desired to sell it, issuing to them therefor
the usual storage or warehouse tickets. He never
sold, delivered, or shipped wheat out of his mill,
or redelivered any wheat left with him for stor-
age, but ground all wheat he received, using it
as part of his stock in his business of milling.
Having borrowed money from two banks, he is-
sued to them, as collateral security for repay-
ment of the loans, warehouse receipts for speci-
fied quantities of wheat. He had never sold
wheat to these banks, and they never delivered
any wheat to him, or had any in his possession,
and it did not appear that there was any wheat
in his mill at the time. Held, that the banks
had no claim on wheat purchased by him from
others more than a year after the issue of their
warehouse receipts, and after the mill had been
entirely cleared of wheat in the usual course of
operating it, as no specific property had been
appropriated to the contract, the identity of
which was preserved.-Fishback v. Van Dusen,
22 N. W. 244, 33 Minn. 111.
14. The Minnesota warehouse act, (Laws 1876,
c. 86; Gen. St. 1878, c. 124, §§ 13-20,) "to regu-
late the storage of grain," does not apply to a
case where a borrower of money issues to the
lender an instrument in the form of a warehouse
receipt for the purpose of pledging or mortgaging
his own property in his own possession to secure
repayment of the loan.-Fishback v. Van Dusen,
22 N. W. 244, 33 Minn. 111.
Modified in National Exchange Bank v. Wilder, 24 N.
W. 699, 34 Minn. 157.
15. An elevator company, owning and operat-
ing several warehouses for the storage of grain,
and having wheat owned by itself in its ware-
houses mingled with wheat of others stored there-
in, issued warehouse receipts for its own wheat
as security for loans of money made to it. Held,
that this was equivalent to an actual transfer of
the possession, and constituted a valid pledge, and
rendered the warehouseman bailee of the pledgee,
and that the pledgee was a depositor of the wheat
within the Minnesota warehouse act, (Gen. St.
1878, c. 124, §§ 13-18,) declaring such deposit for
1963
1964
WAREHOUSEMEN-WASTE.
storage a bailment and not a sale, by virtue of
which grain subsequently purchased and stored
by the warehouseman takes the place of that orig-
inally deposited, and is appropriated to the con-
tract so as to become the property of the depos-
itor. Modifying Fishback v. Van Dusen, 22 N.
W. 244, 33 Minn. 111.-National Exch. Bank v.
Wilder, 24 N. W. 699, 34 Minn. 149.
16. A warehouseman, owning goods in his ware-
house, may pledge them by issuing and deliver-
ing his own warehouse receipt to the pledgee.
And where the property is part of a larger uni-
form mass, as wheat in an elevator, separation
from such mass is not necessary to constitute an
appropriation of the property to the contract.
The pledgee becomes tenant in common with the
other owners.-National Exch. Bank v. Wilder,
24 N. W. 699, 34 Minn. 149.
17. Under the grain warehouse law of 1876,
(Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 124,) where a warehouse-
man pledges his own property in his own ware-
house by issuing to the pledgee a warehouse re-
ceipt therefor, this is equivalent to an actual
transfer of the possession, and renders the ware-
houseman bailee of the pledgee. In such case the
pledgee is a "depositor" within the meaning of the
statute, and there is no distinction between him
and one who makes a delivery of his grain. Fol-
lowing Bank v. Wilder, 34 Minn. 149, 24 N. W. 699.
-Eggers v. Hayes, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 971.
40 Minn. 182.
Storage of grain — Demand of grain.
Tender of charges.
18. A demand by the holder of a warehouse or
elevator receipt for grain deposited for storage
for the amount called for by the receipt is good,
notwithstanding that, by reason of removal of
grain by the warehouseman, there is not enough
left in store to answer all the receipts. He is not
required to ascertain and demand the proportion-
ate share belonging to his receipts.-Leuthold v.
Fairchild, 27 N. W. 503, 28 N. W. 218, 35 Minn. 99.
19. It is competent for a bailee of grain held in
store to waive the formal requisites of a tender of
charges and grain receipts provided for by section
15, c. 124, Gen. St. Minn. 1878. And where such
bailee places his refusal to deliver the grain solely
on the ground that it is claimed by a third party,
he will not be permitted subsequently to change
his position, and justify such refusal on the ground
that the charges are not paid.-Wallace v. Minne-
apolis & Northern Elevator Co., (Minn.) 35 N. W.
268.
37 Minn. 464.
Remedies for failure to deliver.
20. The refusal of an elevator company to de-
liver grain held by it, placed exclusively upon a
ground other than the non-payment of charges on
it, amounts to a waiver of a tender of such charges.
-Tarbell v. Farmers' Mut. El. Co., (Minn.) 47 N.
W. 152.
44 Minn. 471.
21. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, p. 1012, provides that
whenever any grain is delivered for storage such
delivery shall be treated as a bailment; that the
grain so stored shall not be subject to the process
of any court against the bailee; that upon demand
by the bailor it shall be the duty of the bailee to
deliver the amount of grain called for by the re-
ceipt; and that upon the refusal of the bailee to so
comply with the demand of the bailor the former
shall be deemed guilty of larceny, and the bailor
may institute proceedings to recover possession of
a quantity of grain equal to that deposited, or, if
the grain cannot be had, for a money judgment for
its value. Held, that the remedies so provided
are not exclusive, but are in addition to such as
previously existed at common law or by statute in
case of the conversion of personal property by a
bailee.-Daniels v. Palmer, (Minn.) 42 N. W. 855.
41 Minn. 116.
Liability of purchaser from ware-
houseman.
22. If a warehouseman sell as his own any grain
beyond the excess of that in his warehouse, above
the amount called for by his outstanding receipts,
without express consent of the depositors, his
sale passes no title, and the owners, the deposit-
ors, may follow the grain into the hands of the
purchaser, and recover of him for a conversion.-
Hall v. Pillsbury, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 673.
Warrant.
See Arrest; Search-Warrant.
43 Minn. 33.
For execution of capital sentence, see Criminal
Law, 133.
See Guaranty.
Warranty.
Covenants, see Covenants, 2, 24–26.
Damages for breach, see Damages, 93, 94.
In application for insurance, see Insurance, 38-
42.
On sale of goods, see Sale, 51-125, 154, 155.
WASTE.
By tenant in common, see Tenancy in Common
and Joint Tenancy, 8.
Remedies of mortgagee, see Mortgages, 88.
Action-Against assignee of life-estate.
which give the right of action for waste against
1. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, §§ 45, 46,
which give the right of action for waste against
a tenant for life, the action may be maintained
against the assignee of a life-estate.--Curtiss v.
Livingston, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 357.
36 Minn. 380.
Injunction-Against mortgagor.
be enjoined unless the acts complained of may so
2. Waste by a mortgagor in possession will not
impair the value of the property as to render it in-
sufficient, or of doubtful sufficiency, as security for
the debt.' But the value of the property should re-
main largely in excess of the debt secured by it.
-Moriarty v. Ashworth, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 531.
43 Minn. 1.
Against cotenants of mortgagor.
3. A mortgagee of an undivided interest in
land is not entitled to an injunction restraining
the tenants in common in possession of the land
1965
1966
WATER COMPANIES-WATERS AND WATER-COURSES.
from removing the clay deposits thereon, where
works for the manufacture of brick had been con-
structed, and clay deposits worked and opened,
before the execution of the mortgage. -Russell v.
Merchants' Bank, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 228.
47 Minn. 286.
WATER COMPANIES.
Rights and privileges.
1. Laws Minn. 1883, c. 80, § 3, authorized the
village of Duluth to grant to a corporation the
right to erect water-works, and to supply the vil-
lage and its inhabitants with water, and to control
the erection of the works and the laying of its
pipes on such terms as might be agreed on with
the corporation. The Duluth Gas & Water Com-
pany was authorized by its charter to contract to
furnish and supply Duluth and the inhabitants of
said village and vicinity with gas and water. The
council of Duluth granted to this company the ex-
clusive privilege of operating water-works and fur-
nishing water to the village and its inhabitants
for the term of 30 years. The village was to have
the right to purchase the works at the end of 10
years, and agreed to purchase them at the end of
30 years if it then refused to extend the franchise
for a further term of 20 years. Held, that neither
the special act nor the ordinance prevented the
company from using the mains laid under the
streets of Duluth for supplying water to the in-
habitants of another city in the vicinity.-City of
Duluth v. Duluth Gas & Water Co., 47 N. W.
781, 45 Minn. 210.
Water rates.
2. In the schedule of rates or charges fixed by
an ordinance for water furnished by a corporation,
a certain maximum tariff was fixed for a "resi'
dence occupied by one family for domestic pur-
poses, one to five rooms," and also the tariff for
each additional room. The tariff for a "bath, with
heating apparatus, private," for "water-closets, "
and for "water-basins," was also specified. Hot-
water heaters, used for warming the house, were
not mentioned, but it was provided that special
rates should be made for supplies not enumerated.
Held, that the tariff fixed for private residences
Held, that the tariff fixed for private residences
did not include or warrant the use of water for a
bath-tub, for closets, for basins, or for a heater in
plaintiff's private residence.-Allen v. Duluth Gas
& Water Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1123.
46 Minn. 290.
WATERS AND WATER-
COURSES.
Limitation of action for damages from erection of
dam, see Limitation of Actions, 33, 34.
Nuisance by overflowing lands, see Nuisance, 1,
2, 5, 9-15.
Obstruction of stream in driving logs, see Logs
and Logging, 27, 28. .
*
*
| [plaintiff] seven mill-powers of water, as defined
in the said proposals, to be used upon the follow-
ing described lots or pieces of land,
* or
upon one or more of said lots only, or upon such
other lots or parcels of land as said grantee, his
heirs or assigns, shall designate, with such
quantity of water to be used upon such or any of
said lots as S., his heirs or assigns, shall here-
after elect and determine; such designations and
elections to be made and established in writing
in some permanent form, executed and acknowl-
edged as deeds for land are executed and acknowl-
edged, and recorded in the office of the register
of deeds of said H. county, before commencing
to use said water on such lots or pieces of land."
Held, that S. and his assigns were vested with
the right to use such water-power only on the
lots described in the deed, or on premises desig-
nated as therein provided, and, having used it
on other premises, were liable to plaintiff for the
value of such use.-Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Ho-
bart, 1 N. W. 45, 26 Minn. 37.
2. The term "race-way" in a deed, reserving
the right to conduct water through the land con-
veyed, as used by persons engaged in the con-
struction and operation of mills run by water,
means "an artificial canal dug in the earth," and
does not give the right to carry the water over
the land by means of an elevated flume.—Wilder
v. De Cou, 1 N. W. 48, 26 Minn. 10.
3. A deed by a riparian owner granted to de-
fendant the use of the water of the river, below
a mill owned by the grantor, for the purpose of
operating another mill, free from "interference
or detention." Held, that the grant must be
construed as subject to the reasonable use of the
stream above by the grantor, and that the ques-
tion, "What constitutes such reasonable use"
was to be determined by general principles of
law, independent of the grant.-Red River Roller-
Mills v. Wright, 15 N. W. 167, 30 Minn. 249.
estate, not abutting on the stream, and as appur-
4. A riparian owner may grant a part of his
stream through his remaining land; and for any
tenant thereto a right to draw water from the
diversion of the natural flow of the stream dis-
turbing such right the grantee may maintain an
action. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v.
City of Minneapolis, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 56.
What is a water-course.
41 Minn. 270.
5. The water which in times of ordinary high
water overflows the bank of a stream, and is ac-
customed to flow down over the adjacent low-lands
in a defined stream, is subject to the law relating
to water-courses.-Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Rv. Co., (Minn.) 36 N. W. 339.
38 Minn. 212.
Flowage.
dam upon his own land, keep it at such height as
6. A riparian owner may, in the erection of a
to swell the water in the channel up to his neigh-
Streams and waters as boundaries, see Bound-bor's line in the ordinary stage of water, without
aries, 1-4.
Grant or reservation of right to use
water.
1. Plaintiff granted to one S. "the right to
have and draw from the pond or canal of said
making himself liable for injuries not the neces-
sary or proximate result therefrom, such as floods
or extraordinary freshets; but he will be liable
for any damages resulting from his dam at stages
of water natural, ordinary, or to be reasonably
anticipated at any particular period of the year,
1967
1968
WATERS AND WATER-COURSES.
such as spring freshets.-Dorman v. Ames, 12 | that statute.—Miller v. Troost, 14 Minn. 365, (Gil.
Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
7. A stipulation by parties that a dam across
a running stream may be maintained at a certain
specified height includes as an incident the right
of flowage necessarily caused by such mainte-
nance.-Albee v. Hayden. 25 Minn. 267.
8. A riparian owner cannot maintain on his
premises a dam of such height that it will set
back the water of the stream on land above his
at ordinary high water, such as may be reasona-
bly anticipated, and the fact that the dam does
not set back water in ordinary medium or ordina-
ry low stages of water is immaterial.-Ames V.
Cannon River Manuf'g Co., 6 N. W. 787, 27 Minn.
245.
Flowage-Action for damages.
v.
9. In an action for damages resulting from
the overflow of plaintiff's land, caused by the
defendant's dam, the court refused to charge that
"the attempt to measure the actual height or fall
of the stream by a process of instrumental level-
ings is less satisfactory than, and must yield to,
actual visible facts, because instrumental meas-
urements are liable to accidents and mistakes."
Held not error.-Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 355,
(Gil. 315.)
10. In an action for damages from the overflow-
ing of lands, caused by the erection of a dam,
plaintiff is entitled to damages, though nominal,
for any flowage shown, though there is no proof
of actual damages.-Dorman v. Ames, 12 Minn.
451, (Gil. 347.)
11. Where wood and grass were injured by
the unlawful maintenance of a dam, before the
commencement of the action for damages thereby,
it is not material that the wood and grass did
not die until after the suit had been commenced.
-Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn. 159, (Gil. 143.)
12. In an action to recover damages caused to
plaintiff's lands by the erection of a dam across
a river, it is not necessary that the complaint
should allege that the stream was not navigable.
-Rhoades v. Siman, 24 Minn. 192.
13. In an action for damages, caused by the
unauthorized maintenance of a dam, it is unneces-
sary to allege that the dam was raised in height
at any particular time, and such allegation will
not preclude proof that the dam was raised at
other times than those specified in the complaint.
-Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn. 159, (Gil. 143.)
14. In an action for injuries from overflowing
lands, caused by a dam, evidence of the condition
of the land since the commencement of the action,
tending to show that the dam had no effect in flow-
ing such land, is competent.-Dorman v. Ames, 12
Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
Statutory proceedings to obtain right
to maintain dam.
15. A water-power which a riparian owner has,
with a bona fide intent, turned to use, and im-
proved to any extent, is a water-power "previously
improved," within Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 31, § 16;
and a lower proprietor cannot afterwards acquire
a right to improve the same by proceedings under
282.)
16. The right to a water-power that may be ac-
quired under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 31, dates from
the time of commencing the proceedings, and is
governed by the condition of the upper proprie-
tor's power at that date.-Miller v. Troost, 14
Minn. 365, (Gil. 282.)
17. In proceedings to acquire a right to over-
flow lands, under Comp. St. Minn. c. 129, the peti-
tion will give the court jurisdiction if it state facts
bringing the case within section 1 of that chapter,
which provides that a person desirous of erecting
a mill-dam so as to damage real estate not owned
by him, nor damaged by consent, may obtain the
right by proceeding as in the act provided. The
restriction or limitation contained in the subse-
quent sections need not be negatived, nor need the
petition state a want of consent on the part of the
owners of the land desired to be overflowed.-
Faribault v. Hulett, 10 Minn. 30, (Gil. 15.)
18. In proceedings to obtain the right to erect a
dam, under Comp. St. Minn. § 129, a petition stat-
ing the names of the owners of the land damaged,
sufficiently shows that the land so damaged was
not owned by the petitioner, as required by such
statute, and also that such land was not damaged
by consent, for where an injury to the property of
another is alleged the law presumes prima fucie
want of consent.-Faribault v. Hulett, 10 Minn. 30,
(Gil. 15.)
It
19. A party seeking to procure the right to
maintain a dam cannot, after appeal and judg-
ment, object to judgment in such proceedings in
favor of an owner on the ground of a mortgage
on the owner's interest existing prior to such
proceedings, under which the owner's title has,
by subsequent foreclosure, been divested.
will be presumed, in such case, that damages
were assessed on the basis of the mortgagor's in-
terest only, and, if the party instituting the pro-
ceedings omitted on the trial to show such mort-
gage, he must excuse his omission before he can
be relieved of the effects thereof.—Siman v.
Rhoades, 24 Minn. 25.
20. In proceedings under Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 31, to obtain the right to erect a dam
across a non-navigable stream, after the entry of
judgment on appeal in the district court, that
court has the power to correct such judgment,
and make it conform to what the parties wero
entitled to, as the result of the trial.-Siman v.
Rhoades, 24 Minn. 25.
21. Where proper notice has been served upon
the owners of land affected by proceedings under
Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 31, to procure the right
to maintain a dam across a stream, jurisdiction
is acquired, and an indefinite description of the
lands in the petition may be amended even on
appeal.-Siman v. Rhoades, 24 Minn. 25.
22. In proceedings under Gen. St. Minn. 1866,
c. 31, to acquire the right to erect a dam across
a stream, although the statute does not require
that the petition shall contain a description of
the lands with respect to which damages
sought to be assessed, the lands should be de-
scribed in the report of the commissioner, or, on
appeal, in the judgment.-Siman v. Rhoades, 24
Minn. 25.
are
1969
WATERS AND WATER-COURSES-WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 1970
23. In proceedings under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, | Diversion.
c. 31, to obtain the right to maintain a dam
across a stream, after appeal to, and trial and
judgment in, the district court, it will be pre-
sumed, in the absence of anything to the con-
trary, that it was made to appear to the court
below that such stream was not navigable.-Si-
man v. Rhoades, 24 Minn. 25.
24. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 31, § 17, pro-
viding for an แ assessment of damages which will
result to any person by the erection of said dam
and its maintenance forever," the assessment
cannot include damages resulting from a prior
unlawful maintenance of the dam, and it is no
defense to an action for such damages. -Hemp-
stead v. Cargill, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 558.
46 Minn. 118.
Rights of water-power company.
*
*
*
25. Laws Minn. Ty. 1856, c. 137, incorporat
ing defendant water-power company, authorized
it, by section 9, "to maintain the present dams
and sluices, and construct and maintain dams,
canals, and water-sluices, erect mills, buildings,
or other structures for the purpose of manufact-
uring in any of its branches, or improving any
water-power owned or possessed by said com-
pany,
and may construct dams on the
rapids above and below the falls of St. Anthony,
with side dams, sluices, and all other improve-
ments in the Mississippi river, upon the property
owned or to be owned by said corporation, which
may be necessary to the full enjoyment of the
powers herein granted: * * provided that
nothing herein shall be so construed as to au-
thorize said corporation to interfere with the
rights or property of any person or persons what-
ever. Held, that defendant was not authorized
to appropriate the water power opposite the land
of any other riparian owner.-Morrill v. St. An-
thony Falls Water-Power Co., 2 N. W. 842, 26
>>
Minn. 222.
Pollution.
27. An injunction will lie to restrain the ex-
tension of a ditch, the effect of which would be,
at certain seasons, to divert the water of a lake,
and thereby decrease the water-power of the
plaintiff and increase that of the defendant.-
Bennett v. Murtaugh, 20 Minn. 151, (Gil. 135.)
Distinguished in Schaefer v. Marthaler, 26 N. W. 727, 34
Minn. 488.
28. In such case it need not affirmatively ap-
pear that such lake was meandered, though Laws
Minn. 1867, c. 40, forbids the draining of mean-
dered lakes only, or that plaintiff claimed any
interest in the land covered by the lake, where
it was shown that plaintiff used the water-power
derived from the lake.-Bennett v. Murtaugh,
20 Minn. 151, (Gil. 135.)
The
29. Plaintiff and defendant owned land upon
opposite sides of a water-course, plaintiff's tract
extending above and below that of defendant. Op-
posite defendant's premises was a fall of about 5
feet. At the head of these rapids he built a wing-
damn, and, about 50 feet above the dam, excavated a
canal, 900 feet in length, over his own land, the
lower end being near the foot of the rapids.
water flowing through this canal operated a grist-
mill erected by defendant 800 feet below the dam.
There was no testimony that withdrawing the
water from the pond 50 feet above the dam had
auy different effect upon the head of water than
would have resulted had it been taken out exact-
ly at the dam. Plaintiff had made no attempt to
utilize the water upon his side of the stream, nor
did he have a mill privilege of any value. The
court found that the dam was wholly upon defend-
ant's side of the middle of the stream; that he
nad made but a reasonable use of the water, and
this without materially lessening the quantity
which otherwise would flow over the bed and
along the bank on plaintiff's side. Held, that
plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction restrain-
ing defendant from maintaining his dam and
canal, nor to have any part of the canal or of the
dam abated as a nuisance.-Pinney v. Luce,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 561.
44 Minn. 367.
Water-Works.
See Municipal Corporations, 102, 103.
Ways.
Public ways, see Highways.
Right of way, see Easements.
Streets, see Municipal Corporations, 125–155.
26. In an action by the owner of a flouring-mill
to restrain the owner of a saw-mill on the same
stream, above the flouring-mill, from depositing
in the stream sawdust and other refuse, it ap-
peared that the injury thereby caused to plain-
tiff's mill was very serious. On the other hand,
defendant showed that his mill was so con-
structed that the sawdust and refuse could not
be disposed of otherwise than by permitting them
to fall into the stream without practically de-
stroying the value of defendant's mill as a water-
power mill, and that, owing to the construction
of buildings adjacent to his mill and the forma-
tion of the land, there was no other available
method of disposing of the refuse without render-
ing the mill, as it was constructed, useless as
such; and that others operating similar mills on
other streams also permitted sawdust and refuse
to be cast into those streams. Held that, al-Assault while armed with dangerous weapon, see
though the question, "What was a reasonable use
of the stream?" was a question of fact, the evi-
dence did not justify a finding that defendant's
use was reasonable; as the only occasion or ne-
cessity for such use might have resulted from mis-
take or carelessness in locating and constructing
his mill.-Red River Roller-Mills v. Wright, 15
N. W. 167, 30 Minn. 249.
Weapons.
Assault and Battery, 12-18.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Measurement of logs, see Logs and Logging, 41–
45.
1971
1972
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES-WILLS, I., II.
Use of improved scales and measures.
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 21, § 11, imposing
a penalty for selling or disposing of goods, wares,
or merchandise by unsealed and unproved scales
or measures, implies a prohibition, and no re-
covery can be had for the price against the pur-
chaser.- Bisbee v. McAllen, 39 N. W. 299, 39
Minn. 143.
Wharves.
Right to construct, see Riparian Rights, 4-15.
Widow.
Allowance, see Executors and Administrators.
Devise to, see Wills, 63, 64.
Dower, see Dower.
Rights in homestead, see Homestead, 42-50.
of inheritance, see Descent and Distribution.
Wife.
See Husband and Wife; Marriage.
WILLS.
I. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY, 1-10.
II. FRAUD AND UNDUE INFLUENCE, 11-19.
III. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY, 20-25.
IV. REVOCATION, 26–32.
V. PROBATE AND CONTEST, 33-42.
VI. CONSTRUCTION, 43-66.
VII. CONTRACTS TO MAKE WILLS, 67.
See, also, Descent and Distribution; Executors
and Administrators.
Testamentary powers, see Powers, 4, 5.
5. On an issue of testamentary capacity, the
declarations of testator concerning his business,
contracts made by him, and entries in his diary
at or about the time in question, are admissible.
In re Pinney's Will, 6 N. W. 791, 7 N. W. 144,
27 Minn. 280.
6. Where the testator, who had previously been
of sound disposing mind and memory, was sudden-
ly prostrated with severe and fatal illness, during
which he executed a codicil to his will, it is compe-
tent, upon the issue of testamentary capacity, for
the proponent to prove that a short time before he
was taken sick the testator had expressed his in-
tention to make such changes in his will as he did
make by his codicil.-Hammond v. Dike, (Minn.)
44 N. W. 61.
42 Minn. 273.
7. It is proper to show the consistency of the
will with the natural inclinations and previously
declared intentions of the testator.-Hammond v.
Dike, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 61.
42 Minn. 273.
8. A contestant of a will may testify, upon the
issue of the testator's mental capacity, as to his
verbal acts prior to the date of the will, and to
state what he said when angry and violent. -In re
Brown, (Minn.) 35 N. W. 726.
38 Minn. 112.
Opinion and expert testimony.
9. A question whether testator, in the opin-
ion of the witness, had the capacity to make an
intelligent disposition of his property by will,
is not objectionable as calling on the witness for
his opinion as to whether testator had capacity
to make a valid will.-In re Pinney's Will, 6 N.
W. 791, 7 N. W. 144, 27 Minn. 280.
10. The question whether a change in a testator's
Trial of issue of validity, see Constitutional Law, life-long purpose to provide for a sister, occurring
136-138.
I. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
Burden of proof.
1. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 47, §§ 15-17,
specifying the proof required when a will is offered
for probate, the burden of establishing the sanity
of a testator is upon him who offers the will for
probate. In re Layman's Will, 42 N. W. 286, 40
Minn. 371.
Evidence-Admissibility, in general.
2. Where it is claimed that testator was in-
competent at the time the will was made, it may
be shown that after such time he had capacity.
In re Pinney's Will, 6 N. W. 791, 7 N. W. 144, 27
Minn. 280.
3. On an issue as to the capacity of testator
to make a will, the record of the probate court on
an application to appoint a guardian for him is
inadmissible.-In re Pinney's Will, 6 N. W. 791,
7 N. W. 144, 27 Minn. 280.
4. The contents of a bond executed by a tes-
tator are not admissible in evidence, as bearing
on the question of testator's capacity, where tes-
tator did not read the bond or hear it read.-In
re Pinney's Wiil, 6 N. W. 791, 7 N. W. 144, 27
Minn. 280.
on his death-bed, and without apparent motive or
reason, and unexplained, indicates any change in
his intellect, is not one for the opinions of experts.
-Stockton v. Thorn, (In re Nelson's Will,) 39 N.
W. 143, 39 Minn. 204.
II. FRAUD AND UNDUE INFLUENCE.
What constitutes undue influence.
11. A testator may be affected by his prejudices
and predilections arising from his associations and
external influences, but, if he is of sufficient testa-
mentary capacity, he may nevertheless dispose of
his property as he pleases by will, if it be his own
voluntary act.-In re Mitchell's Estate, (Minn.) 44
N. W. 885.
43 Minn. 73.
12. Undue influence, to be sufficient to invali-
date a will, must be something to destroy the
free agency of the testator at the time when the
instrument is made, and which, in effect, substi-
tutes the will of another for that of the testator.
-Schmidt v. Schmidt, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 598.
47 Minn. 451.
Evidence.
13. On an issue of undue influence, evidence
that testator's wife, who was preferred by the
will, had great influence over testator in the or-
dinary affairs of life, is not admissible unless it
is shown that she used such influence to procure
1973
1974
WILLS, II.-IV.
the execution of the will.-Storer v. Zimmerman, there being no previous direction, to be inferred
8 N. W. 827, 28 Minn. 9.
14. Declarations of a testator as to how he in-
tended to dispose of his property, made before
the execution of the will, and not connected with
the act of making the will, are not admissible to
prove undue influence.-Storer v. Zimmerman, 8
N. W. 827, 28 Minn. 9.
15. Proof that a will is unequal in its dis-
tribution of testator's property is not admissible
to show undue influence, unless there is some
direct evidence of that fact. -Storer v. Zimmer-
man, 8 N. W. 827, 28 Minn. 9.
from looks or gestures or other ambiguous token,
is not enough. If the previous express direction
is given by gestures, they must be unambiguous
as words. Waite v. Frisbie, (Minn.) 47 N. W.
words.-Waite
1069.
45 Minn. 361.
Knowledge of contents.
22. Where a will is not read by nor to a testator,
but is signed upon an assurance that it has been
prepared according to the instructions of the tes-
tator, a finding in favor of the will cannot be sus-
tained, if the language of the will is not the lan-
guage of the instructions, and if it does not make,
16. In determining the question of undue influ- in legal effect, the provisions which the testator
ence upon the mind of a testator in disposing of his apparently desired.-Waite v. Frisbie, 47 N. W.
property by will, the frame of the will and the nat-1069, 45 Minn. 361; Id., 51 N. W. 217.
ure of the testamentary dispositions are in them-
selves important evidence.-In re Mitchell's Es-
tate, (Minn.) 44 N. W. 885.
43 Minn. 73.
17. The fact that a person who had made two
wills, dividing his property between his wife and
his sister, within a few days after making the
second, and after several days of very severe ill-
ness, of which he died, made another will, re-
voking those made before, and leaving all his
property to his wife, (no reason being apparent
for the change in the disposition of his property,)
is not, in the absence of any other evidence, suffi-
cient to require the issue of undue influence on
the part of the wife to be submitted to the jury.
-Stockton v. Thorn, (In re Nelson's Will,) 39
N. W. 143, 39 Minn. 204.
18. The provisions of a will, and the fact that
the beneficiaries therein who are specially fa-
vored had opportunities to influence the testator,
may be considered, in connection with other tes-
timony, in trying the question of undue influence,
but such facts, standing alone, are not evidence
of such influence. In re Hess' Will, (Minn.) 51
N. W. 614; Foster v. Dearborn, Id.
19. The exercise of undue influence over a tes-
tator must be proved by affirmative evidence,
apart from his declarations or admissions made
after the will was executed, they being only per-
tinent to show the effect of such influence upon
his mind. In re Hess' Will, (Minn.) 51 N. W.
614; Foster v. Dearborn, Id.
III. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
What constitutes a will.
20. A deed of property, executed in expecta-
tion of death, for purposes of distribution, will
not be construed as a will, so as to postpone the
vesting of title thereunder until the grantor's
death, where there is nothing to show that he
did not intend the deed to take effect upon its
execution. -Brown v. Atwater, 25 Minn. 520.
Execution-Signature.
21. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 47, § 5, provid-
ing that a will shall be "signed at the end thereof
by the testator, or by some person in his presence
and by his express direction, " mere knowledge on
the part of the testator that another is signing or
has signed, and assent to or acquiescence in it,
Attestation.
23. Where witnesses to a will subscribed the
same in the immediate and conscious presence of
the testator, and under such circumstances that
he could see them so subscribe, the fact that he
did not actually see them is immaterial.—In re
Allen, 25 Minn. 39
24. No formal request to witnesses to subscribe
a will need be shown on an application for its
probate, as no request is required by Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 47, §5.-In re Allen, 25 Minn. 39.
Alterations and interlineations.
25. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 47, § 5,
which provides that no will shall be effectual
unless, in addition to other requisites, it be "at-
tested and subscribed in the testator's presence
by two competent witnesses," when erasures and
interlineations are made, in an existing will, an
attestation of them alone is insufficient, and the
will as altered by them must be duly attested to
make them of any effect. -In re Penniman, 20 Minn.
245, (Gil. 220.)
IV. REVOCATION.
By alterations, interlineations, etc.
26. Where interlineations and alterations in an
existing will are not duly attested so as to take
effect as a disposition of the property, they can-
not operate as a revocation of provisions for
which they were substituted; for Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 47, § 9, requires that a writing, in order
to operate as the revocation of a will, must be
"signed, attested, and subscribed in the manner
provided for the execution of a will.”—In re
Penniman, 20 Minn. 245, (Gil. 220.)
By canceling, burning, etc.
27. Cancellation or obliteration of a portion of
a will is only prima facie evidence of intention
to revoke.-In re Penniman, 20 Minn. 245, (Gil.
220.)
28. Where a portion of a will is canceled with
a view to a new disposition, and the proposed
disposition fails to be carried into effect, the pre-
sumption in favor of cancellation will be re-
pelled, and the will allowed as originally writ-
ten.-İn re Penniman, 20 Minn. 245, (Gil. 220.)
29. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 47, §. 9,
which provides that no will shall be revoked
1975
1976
WILLS, IV., V.
"}
"unless by burning, tearing, canceling, or ob-
literating the same, a will which is placed
by testator in a stove, with the intention of de-
stroying it when the fire should be ignited, is
not revoked, where a devisee, with the purpose
of thwarting testator's intention, and without his
knowledge or consent, takes the will out of the
stove before it is scorched or mutilated in any
degree, and secretes it, leaving the envelope in-
closing the will to be subsequently destroyed by
the fire.-Graham v. Birch, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 697.
47 Minn. 171.
By subsequent will.
30. A later will, properly executed, revoking
former wills, is effectual as a revocation, though,
having been lost or destroyed, its contents (other
than the revocatory clause) cannot be proved so
that it can be allowed and executed as a will.-In
re Cunningham, (Minn.) 36 N. W. 269.
38 Minn. 169.
31. On issue arising upon proceedings to pro-
bate an earlier will, proof of a revocatory instru-
ment is competent as evidence of a revocation,
though it might be, but never has been, admitted
to probate. In re Cunningham, 26 N. W. 269, 38
Minn. 169.
By subsequent deed.
32. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 47, § 9, re
lating to the revocation of wills, which provides
that nothing in the section contained shall pre-
vent the revocation "implied by law from the
subsequent changes in the condition or circum-
stances of the testator," a deed procured by the
fraud and undue influence of the grantee does not
work a revocation of a will, previously executed,
devising the same land.-Graham v. Birch, (Minn.)
49 N. W. 697.
47 Minn. 171.
V. PROBATE AND CONTEST.
Jurisdiction-Will of non-resident.
|
decree in the same court, be first revoked, set
aside, or vacated. Stackhouse v. Berryhill,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 392.
47 Minn. 20.
Right to oppose probate-Creditor of
heir.
35. A judgment creditor of an heir, to whom the
real estate of his deceased ancestor would descend
in the absence of a will has an interest that entitles
him to contest the probate of a supposed will of
deceased, which devises all the real estate to oth-
ers than the said heir.-In re Langevin's Will,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 1133.
45 Minn. 429.
Guardian ad litem for minor.
36. Where an appointment of a guardian ad
litem in proceedings to admit a will to probate
is not required by statute, no such appointment
for a minor interested is necessary; and, after a
will has been regularly admitted to probate by
the judgment of the proper probate court, that
court has no jurisdiction to set aside the probate
as void on the ground that it was adjudged with-
out the appointment of a guardian ad litem for
a minor interested in the testator's estate, or to
adjudge a re-probate of the will upon that ground;
and such re-probate, if allowed, is void.-In re
Mousseau's Will, 14 N. W. 887, 30 Minn. 202.
37 Minn. 231.
Distinguished in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 33 N. W. 795,
Appeal from admission of will.
37. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 49, § 14, pro-
viding for an appeal from a judgment or order
of a probate court by a party who, "being enti-
tled to be heard thereon, had not due notice or
opportunity to be heard, -the latter fact to be
shown by affidavit, "-an affidavit on appeal from
the admission of a will to probate, which states
that the appellant had no knowledge, informa-
tion, or notice that a will was to be offered for
probate, and "had no notice or opportunity what-
33. Under Gen. Laws 1889, c. 46, (Prob. Code, §§ In re Brown's Will, 21 N. W. 474, 32 Minn. 443.
ever to be heard" as to such probate, is sufficient.
$$
32, 34,) allowing the filing in this state of a will of a
non-resident which has been judicially proved and
established in another state, and authorizing ad-
ministration thereon in this state, it is error to ad-
mit the will and proceed to administration without
any showing that there is property of the estate
in the county where it is sought to admit the will
subject to administration, or upon which the will
may operate, since section 4 requires that wills
must be proved, and letters testamentary or of
administration granted, in some county where
there is property belonging to the estate, and con-
tains no exceptions. Southard v. Southard,
(Minn.) 50 N. Ŵ. 932.
Effect of prior proceedings as in case
of intestacy.
34. It is not requisite, in order to probate the
will of a deceased person in one of the probate
courts of this state, or in order to have an au-
thenticated copy of a foreign will, and of the pro-
bate thereof elsewhere, duly allowed, filed, and
recorded, as provided by Probate Code Minn. §§
32, 33, that proceedings in administration already
had of the estate of such person as if he had died
intestate, and which have terminated in a final
38. Notice of an appeal from the admission of
attorney of the proponent.—In re Brown's Will,
a will to probate may properly be served upon the
21 N. W. 474, 32 Minn. 443.
Effect of decree.
39. A decree admitting a will to probate is not
an adjudication of the effect or construction of
any provision of the will, but only that the will
was executed by the person whose will it pur-
ports to be, and that such person was competent
to make a will.-Greenwood v. Murray, 2 Ñ. W.
945, 26 Minn. 259.
N.
40. On the application for the allowance and
probate of a will, the probate court can only ad-
judicate questions as to the validity of its execu-
tion, and whether it is the subsisting will of the
testator; and, on appeal to the district court, the
latter court can make only such determination as
the probate court ought to have made, and it
cannot assume to declare a trust or determine
the disposition of the estate under the will.-
Graham v. Birch, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 697.
47 Minu. 171.
1977
1978
WILLS, V., VI.
Effect of foreign probate.
41. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 47, § 18, pro-
viding that wills duly proved and allowed in any
other state, or in a foreign country, may be al-
lowed, filed, and recorded in the probate court of
any county in this state in which the testator left
property, the allowance and probate of a will in
pursuance of said section is sufficient evidence of
the death of testator and the devise of lands. The
records of the probate court import verity, and
cannot be attacked collaterally.-Lyon v. Gleason.
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 286.
40 Minn. 434.
42. Though a testator domiciled in another
state leaves in this state personal property only,
the power of the courts of this state to admit to
probate a will already proved at the testator's
domicile is not affected by Laws Minn. 1889, c. 46,
§ 32, providing that a will devising land in this
state, and executed according to the laws of the
testator's domicile, may be admitted to probate
here on a certified copy of the foreign probate.
In re Washburn's Estate, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 790;
Putnam v. Pitney, Id.
45 Minn. 242.
VI. CONSTRUCTION.
and certain other land, to trustees, in trust for
the establishment of an orphans' home to be or-
ganized by his trustees, and provided that if, in
certain anticipated emergencies, it should so
happen that it should be impracticable to estab-
lish such a home, then the money and land should
be appropriated to erecting an asylum for aged
and intirm persons. By the residuary clause, all
the residue of the estate, after payment of leg-
acies, was given to the trustees, to be divided
equally between the asylum specified in the ninth
bequest and "the institution which shall take
under the tenth bequest of this will. By a
codicil, testator declared the ninth and tenth
clauses of the will void, stating that, as to the
asylum mentioned in the ninth clause, he had
conveyed the land to it by deed, and giving the
other land to his trustees to be sold, and the pro-
ceeds paid to a certain established orphans' asy-
lum. Held, that the codicil substituted the or-
phans' asylum in place of the asylum contem-
plated by the tenth clause of the will, and enti-
tled it to half of the residuary estate. —Atwater
v. Russell, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 624.
Description of property.
""
47. A will devised to testator's wife "one-third
of all real estate" during widowhood; to one son,
the "north half of the real estate divided from
Omission to provide for children - In- east to west:" to another, the south half of the
tention to disinherit.
43. Under Rev. St. c. 53, § 27, which provides
that when a testator omits to provide for his chil-
dren, and it appears that the omission was un-
intentional, such child shall take the same share
as if he had died intestate, a will which, after
disposing of all property specifically, bequeaths
$10 to testator's daughter to be paid three years
from his death, and after all debts were paid, is
not such a case of unintentional omission as is
contemplated by the statute.-Case v. Young, 3
Minn. 209, (Gil. 140.)
44. Testator, after certain specific devises
and legacies, by a general residuary clause be-
queathed all the balance of his property to his
wife, with the provision "that her rights under
this residuary provision shall not be affected or
changed by the birth of any child of mine, if
any should be born to me before or after my
decease." Held, that a child born subsequert to
execution of such will could inherit no portion
of testator's estate, it being clearly evident that
it was his intention to make no provision for such
child.-Prentiss v. Prentiss, 14 Minn. 18, (Gil. 5.)
Description of devisees and legatees.
45. Testatrix devised land to her executor in
trust to sell the same five years after her death,
"unless my heirs agree to postpone said sale for a
longer period," and on such sale the proceeds were
to be paid to the husband, nephew, and two daugh-
ters of testatrix. Held, that the word "heirs
meant the persons designated by the will to re-
ceive the proceeds of the land devised. -Green-
wood v. Murray, 9 N. W. 629, 28 Minn. 120.
Substituted devisees.
46. Testator, by the ninth clause of his will,
bequeathed and devised to a certain named hos-
pital, about to be incorporated, $25,000, and cer-
tain land. By the tenth clause he gave $25,000,
"}
real estate. Held, that such will was not void
for uncertainty, but that extrinsic evidence was
admissible to identify the testator's lands as the
subject or object to which the language used in
the will applied.-Case v. Young, 3 Minn. 209,
(Gil. 140.)
48. Testator devised to his widow "the house,
where we now live, with the grounds connected
therewith, being lots 1, 2, and 3, and two-thirds
of lot 4, in block 225, situate at the junction of
Eighth and Helen streets." Lots 1, 2, and 3
were at the junction of Eighth and Minnetonka
streets, and lot 1 and the adjacent third of lot 2
were not owned by testator. The house was on
lots 4 and 5 at the junction of Eighth and Helen
streets. Held, that that part of the description
which gave the numbers of the lots would be
rejected as a mistake.-Butler v. Trustees of
First Presbyterian Church, 7 N. W. 363, 27
Minn. 355.
49. A will devising and bequeathing, in terms,
all the testator's real and personal property, con
tained this clause: "This disposition of my prop-
erty is subject to, and not intended to interfere-
with, the right of dower or other legal right of my
wife, in and to my said property or any of the
same." Held, that the clause excludes from the
bequest that part of the personal property which,
in the absence of a testamentary disposition, the
Minnesota statute gives to the widow.-Redford.
v. Redford, (Minn.) 47 N. W. 308.
45 Minn. 48.
Nature and duration of estate.
50. Land was devised by testator to W., the
possession and use to go to him immediately on
testator's decease, and if he survived testator 10
years the land should be his absolutely, but if he
died within the 10 years the land was to go to his is-
sue. Held, that W. took a fee, with a conditional
limitation to his issue in case of his death within
1979
1980
WILLS, VI.
10 years of testator's death.-Whiting v. Whiting, | alienation of real estate "for a longer period
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 1030.
42 Minn. 548.
51. A decree of distribution of a probate court,
assigning real estate to a person named, "to have
and to hold the same unto her, her heirs and as-
signs forever," is an assignment of an estate in
fee, though the will under which the decree of
distribution is made gives the distributee the
residue of testator's estate to be used "during
her natural life" the same as testator might do,
with power to dispose of the same absolutely.-
Tidd v. Rines, 2 N. W. 497, 26 Minn. 201.
52. A testator by his will devised and be-
queathed all his real and personal property to
his wife for life, "for her own exclusive use and
benefit," and provided that after her death any
and all of such property and estate, "or any part
of the same then left by her," should be divided
among his children; and he added, "as a special
provision, I make this a condition, that my said
wife shall, out and from said property left her,
provide for the maintenance and a good educa
tion of my children." He also gave to his exec-
utors a power of sale. Held, that on his de-
cease a life-estate in his realty vested in the wife
and a remainder in fee in the children, and sim-
ilar interests were created in the personalty, and
in case of sales they would take similar interests
in the proceeds; and that an implied power was
given to the widow to dispose of so much of the
capital or corpus of the estate as should be rea-
sonably necessary for her own support and the
maintenance and education of the children, in
case the income should prove insufficient; but
that she was not to use the principal while the
income should be sufficient.-In re Oertle, 24 N.
W. 924, 34 Minn. 173.
53. By a will, testator devised certain lands to
53. By a will, testator devised certain lands to
his executors in trust to permit his son-in-law
"to use and occupy the same for and during the
term of his natural life, and after his decease in
trust" for testator's daughter. Held, that the
legal estate in the land was vested in the son-in-
law by the statute of uses, and that his interest
was subject to be sold for his debts.-Farmers'
Nat. Bank v. Moran, 14 N. W. 805, 30 Minn. 165.
than during the continuance of two lives in being
at the creation of the estate," does not apply to
become of lawful age, "
such a suspension until a person named "shall
as the power of aliena-
tion is not suspended thereby for any fixed time,
and the suspension will cease upon the death
Simpson v. Cook, 24 Minn. 180.
before reaching majority of the person named.-
56. A testator died, leaving five minor chil-
dren. His will provided that his property should
not be divided until the youngest child should
become of age. Held, that by the term "young.
est child" was to be understood the youngest
child living at the death of the testator, not the
youngest child which should live to attain ma-
jority.—Simpson v. Cook, 24 Minn. 180.
57. A devise of land to executors, in trust to
sell as soon as in their judgment the same can
be sold for a reasonable price, does not suspend
the power of alienation.-Atwater v. Russell,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 624.
Designation of executors and trustees.
58. A will nominated one O. as executor, and,
by subsequent provisions, provided for certain
trusts to be executed by "said executor." By a
codicil C. was nominated co-executor simply,
nothing being said as to the trusts. Held, that
C. was not thereby made co-trustee in the trusts
created by such will, and might lawfully pur-
chase lands embraced in such trust. - Simpson
v. Cook, 24 Minn. 180.
Rights of devisees to proceeds of real
estate.
59. Where testator devises all his real estate to
named persons, and then provides that his execu
tors may convey such real estate, but does not di-
rect the disposition of the proceeds, the devisees
tate devised to them.-Ness v. Davidson, (Mină.)
are entitled to such proceeds in lieu of the real es-
48 N. W. 10; Jaggar v. Same, Id.
45 Minn. 424.
60. Devisees of real estate, which by subsequent
provisions of the will the executors are authorized
to convey, the proceeds to be distributed to such
devisees, cannot so incumber the real estate as
that the executors will be obliged to convey, if at
all, subject to the incumbrances.-Ness v. David-
son, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 10; Jaggar v. Same, Id.
45 Minn. 424.
54. Testator by the second clause of his will
directed his executors to invest $21,000, and pay
over the income quarterly to a sister and brother
in certain proportions, for life, and, on their
death, to divide the principal among their chil-
dren in certain proportions. By a codicil he pro-
vided: "Instead of the bequest of $21,000 men-
tioned in the second clause of my will, I in- Election-Between deed and will.
crease the same to the sum of $30,000, to be paid
to my sister, A., and W., my brother, in the
same proportions as in said will specified, and
the bequests to their children
to be
increased in the same proportion. Held, that
the codicil merely increased the $21,000 to $30,000,
and left said sum to be treated as provided in the
will as to the $21,000, and did not give the prin-
cipal of the $30,000 absolutely to testator's brother
and sister, nor give another absolute bequest of
$30,000 to their children. -Atwater v. Russell,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 624.
*
Suspension of power of alienation.
55. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 45, § 15, which for.
bids the suspension of the absolute power of
61. A testatrix conveyed by deed a portion of a
lot to one of her sons. Afterwards, by will, she
devised the entire lot, including that portion there-
of previously conveyed by her, to her three sons,
including the grantee in the deed referred to, share
and share alike. Held, upon the probate of the
will, that such grantee was required to elect
whether he would relinquish his own property and
take under the will; and that, if he elected to re-
tain his own property and against the will, he was
not entitled to a partition of the remainder of the
lot, but equity will appropriate the gift made by
the will to him, to compensate the other benefici-
aries under it.-Brown v. Brown, (Minn.) 44 N. W.
| 250.
42 Minn. 270.
1981
1982
WILLS, VI., VII.-WITNESS.
Election-By widow between marriage | tions of the court.-State v. Ueland, 15 N. W.
settlement and will.
245, 30 Minn. 277.
62. A marriage settlement gave to the wife dur-
ing her life the usufruct of certain land. A will
of the husband made certain bequests, and then
devised all his property "which should remain to
him" at his death. Held, that it was not the in-
tention of testator to dispose of his wife's interest
under the marriage settlement, and she was not
put to an election, but could hold both under the
settlement and the will. Sherman v. Lewis,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 318.
44 Minn. 107.
By widow between statutory es-
tate and will.
63. The first clause of a will contained a be-
quest to the wife of the testator of a gold watch
and chain, "in addition to the amount now al-
lowed her by law out of my estate, and which
it is my will she shall have on my decease."
Subsequent clauses devised and bequeathed all
the residue of testator's estate, in certain spe-
cific shares and portions, to his four children.
At the death of the testator, he left surviving
him his wife and three of the children named in
the will, the fourth having died without issue.
Held, that the widow took, under the will, in
addition to the watch and chain, the same share
of the estate as the law in force at the date of
the will would have give her had testator then
died intestate; and that in addition thereto she
was entitled, under the statutes of descent and
distribution, to one-third of the devise and leg
acy which lapsed by reason of the death of the
devisee and legatee without issue during testa.
tor's life-time. -Johnson v. Johnson, 21 N. W.
725, 32 Minn. 513.
64. Although the statutory estate given by
Laws Minn. 1875, c. 40, Laws 1876, c. 37, § 3, to a
surviving wife, in lieu of dower, in an undivid-
ed one-third of the lands of the husband, in fee-
simple, "free from any testamentary or other
disposition thereof to which such survivor shall
not have assented in writing, " cannot be divested
by a devise not assented to in writing, a surviv-
ing wife may be compelled to elect between such
statutory estate and the provision made for her
by her husband's will, which disposes of all his
lands in which she is by law entitled to such es-
tate, by a devise valid except for her legal rights
therein.-In re Washburn's Estate, (Washburn
v. Van Steenwyk,) 20 N. W. 324, 32 Minn. 336.
By probate court on behalf of
widow.
66. A testator, domiciled with his wife in
Wisconsin, and owning land in Wisconsin and
Minnesota, died in Wisconsin, leaving his wife
surviving, but insane. In a suit for construction
of the will, to which the widow and all parties
interested were made parties, it was finally de-
cided by the supreme court of Wisconsin that
the will made a case for election by the widow,
and the court elected for her to take under the
will. Held, that such determination was con-
clusive between the parties as to the construc-
tion of the will, and that the election so made,
there having been no previous election else-
where, was effectual everywhere as the election
of the widow, and precluded a different choice
in respect to lands in Minnesota; that although
a probate court in Minnesota, in the course of
administration with respect to the lands in that
state, had made an election in behalf of the
widow to take against the will, prior to the final
election made in Wisconsin, as an appeal had
been taken therefrom which had the effect to
transfer the cause to the district court for trial
de novo, pending which such election was made
by the supreme court of Wisconsin, the election
by the probate court in Minnesota did not con-
clude the parties, nor control the judgment of
the district court.-In re Washburn's Estate,
(Washburn v. Van Steenwyk,) 20 N. W. 324, 32
Minn. 336.
VII. CONTRACTS TO MAKE WILLS.
Validity and effect.
67. A party to a contract may obligate himself
for a valuable consideration to make his will in a
particular way, or to give certain specific property
to a particular person, so as to bind his estate.
Newton v. Newton, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 450.
46 Minn. 33.
116.
Winona, City of.
Contracts by, see Municipal Corporations, 114–
School-districts, see Schools and School-Districts,
6, 7.
Winona & St. Peter Railroad
Company.
Exemption from taxation, see Railroad Com-
panies, 126, 127, 137.
WITNESS.
I. COMPETENCY, 1-32.
65. Under Const. Minn. art. 6, § 7, giving pro-
bate courts jurisdiction "over the estates of de-
ceased persons and persons under guardianship,
a probate court has power where the question is
involved in the settlement or distribution of the
estate of a testator pending before it, to construe
his will, in order to determine whether, under
its provisions, there is a case for an election on
the part of his widow; and, if there be such a
case, and she be incompetent to make such elec-
tion in person, by reason of insanity, the court,
having appointed a guardian over her estate, has
the power to make such election for her, or in-
struct her guardian to make it under the direc- IV. ATTENDANCE AND FEES, 108-117.
a. In General, 1-9.
b. Privileged Communications, 10-15.
c. Transactions with Deceased and In-
sane Persons, 16–32.
II. EXAMINATION, 33-66.
III. CREDIBILITY, 67–107.
1983
1984
WITNESS, I. a., b.
Absence, see Continuance, 3, 4; Criminal Law,
42; New Trial, 43.
Attestation of deed, see Deed, 9-13.
of will, see Wills, 23, 24.
Competency of accused as witness, see Criminal
Law, 72, 73.
Declarations by witnesses, see Evidence, 100, 101.
Former testimony as evidence, see Evidence, 351-
354.
Instructions as to credibility, see Criminal Law,
102, 103.
Objections to testimony, see Trial, 20-48.
Privilege from service of process, see Summons,
23, 24.
Taxation of fees as costs, see Costs, 21-26.
Testimony, see Evidence.
in writing, see Affidavit; Deposition.
5. In an action by a judgment creditor of a
husband to subject land conveyed to his wife on
a purchase and payment of the price thereof by
the husband to the judgment, to the extent of the
wife's interest therein, in which the husband is
not made a party, the wife is a competent wit-
ness for plaintiff, without the consent of the hus-
| band, as her testimony is not "for or against her
husband. "-Leonard v. Green, 16 N. W. 399, 30
Minn. 496.
6. Neither Laws Minn. 1889, c. 72, nor Laws
1885, c. 193, affects, except in the statutory pro-
ceeding in aid of execution, the rule in Gen. St.
Minn. c. 73, § 10, that a husband cannot be exam-
ined against his wife without her consent, nor the
wife against her husband without his consent.-
44 Minn. 159.
Wife as witness against husband, see Adultery, 4. | Wolford v. Farnham, (Minn.) 46 N. W. 295.
I. COMPETENCY.
a. In General.
Mental capacity.
1. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 7, provides
that "all persons except as hereinafter provided,
having the power and faculty to perceive and to
make known their perceptions to others, may be
witnesses." Section 9 provides that persons
"who are of unsound mind or intoxicated at the
time of their production for examination" shall
not be competent as witnesses. Held, persons in-
toxicated and of unsound mind are not wholly
disqualified, but are competent if they have such
an understanding as enables them to retain in
memory the events of which they have been wit-
nesses, and understanding sufficient to appreciate
the obligation of an oath.-Cannady v. Lynch, 8
N. W. 164, 27 Minn. 435.
2. An allegation in a complaint that plain-
tiff had theretofore been adjudged insane, and
had been confined for two years in a lunatic
asylum, whence she was afterwards discharged,
is not such an admission of plaintiff's insanity
at the time of the trial as will disqualify her as a
witness.- Cannady v. Lynch, 8 N. W. 164, 27
Minn. 435.
Understanding of obligation of oath.
3. Where a witness understands that he is
brought into court to tell the truth, that it is
wrong to tell a lie, and that he will be punished
if he does tell a lie, he has sufficient understand-
ing of the obligation of an oath to be competent.
-State v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104.
Husband and wife.
4. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 10, pro-
viding that a wife cannot be examined "for or
against her husband without his consent; nor
can either during the marriage, or afterwards, be,
without the consent of the other, examined as to
any communication made by one to the other
during the marriage; but this exception does not
apply to a civil action or proceeding by one
against the other, nor to a criminal action or
proceeding for a crime committed by one against
the other, "-a wife cannot testify against her
husband in an action by him against a defendant
for enticing her away.-Huot v. Wise, 6 N. W.
425, 27 Minn. 68.
7. That a wife refuses to consent that the ad-
verse party may examine her husband as a wit-
ness against her, does not preclude her from call-
ing him in her own behalf.-Wolford v. Farnham,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 295.
44 Minn. 159.
Co-defendant in criminal case.
8. Under Rev. St. Minn. p. 20, § 93, allowing
parties and others to be witnesses in derogation
of the common law, and providing that "no de-
fendant in a criminal action or proceeding shall
be a witness therein for himself, one defend-
ant is not competent as a witness on behalf of
a co-defendant until after discharge or judgment
against the defendant whose testimony is of-
fered, whether such defendants be tried to-
gether or separately, and the rule is the same
whether the offense charged be a simple assault
or a graver crime.-Baker v. United States, 1
Minn. 207, (Gil. 181;) State v. Dumphey, 4
Minn. 438, (Gil. 340.)
9. Laws Minn. 1868, c. 70, p. 110, providing
that, "in the trial of all indictments, complaints,
and other proceedings against a person charged
with the commission of crimes or offenses, the
person so charged shall, at his request, but not
otherwise, be deemed a competent witness," does
not include a co-defendant not on trial, so as to ex-
cept him from the general rule as to competency.
-State v. Dee, 14 Minn. 35, (Gil. 27.)
b. Privileged Communications.
Husband and wife.
10. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 10, providing
that neither husband nor wife can, "during the
marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent
of the other, examined as to any communication
made by one to the other during the marriage, "
band and wife, though on subjects not confiden-
includes all private conversations between hus-
tial in their nature.-Leppla v. Minnesota Tribune
Co., 29 N. W. 127, 35 Minn. 310.
Attorney and client.
11. A request to an attorney to appear in and
defend an action is not a privileged communica-
tion, and the fact of the retainer or employment
may be proved by the testimony of the attorney.
-Eickman v. Troll, 12 N. W. 347, 29 Minn. 124.
1985
1986
WITNESS, •
I. b., c.
12. On trial of an appeal from an order admit-
ting a will to probate, an attorney at law, who had
been testator's attorney, was permitted to disclose
communications made to him by deceased on
business matters, and the advice and counsel giv-
en thereon. The object was to lay a foundation
for the admission in evidence of the opinion of
said attorney as to the sanity of the testator, and
there was nothing in the testimony which in any
manner reflected upon the character or reputation
of the deceased. Held, that contestant, who was
one of the heirs at law of the deceased, could not
exclude such testimony on the ground of privi-
leged communications. In re Layman's Will,
(Minn.) 42 N. W. 286.*
Q
40 Minn. 371.
13. An attorney is not obliged to produce a writ-
ing intrusted to him by his client, or to disclose its
contents, without his consent, but he may be re-
quired to state whether he has it in his possession,
for the purpose of authorizing the adverse party
to give parol evidence of its contents.-Stokoe v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 42 N. W. 482.
40 Minn. 545.
14. The rule relating to privileged communica-
tions does not apply to questions put to a client as
to statements made by him to his attorney.-State
v. Tall, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 449.
Physician and patient.
43 Minn. 273.
15. Information acquired by a physician other-
wise than in a professional capacity, and not
necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for
the patient, is not privileged under Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 73, § 10, subd. 4, (Gen. St. 1878, c.
73, § 10.)—Jacobs v. Cross, 19 Minn. 523, (Gil. 454.)
a. Transactions with Deceased and Insane Per
sons.
Interest of witness.
16. Under Gen. St. 1866, c. 79, tit. 1, § 8, pro-
viding that, where one party to a contract is
dead, the other party shall not be admitted to
testify as to such contract in his own favor,
etc., such surviving party cannot testify in his
cwn favor as to such contract in an action where
he is interested, although he is not a party to the
record.-Allen v. Baldwin, 22 Minn. 397.
he interested in the event of the proceeding, since
a judgment therein would not conclude him on
the question of the partnership. — Marvin
Dutcher, 4 N. W. 685, 26 Minn. 391.
v.
18. S. executed a chattel mortgage to A. for
consideration furnished by F. Held, in an action
by A. against B., a creditor of S., after the death
of F., to recover the property which had been le-
vied upon under an execution against S. by B., he
claiming such mortgage to be fraudulent, that S.
was a competent witness for A. to prove the trans-
action.-Foster v. Berkey, 8 Minn. 351, (Gil. 310.)
19. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8, excluding the
testimony of parties to an action, and persons in-
terested therein, as to conversations or admissions
of a deceased party in regard to matters at issue,
does not operate to exclude testimony by one not a
party, nor interested, to show that the conditions
of a mortgage given by plaintiff to deceased were
different from those expressed in the instrument,
and had been discharged, when such testimony is
independent of any conversation had with de-
ceased.-Harrington v. Samples, (Minn.) 30 N. W.
36 Minn. 200.
671.
20. In an action to reform an insurance policy
and to recover on the reformed policy, the issue
was whether there had been an agreement between
the insurance agent, since deceased, and plaintiff's
agent, for insurance on the property omitted from
the policy. Plaintiff's agent testified as to conver-
sations with the deceased insurance agent as to
the agreement between them prior to issuing the
policy. It appeared, after the evidence was re-
ceived, under objection, that the witness was a
member of a partnership which was a stockholder
in plaintiff corporation. Held error not to strike
out the evidence, as it related to transactions with
a decedent, under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8.-
Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Syndicate Ins. Co.,
41 N. W. 547, 40 Minn. 152; Same v. Liverpool &
London & Globe Ins. Co., 41 N. W. 548, 40 Minn. 155.
21. Gen. St. Minn. 1879, c. 73, § 8, declaring par-
thereof, to be incompetent to testify to conversa-
ties to actions, and persons interested in the event.
tions with, or admissions of, deceased persons
relative to a matter in issue, aoes not apply to an
ing a party, nor having any legal interest in the
agent of a party to the action, such agent not be-
event of the action.-Darwin v. Keigher, (Minn.)
47 N. W. 314.
45 Minn. 64.
17. In a proceeding by an administrator de
bonis non against an administratrix who had
been removed for a final settlement of her ac-
counts, the administratrix contended that, as to 22. In an action against the grand lodge by
certain property, a partnership had existed be- the beneficiary on a certificate of membership in
tween decedent and one G.; that G. had taken the Ancient Order of United Workmen, one who
possession of such property as surviving partner; joined a subordinate lodge of the order after
and that therefore she was not liable therefor as the death of deceased, where it does not clearly
administratrix. Held, that G. was not disquali- appear that he will be liable to assessment to
fied from testifying as to conversations with de- pay the benefit sued on, or incur other liability
cedent tending to show the existence of the part- thereon, is not incompetent to testify, in behalf
nership, by Gen. St. Minn. c. 73, § 8, which pro- of defendant, to conversations with or admis-
hibits "a party to an action or interested in the sious by deceased, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 8,
event thereof to give evidence therein of or con-making it incompetent for any party interested
cerning any conversation with, or admission of,
a deceased or insane party or person relative to
any matter at issue between the parties;" it ap-
pearing that G. was not a party or in privity with
either of the parties, that he had no interest in
the estate, as next of kin, creditor, etc., nor was
V.2M.DIG.-63
in the event of an action to testify therein con-
cerning any conversation with or admission of
a deceased party; the burden being on the party
objecting to a witness to show interest.-Perine
v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., (Minn.) 50 N. W.
1022.
1987
1988
WITNESS, I. c., II.
Է
What transactions excluded.
23. In the provision of Gen. St. 1866, c. 73, §
8, that, when all the original parties to one side
of a contract are dead or insane, the other party
or parties shall not be admitted to testify as to
such contract in his or their own favor unless the
transactions on behalf of the deceased or insane
parties were had or performed by an agent,
whose testimony is received, the words "as to
such contract" are equivalent to the words "as to
what took place between the parties to such con-
tract at the time of making the same. "-Johnson
v. Coles, 21 Minn. 108.
24. Under Gen. St. Minn. c. 73, § 8, providing
that "it shall not be competent for any party to
an action, or interested in the event thereof, to
give evidence therein of or concerning any con-
versation with, or admission of, a deceased or in-
sane person or party, relative to any matter at
issue between the parties, a party to the action
or person interested in the result may testify as
to any acts of a decedent, though they may have
the effect of admissions. The statute applies only
to spoken words. -Chadwick v. Cornish, 1 N. W.
55, 26 Minn. 28.
"}
25. In an action on a certificate of membership
in a mutual benefit association, by the beneficiary
named therein, it was claimed that deceased had
changed the beneficiary, and it appeared that he
wrote to the company indicating such a change
as he desired to make, and that the company
wrote to him inclosing a formal revocation and
reappointment, to be signed by him and returned,
which he failed to do. Held, that it was com-
petent for plaintiff to testify that he got the com-
pany's letter from the post-office, read it to de-
ceased, and gave it to him, since the statute pro-
hibiting a surviving party from testifying as to
any conversation with, or admission of, a de-
ceased person applies to spoken words, and not to
acts from which admissions may be implied.
Chadwick v. Cornish, 1 N. W. 55, 26 Minn. 28,
followed.-Hall v. Nortnwestern Endowment &
Legacy Ass'n, (Minn.) 49 N. W. 524.
47 Minn. 85.
28. Where it appears from the testimony of a
aisinterested witness that the defendants made to
plaintiff (deceased since the commencement of the
action) the fraudulent representations for which a
recovery is sought, defendants are not permitted
dence of transactions with decedent) to testify
(under the statute of Minnesota relating to evi-
that, in the conversation with the deceased, re-
ferred to by such witness, they made no such rep-
resentations.-Redding v. Godwin, (Minn.) 46 N.
W. 563.
44 Minn. 355.
29. Plaintiff executed a note to one S., and gave
a chattel mortgage to secure it. After the death
of the surety on the note, S. presented this note
as a claim against the estate, had it allowed, and
paid and transferred it to the administrator, who
then took possession of the property covered by the
mortgage. Plaintiff, in an action to recover the
property, alleged that the note was usurious, and
that defendant's intestate knew it was so. Held,
that plaintiff is competent to testify to the usury,
the contract having been made with S., who is still
in life; and the case is not within the exceptions
mentioned in Gen. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 66, § 5, which
provides that, whenever"in any action in any court
the defendant shall plead or answer the defense of
usury, either party to the action may be a witness
in his own behalf on the trial, except in actions in
which the opposite party sues or defends as ad-
ministrator or personal representative of a de-
ceased person; except also actions in which the
opposite party claims as assignee, and the original
assignee is deceased." Parker v. Maxwell,
(Minn.) 47 N. W. 161.
45 Minn. 1.
Receiving testimony of opposite party.
30. The words "is received," as used in Gen.
St. Minn. 136, c. 73, § 8, providing that, when
all the parties on one side of a contract are dead
or insane, the other party shall not be admitted
to testify in his own favor, unless such transac-
party or parties dead or insane, by an agent
tion was had and performed on behalf of the
whose testimony is received, extend to a case
where such evidence is receivable under the
rules of evidence, though it may not be offered.
26. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8, provid-Bigelow v. Ames, 18 Minn. 527, (Gil. 471.)
ing "that it shall not be competent for any
party to an action, or interested in the event
thereof, to give evidence therein of or concern-
ing any conversation with or admission of a de-
ceased or insane party or person, relative to any
matter at issue between the parties," makes a
party to or interested in the event of an action
incompetent to testify to a conversation with or
admission of any deceased or insane person,
whether a party to the action or not, relative to
a matter at issue between the parties. -Gris-
wold v. Edson, 21 N. W. 475, 32 Minn. 436.
31. Where the claim was for care, board, clotn-
ing, etc., in the family of plaintiff's intestate, and
the arrangement with respect to it was made by
intestate's wife, she must be regarded as his agent;
and if she testifies the testimony of the other party
may also be received, under the statute.-McNab
v. Stewart, 12 Minn. 407, (Gil. 291.)
27. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8, forbid-
ding a party to the action or one interested in its
event to testify as to any conversation with, or
admission of, a deceased or insane party or person
relative to any matter at issue, testimony by one
to whom a certificate of deposit had been paid
that the payee, plaintiff's intestate, had given it
to him causa mortis, is incompetent in favor of
defendant bank. Beard v. First Nat. Bank.
(Minn.) 40 N. W. 842.
39 Minn. 546.
32. Proof by plaintiff, an executor, of an admis-
sion by the defendant of a liability in favor of the
estate, does not waive the protection of the statute,
so as to enable the defendant to testify as to con-
versations with, or admissions of, the deceased
party.-Rhodes v. Pray, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 86.*
36 Minn. 392.
II. EXAMINATION.
Preliminary examination.
33. Preliminary examination of a witness by
the opposite party is proper to show the incom-
petency of his testimony, but not to show matters
in avoidance of the fact to be proved.-Lauten-
schlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267.
1989
1990
WITNESS, II.
Leading questions.
34. Allowing leading questions to a witness,
evidently ignorant, and unable to speak English,
and whose examination, even through an inter
preter, was accompanied with some difficulty,
being within the discretion of the trial court,
cannot be assigned as error.-Blakeman v. Blake
man, 18 N. W. 103, 31 Minn. 396.
35. Where, on an indictment for forgery, the
state attempts to prove the crime by the person
whose name was forged, and he appears to be hos-
tile and unwilling to tell the truth, he may be asked
whether he had not before stated facts to the pros-
ecuting attorney which were contrary to his testi-
mouy at the trial.-State v. Tall, (Minn.) 45 N. W.
449.
43 Minn. 273.
Cross-examination.
36. The extent to which the cross-examination
of a witness is allowable largely rests in the dis-
cretion of the trial court.-Gardner v. Kellogg,
23 Minn. 463.
37. The extent of the cross-examination of a
witness on collateral matters, to show his inter-
est, being within the discretion of the trial
court, cannot be assigned as error.-Blakeman v.
Blakeman, 18 N. W. 103, 31 Minn. 396; Lukens v.
Hazlett, 35 N. W. 265, 37 Minn. 441.
38. It is improper, on cross-examination, to as-
sume as true facts which are not in proof.-St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 500,
(Gil. 433.)
39. In replevin for goods of which plaintiff
claimed to be the general owner, the defense was
that the sale to plaintiff was fraudulent. Plaintiff,
on the trial, identified a bill of sale to him, proved
the execution and delivery to himself, and testi-
fied as to the delivery of goods thereunder. Held,
that defendant might, upon cross-examination, go
into all the circumstances of the sale tending to
characterize the delivery thereunder as fraudulent.
-Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 114, (Gil. 105.)
tion, was asked on cross-examination, with a
view of charging him, instead of defendant, with
the death of the wife, if deceased did not give
birth to twins the day after witness married her,
cide, that deceased would be assaulted before
and if witness had not stated, before the homi-
the week was over. Held, in the absence of
the week was over. Held,
proof of unfriendly marital relations between
witness and deceased, that these inquiries were
properly disallowed.-State v. Lautenschlager,
22 Minn. 514.
44. At the trial of an action for personal in-
juries a medical witness for defendant testified
that plaintiff would recover permanently from
the injuries, except a slight lameness. Held,
that on cross-examination it was proper to ask
him whether the injury was likely to produce
and be followed by specified diseases, in order
to ascertain what the witness meant by perma-
nent recovery.-Kelly v. Erie Tel. & Tel. Co.,
25 N. W. 706, 34 Minn. 321.
45. Evidence in support of an affirmative de-
fense is properly excluded, when offered as a part
of the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness-
es.-Sterling v. Bock, (Minn.) 32 N. W. 865.
37 Minn. 29.
46. The rejection, upon cross-examination, of
questions as to the existence of a contract, for in-
definiteness, is not prejudicial to the party offering
them, since they may be renewed in more definite
form.-Fetsch v. Mandehr, (Minn.) 31 N. W. 49.
36 Minn. 295.
47. The exclusion of proper questions on cross-
examination is harmless error, if it is manifest that
no answer the witness might have made, could in
any way affect the result.-Schmidt v. McCarthy,
(Minn.) 46 N. W. 239.
43 Minn. 288.
Re-cross-examination.
examined, and dismissed, he can be recalled for
48. Where a witness has been examined, cross-
further cross-examination only by leave of court,
and the court may, in its discretion, regulate the
manner and extent of such further cross-exam-
ination.-Cummings v. Taylor, 24 Minn. 429.
40. The boundary line between plaintiff and
defendant being in controversy, plaintiff testi-
fied that at the time specified he was over the
line with defendant, who then showed him the
line; and on cross-examination stated that one 49. Upon the re-cross-examination of a wit-
B. was with them. Held, that the further ques-ness, who had testified to the payment of certain
tion, "Was B. surveying the line?" was not money, he was asked to whom and for what pur-
proper cross-examination.-Jaspers v. Lano, 17 pose the money was paid. He had not testified as
Minn. 296, (Gil. 273.)
to the purpose of such payment on his re-exami
nation, and on the original cross examination he
had been interrogated on the subject, and there
had been ample opportunity to examine him
thereon.
thereon. Held, that the question was properly
excluded, as not proper cross-examination.-But-
ler v. Bohn, 17 N. W. 862, 31 Minn. 325.
41. Where a witness testifies as to the sale and
delivery of a reaper, for the price of which the
action was brought, on cross-examination it may
be shown that notes were given therefor, and
such notes may be introduced in evidence.-Mc-
Cormick v. Miller, 19 Minn. 443, (Gil. 384.)
42. Upon an issue as to the execution of a prom
issory note, a witness testifying as to its execu-
tion may be cross-examined as to all the circum-
stances connected therewith, including the al-
leged consideration, and defendant may, for im-
peachment, contradict him as to every point sworn
to by him.-Lamprey v. Munch, 21 Minn. 379.
43. On trial of an indictment for murder of a
woman, her husband, testifying for the prosecu-
Examination of adverse party.
50. In proceedings to probate a will, a proponent
was examined as a witness for the contestants.
Held, that under Gen. Laws Minn. 1885, c. 193, § 1,
providing that a party to the record, or one for
whose benefit an action is being prosecuted or de-
fended, is compelled to testify as if under cross-
examination, he could be interrogated by contest-
ants concerning statements said to have been
made by him to others concerning the mental ca-
1991
1992
WITNESS, II., III.
pacity of the deceased.-In re Brown, (Minn.) 35
N. W. 726.
88 Minn. 112.
Use of memoranda
ory.
59. Where a witness is allowed to inspect a
paper or writing, for the purpose of refreshing
his recollection, the opposing party has a right,
for the purpose of cross-examination, to inspect
Refreshing mem- such paper.
such paper.-Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil.
230.)
51. A memorandum is admissible as auxiliary
to the evidence of the witness, not as a substitute
for such testimony, and its accuracy must first
be duly certified to by the witness making the
same, and he must then be unable to speak from
memory without its aid. A memorandum made
by a witness from statements made to him by a
third person, the correctness of which statements
he cannot testify to, is not sufficiently verified to
be admitted in aid of his testimony.-Stickney v.
Bronson, 5 Minn. 215, (Gil. 172.)
52. Where a witness verifies a plat as show-
ing accurately the relative position of the prop-
erty in question, he may use it on his examina-
tion, to point out the situation and location of
the property in question.-Rippe v. Chicago, D.
& M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 18.
53. The manner in which a witness shall be
allowed to refresh his recollection by reference
to memoranda must be left to the trial court, to
be exercised with reference to the circumstances
of the case and the bearing of the witness.
Johnson v. Coles, 21 Minn. 108.
54. Allowing a witness to refresh his recol-
lection by reference to memoranda is a question
of a preliminary nature, addressed to the court,
and where a witness has been allowed so to do,
unless it clearly appears that the court has erred,
a new trial will not be granted.-Madigan v. De
Graff, 17 Minn. 52, (Gil. 34.)
55. Permitting a witness to refresh his recol-
lection by referring to a memorandum, without
first showing by him his inability to testify in-
dependently, is not reversible error, when the oc-
currences in question occurred three or four years
prior to the trial, and involved accounts and
payments running over a year; especially so
when the witness seems fair and honest in his
conduct.-Madigan v. De Graff, 17 Minn. 52,
(Gil. 34.)
56. Where a question put to a witness, after he
has refreshed his recollection by referring to
memoranda, calls for his personal knowledge, and
the answer is responsive, the prima facie pre-
sumption is that it is given of his own knowl-
edge, independent of the writing.-Madigan v.
De Graff, 17 Minn. 52, (Gil. 34.)
57. A witness, without it appearing that he
did not remember, or that his recollection needed
refreshing, was allowed to inspect memoranda
made by him. Held that, if he remembered with-
out the memoranda, his inspection was merely
unnecessary; and if he did not, he had the right
of inspection, and error, if any there was, was
immaterial.-Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil.
230.)
58. A witness cannot, for the purpose of re-
freshing his memory, refer to a writing which is
not verified as correct. -Eder v. Reilly, (Minn.)
51 N. W. 226.
Privilege.
60. Under Const. Minn. art. 1, § 7, which pro-
vides that no person in a criminal case shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself, a de-
fendant in a criminal proceeding cannot be re-
quired to testify before the grand jury touching
the offense with which he is charged, and if he
does so testify the indictment found will be set
aside.-State v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 296, (Gil. 260.)
61. Where questions are put, the answer to
which may tend to criminate, it is optional with
the witness whether he shall answer. It is the
duty of the court to inform him of his privilege,
and, if he claim it, the court may exclude sim-
ilar questions without the form of submitting each
question to the witness.-State v. Bilansky, 3
Minn. 246, (Gil. 169.)
62. Allowing questions which do not tend to
criminate, but merely to disgrace or degrade,
the witness, is discretionary with the trial court.
-State v. Bilansky, 3 Minn. 246, (Gil. 169.)
63. In an action for libel, it is error to require a
witness to testify whether he wrote the libel in
question, the effect of an affirmative answer being
to subject the witness to a criminal prosecution.
Simmons v. Holster, 13 Minn. 249, (Ġil. 232.)
Simmons v. Holster, 13 Minn. 249, (Gil. 232.)
64. On an indictment for forgery, where the
person whose name was forged is called, for the
state, to prove that what purports to be his signa-
ture is a forgery, he is not entitled to claim the
privilege of silence on the ground that his answer
might criminate himself.-State v. Thaden, 45 N.
W. 447, 43 Minn. 253; Same v. Tall, 45 N. W. 449,
43 Minn. 273.
65. On an indictment for forgery, a motion to
strike out all the testimony of a witness on the
ground that he was privileged to be silent in order
to avoid self-crimination, is properly refused,
where a part of his testimony was not covered by
the privilege.-State v. Tall, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 449.
43 Minn. 273.
66. At the trial of a bastardy proceeding, a
witness, having testified that he knew that the
complainant had sexual intercourse with another
than the defendant at about the time the child
was begotten, was required by the court, against
his objection, to state to whom he referred, and
testified that he was himself the person. Held,
that the court did not err, as the witness had
waived his privilege by his voluntary testimony.
-State v. Nichols, 13 N. W. 153, 29 Minn. 357.
Interest.
III. CREDIBILITY.
67. On a prosecution for the unlawful sale of
intoxicating liquors, the only testimony to the
fact of the sale was that of a private detective.
Held, that it was error to exclude the question
on cross-examination whether the witness had
received any money for acting as detective against
the liquor sellers, and whether he expected to
1993
1994
WITNESS, III.
receive any.-State v. Lee, 3 N. W. 345, 26 Minn. | admissible as affecting his credibility under Pen.
262.
Duress.
68. A witness for the state on a trial for mur-
der stated that on the trial of one R. for the same
homicide with which defendant was charged, the
testimony given by her, which bore strongly
against R. and in exculpation of defendant, was
given under threats of personal violence made by
defendant. Held, that an offer by defendant to
prove by a justice of the peace that he and the
county attorney before the trial of R. assured the
witness officially that she would be protected in
telling the truth, was properly excluded as not
tending to disprove the duress.-State v. Lawlor,
9 N. W. 698, 28 Minn. 216.
Showing bias.
69. Upon cross-examination of a witness, act-
ual bias or prejudice existing on his part against
the party cross-examining, as threats, quarrels,
etc., may be shown; but evidence showing that
there might be grounds or reason for such prej-
udice is incompetent.-State v. Bilansky, 3 Minn.
246, (Gil. 169.)
70. A witness may be asked, upon cross-exami-
nation, if he has not expressed feelings of hostil-
ity towards the party against whom he was called,
and the particulars of such hostility, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining its extent and nature.-State
v. Dee, 14 Minn. 35, (Gil. 27.)
71. Evidence that plaintiff had brought an ac-
tion against one of defendant's witnesses is not
admissible to show ill feeling by the witness
against plaintiff, in the absence of proof as to the
effect that such act of plaintiff had on the mind
of the witness, to be shown by the latter's acts
or declarations. Wischstadt v. Wischstadt,
(Minn.) 50 N. W. 225.
Charge of crime.
47 Minn. 358.
72. On a criminal trial the court has no right,
for the purpose of discrediting a witness for de-
fendant, to allow testimony immaterial to the is-
sue, tending to prove an offense distinct from
that charged in the indictment.-Hoberg v. State,
3 Minn. 262, (Gil. 181.)
73. In an action on a promissory note a wit
ness was asked, on cross-examination for the pur-
pose of affecting his credibility: "Have you
more than one wife living at this time?" Held,
on appeal, that the admission or exclusion of his
answer, the witness not claiming any privilege,
was matter of discretion with the court below,
and would not be reviewed, unless abuse was
shown. -McArdle v. McArdle, 12 Minn. 98, (Gil.
53.)
74. Allowing irrelevant questions to be put to
a witness, upon cross examination, tending to
criminate, or for the purpose of discrediting his
testimony, is matter of discretion with the trial
court.-State v. McCartey, 17 Minn. 76, (Gil. 54.)
Conviction of crime.
75. Where defendant in a criminal action be-
came a witness in his own behalf, evidence of his
conviction of assault several years previous was
Code Minn. § 531, providing that the record of any
crime may be so received.-State v. Sauer, (Minn.)
44 N. W. 115.
42 Minn. 258.
76. Under Pen. Code Minn. § 531, providing that
for the purpose of discrediting a witness his con-
viction of a crime may be shown by the record or
by cross-examination, a witness may be asked on
cross-examination whether he has been convicted
of a crime in a certain court at a given date.-
State v. Adamson, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 152.
43 Minn. 196.
Reputation of witness.
77. In impeaching a witness, by attacking his
general character, the inquiry should be confined
to his general reputation for truth and veracity.
342;) Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 84; War-
-Rudsdill v. Slingerland, 18 Minn. 380, (Gil.
ner v. Lockerby, 18 N. W. 145, 821, 31 Minn.
421.
78. In an action for libel, a witness testified as
to statements made by a third person, implicating
plaintiff in the offense charged in the libel. Held,
that evidence tending to impeach the general
character for truth and veracity of such third
per-
son might be allowed.-Simmons v. Holster, 13
Minn. 249, (Gil. 232.)
79. Whether evidence tends directly to prove
a fact, or merely raises a presumption that it is
so, can never depend on the character of the wit-
ness.—State v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 241, (Gil. 218.)
veracity cannot be impeached by evidence of the
80. The character of a witness for truth and
individual opinions or declarations of the party
calling him, or of others, to the effect that he
is unworthy of belief. Horton v. Chadbourn, 17
N. W. 865, 31 Minn. 322.
81. A witness may be discredited by evidence as
to his reputation for truth and veracity, but spe-
cific and particular acts cannot be shown, except
in certain cases.-State v. Barrett, (Minn.) 41 N.
W. 459.
40 Minn. 65.
82. Impeaching evidence of the bad reputa-
restricted to his reputation at or very near the
tion of a wuess for truth and veracity is not
time of the trial at which he testifies. The lim-
it of time is within the discretion of the court.
-Buse v. Page, 19 N. W. 736, 20 N. W. 95; 32
Minn. 111.
Impeaching by showing contradictory
acts or statements-Collateral mat-
ters.
83. A witness cannot be impeached upon mat-
ters collateral to the issue involved.-Allen v.
Coates, 11 N. W. 132, 29 Minn. 46; Paddock v.
Kingsley, 43 N. W. 393, 41 Minn. 528.
84. A witness can be discredited by contradic-
tion only as to matters material to the issue.--State
v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105, (Gil. 75.)
85. A witness cannot be impeached by contra-
dicting him as to immaterial testimony elicited
1995
1996
WITNESS, III.
by cross-examination.-Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn.
119, (Gil. 85.)
86. A witness cannot be impeached by show-
ing contrary statements made by him, unless
such statements are relevant to the issue; and
when allowed they are to be regarded strictly as
impeaching and not as substantive testimony.-
Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398.)
87. In a controversy involving the bona fides of
a transfer of goods, the testimony of witnesses
as to the amount and nature of the alleged con -
sideration thereof is material to the issue, and
may be impeached by contradictory statements
made by the witnesses out of court on those points.
-Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398.)
88. When a witness testifies that he made a
payment at a certain time, and, on cross-exami-
nation, that he knows he so made it because he
"sold" a piece of land about that time, the rec.
ord of the deed is not admissible to show that the
sale was at a later time, since the deed could
only show the date of the conveyance and not the
date of the sale.-Goodell v. Ward, 17 Minn. 17,
(Gil. 1.)
89. In an action for injuries from a fire, alleged
to have been set by a locomotive, a witness having
testified that he saw the fire which caused the in-
jury start from another source, it was proper, for
the purpose of impeachment, to ask him if he had
not stated at a certain time and place that it start-
ed from the locomotive.-Hoy v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 48 N. W. 1117.
46 Minn. 269.
Impeaching by showing contradictory
acts or statements- Laying founda-
tion.
90. Testimony as to what a witness testified
in another and former trial between different
parties is inadmissible, without first calling his
attention to such testimony, that he may have an
opportunity to explain.-Castner v. Gunther,
6 Minn. 119, (Gil. 63.)
91. A witness cannot be discredited by showing
acts and declarations inconsistent with his testi-
mony on the stand, without first calling his atten-
tion to such acts and declarations.-Scott v. King,
7 Minn. 494, (Gil. 401.)
92. To lay the foundation for showing that a
witness has made a contradictory statement out
of court, his attention should be called to the time,
place, and persons involved in the supposed con-
tradiction, with such reasonable certainty as to
recall it to his mind, so that he may have an op-
portunity to correct his statement on the stand, or
explain what he has said elsewhere. The precise
date need not be indicated.-State v. Hoyt, 13
Minn. 132, (Gil. 125.)
93. It is only as to matters to which the atten-
tion of the witness is particularly called that he
can be impeached by showing that he has made
statements inconsistent therewith; and, having
testified as to this on a trial for homicide, the im-
peaching witness cannot testify as to the further
conversation had at the time.-State v. Staley, 14
Minn. 105, (Gil. 75.)
94. At the trial of an action for the recovery
of personal property taken on execution against
plaintiff's husband, the husband gave testimony
tending to show that the property was plaintiff's,
and not his. Held that, on his cross-examina-
tion, it was competent to show conduct and state-
ments by him inconsistent with his testimony,
and, on his denying it, to contradict him.-Ladd
v. Newell, 24 N. W. 366, 34 Minn. 107.
95. Contradictory extrajudicial statements can-
not be introduced in evidence for the purpose of
impeachment until the foundation is laid by the
proper preliminary inquiries of the witness whose
credibility is questioned.-Watson v, St. Paul City
Ry. Co., (Minn.) 43 N. W. 904.
42 Minn. 46.
96. Where it is sought to impeach the state-
ments of a witness by proof of his admissions con-
tained in a deposition or other writing sigued by
him, the proper foundation should be laid therefor
as in other cases, by first directing his attention to
the particular matters in question, and giving him
an opportunity to explain.-Hammond v. Dike,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 61.
42 Minn. 273.
Evidence admissible for purposes
of contradiction.
97. The admissibility of former statements of
a witness, inconsistent with his testimony, of-
fered for the purpose of impeachment, does not
depend on the degree of their variance from
such testimony. They are competent if they dif-
fer in any material particular from the evidence
given, and their effect on the credit of the wit-
ness is for the jury to determine. -Tinklepaugh
v. Rounds, 24 Minn. 298.
98. When a proper foundation is laid, a witness
may be impeached by showing that he has else-
where made statements on some matter material
to the issue, contradictory to those made on the
witness stand. If such statements are confessions,
the court should first pass on their admissibility,
as if impeachment of the witness was not involved.
If they are not confessions, the court should charge
the jury that statements not voluntarily made,
but induced by fear or by the hope of an advan-
tage, should be rejected, and not considered.—State
v. Barrett, (Minn.) 41 N. W. 459.
40 Minn. 65.
99. On an indictment for forgery, a letter writ-
ten by one jointly indicted with defendant to a wit-
ness proposing that he shall testify in support of a
certain line of defense, which proposal corresponds
to the testimony actually given by such witness,
and which appears on its face to be a mere fabri-
cation, is admissible to impeach such witness.-
State v. Tall, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 449.
43 Minn. 273.
100. The official stenographer's notes of the tes-
timony of a witness at a former trial, recognized
by such witness as correct, are admissible to show
that he has changed or added to his testimony at
the present trial.-Bennet v. Syndicate Ins. Co.,
(Minn.) 44 N. W. 794.
43 Minn. 45.
101. Where it is sought to impeach the credit
of a witness by contradictory statements by him
contained in a letter or other writing, the pro-
duction of such writing cannot be dispensed with
1997
1998
WITNESS, III., IV.
by allowing evidence of extrajudicial admissions | interests of the state warrant it, may require
of its contents, made by a party to the suit. If
the paper is lost, that fact must be established
before secondary evidence can be received..
Horton v. Chadbourn, 17 N. W. 865, 31 Minn. 322.
Rebutting impeaching testimony.
102. Affidavits made by a witness some years
previous, in another proceeding, were offered for
purpose of impeachment. Held, that he might be
allowed to explain the circumstances under which
they were made. Yale v. Edgerton, 14 Minn.
194, (Gil. 144. )
103. Where a witness, on cross-examination,
denies having made certain statements out of
court, time and place being specified, and testi-
mony contradicting him is introduced, he may
be afterwards recalled by the opposite party, and
further examined as to such matter.-Jaspers v.
Lano, 17 Minn. 296, (Gil. 273.)
101. A witness who is called to contradict anoth-
er witness by showing contradictory statements
made out of court may himself be contradicted in
the same manner. State v. Lawlor, 9 N. W. 698,
28 Minn. 216.
105. Testimony that impeaching witnesses be
longed to a village "faction" opposed to that to
which the person impeached belonged, is too
vague and remote.-Holston v. Boyle, (Minn.) 49
N. W. 203.
46 Minn. 432.
Impeaching one's own witnesses.
such person to enter into a recognizance, with or
without surety, as it might direct, and for a re-
fusal to comply commit him to jail to await the
trial, a witness for the state, who is willing to
enter into his own recognizance to appear and
testify at the trial, cannot be committed to await
the trial, unless he intends to leave the state,
and not return or be present at the trial, or other-
wise evade his obligation to appear and testify,
and, as thus construed, the act is not unconstitu
tional.-State v. Grace, 18 Minn. 398, (Gil. 359.)
110. Where one accused of felony has been held
to answer in the district court, the prosecution
is deemed "pending" in such court, within the
meaning of Laws Minn. 1868, c. 71, providing for
the compulsory attendance of witnesses by com-
mitting them to jail, or holding them to bail,
though the return of the magistrate may not have
been filed.-State v. Grace, 18 Minn. 398, (Gil
359.)
Compensation-In general.
111. In the absence of a special agreement for
a different sum, a person attending as a witness
at the request of a party, and without a subpoena
is only entitled to recover for his services and
expenses in that behalf the statutory compensa-
tion allowed in such cases.-Holbrook v. Cooley,
25 Minn. 275.
In criminal cases.
wit-
112. Under Gen. St. 1866, c. 70, § 7, which fixes
the fees of witnesses "for attending in any jus
tice's court," and section 41, which authorizes
106. Upon a trial for polygamy the second wife, the county attorney to summon witnesses "with-
called by the state, stated that she was not mar-out paying or tendering fees in advance,
ried to the prisoner. Held, that she might prop-nesses for the state in a criminal case are enti-
erly be asked if she had not stated to others that tied to their fees, and it is proper to tax them in
she was so married; such question not being asked the costs against defendant, where costs are al-
to impeach her, but to lead her to correct her tes- lowable.-State v. Bliss, 21 Minn. 458.
timony, or to show the purpose of the prosecution
in calling her. State v. Johnson, 12 Minn. 476,
(Gil. 378.)
A
Question for jury.
107. The credibility of a witness, knowingly
testifying falsely as to one or more material
facts, is, as to other facts, entirely for the jury,
and they may believe or disbelieve him, as they
see proper. -Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339.
IV. ATTENDANCE AND FEES.
Attachment of witness.
108. To entitle a party to an attachment for
an absent witness he must have duly subpoenaed
such witness. It is no excuse that the witness
had been subpoenaed by the other side, and ex-
amined.-Beaulieu v. Parsons, 2 Minn. 37, (Gil.
26.)
Commitment to await trial-
zance for appearance.
Recogni-
109. Under Laws Minn. 1868, c. 71, providing
that on affidavit filed by the prosecuting attorney,
stating that affiant has good reason to believe
that certain persons, material witnesses, will
leave the state before the trial, the court may
order such persons brought before it, and, if in
its judgment the circumstances of the case or the
Of parties.
113. A defendant is not entitled to fees for at-
tendance as a witness in a cause except where he
attends solely as a witness for his co-defendants.
Barry v. McGrade, 14 Minn. 286, (Gil. 214.)
Of expert witnesses.
114. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 8, providing
for the allowance of fees or compensation to a
witness summoned or sworn and examined "as
an expert in any profession or calling," does not
apply to cases where a witness, skilled in some
profession or calling, is called upon to testify as
to facts within his personal knowledge, although
he may have acquired his knowledge of the facts
while in the ordinary practice of his profession,
and although his professional skill may have
enabled him to observe such facts more intelli-
gently and to narrate them more correctly.-Le
Mere v. McHale, 15 N. W. 682, 30 Minn. 410.
115.. A physician and surgeon upon the stand as
a witness cannot properly refuse to answer a ques-
tion upon the ground that his answer will be ex-
pert evidence, and that he has not been summoned
or paid as an expert witness.-State v. Teipner,
(Minn.) 32 N. W. 678.
36 Minn. 535.
116. The provision of the statute (Gen. St. 1878,
c. 70, § 8) which authorizes a judge to allow to an
1999
2000
WITNESS, IV.-WORDS AND PIIRASES.
expert witness "such fees or compensation as may
be just and reasonable," has reference to an al-
lowance to be made after the witness has been
summoned and dismissed without being sworn or
examined, or after he has been sworn and exam-
ined, and not before.-State v. Teipner, 32 N.
W. 678, 36 Minn. 535.
117. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 8, pro-
viding that the judge of any court of record be-
fore whom a witness is summoned or sworn and
examined as an expert "may, in his discretion,
allow such fees or compensation as, in his
judgment, may be just and reasonable," the or-
der of a trial judge refusing such allowance will
not be reversed on appeal, unless, perhaps,
where there has been a most palpable and gross
abuse of discretion.-Le Mere v. McHale, 15 N.
W. 682, 30 Minn. 410.
Women.
causes to the United States courts, and providing
that it shall be the duty of the state court to ac-
cept the petition for removal and bond. Implies
that the court is to act upon the petition and
bond.-Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co. (Minn.) 51 N. W. 478.
Acceptance.
5. There may be an acceptance of goods
sold without any receipt of them; as, where the
sale is of specific goods, and the bargain itself
identifies the goods as those sold, and of the
quality which the buyer agrees to take.-Simp-
son v. Krumdick, 10 N. W. 18, 28 Minn. 352.
Accessory before the fact.
6. One who aids and abets in the commission
of an offense, though not present.-State v.
Beebe, 17 Minn. 241, (Gil. 218.)
Accomplice.
7. One who is in some way concerned or as-
Eligibility as officers of school-districts, see sociated in the commission of a crime; a partak-
Schools and School-Districts, 16-20.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Abide.
See § 715, post.
Abide and satisfy.
1. A bond to stay proceedings on appeal,
conditioned, as required by Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 86. § 10, to "abide and satisfy the judgment
or order which the appellate court may give
therein," is, in substance, where the appeal is
from an order directing payment of a sum of
money, an undertaking to pay such sum if the
order is affirmed.-Erickson v. Elder, 25 N. W.
804, 34 Minn. 370.
About.
2. In an answer alleging the making of an
agreement "about two weeks prior" to the time
when a note became due. Is as much indicative
of a little less as of a little greater period; and,
in connection with an allegation of payment "in
about ten days thereafter," fails to show, with
sufficient certainty, payment before maturity.-
Colter v. Greenhagen, 3 Minn. 126, (Gil. 74.)
Abstract of title.
3. In conveyancing. An abstract or sum-
mary of the most important part of the deeds
and other instruments composing the evidences
of a title to real estate, arranged usually in
chronological order, and intended to show the
origin, course, and incidents of the title, without
the necessity of referring to the deeds them
selves. It also contains a statement of all char-
ges, incumbrances, liens, and liabilities to which
the property may be subjected, and of which it is
in any way material for purchasers to be ap-
prised. Burrill, Law Dict.-Banker v. Cald-
well, 3 Minn. 94, (Gil. 46.)
Accept.
4. In Act Cong. 1875, c. 137, as amended by
Act 1888, c. 866, relating to the removal of
er of the guilt; one who aids or assists, or who
is an accessory.-State v. Quinlan, 41 N. W.
299, 40 Minn. 55.
Accountable receipt.
8. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 96, § 1, punish-
ing forgery, etc., of "any accountable receipt
for money, goods, or other property." A written
acknowledgment of the receipt, by the maker of
it, of money or other personal property, coupled
with a promise or obligation to account for or
pay to some person the whole or some part there-
of.-State v. Riebe, 7 N. W. 262, 27 Minn. 315.
Acknowledgment.
9. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 3, provid-
ing that no chattel mortgage shall be notice of
any fact, as against creditors, etc., unless "ac-
knowledged before some officer authorized to
take the acknowledgment of deeds.' The ac-
knowledgment includes the due certificate of the
fact by the officer taking the same.-Thompson
v. Scheid, 38 N. W. 801, 39 Minn. 102.
Action.
""
10. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, $ 79, lim-
iting the time within which an action for relief
on the ground of fraud may be brought. Means
a civil action, as defined in chapter 66, § 1, em-
bracing both legal and equitable actious.--Hum-
phrey v. Carpenter, 39 N. W. 67, 39 Minn. 115.
Action for the recovery of real prop-
erty.
11. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 11, al-
lowing a second trial "in an action for the re-
covery of real property." Refers to an action
in the nature of the common-law ejectment, and
includes also proceedings under the statute of
forcible entries and unlawful detainers for re-
covery of possession of real property.—Ferguson
v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183.
12. The action must be one in which the re-
covery of possession is sought: the statute does
not include all actions in which the title may
come in question and be determined.-Knight
v. Valentine, 29 N. W. 3, 35 Minn. 367.
t
2001
2002
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Act of God.
13. In legal phraseology means an accident
against which ordinary skill and foresight is not
expected to provide; as applied to water courses,
includes only floods or extraordinary freshets,
and not such rises or high water in a stream as
is usual and ordinary and reasonably anticipat-
ed at particular periods of the year.-Dorman
v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
Actual and continued change of pos-
session.
See §§ 103, 104, post.
Actual damages.
14. Damages pecuniary in their nature.-
Clementson v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 47 N. W.
781, 45 Minn. 303.
Actual residence.
See §§ 659-662, post.
Adjudged invalid.
15. In Laws Minn. 1862, March 11, § 8, pro-
viding that in case the title of a purchaser at
tax sale "shall be adjudged invalid," the pur-
chaser shall have and retain the lien of the
state, etc. Means so adjudged by the judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction.-Webb v.
Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
Administer.
man with an unmarried woman, as well as with
a married woman.-Pickett v. Pickett, 7 N. W.
144, 27 Minn. 299.
Adverse possession.
22. Such actual, visible, notorious, distinct,
and hostile possession as would, if continued
for the period required by the statute of limita-
tions, ripen into a perfect title.-Washburn v.
Cutter, 17 Minn. 361, (Gil. 335.)
23. Must be accompanied by an intention to
claim adversely. Sherin v. Brackett, 30 N. W.
551, 36 Minn. 152.
Aggrieved.
24. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 13, giving "any
person who shall feel himself aggrieved" a
right to appeal to the district court from the or-
der of town supervisors, laying out, altering, or
discontinuing a road. A person is aggrieved,
within the meaning of the statute, who is in a
position to be injuriously affected by the order
or determination made; in position to sustain
special injury, disadvantage, or inconvenience,
not common to himself with the other inhabit-
ants or property owners of the town.-Schuster
v. Supervisors of Town of Lemond, 6 N. W.
802, 27 Minn. 253.
Alley.
25. A narrow passage or way in a city, as
distinguished from a public street.-Winston v.
Johnson, 45 N. W. 958, 42 Minn. 398.
All the officers of the county.
16. The words "shall well, truly, and faith-
fully administer," in the condition of an admin-
istrator's bond, mean to fulfill the functions 26. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 64, § 33, pro-
and perform the duties of an administrator.-viding that for judicial purposes, to effect civil
Lanier v. Irvine, 21 Minn. 447.
17. So, also, as to the words "administer
according to law."-Balch v. Hooper, 20 N. W.
124, 32 Minn. 158.
Administrator.
18. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 53, § 16, al-
lowing an administrator to defend an action
against a decedent which survives. Includes
foreign as well as domestic administrators.
Brown v. Brown, 28 N. W. 238, 35 Minn. 191.
Admission.
See § 143, post.
Adopted.
19. Used in the records of a municipal coun-
cil with reference to a report made by one of its
committee. Expresses the adoption by the coun-
cil of what was recommended by the committee.
-State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 39 N.
W. 153, 39 Minn. 219.
Adoption.
20. By a corporation of a contract made by
promoters before its organization. Is in legal
effect the making of a contract of the date of
the adoption, and not as of some former date.-
McArthur v. Times Printing Co., (Minn.) 51 N.
W. 216.
Adultery.
21. In a statute making it a ground for di-
vorce. Includes illicit connection by a married
rights, all the officers of the county to which an-
other is attached, necessary to effect the same,
shall have power, etc. Means the officers whose
duties related to the enforcement of civil rights,
through the district courts, as the sheriff, and
not those whose duties lie in another field, as
the county treasurer, register of deeds, etc.-
Beebe v. Fridley, 16 Minn. 518, (Gil. 467.)
Amendatory statute.
27. A law for the amendment, not of what
might have been enacted under the title of the
original statute, but of what was enacted; not
of what the original law might have been, but
of what it was.-State v. Smith, 28 N. W. 241,
35 Minn. 257.
Amount claimed in the complaint.
28. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 65, § 113, al-
lowing an appeal from a justice where the
amount claimed in the complaint exceeds $30.
Cannot be construed as equivalent to the words
"amount for which judgment was demanded by
either party in his pleadings," and does not au-
thorize an appeal merely because the answer
contains a counterclaim for more than $30.-
Ross v. Evans, 14 N. W. 897, 30 Minn. 206.
Amount in controversy.
29. In Const. Minn. art. 6, § 8, providing
that no justice shall have jurisdiction in a civil
action where the amount in controversy exceeds
$100. Is identical in meaning with "the sum
claimed," as used in Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 65,
2003
2004
WORDS AND PHRASES.
§ 5, limiting a justice's jurisdiction to like cases
where the sum claimed does not exceed $100.-
Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 216, (Gil. 196.)
Includes buildings on the opposite side of the
street from the main building, constructed and
designed to be used in connection therewith.-
Carpenter v. Leonard, 5 Minn. 155, (Gil. 119.)
40. Does not include property used in differ-
be carried on separately, and which derives the
power necessary to carry them on from a com-
mon source.-McDonald v. Minneapolis Lumber
Co., 9 N. W. 765, 28 Minn. 262.
30. The words have reference to the subject
of the litigation of which the costs are a mere
incident, and do not include such costs.-Wat-ent branches of the same business, which may
son v. Ward, 6 N. W. 407, 27 Minn. 29.
31. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 64, § 82, limit-
ing the jurisdiction of the municipal court of the
city of St. Paul to civil actions "where the
amount in controversy does not exceed $200."
Interest, subsequent to the finding, is not in-
cluded.-Conger v. Nesbitt, 15 N. W. 875, 30
Minn. 436.
32. The jurisdiction is determined by the
amount claimed.-Wagner v. Nagel, 23 N. W.
308, 33 Minn. 348.
Appeal.
Article of personal property.
41. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 14, pun-
ishing any person who, "having conveyed any
article of personal property by mortgage,” shall
sell the same with intent to defraud, etc. Means
any kind of personal property; any personal
property.-State v. Williams, 21 N. W. 746, 32
Minn. 537.
Article of produce or traffic.
33. Save so far as its meaning is controlled 42. In Laws Minn. 1883, c. 138, § 2, incorpo-
or influenced by statute, an appeal is a proceed-rating the Lumbermen's Board of Exchange,
ing by which a case is taken from an inferior
to a superior tribunal, the determination of the
former thereby vacated or suspended, and the
case brought before the latter to be tried and
determined de novo.-Dutcher v. Culver, 23
Minn. 415.
Appear.
34. Designating the act of a person with ref-
erence to an action pending. To come into court
as a party to the suit.-Schroeder v. Lahirman,
1 N. W. 801, 26 Minn. 87.
Appear by affidavit.
35. When a certain state of facts is required
to appear by affidavit, the legal evidence tend-
ing to establish the required facts must be such
as would be received in the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, and not conclusions, opin-
ions, or hearsay.-Mackubin v. Smith, 5 Minn.
367, (Gil. 296.)
Appellate jurisdiction.
and empowering it to appoint persons to exam-
ine various articles specified, and "any other ar-
ticle of produce or traffic, commonly dealt in by
the members of such corporation.' Applies to
logs afloat.-State v. Lumbermen's Board of
Exchange, 23 N. W. 838, 33 Minn. 471.
As.
43. Preceding a word indicating representa-
tive character; as agent, trustee, etc. Means
in the character of. Hayes v. Crane, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 925.
44. In Rev. St. U. S. § 5056, providing that an
action shall not be maintained against an as-
signee in bankruptcy, for anything done by him
as such assignee, without previously giving him
notice of such action, etc. The words "any-
thing done by him as such assignee," include all
things which an assignee assumes to do as such,
and which he is by law authorized to do in any
circumstances.-Haven v. Place, 11 N. W. 117,
28 Minn. 551.
36. In Const. Minn. art. 6, § 2, conferring ap-
45. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 77, § 5, provid-
pellate jurisdictions upon the supreme court, ing that a person who interferes with the prop-
has the same signification as article 6, 85, pre-erty of a deceased person is liable to the execu-
scribing the appellate jurisdiction of the dis- tor "as" general or special administrator, etc.
trict court.-Tierney v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 166, Should be read "or."-Noon v. Finnegan, 13 N.
(Gil. 153.)
W. 197, 29 Minn. 418.
Application.
As to such contract.
37. Referred to in a policy of insurance. A 46. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 73, § 8, pro-
letter requesting the issue of a policy may be re-viding that when the original parties to one side
garded as an application therefor. Scheffer v. of a contract are dead, the other parties thereto
National Life Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 534.
shall not be allowed to testify "as to such con-
tract." Equivalent to the words, "as to what
took place between the parties to the contract,
at the time of making the same," including, with
perhaps other things, the making and contents
of the contract.-Johnson v. Coles, 21 Minn. 108.
Assault.
38. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 53, requiring,
for the purpose of effecting an appeal to the dis-
trict court, that an application for such appeal
shall be filed in the probate court. Service and
filing of notice of appeal is a sufficient applica-
tion.-Lake v. Albert, 35 N. W. 177, 37 Minn.
453.
Appurtenances.
39. In the provision of the mechanic's lien
law giving a lien for constructing, altering, or
repairing houses, buildings, or appurtenances.
47. Is a statement of an act, and has a well-
defined legal meaning, without the necessity of
further detail.-State v. Ward, 28 N. W. 192,
35 Minn. 182.
See, also, § 370, post.
2005
2006
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Assent.
vertisement, the surplus shall be paid to "the
mortgagor, his legal representatives or assigns."
Includes a junior mortgagee.-Brown v. Crooks-
ton Agricultural Ass'n, 26 N. W. 907, 34 Minn.
545; Fuller v. Langum, 33 N. W. 122, 37 Minn.
74.
48. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 142,
(Laws 1873, c. 11, § 23,) providing that direct-
ors of a corporation assenting to a violation of
the provisions of the act under which it is or-
ganized and established, whereby it becomes in-
solvent, shall be liable, etc. A director's assent
57. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 13, giving
will be presumed from knowledge by him that
such a violation is being, or about to be, commit- a right of redemption from foreclosure to "the
ted, without objection on his part, his duty re-nortgagor, his heirs, executors, administrators,
quiring him to object, and he having the oppor- or assigns." Does not include a mortgagee in a
tunity so to do.-Patterson v. Stewart, 42 N. W. Brunelle, 33 N. W. 123, 37 Minn. 71; Buchanan
junior mortgage not foreclosed. Cuilerier v.
v. Reid, 45 N. W. 11, 43 Minn. 172.
926, 41 Minn. 84.
Assess.
49. Taxes on real estate are assessed when
the amount or proportion of tax to which each
parcel is subject is fixed and determined.-Webb
v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
Assessment.
50. Is employed in two different senses: (1)
The appraisement or valuation of property, and
entering it on the lists for the purposes of taxa-
tion; (2) a charge or special tax imposed on
land, as its portion of the expense of a benefit
conferred by a local improvement.-First Div.
St. P. & P. R. Co. v. City of St. Paul, 21 Minn.
526.
51. In Laws Minn. 1857, (Ex Sess.) c. 1, §
18, providing for payments by the Minnesota' &
Pacific Railroad Company to the state "in lieu of
all taxes and assessments whatever.” Includes
any charge or special tax imposed upon the
property for local improvements.-First Div. St.
P. & P. R. Co. v. City of St. Paul, 21 Minn.
526.
52. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 259, ex-
empting property of cemetery associations from
"all public taxes and assessments." Includes
an assessment for a local improvement.-State
v. City of St. Paul, 32 N. W. 781, 36 Minn. 529.
Assets.
53. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 49, § 2, giving
jurisdiction of the administration of the estate
of a nonresident deceased "leaving assets" in
the county. Includes a claim against a railway
company for injuries occasioning decedent's
death.-Hutchins v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
46 N. W. 79, 44 Minn. 5.
54. In an order of court for the sale of "all
the assets, property, and business" of an in-
solvent corporation. Includes assets belonging to
the corporation itself, or causes of action which
it might have enforced in its own right, but not
causes of action which the receiver might have
maintained only in the right of creditors.-Min-
nesota Thresher Manuf'g Co. v. Langdon, 46
N. W. 310, 44 Minn. 37.
Assign.
58. But does include a creditor having a lien
to whom the right of redemption is given by sec-
tion 16.-Buchanan v. Reid, 45 N. W. 11, 43
Minn. 172.
59. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 36, relat-
ing to redemption from sales on mortgage fore-
closure, and providing that, at the expiration of
the redemption period, the court shall grant a
final decree upon the application of the purchas-
er or his assigns. Includes a lien creditor, to
whom, by section 15, a certificate of redemption
operates as an assignment of the right acquired
under the sale.-Bovey De Laittre Lumber Co.
v. Tucker, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 1038.
Assigned.
60. In an averment in a complaint that plain-
tiff "duly assigned" a promissory note to defend-
ant. Imports that all necessary to make over
plaintiff's right in the note, and to transfer the
property to defendant, was done, including de-
livery to defendant, actual or constructive.-
Hoag v. Mendenhall, 19 Minn. 335, (Gil. 289.)
61. In Laws Minn. 1867, c. 76, providing that
an attachment may issue, where the debtor has
assigned, etc., his property. The transfer of the
legal title to the property, and perhaps any con-
veyance of any interest therein.-Guile v. Mc-
Nanny, 14 Minn. 520, (Gil. 391.)
Assigned, secreted, or disposed of.
62. In Laws 1867, c. 76, relating to attach-
ment, are descriptive of the different modes of
fraudulent disposition by a debtor.-Guile v.
McNanny, 14 Minn. 520, (Gil. 391.)
63. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, tit. 9, §
147, allowing a writ of attachment where it ap-
pears that a debtor has assigned, secreted, or
disposed of his property, etc. The words were
not intended to have separate, distinct, or ex-
clusive meanings.-Auerbach v. Hitchcock, 9
N. W. 79, 28 Minn. 73.
Assignment.
64. The transfer of one's whole interest in
any estate; but is now generally appropriated
to the transfer of chattels, either real or per-
sonal, or of equitable interests.-Banning v. Sib-
55. Comprehends every one who takes, either
immediately or remotely, from or under the as-
signor, whether by conveyance, devise, descent,ley, 3 Minn. 389, (Gil. 282.)
or act of law.-Brown v. Crookston Agricultu-
ral Ass'n, 26 N. W. 907, 34 Minn. 545.
56. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 18, pro-
viding that, on foreclosure of a mortgage by ad-
65. A transfer or making over to another of
the whole of any property, real or personal, in
possession or in action, or of any estate or right
therein. Bouv. Law Dict.-Brown v. Crooks-
·
2007
2008
WORDS AND PHRASES.
ton Agricultural Ass'n, 26 N. W. 907, 34 Minn. | promissory notes. Bouv. Law Dict.-Farmers'
.545.
& Mechanics' Bank v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198.
Banking corporation.
66. Equitable transfers of a beneficial inter-
est in a mortgage, effected by the purchase and
resale of the debt, are not assignments within
the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 14,
requiring a redemptioner to produce to a sheriff
"any assignments necessary to establish his
claim."-Wilson v. Hayes, 42 N. W. 467, 40
Minn. 531.
67. As distinguished from a sublease assign-
ment signifies a parting with the whole term.-
Craig v. Summers, 49 N. W. 742, 47 Minn. 189.
Associates.
68. In Laws Minn. 1849, c. 44, incorporating
certain persons named "and their associates,
under the name of the "Minnesota Historical
Society." Refers to such persons, other than
those specifically named, as might thereafter be-
come members of the association.-State v. Sib-
ley, 25 Minn. 387.
Association or society.
69. In Laws Minn. 1885, c. 184, § 11, au-
thorizing the reincorporation of "any existing
corporation, association, or society." The words
"association" and "society" are not employed
as synonyms with or to characterize the word
"corporation," but refer to bodies other than
legally created corporations.-State v. Steele, 34
N. W. 903, 37 Minn. 428.
At large.
70. In Laws Minn. 1873, c. 20, § 1, (Gen. St.
1878, c. 19,) imposing a penalty on the owner of
a ram allowing it "to run at large." Is used in
the sense of "without restraint or confinement."
Webst. Dict.-Goener v. Woll, 2 N. W. 163, 26
Minn. 154.
Attached.
71. In the reservation, from the grant of
lands by Act Cong. March 3, 1857, to the state
to aid railroads, of land to which "the right of
pre-emption has attached." Does not mean a
mere settlement, residence, or cultivation of the
land, but a proceeding in the proper land office,
by which the inchoate right to land is initiated.
Weeks v. Bridgman, 43 N. W. 81, 41 Minn.
352.
Awarded.
72. From an allegation in a complaint that a
contract for certain work, for which plaintiff
had made a written offer, was "awarded" to
him by defendant, is to be understood merely
that defendant decided to agree with plaintiff
for the work, not that defendant accepted the
offer as made.-Starkey v. City of Minneapolis,
19 Minn. 203, (Gil. 166.)
Ballot.
See § 798, post.
Bank.
73. An institution authorized to receive de-
posits of money, to lend money, and to issue
74. In Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, providing for
the taxation of banking corporations. Includes
not only every corporate body, doing a general
banking business, whether under state or na-
tional authority, but also all property employed
in banking, whether owned by corporations or
individuals.-Board of Com'rs of Rice County
v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Faribault, 23 Minn.
280.
Bawdyhouse.
See § 352, post.
Beast.
75. A dog is not a beast within the meaning
of Rev. St. Minn. c. 101, § 39, punishing every
person who shall kill, etc., any horses, etc., or
other beasts, etc.-United States v. Gideon, 1
Minn. 292, (Gil. 226.)
Beer.
""
76. A fermented liquid, made from malted
grain, having different names, such as "ale,'
"porter," "brown stout," "lager," and "small
beer," according to its strength, but not a spirit-
nous liquor.-State v. Quinlan, 41 N. W. 299, 40
Minn. 55.
77. Is intoxicating liquor within the meaning
of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 16, § 11, relating to
the sale of intoxicating liquors.-State v. Dick,
50 N. W. 362, 47 Minn. 375.
78. Testimony that beer was sold in a drink-
ing saloon by one who manufactured it will be
taken to mean a sale of the fermented malt liq-
or, commonly sold in such saloons, and not
ginger beer, root beer, or the like.-State v.
Dick, 50 N. W. 362, 47 Minn. 375.
Before.
79. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 218, re-
quiring notice of trial to be served "at least
eight days before the term.' The first day of
the term may be included in the computation,
under the general rule established by chapter
be' done shall be computed by excluding the first
66, § 82, that the time within which an act is to
day and including the last.-State v. Weld, 40
N. W. 561, 39 Minn. 426.
80. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 262,
subd. 1, allowing a dismissal of an action be
fore trial. The words "before trial" mean be-
fore the commencement of the trial.-Bettis v.
Schreiber, 17 N. W. 863, 31 Minn. 329.
Benefit.
81. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 34, § 14, pro-
viding that commissioners, in appraising dam-
ages to land taken for railroad purposes, shall
make due allowance for "any benefit" that the
owners thereof may derive from the railroad.
Does not include all the benefit which the land-
owner may receive, but only such benefit as is
in its nature proper to be deducted; any benefit
special to the landowner, and not shared by the
community in common with him.-Weir v. St.
2009
2010
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155, (Gil. | Brake-staff.
139.)
Benevolent.
91. Consists of an iron rod, with a hand
wheel attached to the upper end, and used to
apply the brake, while the lower end is dropped
82. An association of single men, the object into a socket fixed to the car, that it may be
of which is to endow the wife of a member mar- lifted out at pleasure.-Moon v. Northern Pac.
rying with as many dollars as there are mem-R. Co., 48 N. W. 679, 46 Minn. 106.
bers, is not such a "benevolent society" as can
be incorporated under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
34, § 166.-State v. Critchett, 32 N. W. 787, 37
Minn. 13.
Benevolent and charitable.
83. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 17, §§ 56, 57, which
authorize the incorporation of "benevolent and
charitable societies.' Do not include a savings
association, formed for the pecuniary profit of its
stockholders.-Sheren v. Mendenhall, 23 Minn.
92.
Bequeath.
84. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 69, §§ 2, 3, re-
lating to bequests to married women. Has ref-
erence to both real and personal property.-
Leighton v. Sheldon, 16 Minn. 243, (Ĝil. 214.)
Bill of exchange.
Brief.
92. Synonymous with "points and authori-
ties;" both being a condensed statement of the
propositions of law which counsel desire to es-
tablish, indicating the reasons and authorities.
which sustain them.-Duncan v. Kohler, 34 N.
W. 594, 37 Minn. 379.
Buy.
93. Buying a note, as distinguished from dis-
counting it, is a transaction where the seller does
not indorse the note, and is not accountable for
it.-Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Baldwin, 23
Minn. 198.
By-law.
94. "By-law," "ordinance," and "municipal
regulation" have substantially the same meaning,
and are the laws of a corporate district, made by
the authorized body, in distinction from the gen-
eral law of the state; local regulations for the
government of the particular place. State v.
Lee, 13 N. W. 913, 29 Minn. 445.
85. A draft on a bank, payable on a day sub-eral
sequent to its date, is a bill of exchange and not
a check.-Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank of
Minneapolis, 43 N. W. 336, 41 Minn. 488.
See, also, §§ 109-111, post.
Bona fide.
86. In Laws Minn. 1889, c. 200, § 5, relating
to liens, and defining the rights of bona fide
mortgagees, etc. Is to be taken in the usual and
established sense.-Hill v. Aldrich, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 1020.
See, also, §§ 331-336, post.
Bona fide and diligent.
87. What amounts to such a bona ide and
diligent search for a lost instrument as to allow
the introduction in evidence of its contents is to
be determined by the particular circumstances of
each case.-Thayer v. Barney, 12 Minn. 502,
(Gil. 406.)
Bond.
88. As distinguished from recognizance, is the
crcation of a fresh debt, or obligation de novo;
a recognizance being an acknowledgment of a
former debt upon record. Bl. Comm. - In re
Brown, 29 N. W. 131, 35 Minn. 307.
S9. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 124, § 3, au-
thorizing the giving of undertakings in lieu of
bonds on appeal. "Bonds" is used in its general
sense, as including recognizances. In re Brown,
29 N. W. 131, 35 Minn. 307.
Books.
90. In a sheriff's return, certifying to a levy
upon certain books. Is not to be taken as in-
cluding debts due upon accounts therein con-
tained. Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277, (Gil.
191.)
By the court.
95. The use of such words on an order does
not necessarily make a chamber's order an order
of the court.-Marty v. Abl, 5 Minn. 27, (Gil.
14.)
Cards.
96. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 99, § 15, pun-
ishing whoever obtains money from another "by
use of cards or instruments of like character.'
Cards of about the same size as ordinary playing
cards, all black, except one having a figure im-
printed on it, are within the meaning of the
statute.-State v. Gray, 12 N. W. 455, 29 Minn.
142.
Carriage.
97. In the provision of the charter of the city
of Duluth, authorizing the city to adopt ordi-
nances to prevent the incumbering of streets with
carriages, etc. Includes railroad cars.-City of
Duluth v. Mallett, 45 N. W. 154, 43 Minn. 204.
Case at law.
98. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 4, providing that
the right to trial by jury shall extend to "all
cases at law." Does not include proceedings un-
der section 2 of the insolvent act, upon the peti-
tion of creditors, for the appointment of a re-
ceiver of the estate of a nonresident insolvent.-
In re Howes, 38 N. W. 104, 38 Minn. 403.
99. The words are limited to common-law
actions, as distinguished from suits in equity or
admiralty and special proceedings, and do not
include or fall within the term "remedial cases,
as used in Const. art. 6, § 2, giving the supreme
court original jurisdiction in such cases.-State
2011
2012
WORDS AND PHRASES.
v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 41 N. W. Chaste.
1020, 40 Minn. 213.
Cause.
100. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 69, § 4, allowing ap-acter." Although a woman may have so low a
plication for the transfer of a "cause" from a
justice's court. Does not include an attachment
of property, which is merely a proceeding in a
cause.-Curtis v. Moore, 3 Minn. 29, (Gil. 7.)
Cause of action.
101. Identity of cause of action is to be dis-
tinguished from identity of the subject-matter.
The subject-matter of litigation may be the same,
and yet the causes of action entirely different.
State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 9 N. W. 725, 28
Minn. 175.
See, also, § 434, post.
Cause shown.
See §§ 328-330, post.
Certain.
See § 207, post.
Change in title.
102. A change in title is a change in ownership,
which carries the legal right of possession and
property, and the mere creation of a lien or in-
cumbrance upon property insured cannot be re-
garded as effecting a "change in title," within the
meaning of a condition in the policy of insurance.
-Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn. 315.
Change of possession.
103. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 41, § 15, mak-
ing a sale of chattels without "actual and con-
tinued change of possession" presumptively fraud-
ulent as to creditors, etc. An actual, and not a
mere constructive, change is necessary.-Murch
v. Swensen, 42 N. W. 290, 40 Minn. 421.
104. Such a change as the circumstances of
the sale and the nature of the property admit;
such as the vendor is capable of making.—Chick-
ering & Sons v. White, 44 N. W. 988, 42 Minn.
457.
Character.
105. In a question as to the character of a wit-
ness in the neighborhood in which she resides.
Will be considered as used in the sense of repu-
tation.-Rudsdill v. Slingerland, 18 Minn. 389,
(Gil. 342.)
Chargeable.
106. A statement in a tax deed that land was
sold for taxes chargeable, etc., is not sufficient to
show that the tax was delinquent.-Sheehy v.
Hinds, 6 N. W. 781, 27 Minn. 259; Gilfillan v.
Chatterton, 37 N. W. 583, 38 Minn. 335.
Charged.
107. In a complaint for commissions, alleging
that plaintiff "charged" a certain amount. Does
not import that the amount "charged" was true
or just.-Farrington v. Wright, 1 Minn. 241,
(Gil. 191.)
Charitable.
See § 83, supra.
108. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 100, § 6, pun-
ishing seduction under promise of marriage of
any unmarried female "of previous chaste char-
standard of propriety as to allow unseemly fa-
miliarities with a lover, yet if she have enough
sense of virtue not to surrender her chastity un-
less induced to do so under a promise of mar-
riage, she cannot be said as matter of law to be
unchaste.-State v. Brinkhaus, 25 N. W. 642, 34
Minn. 285.
See, also, §§ 582, 583, post.
Check.
109. An instrument for the payment of a
specified sum of money, having a drawer and a
payee, drawn upon some bank or banker.-State
v. Curtis, 40 N. W. 263, 39 Minn. 357.
110. A draft on a bank or banker payable on
demand.-Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 43 N.
W. 336, 41 Minn. 488.
111. A draft on a bank payable on a day sub-
sequent to its date is not a check, but a bill of
exchange. Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 43
N. W. 336, 41 Minn. 488.
Children.
112. Designating beneficiaries in a life insur-
ance policy. Construed to mean children of two
marriages of the insured.-Ricker v. Charter Oak
Life Ins. Co., 6 N. W. 771, 27 Minn. 193.
Citizen.
113. In Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, declaring that
"the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the sev
eral states." It seems that only citizens of the
United States are meant.-Davis v. Pierse, 7
Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Civil action.
114. A contest as to an election for removal of
a county seat is not a civil action, within the
meaning of the statute as to costs in civil ac-
tions.-Bayard v. Klinge, 16 Minn. 249, (Gil.
221.)
115. By the use of the words "in all civil ac-
tions," in Pub. St. Minn. c. 57, § 21, providing
that the district court or a judge thereof may
grant an injunction in all civil actions, on com-
plaint, etc., the legislature did not intend to
prescribe that the writs mentioned could only be
issued after the commencement of an action by
the service of the summons or the delivery of the
summons for service, but to designate the nature
or character of the class of remedies in the
course of which a party could avail himself of
the benefit of the writ.-Lash v. Mc-Cormick, 14
Minn. 182, (Gil. 359.)
Claim.
116. In mechanic's lien act of Minnesota of
March 20, 1858, giving a lien upon every build-
ing for the erection, etc., of which any person
"shall have a claim." The words comprehend
claims of such nature existing when the act was
passed.-Mason v. Heyward, 5 Minn. 74, (Gil.
55.)
2013
2014
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Code.
117. A system of law; a systematic and com-
and_com-
plete body of law.-Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.
W. 923, 47 Minn. 575.
Collector.
tial nature. Leppla v. Minnesota Tribune Co.,
29 N. W. 127, 35 Minn. 310.
Company.
125. The language, "company established and
doing business under the laws of the state," used
118. In Pub. St. Minn. art. 16, c. 8, § 117, re-in a complaint, imports a body corporate, rather
quiring county treasurers to pay over the state
tax in like manner as theretofore required of the
sheriff or collector, and to receive the like com-
pensation. Is used synonymously with "sheriff."
Bingham v. Board of Sup'rs, Winona County,
8 Minn. 441, (Gil. 390.)
Color of title.
119. That which in appearance is title, but
which in reality is no title; that which is appar-
ently good title, but which, by reason of some
defect appearing on its fact, does not in fact
amount to title.-McLellan v. Omodt, 33 N. W.
326, 37 Minn. 157.
Color of title in fee.
120. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75. § 15, pro-
viding that where a person has taken possession
of land under color of title in fee and in good
faith, for which he has given a valuable con-
sideration, he shall not be ejected, unless com-
pensation is tendered him for improvements, etc.
Includes such color of title either in the occupy-
ing claimant himself or in the person under
whom he claims his right.-Hall v. Torrens, 27
N. W. 717, 32 Minn. 527.
Commerce.
121. In Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, empowering
congress to regulate commerce between the
states, etc. Embraces the transportation of prop-
erty by a common carrier, including the rates to
be charged therefor.-State v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. Ry. Co., 41 N. W. 1047, 40 Minn. 267.
Common carrier.
122. One who undertakes for hire to transport
the goods of such as choose to employ him from
place to place.-Christenson v. American Express
Co., 15 Minn. 270, (Gil. 208.)
Common law.
123. In the provision of Const. U. S. Amend.
7, preserving the right of trial by jury, "in suits
at common law." The term includes not merely
suits which the common law recognized among
its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which
legal rights were to be ascertained and deter-
mined in contradistinction to those where equi-
table rights were alone regarded, and equitable
remedies administered, or where, as in the ad-
miralty, a mixture of public law and of maritime
law and equity were often found in the same
suit; and may be well construed to embrace all
suits not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction,
whatever may be the peculiar form which they
may assume, to settle legal rights.-St. Paul &
S. C. R. Co. v. Gardner, 19 Minn. 132, (Gil. 99.)
Communications.
124. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 10, mak-
ing evidence as to communications between hus-
band and wife incompetent. Includes all con-
versations, though not on subjects of a confiden-
than a mere copartnership.-Broome v. Galena,
D., D. & M. Packet Co., 9 Minn. 239, (Gil. 225.)
Compensation.
126. In Const. Minn. art. 10, § 4, requiring
compensation for land taken for public use.
Something given or obtained as an equivalent.-
Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Denman, 10 Minn.
267, (Gil. 208.)
Competent.
127. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, tit. 11, c. 73, §
89, providing that certain evidence shall be com-
petent on the question of marriage. Admissible
for the purpose of establishing the fact.-State
v. Johnson, 12 Minn. 476, (Gil. 378.)
Complaint.
128. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 2, § 11, (Gen.
St. 1878, c. 64, § 90,) providing that no summons
shall issue in the municipal court of St. Paul,
until a complaint is made and filed. Is to be
taken in its ordinary legal sense, and not to sig-
nify a verified pleading.-McMath v. Parsons, 2
N. W. 703, 26 Minn. 246.
129. A complaint is not equivalent to the affi-
davit required by Rev. St. U. S. § 5278, relating
354, 34 Minn. 115.
to extradition. State v. Richardson, 24 N. W.
Completion.
130. Within the meaning of Sp. Laws Minn.
1873, c. 107, extending the time for the "grad-
ing and completion" of a railroad upon which
the company would be entitled to a grant of
is made ready for the running of trains, though
public lands, the railroad is completed when it
Paul & P. R. Co., 23 Minn. 144.
not equipped with rolling stock.-De Graff v. St.
Composition agreement.
131. An assignment for the benefit of credit-
ors who shall file releases of their debts and
such creditors shall have accepted the provisions
claims is not a composition agreement, after
of the assignment. In re Walker, 33 N. W. 852,
34 N. W. 591, 37 Minn. 243.
34 N. W. 591, 37 Minn. 243.
Concurrent covenants.
132. Covenants where mutual conditions are
to be performed at the same time.-Snow v.
Johnson, 1 Minn. 48, (Gil. 32;) Chouteau v.
Rice, 1 Minn. 106, (Gil. 83.)
Confession and avoidance.
See §§ 484-486, post.
Connected.
133. Where the main subject of an action is
the wrongful entry of defendant upon real es-
tate, the after occupation by the defendant of
the premises is "connected" therewith, within
the meaning of Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 83, pro-
2015
2016
WORDS AND PHRASES.
viding that the same transaction or transactions | regular standing who have not forfeited their
connected with the same subject of action may membership.-Neskern v. Northwestern Endow-
be united in a complaint.-Armstrong v. Hinds, ment & Legacy Ass'n, 15 N. W. 683, 30 Minn.
8 Minn. 254, (Gil. 221.)
406.
Consideration.
134. Something of value in the eye of the law,
moving from one person to another. It may be
of some benefit to the latter, or some detriment
to the former.-New York & M. Gold Min. Co.
v. Martin, 13 Minn. 417, (Gil. 386.)
Construction.
135. Of a building. Work done at the yard
or shop of a contractor, in preparing material
for a building, is a construction, within the
meaning of the laws relating to mechanics' liens.
-Howes v. Reliance Wire-Works Co., 48 N. W.
448, 46 Minn. 44.
Constructive eviction.
See §§ 261-263, post.
Contained.
136. In a policy of insurance of a number of
mules stated to be "all contained" in a certain
barn, those words are matter of description, not
of warranty, and the insurance covers the mules,
though out of the barn.-Holbrook v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229.
Contiguous.
•
Convenient.
as
142. In an assignment for the benefit of cred-
itors, authorizing the assignee to sell as soon as
convenient, etc. Fit, suitable, or proper;
soon as he reasonably can do so.-McClung v.
Bergfeld, 4 Minn. 148, (Gil. 99.)
Conversation.
143. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8, pro-
hibiting a party to an action or interested there-
in from giving evidence of "any conversation
with or admission of" a deceased or insane par-
ty or person, relative to any matter at issue be-
tween the parties. Refers strictly only to spo-
ken words.-Chadwick v. Cornish, 1 N. W. 55,
26 Minn. 28.
Convey.
144. In Laws Minn. 1869, c. 56, § 4, provid-
ing that a wife cannot give a power of attorney
to her husband to convey land or any interest
therein. Includes leasing of land.-Sanford v.
Johnson, 24 Minn. 172.
Conveyance.
'execu-
145. A bond for title by a married woman is
not a "conveyance," required by Pub. St. Minn.
137. A building erected 25 feet from the one c. 35, § 12, to be separately acknowledged by
insured is not within the condition of an insur- her; the word "conveyance" being expressly
ance policy that if the risk is increased by the defined by section 30 as not embracing
erection of a contiguous building the policy tory contracts for the sale or purchase of land.”
should be void.-Olson v. St. Paul Fire & Ma--Kingsley v. Gilman, 15 Minn. 59, (Gil. 40.)
rine Ins. Co., 29 N. W. 125, 35 Minn. 432.
Contract.
138. The "contract, or some note or memoran-
dum thereof," required by the statute of frauds,
(Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 41, § 12,) for the leas-
ing or sale of lands, must be one signed by the
vendor or his agent, containing a sufficient de-
scription of the subject-matter, a statement of
the agreed price, and a designation of the ven-
dor sufficient to identify him without parol
proof. Clampet v. Bells, 39 N. W. 495, 39
Minn. 272.
A
139. In a provision of an insurance policy that
"this policy is made and accepted upon the
above express terms, and that no part of this
contract can be waived except in writing," etc.,
the words "contract" and "policy" are synony-
mous.-Wilkins v. State Ins. Co., 45 N. W. 1,
43 Minn. 177.
Contracting.
140. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, § 76, re-
lating to liens for labor upon logs and timber,
and providing that the act shall not inure to
the benefit of any person interested in contract-
ing, cutting, hauling, banking, or driving logs
by the thousand. The word "contracting"
should be read "contracting for."-King v. Kel-
ly, 25 Minn. 522.
Contributing members.
141. The contributing members of a mutual
benefit association are the members in good and
146. A contract for the sale of real estate is a
conveyance within Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 69, §
2, requiring the husband of a married woman to
join with her in a conveyance.-Gregg v. Owens,
33 N. W. 216, 37 Minn. 61.
147. An agreement for a conveyance is within
the meaning of Rev. St. Minn. c. 46, § 30, au-
thorizing the record of conveyances.-Cogan v.
Cook, 22 Minn. 137.
148. A "release" of mortgaged premises is an
instrument by which the title to real estate
might be affected in law or equity, within
Gen. St. Minn. c. 40, $ 26, defining conveyances,
and section 21, requiring registry of the same as
against purchasers without notice.-Palmer v.
Bates, 22 Minn. 532.
149. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 21, provid-
ing that unrecorded conveyances shall be void
as against subsequent purchasers, includes a re-
lease by a mortgagee, whether done by entry in
the margin of the record, by certificate of dis-
charge, or decree of court.-Merchant v.
charge, or decree of court.-Merchant v. Woods,
7 N. W. 826, 27 Minn. 396.
7 N. W. 826, 27 Minn. 396.
150. A party-wall agreement is within Gen. St.
enant shall be implied in a conveyance, etc.—
Minn. 1866, c. 40, § 26, providing that no cov-
Warner v. Rogers, 23 Minn. 34.
151. An insolvent assignment or conveyance
by an insolvent debtor is such a conveyance by
an insolvent debtor, whereby a creditor shall ob-
2017
2018
WORDS AND PHRASES,
tain a preference, as may be avoided, as pro- | County block.
vided by Laws Minn. 1881. c. 148, § 2.-Weston
v. Loyhed, 14 N. W. 892, 30 Minn. 221.
Conveyed.
152. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 14, provid-
ing that if any person, having conveyed by mort-
gage any article of personal property, shall dis-
pose of said property with intent to defraud, etc.
"Having conveyed" means, having executed a
mortgage.-State v. Williams, 21 N. W. 746, 32
Minn. 537.
Copy.
153. In Laws Minn. 1887, c. 206, requiring,
when real estate is included in a general assign-
ment, that a copy of the deed of assignment, or-
der, or decree certified by the clerk, etc., shall
be filed for record in the office of the register of
deeds, etc. Contemplates a copy of what is al-
ready matter of record in the office of the clerk.
--Paulson v. Clough, 42 N. W. 398, 40 Minn.
494.
Corn.
154. As used in the United States, referring to
grain. Is restricted in meaning to maize or In-
dian corn, unless the meaning is enlarged by the
circumstances of its employment.-Kerrick v.
Van Dusen. 20 N. W, 228, 32 Minn. 317.
Corporation.
155. A board of education, incorporated under
Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 92, is not a corpora-
tion within Const. Minn. art. 10, § 1, defining cor-
porations within that article to be "all associa-
tions and joint stock companies, having any of
the powers or privileges not possessed by individ-
uals or partnerships, except such as embrace
banking privileges."-Board of Education of
Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)
156. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 66, § 5, providing
that actions may be commenced against corpo-
rations in the same manner as other civil actions.
Includes foreign as well as domestic corpora-
tions. Sullivan v. La Crosse & M. Steam-Packet
Co., 10 Minn. 386, (Gil. 308.)
See, also, §§ 69, 125, supra; § 227, post.
Corruptly.
157. In an indictment. Doing an act for un-
lawful gain, viciously, wickedly-State v. Stein,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 474.
Costs.
160. The words "county block," written upon
a block in a plat, do not evidence a donation or
grant to a county not designated, within the
meaning of Rev. St. Minn. c. 31, § 5, providing
that every donation or grant to a corporation or
body politic marked as such on a plat, required
by such chapter, shall be deemed a sufficient con-
veyance, etc.-County Com'rs of Hennepin Coun-
ty v. Dayton, 17 Miun. 260, (Gil. 237.)
County purposes.
161. In Laws Minn. 1861, c. 6, § 2, relating to
taxes for county purposes, includes only the or-
dinary expenses of the county.-McCormick v.
Fitch, 14 Minn. 252, (Gil. 185.)
Court.
See § 198, post.
Court of competent authority.
162. A court with the proper parties before it,
and having jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
Charles v. Charles, 42 N. W. 935, 41 Minn. 201.
Court of record of this state.
163. A federal court sitting within the terri-
torial limits of the state is "a court of record of
this state," within the meaning of the insolvent
law, (Gen. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 148.)-In re
Kittson's Estate, 48 N. W. 419, 45 Minn. 197,
following Simon v. Mann, 23 N. W. 856, 33
Minn. 412.
Covenant running with the land.
164. A covenant runs with the land, where
either the liability to perform it, i. e., its burden,
or the right to take advantage of it, i. e., its ben-
efit, passes to the assignee of the land.-Shaber
179.
v. St. Paul Water Co., 14 N. W. 874, 30 Minn.
Covenants.
See § 132, supra; § 212, post.
Created.
165. A foreign corporation which accepts the
provisions of Laws Minn. 1877, c. 14, is created,
within the meaning of Laws 1889, c. 225, re-
quiring certain acts to be done by a corporation
created or organized under the laws of the state.
-State v. Sioux City & N. R. Co., 44 N. W.
1032, 43 Minn. 17.
Creditor.
158. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 82, § 16, allowing an
attorney a lien upon a judgment to the extent of
the costs, etc. Refers to the sums allowed the
166. One who has the right to require the ful-
party to indemnify him for employing an attor-fillment of an obligation or contract. Bouv. Law
Dey, and does not include disbursements or Dict.-Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co., 41 N.
charges. Forbush v. Leonard, 8 Minn. 303, W. 1074, 40 Minn, 343.
(Gil. 267.)
159. In Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 241, providing
that if a plaintiff, after refusing an offer of judg-
ment, shall fail to recover more than offered, de-
fendant shall be allowed costs. Includes dis-
bursements.-Woolsey v. O'Brien, 23 Minn. 71.
County.
See § 26, supra.
V.2M.DIG.-64
providing that a sale of goods and chattels, un-
167. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 41, §§ 15, 16.
less accompanied by delivery, etc., shall be pre-
sumed fraudulent and void as against creditors
of the vendor, etc. "Creditors" includes all per-
sons who are creditors of the vendor at any time
while the property remains in his possession, o2
under his control.-Murch v. Swensen, 42 N. W
290, 40 Minn. 421.
2019
2020
WORDS AND PHRASES.
168. Those in whose favor a claim for indebt- | the proper sense of the term "criminal."-City of
edness against an insolvent is filed and allowed Mankato v. Arnold, 30 N. W. 305, 36 Minn. 62.
are creditors under the insolvent law, (Laws But see State v. West, 43 N. W. 845, 42 Minn.
Minn. 1881, c. 148.)-Adamson v. Cheney, 29 N. 147.
W. 71, 35 Minn. 474.
169. The payee of a promissory note given by
a decedent for the berefit of another is a credit-
or within the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 53, allowing an appeal from the probate court
upon the application of a creditor.-Lake v. Al-
bert, 35 N. W. 177, 37 Minn. 453.
170. Creditors, to whom a right of action upon
an executor's bond is given by Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 55, § 5, are those who have been found
or determined to be such, by an allowance of
their claims by the person or tribunal provided
by statute for the examination and allowance of
claims against the estates of decedents.-First
Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. How, 9 N. W. 626, 28
Minn. 150.
Creditor having a lien.
171. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 16, al-
lowing redemption to a creditor having a lien, the
phrase is not used as intending a personal cred-
itor, but includes one having the right of re-
course to the land for satisfaction of his claim or
demand, though he may have no personal claim
against the mortgagor.-Buchanan v. Reid, 45
N. W. 11, 43 Minn. 172.
172. The term includes an attaching creditor
who has not yet obtained judgment.-Atwater v.
Manchester Sav. Bank, 48 N. W. 187, 45 Minn.
341.
See, also, §§ 55-59, supra.
Credits.
173. In Const. Minn. art. 9, § 3, providing that
laws shall be passed taxing credits, etc. The ex-
cess of the sum of all legal claims and demands,
whether for money or other valuable thing,
due or to become due to the person liable to pay
taxes thereon, when added together, (esti-
mating every such claim or demand at its true
value in money,) over and above the sum of all
legal bona fide debts owing by such person.-
State v. Rand, 40 N. W. 835, 39 Minn. 502.
Crime.
174. The terms "crime," offense," and "crim-
inal offense," are all synonymous, and ordinarily
used interchangeably, and include any breach of
law established for the protection of the public,
as distinguished from an infringement of mere
private rights, for which a penalty is imposed or
punishment inflicted in any judicial proceeding.—
State v. West, 43 N. W. 845, 42 Minn. 147.
175. The terms "crime," "public offense," us
used in the general laws, do not refer to offenses
against a municipal government.-State v. Lee,
13 N. W. 913, 29 Minn. 445.
176. All felonies and misdemeanors are crimes.
-State v. Sauer, 44 N. W. 115, 42 Minn. 258.
Criminal.
177. Offenses against ordinances enacted by a
municipal corporation are not criminal cases. in
Criminal offense.
178. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 7, providing that
no person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense, except on presentment of a grand jury,
and except in cases cognizable by justices of the
peace, which, by article 6, § 8, are limited to
cases where the punishment does not exceed
three months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceed-
ing three months. The term "criminal offense,"
includes offenses consisting of violation of munic-
ipal ordinances, punishable by imprisonment or
State v. West, 43 N. W. 845, 42 Minn. 147.
fine exceeding the prescribed term and amount.-
See, also, §§ 174-176, supra.
Criminal prosecution.
179. A prosecution for the violation of a mu-
nicipal ordinance is not within the meaning of
Const. Minn. art. 1, § 6, guarantying the right of
§6,
trial by jury in "criminal prosecutions."-City of
Mankato v. Arnold, 30 N. W. 305, 36 Minn. 62.
Crossings.
See $ 280, post.
Currency.
180. The established, lawful, standard medium
of exchange: legal tender money, or gold or sil-
ver coin. Butler v. Paine, 8 Minn. 324, (Gil.
284.)
Current.
See § 512, post.
Cut or device.
181. A sticker or paster on the face of the bal-
lot is not a "cut or device" to distinguish one
ballot from another, within the meaning of Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 1, § 82, prohibiting the use of
such cut or device. Quinn v. Markoe, 35 N. W.
device.-Quinn
263, 37 Minn. 439.
Daily newspaper.
182. A newspaper published consecutively six
days each week, including Sunday, is a daily
newspaper within the meaning of Laws Minn.
1889, requiring the designation of a daily news-
paper published six successive days in each week
as an official paper.-Tribune Pub. Co. v. City
of Duluth, 47 N. W. 309, 45 Minn. 27.
Damages.
183. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 53, requiring
an appeal bond to contain a condition to pay all
damages and costs awarded against appellant on
such appeal. Is synonymous with costs, as the
only damages that could be awarded against ap
pellant are the taxable costs.-Riley v. Mitchell,
35 N. W. 472, 38 Minn. 9.
See, also, §§ 325, 326, post.
Dangerous weapon.
184. In Laws Minn. 1864, c. 41, providing that
if any person, being armed with a dangerous
weapon, shall assault another with intent, etc..
2021
2022
WORDS AND PHRASES.
he shall be punished, etc. A weapon likely to | Decree.
produce death or great bodily harm.-State v.
Dineen, 10 Minn. 407, (Gil. 325.)
Day.
185. In construing the state constitution, the
word "day" is, prima facie, to be taken in its
ordinary and popular meaning of the space of 24
hours from midnight to midnight. State v.
Brown, 22 Minn. 482.
186. Sunday is not a "day," within the mean-
ing of a statute requiring publication for a_cer-
tain number of days.-Sewall v. City of St. Paul,
20 Minn. 511, (Gil. 459.)
Death in violation of a criminal law.
187. In an insurance policy providing that such
death shall invalidate the policy. Does not in- |
clude suicide by the insured, to prevent his re-
turn to the state to answer for a criminal charge.
-Kerr v. Minnesota Mut. Ben. Ass'n, 39 N. W.
312, 39 Minn. 174.
Debt.
188. Strictly, a sum of money due upon con-
tract arising from the agreement of the parties.
-Cole v. Aune, 41 N. W. 934, 40 Minn. 80.
189. In an enlarged sense, any just claim or
demand for the recovery of money; that which
one person owes and is bound to pay to another.
-Cole v. Aune, 41 N. W. 934, 40.Minn. 80.
190. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 147, al-
lowing an attachment where the plaintiff's debt
was fraudulently contracted. Includes debts or
liabilities fraudulently created or incurred.-Cole
v. Aune, 41 N. W. 934, 40 Minn. 80.
191. The word "debt" is of large import, and,
properly speaking, includes all that is due to a
inan under any form of obligation or promise.
Burrill, Law Dict.-Daniels v. Palmer, 42 N. W.
855, 41 Minn. 116.
Debtor.
192. In Minnesota insolvent law of 1881, as
amended by Laws 1889, c. 30, § 1, providing
that "any debtor" may make an assignment for
the benefit of creditors, etc. Includes any one
who is capable of contracting a debt, and has
done so.-Kinney v. Sharvey, (Minn.) 50 N. W.
1025.
Decision.
193. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 253, pro-
viding that "a verdict, report, or decision may be
vacated, and a new trial granted," for various
causes, among them, "that the verdict, report, or
decision is not justified by the evidence." The
dismissal of an action for insufficiency of evi-
dence is a "decision," within the meaning of the
statute.-Volmer v. Stagerman, 25 Minn. 234.
194. The statute does not refer to a final deci-
sion only; whenever any issue or issues under
the pleadings are tried or submitted, and decided
by the court, this is a "decision," upon the mak-
ing of which a motion may be made to vacate
and for a new trial.-Ashton v. Thompson, 9 N.
W. 876, 28 Minn. 330.
195. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 56, § 4, provid-
ing that, after certain payments from a de-
cedent's estate, the probate court shall assign the
residue of the estate by a decree, etc. Is the
final distribution to be made when the estate is
fully settled.-Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494,
(Gil. 447.)
Dedication.
196. Of land. The act of devoting or giving
property for some proper object, and in such
Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
manner as to conclude the owner.-Village of
Deed.
197. A mortgage is a deed, within the meaning
of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 2, (Laws 1887, c.
47,) providing that the validity of a deed execu-
ted by a married woman shall not be affected by
her minority.-Daley v. Minnesota Loan & In-
vestment Co., 45 N. W. 1100, 43 Minn. 517.
See, also, § 327, post.
De facto.
lished by an act of the legislature, apparently
198. Where a court or office has been estab-
valid, and the court has gone into operation, or
the office is filled and exercised under such act,
it is to be regarded as a de facto court or office.
Burt v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 N. W.
285, 289, 31 Minn. 472.
De facto court.
199. A court existing under color of law.-
Burt v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 N. W. 285,
289, 31 Minn. 472.
De facto officer.
200. One who is exercising the duties of an of-
fice, under color of legal right.-Burt v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 18 N. W. 285, 289, 31 Miun.
472.
201. A person having and claiming color of
title to an office by election or appointment, and
in the exercise of its functions and duties; in
possession of it.-Carli v. Rhener, 7 N. W. 139,
27 Minn. 292.
De facto road.
202. A_road__actually used by the public.-
Locke v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn
350, (Gil. 283.)
Defamatory.
203. Does not, in its ordinary and proper sig-
nification, include the element of malice. A de-
famatory publication is one which is false and
calculated to bring the person defamed into dis-
repute, but not necessarily malicious.-Marks v.
Baker, 9 N. W. 678, 28 Minn. 162.
Default.
204. In a sheriff's accountable receipt, provid-
ing for the payment of the amount of a debt, in
default of the delivery of goods for which the
receipt is given. Means a breach of legal duty.
-Mason v. Aldrich, 30 N. W. 884, 36 Minn.
283.
2023
2024
WORDS AND PHRASES.
!
Defeasance.
205. A bond for reconveyance is a "defeasance
of a deed absolute," within the meaning of Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 40, § 23, requiring the record
of such defeasance for the purpose of notice.-
Butman v. James, 27 N. W. 66, 34 Minn. 547.
Defect.
206. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 73, subc. 8,
§ 8, providing that no action shall be maintained
against the city of Mankato on account of any
injuries received by means of "any defect in the
condition of any bridge, street, sidewalk, or thor-
oughfare," unless commenced within one year
from the happening of the injury, etc. Refers
to defects in such public ways or structures as
such, and with regard to their usefulness and
safety for the purposes of travel.-Pye v. City of
Mankato, 38 Ñ. W. 621, 38 Minn. 536.
Definite.
207. To sustain a motion to make a pleading
more definite and certain, the indefiniteness or
uncertainty must be such as appears on the face
of the pleading, not arising from extrinsic facts.
-Lee v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 25 N. W.
399, 34 Minn. 225.
Defraud.
208. In the provision of the insolvent law,
(Laws Minn. 1881, c. 148,) refusing a debtor his
release where he has disposed of his property
with intent "to cheat and defraud creditors.
Refers to actual fraud, as distinguished from
fraud in law. In re Shotwell, 45 N. W. 842, 43
Minn. 389.
Delinquent.
209. Delinquency of taxes necessarily includes
present obligation to pay.-Chauncey v. Wass,
25 N. W. 457, 30 N. W. 826, 35 Minn. 1.
See, also, § 106, supra.
Demise.
210. The words "demise," or "let," or their
equivalent, in a lease, imply a covenant for title
and for quiet enjoyment, but no other covenants
on the part of the lessor are implied thereby.
Wilkinson v. Clauson, 12 N. W. 147, 29 Minn.
91.
Departure.
211. In pleading. A statement of matter in a
subsequent pleading, which is not pursuant to the
previous pleading of the same party, and which
does not support and fortify it.-Rosby v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 N. W. 698, 37 Minn.
171.
Dependent covenants.
212. Covenants in which the performance of
one depends on the prior performance of another.
-Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 106, (Gil. 83.)
Desertion.
213. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 69, § 5, provid-
ing that desertion by husband or wife shall be a
ground for an action to bar the right of curtesy
or dower. Is used in the same sense as in chap-
ter 62, § 6, subd. 5, relating to divorce, and im-
Dorts such a willful abandonment, by one party
of the other, as would constitute good ground for
a divorce.-Weld v. Weld, 7 N. W. 267, 27 Minn.
330.
Detached.
* **
214. In an insurance policy, describing build-
ings as “adjoining and communicating, occupied,
situated, detached," etc. Construed to
mean detached as a whole or mass from other
buildings, and not to refer to the buildings as de-
tached from one another.-Broadwater v. Lion
Fire Ins. Co., 26 N. W. 455, 34 Minn. 465.
Device.
See § 181, supra; § 324, post.
Diligence.
See § 235, post.
Directly.
215. In a request to charge that unless death
was caused directly, etc. Construed to mean
proximately. McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn.
277, (Gil. 189.)
Directly or indirectly.
216. These words, used in an agreement by
one who had sold his business that he would not
directly or indirectly re-engage in the same, pre-
clude the seller from engaging his services to or
in assisting a rival dealer in the same business
to solicit and make sales, and to influence buyers
in the market, including his old customers, but
not from subordinate employment not affecting
the management or control of the business, or
directly influencing custom.-Nelson v. Johnson,
36 N. W. 868, 38 Minn. 255.
Discount.
•
217. A bank of discount is one that furnishes
loans upon drafts, promissory notes, bonds, or
other securities.-Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank
v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198.
218. Discounting negotiable paper, as under-
stood in the business of banking, is a mode of
loaning money, with the right to take the inter-
est allowed by law in advance. Farmers' &
Mechanics' Bank v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198.
219. The power to "discount" notes, etc., con-
ferred upon banks by Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 33,
§ 13, does not authorize the purchase of notes
by banks.-Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v.
Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198.
Dispose.
220. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, tit. 9, §
147, allowing a writ of attachment against a
debtor about to dispose of his property with in-
tent to defraud, etc. Is used as a comprehen-
debtor's property beyond the reach of creditors.
sive term, including any disposition to put the
-Auerbach v. Hitchcock, 9 N. W. 79, 28 Minn.
73.
221. In Sess. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 76, provid
ing that an attachment may be allowed, where
the debtor has assigned, secreted, or disposed of,
etc., his property, etc. The words "disposed of"
signify any actual removal or disposition in fact
of his property, other than embraced within the
2025
2026
WORDS AND PHRASES.
meaning of the words "assigned" or "secreted," | Driven.
and used in connection therewith.-Guile v. Mc- 230. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 48, § 2, en-
Nanny, 14 Minn. 520, (Gil. 391.)
titling the St. Louis Dalles Improvement Com-
Pany to toll on all logs driven down the St. Louis
river, at a certain section, etc. Construed to
properly include logs driven only_by_the_unaided
action of the stream.-St. Louis Dalles Imp. Co.
v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 44 N. W. 1080, 43
Minn. 130.
222. In an ordinance of the city of Minneapo-
lis, providing that no person shall sell or dispose
of spirituous liquors, etc. The words "dispose
of" include other forms of disposal than indi-
cated by other words in the ordinance, though
consistent with them as respects the intent and
purpose.-State v. Deusting, 22 N. W. 442, 33
Minn. 102.
Disposed.
See §§ 62, 63, supra.
Disseisin.
223. The intention to claim and possess the
land in question is one of the qualities indispen-
sable to constitute disseisin, as distinguished from
trespass.-Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361,
(Gil. 335.)
Distinct.
224. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 75, § 8, providing
that if mortgaged premises consist of distinct
farms, tracts, etc., they shall be sold separately
on foreclosure. Means a separation by some
natural means or boundary, or by intervening
space, and not simply a portion which may be
described by arbitrary imaginary lines.-Worley
v. Naylor, 6 Minn. 192, (Gil. 123.)
District.
225. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 6, providing that
one accused of crime shall be tried by a jury of
the "county or district" wherein the crime was
committed. The word "district" means trial dis-
trict.—State v. Miller, 15 Minn. 344, (Gil. 277.)
See State v. Gut. 13 Minn. 341, (Gil. 315.)
226. Such "district" may be an area larger or
smaller than a county.-State v. Kemp, 24 N.
W. 349, 34 Minn. 61.
Dog.
See $75, supra.
Domestic corporation.
227. A corporation formed by the consolida-
tion of a domestic and a foreign corporation
pursuant to Laws Minn. 1881, c. 94, is a
domestic corporation within Laws Minn. 1872, c.
53, § 2. (Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 15.) pro-
viding for service upon domestic corporations.
In re St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 30 N. W. 432,
36 Minn. S5.
Domicile.
228. Nearly synonymous with "home."-Ven-
able v. Paulding, 19 Minn. 488, (Gil. 422.)
See, also, § 659–662, post.
Dower.
229. Is not the result of the marriage contract,
but is a provision which the law makes, founded
on public policy, for the benefit of the wife, as
an incident to the marriage relation, and con-
tingent upon the seisin and death of the husband.
-Morrison v. Rice, 29 N. W. 168, 35 Minn. 436.
See, also,.§ 360, post.
Due.
231. Without any qualification, the word "due”
means owing and immediately payable; but as
used in Gen. Laws Minn. 1860, pp. 247, 248, §
15, relating to garnishment, allowing attachment
of any money or other thing due or belonging
to defendant, means any indebtedness to defend-
ant absolute in its nature, and payable at some
time beyond any contingency.-Gies v. Bechtner,
12 Minn. 279, (Gil. 183.)
232. In a clause of a mortgage, stating that
after sale the mortgagee may retain the principal
and interest which shall be due, etc., "due" is
used in the sense of owing.-Fowler v. Johnson,
3 N. W. 986, 6 N. W. 486, 26 Minn. 338.
233. In Rev. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 6, subd. 3,
requiring the notice of sale in foreclosure to state
the "amount claimed to be due." Is not used in
the sense of "owing," but means the amount al-
ready payable, and for which the mortgagee has
at the date of the notice a right to sell.-Bowers
v. Hechtman, 47 N. W. 792, 45 Minn. 238.
234. In a tax deed stating a sale of the land
for taxes due, "due" is not equivalent to "delin-
quent."-Sherburne v. Rippe, 29 N. W. 322, 35
Minn. 540; Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 37 N. W.
583, 38 Minn. 335.
Due diligence.
235. As between a guarantee and guarantor,
the rule requiring due and reascuable diligence
on the part of the former means a resort to the
ordinary course of the law; i. e., obtaining judg-
ment, issuing execution, etc.-Dewey v. W. B.
Clark Investment Co., 50 N. W. 1032.
Due form.
236. A sheriff's certificate of mortgage sale,
found to have been executed in due form, will
be presumed to have contained a description of
the property sold, the sum paid for it, and the
time when the purchaser would be entitled to a
deed.-Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 66, (Gil.
51.)
Due process of law.
237. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 7, declaring that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, "without due process of law." The in-
tent of the language is to protect the citizen in
the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and
to prohibit interference therewith, except in ac-
cordance with such provisions of law as the
legislature may enact to protect society, and se-
Davidson v. Farrell, 8 Minn. 258, (Gil. 225.)
cure the rights guarantied by the constitution.-
238. What is such "due process of law," de-
pends upon the facts and circumstances of each
2027
2028
WORDS AND PHRASES.
particular case.-Davidson v. Farrell, 8 Minn. ness.-Tapley v. Tapley, 10 Minn. 448, (Gil.
258, (Gil. 225.)
239. "Due process of law" is law in its regular
course of adininistration, through the courts of
justice.-Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480, (Gil.
358;) Beaupre v. Hoerr, 13 Minn. 366, (Gil. 339;)
State v. Becht, 23 Minn. 411.
240. "Due process of law," means such an ex-
ercise of the powers of government as the set-
tled maxims of law permit and sanction, under
such safeguards as these maxims prescribe for
the class of cases to which the one in question
belongs. State v. State Board of Medical
aminers, 26 N. W. 123, 34 Minn. 387.
360.)
248. Pressure of actual or threatened personal
restraint or harm, or of an actual or threatened
seizure or interference with property of serious
import, so that the injury can only be prevented
or escaped from by doing the thing or act re-
quired. Kraemer v. Deustermann, 35 N. W.
276, 37 Miun. 469.
Easement.
249. Consists of a right in the owner of one
parcel of land, by reason of such ownership, tọ
Ex-use the land of another for a special purpose not
inconsistent with a general property in the own-
er.-Warner v. Rogers, 23 Minn. 34; Mackey v.
Harmon, 24 N. W. 702, 34 Minn. 168.
241. "Due process of law" is incapable of any
complete or exhaustive definition; all that can
be done is to lay down certain general principles,
and apply them to the facts of each case as they
arise. 'Due process of law" and the "law of
the land" mean the general law which hears be-
fore it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry,
and renders judgment only after trial. In judi-
cial proceedings, due process of law requires no-
tice, hearing, and judgment; it does not mean
the general body of the law, common and stat-
ute, nor any thing the legislature may see fit to
declare to be such.-Bardwell v. Collins, 46 N.
W. 315, 44 Minn. 97.
242. Due process of law requires notice and
hearing before judgment.-Irwin v. Pierro, 47 N.
W. 154, 44 Minn. 490.
243. The constitutional requirement of "due
process of law" is not limited strictly to judicial
process or proceedings.-Lovell v. Seeback, 48
N. W. 23, 45 Minn. 465.
Duly assigned.
See §§ 60, 61, supra.
Duly contracted.
244. An allegation in a complaint that plaintiff
duly contracted to do certain work provided for
by statute means that the parties contracted in
compliance with the statute.-Folsom v. Chisago
County, 9 N. W. 881, 28 Minn. 324.
245. An allegation in a complaint that defend-
ant, a county, duly contracted for certain print-
ing and publishing in a newspaper, raises a pre-
sumption that such newspaper was of the size
and quality required by the statute, and that
plaintiff was the lowest bidder.-Folsom v. Chi-
sago County, 9 N. W. 881, 28 Minn. 324.
Duplicate taxation.
་
246. A requirement that one person, or any
one subject of taxation, shall directly contribute
twice to the same burden, while other subjects
of taxation belonging to the same class are re-
quired to contribute but once.-State v. Rand, 40
N. W. 835, 39 Minn. 502.
Duress.
250. In a highway. Embraces all public travel
not prohibited by law, as the wants and habits
of the public demand.-Carli v. Stillwater Street
Railway & Transfer Co., 10 N. W. 205, 28 Minn.
373.
Effects.
See §§ 604-608, post.
Elements.
251. In a lease providing that the premises
shall be surrendered in good condition, etc., dam-
ages by the elements excepted. Refers to some
sudden, unusual, or unexpected action of the ele-
ments, such as floods, tornadoes, or the like, ex-
traordinary disasters not anticipated: and does
not include the percolation of water through side
walls.-Harris v. Corlies, Chapman & Drake, 41
N. W. 940, 40 Minn. 106.
Eligible.
252. In Const. Minn. art. 7, § 7, providing that
everybody entitled to vote at any election, etc.,
shall be eligible to any office which now is or
hereafter may be elective, etc. Proper to be
chosen; qualified to be elected.-Taylor v. Sul-
livan, 47 Ñ. W. 802, 45 Minn. 309.
Eminent domain.
253. The right of the state as a sovereign to
resume the possession of private property for
public use; the right to take private property for
public use; a superior right to apply private
property to public use.-Weir v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155, (Gil. 139.)
254. The term implies no restriction as to man-
ner of exercise of the right.-Weir v. St. Paul,
S. & T. F. R. Co.. 18 Minn. 155, (Gil. 139.)
Encumbrance.
255. In the provision of the charter of the city
of Winona, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1867, p. 102,) au-
thorizing its common council to prevent the en-
cumbrance of streets, etc. Is used in the sense
of obstruction.-Fox v. City of Winona, 23 Minn.
10.
Engineering purpose.
247. In its extended sense, means that degree
of severity either threatened and impending or 256. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1864, c. 1, authorizing
actually inflicted, which is sufficient to overcome the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company to
the mind and will of a person of ordinary firm-change the location of its line for engineering
2029
2030
WORDS AND PHRASES.
purposes. A purpose of constructing the road
on a certain route on which it can be built, oper-
ated, and kept in repair in the best, cheapest, and
safest manner.-McRoberts v. Southern Minne-
sota R. Co., 18 Minn. 108, (Gil. 91.)
Enter upon, take, possess, occupy, or
use.
stitutes constructive eviction.-Fritz v. Pusey,
18 N. W. 94, 31 Minn. 368.
Evince no intention.
264. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 45, § 46, provid-
ing that "whenever any conditions annexed to a
grant or conveyance of lands are merely nominal,
and evince no intention of actual or substantial
257. In the provision of the charter of the benefit to whom or in whose favor they are to
First Division St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Com- be performed, they may be wholly disregarded;
and a failure to perform the same shall in no
pany, (Laws Minn. 1857, Ex. Sess. p. 3, $ 13,) case operate as a forfeiture," etc. Construed as
authorizing such company to apply for the ap-meaning, "evince an absence of intention."
pointment of commissioners to appraise lauds for Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, (Minn.) 51
any of the purposes for which it may "enter up- N. W. 905.
on, take, possess, occupy, or use lands. These
words are employed to designate acts which
amount to an appropriation of the land in ques-
Examinations.
tion.-Hursh v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., quiring a county superintendent of schools to
17 Minn. 439, (Gil. 417.)
Equally.
258. Equally interested, in a venture, imports
equality in all respects.-Connolly v. Davidson,
15 Minn. 519, (Gil. 428.)
Equity.
259. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 79, per-
mitting certain equities to be set up in an answer.
Means an equity which, according to the rules
governing courts of equity under the former sys-
tem, would entitle the defendant to relief wholly
or in part, against the liability set forth in the
complaint as the basis of plaintiff's action.-Bar-
ker v. Walbridge, 14 Minn. 469, (Gil. 351;) Bird-
sall v. Fischer, 17 Minn. 100, (Gil. 76.)
Equitable.
See § 434, post.
Established.
See § 523, post.
Estate.
See §§ 405, 406, post.
Estate of homestead.
See §§ 347-350, post.
Every person.
260. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 8, declaring
every person to be entitled to a remedy for in-
juries or wrongs. Is not to be taken in its broad-
est sense, so as to include aliens,-enemies, as
well as friends.-Davis v. Pierse, 7 Minn. 13,
(Gil. 1.)
Eviction.
261. From land. An actual, physical putting
out, or virtual exclusion, under the paramount
title, of the covenantee from the peaceful enjoy-
ment of his title.-Allis v. Nininger, 25 Minn.
525.
262. An involuntary loss of possession by rea-
son of the hostile 'assertion of an irresistible title.
Fritz v. Pusey, 18 N. W. 94, 31 Minn. 368.
263. Inability of a purchaser of land to obtain
possession by reason of the paramount title con-
265. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 36, § 67, re-
keep records of all examinations of teachers.
Includes re-examinations.-School Dist. No. 10 v.
Thelander, 21 N. W. 554, 32 Minn. 476.
Exception.
266. An exception in a deed is of a part of the
thing granted, and of something in esse at the
time of the grant, while a reservation is some-
thing newly created or reserved out of the thing
granted that was not in esse before; as, an ease-
inent.-Elliot v. Small, 29 N. W. 158, 35 Minn.
396; Winston v. Johnson, 45 N. W. 958, 42
Minn. 398.
Execution.
267. Of a note. Usually imports delivery.-
Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil. 154.)
Existing.
268. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 24, providing
that the limitation of an action upon an existing
contract shall commence from the time the last
payment is made thereon. A contract once made
is an existing contract until it is paid or barred
by the statute of limitations, or its obligation in
some other way canceled.-Whitaker v. Rice,
9 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
269. In the act establishing the municipal court
of the city of St. Paul, (Sp. Laws Minn.) and
providing for a transfer thereto of any action
before a justice of the peace, now existing, etc.
Refers to justice, and not to action.-Marsh v.
Smith, 22 Minn. 46.
Expenses.
270. In the provision of a chattel mortgage for
the payment, out of the proceeds of the sale of
the mortgaged property, of "all expenses for the
sale," those words include only expenses incurred
in doing such things as form part of the proceed-
ings of sale.-the expense of a copy of the mort-
gage, of taking the mortgaged property, of giving
notice of sale, and of conducting and completing
the sale; they do not include the mortgagee's
expenses incurred in placing the copy in a sher-
iff's hands, or in attending the sale. -Ferguson v.
Hogan, 25 Minn. 135.
Expert.
271. A person selected by the court or the par-
ties in a cause, on account of his knowledge or
skill, to examine, estimate, and ascertain things,
2031
2032
WORDS AND PHRASES.
}:
and make a report of his opinion; one who is
admitted to testify from a peculiar knowledge of
some art or science, a knowledge of which is
requisite or of value in settling the point in is-
Suc.-Le Mere v. McHale, 15 N. W. 682, 30
Minn. 410.
Expiration.
272. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 84, § 12, as
amended by Laws 1881, (Ex. Sess. c. 9,) provid-
ing that if an action is brought upon a written
lease against a tenant holding over "after the
expiration of said lease," restitution shall be
made, etc. The words "expiration of said lease"
mean the expiration of the time expressed in the
lease as the term thereof.-State v. Burr, 13 N.
W. 676, 29 Minn. 432.
Ex post facto law.
273. A law which renders an act punishable in
a manner in which it was not punishable when
it was committed.-State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370,
(Gil. 343.)
Express warranty.
274. In the law of insurance. A stipulation
inserted in writing on the face of the policy, on
the literal truth or fulfillment of which the valid-
ity of the entire contract depends.-Aetna Ins.
Co. v. Grube, 6 Minn. 82, (Gil. 32.)
Face.
275. A stipulation of express warranty in a
policy of insurance will be considered to be on
the face of the policy, although it may be writ-
ten in the margin or transversely, or on a sub-
joined paper referred to in the policy.—Aetna
Ins. Co. v. Grube, 6 Minn. 82, (Gil. 32.)
False-Forged.
|
Farm crossings.
280. In the charter of the St. Paul & Sioux
City Railroad Company, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1864,
c. 1, subc. 2, § 2, providing for the construction
and maintenance of "proper and necessary farm-
crossings" over the line of its roads. Crossings
from one side to the other of the railroad, wheth-
er by passing over or under the tracks.-St. Paul
& S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 500, (Gil.
433.)
Feloniously.
281. As defined in Pub. St. Minn. c. 98, § 18.
to mean criminally. Is applicable to misdemean-
ors as well as felonies.-State v. Hogard, 12
Minn. 293, (Gil. 191.)
282. In an indictment. Includes forcibly.
O'Connell v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
283. The words "feloniously," "criminally,"
are not necessary in an indictment which shows
that the act charged as the offense is a crime.-
State v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154, (Gil. 95.)
File.
284. At common law. A thread string or wire
upon which writs and other exhibits in courts
and offices are fastened or filed for the more
safe-keeping and readily turning to the same.-
Gorham v. Summers, 25 Minn. 81.
285. A plat referred to in a deed as on file will
be taken to mean deposited, as distinguished from
a technical filing of the plat.-Slosson v. Hall, 17
Minn. 95, (Gil. 71.)
Filed.
286. A paper is "filed," in the ordinary sense,
when it is delivered to the proper officer, and re-
ceived by him to be kept on file. Indorsing and
25 Minn. 81.
276. As applied to a writing. A writing that indexing are not included.-Gorham v. Summers,
is counterfeit or not genuine; an instrument by
which some one has attempted to imitate an-
other's personal act, and, by means of such imi-
tation, to cheat and defraud.-State v. Willson, 9
N. W. 28, 28 Minn. 52.
False, forged, or altered.
277. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 96, § 2, pre-
scribing the penalty for uttering as true any false,
forged, or altered record, deed, or instrument.
The words have the same meaning as similar
words in section 1, prescribing the punishment
for falsely making, altering, or forging writings,
etc.-State v. Willson, 9 N. W. 28, 28 Minn. 52.
Family physician.
278. A physician who usually attended and
was consulted by a person's wife and children
would be his family physician.-Price v. Phoenix
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, (Gil. 473.)
Farm.
279. In the popular sense, a portion or tract
of land, consisting usually of grass land, mead-
ow, pasture, tillage, and woodland, cultivated by.
one man, and usually owned by him in fee.
Webst. Dict.-Worley v. Naylor, 6 Minn. 192,
(Gil. 123.)
287. A chattel mortgage when delivered to, re-
ceived by, and kept by the proper officer, is filed
within the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
39, §§ 1--3, requiring such filing for the purpose of
notice.-Gorham v. Summers, 25 Minn. 81.
office of a register, and by him recorded and in-
dexed, is filed within the meaning of Gen. St.
Minn. 1866, c. 81, § 16, requiring the filing of
such notice.-Willis v. Jelineck, 6 N. W. 373, 27
288. A notice of intention to redeem left in the
Minn. 18.
Final decree.
289. A decree which disposes of the cause,
either sending it out of court before a hearing is
had upon the merits or decreeing either in favor
of or against the prayer in the bill.-Chouteau v.
Rice, 1 Minn. 24, (Gil. S.)
Final judgment.
290. The definitions of a "final judgment" by
Rev. St. Minn. p. 349, § 158, and page 360, § 73, as
"a final determination of the rights of the pr
ties in the action," involve the necessity of its be
ing a full determination of all the rights of the
parties presented by the record, and containing
such a complete grant of relief that no act re-
2033
2034
WORDS AND PHRASES.
mains to be done to entitle the party to his rights
in the action but the issuance of the writ of ex-
ecution to enforce it. Per FLANDRAU, J.-Deuel
v. Hawke, 2 Minn. 50, (Gil. 37.)
291. A final judgment is a judgment that de-
termines all that an application seeks.-Entrop v.
Williams, 11 Minn. 381, (Gil. 276.)
292. A judgment adjudging the amount due
and directing a sale of mortgaged premises is a
final judgment from which an appeal can be
taken.-Dodge v. Allis, 7 N. W. 732, 27 Minn.
376.
293. A judgment dismissing an appeal from an
award of commissioners in condemnation_pro-
ceedings is final, within Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
34, § 29, as amended by Laws 1881, c. 57, re-
quiring a railway corporation to pay an award
within 60 days after final judgment.-Minneapo-
lis & N. W. R. Co. v. Woodworth, 21 N. W.
476, 32 Minn. 452.
Final order.
294. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 71, § 11, subd. 6, al-
lowing an appeal from a final order affecting a
substantial right, etc. An order which termi-
nates or ends a matter or proceeding.-Rondeau
Beaumette, 4 Minn. 224, (Gil. 163.)
295. An order granting a new trial is not a
final order affecting a substantial right, within
the meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 86, § 8,
subd. 6, allowing an appeal from such an order.
-McNamara v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co., 12
Minn. 388, (Gil. 269.)
296. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 86, § 8, subd.
6, allowing an appeal from a final order in a
special proceeding. Includes an order for the
final distribution of an intestate's estate.-State
v. Severance, 13 N. W. 48, 29 Minu. 269.
297. An order appointing commissioners in
proceedings to condemn lands is a final or-
der in a special proceeding. In re St. Paul &
P. Ry. Co., 25 N. W. 345, 34 Minn. 227.
First mortgage bonds.
N.
298. Ordinarily bonds secured by first mort-
gage. Minnesota & P. R. Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn.
13, (Gil. 1.)
Fixtures.
299. In the primary meaning of the term, and
distinguished from movable or tenants' fixtures,
means chattels annexed to the realty so as to be-
come a part of it.-Wolford v. Baxter, 21 N. W.
744, 33 Minn. 12.
Floating.
300. By the phrase "rivers of sufficient size for
floating logs," etc., used in Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
c. 32, §§ 1, 78, is meant such streams as with
artificial contrivances, and the use of means or-
dinarily employed, are capable of floating logs.-
Merriman v. Bowen, 23 N. W. 843, 33 Minn.
455.
Force.
301. The use of terms "with force," "with
force and arms," is not necessary in a complaint
for assault and battery.-Greenman v. Smith, 20
Minn. 418, (Gil. 370.)
Foreclosed.
302. In Laws Minn. 1871, c. 52, § 1, providing
that a mortgage containing a power of sale may
be foreclosed within 10 years after the maturity
of such mortgage. Is to be taken in its popular
sense, and the term is not applicable until a sale
of the property has been effected.-Duncan v.
Cobb, 21 N. W. 714, 32 Minn. 460.
Foreclosure.
303. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 24, al-
lowing a mortgagor, within one year after fore-
closure, to recover three times the amount of cer-
tain overcharges, and for which the property was
sold, unless such overplus has been paid to the
mortgagor or his assigns. The word "foreclos-
ure" means the proceedings resulting in and in-
cluding the mortgage sale.--Beal v. White, 8 N.
W. 829, 28 Minn. 6.
Forfeit.
or "de-
304. In Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 200, § 4, re-
lating to mechanics' liens, and providing that if
the vendee of land sold upon an executory con-
tract shall "forfeit or surrender such contract"
the vendor shall be deemed the owner, within the
meaning of the act, the word "forfeit," used as
it is in connection with "surrender," which un-
doubtedly means "yielded," "rendered,
livered up," must be given its common and gen-
eral definition, which is "lost by mission or neg-
ligence or misconduct," instead of the restricted
meaning ordinarily expressed by "forfeitable."
Nolander v. Burns, (Minu.) 50 N. W. 1016.
Forfeiture.
305. In Act Minn. March 9, 1878, providing
that lands granted to the Duluth & Iron Range
Railroad Company by Act March 9, 1875, shall,
in case of forfeiture by said company, be trans-
ferred to the Duluth & Winnipeg Railroad Com-
pany. Means such a forfeiture as must be as-
serted by judicial proceedings.-Minneapolis &
St. C. R. Co. v. Duluth & W. R. Co., 47 N. W.
464, 45 Minn. 104.
306. The word is not used in the act in the
sense of a default or breach of condition.-Min-
neapolis & St. C. R. Co. v. Duluth & W. R. Co.,
47 N. W. 464, 45 Minn. 104.
Forged.
See § 276, supra.
Forgery.
307. The fraudulent making of a false writing,
which, if genuine, would be apparently of some
legal efficacy.-State v. Mott, 16 Minn. 472, (Gil.
424.)
Franchise.
308. A right such as cannot be exercised with-
out the express permission of the sovereign
power; a privilege or immunity of a public na-
ture which cannot be legally exercised without
legislative grant.-Blake v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 19 Minn. 418, (Gil. 362;) Green v. Knife
Falls Boom Corp., 27 N. W. 924, 35 Minn. 155;
2035
2036
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Dike v. State, 38 N. W. 95, 38 Minn. 366; State | onymous.-Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 28 N. W.
v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 41 N. W. 919, 35 Minn. 294.
1020, 40 Minn. 213.
See, also, § 572, post.
Fraud.
309. Fraud is every kind of artifice made use
of by one person for the purpose of deceiving an-
other.-Brown v. Manning, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
310. Deceit in grants and conveyances of land
and bargains and sales of goods, etc., to the
damage of another person, either by the suppres-
sion of the truth or the suggestion of a falsehood,
constitutes fraud. Jac. Law Dict.-Brown v.
Manning, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
311. In the sense of a court of equity, fraud
properly includes all acts, omissions, and con-
cealments which involve a breach of legal or
equitable duty, trust, or confidence, justly re-
posed, and which are injurious to another.-Cock
v. Van Etten, 12 Minn. 522, (Gil. 131.)
312. The fraud on which courts of equity go in
cases of part performance is not fraud merely of
that nature which may be said to exist in every
case of refusal to fulfill an agreement, but that
sort of fraud cognizable in equity only.
Townsend v. Fenton, 21 N. W. 726, 32 Minn.
482.
313. Fraud, in its broadest sense, includes all
acts or omissions which involve a breach of legal
duty, which are injurious to the rights of others,
and, in contemplation of equity, many acts which
do not involve any actual intention to defraud.
-In re Shotwell, 45 N. W. 842, 43 Minn. 389.
See, also, § 208, supra.
Free.
314. In Const. Minn. art. 2, § 2, providing that
the Mississippi river and rivers of the state shall
be "forever free," etc. Is equivalent to "with-
out any duty, tax, impost, or toll."-Osborne v.
Knife Falls Boom Corp., 21 N. W. 704, 32 Minn.
412.
Free lands.
315. In a trust deed of railway lands. Con-
strued to mean such lands as had not been bar-
gained or sold, or contracted to be sold, through
any particular agency, or in any particular man-
ner, or set apart or used for a town-site, or for
depot purposes; such land as was for sale at
the company's office.-Sioux City & St. P. R. Co.
v. Robinson, 43 N. W. 326, 41 Minn. 452.
Frivolous answer.
316. An answer which, if true, does not con-
tain any defense to any part of the plaintiff's
cause of action. Its insufficiency as a defense
must be so glaring that the court can determine
it upon a bare inspection, without argument.-
Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
From.
317. "From its passage" and "from the day
of its passage," used in reference to an act of
the legislature, like the expressions, "from the
date" and "from the day of the date," are syn-
From and after.
318. In Laws Minn. 1885, c. 70, providing
that the act shall take effect and be in force
"from and after its passage,' the words "from
and after" are words of exclusion, and in com-
puting time the day of passage is to be excluded.
-Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 28 N. W. 919, 35
Minn. 294.
Fugitive from justice.
319. To be a fugitive from justice, in the sense
of the act of congress regulating extradition, it
is not necessary that the party charged should
have left the state in which the crime is alleged
to have been committed after an indictment
found, or for the purpose of avoiding a prosecu-
tion anticipated or begun, but simply that, hav-
ing within the state committed that which by its
laws constitutes a crime, when he is sought to be
subjected to its criminal process to answer for
his offense he has left its jurisdiction, and is
found within the territory of another state.-
State v. Richter, 35 N. W. 9, 37 Minn. 436.
Furnish.
320. Furnishing material, within the meaning
of the laws relating to mechanics' liens, includes
work done or prepared at the yard or shop of the
contractor.-Howes v. Reliance Wire-Works Co.,
48 N. W. 448, 46 Minn. 44.
321. The furnishing of the material is complete
when it is sold and delivered for the purposes of
the erection.-Burns v. Sewell, (Minn.) 51 N. W.
224.
Gambling.
322. Risking money or other property, between
two or more persons on a contest or chance of
any kind, where one must be the loser and the
other the gainer.--State v. Shaw, 39 N. W. 305,
39 Minn. 153.
323. Betting on a horse race is gambling.-
State v. Shaw, 39 N. W. 305, 39 Minn. 153.
Gambling device.
324. A horse race is not a gambling device,
within the meaning of Pen. Code Minn. §§ 294,
295, prohibiting gambling devices; nor are lists
descriptive of such race, or statements or an-
nouncements of the particulars thereof, from
which those desiring to bet on the races may
conveniently obtain information with respect to
the same, gambling devices.-State v. Shaw, 39
N. W. 305, 39 Minn. 153.
General damages.
325. Damages, such as the law implies or pre-
sumes to have accrued from a wrong complained
of; sometimes spoken of as necessarily resulting
from the wrong.-Smith v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 14 N. W. 797, 30 Minn.169.
326. Damages not pecuniary in their nature.—
Clementson v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 47 N. W.
781, 45 Minn. 303.
2037
2038
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Good and sufficient deed.
327. A contract for the sale of land calling for
a "good and sufficient deed" means such a deed
as will actually pass the title.-Cogan v. Cook,
22 Minn. 137.
Good cause shown.
ure of damages to the actual damage, no more is
necessary than that he should have acted with-
out culpable negligence or a willful disregard of
the rights of others, in the honest and reason-
able belief that his conduct was rightful; notice
of an adverse claim would not, alone, place him
in the position of a culpably willful trespasser.-
Whitney v. Huntington, 33 N. W. 561, 37 Minn.
"197.
А.
328. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 125, au-
thorizing the court, "upon good cause shown,"
to set aside or modify its judgments, etc.
good defense to the action is "good cause" for
setting aside a judgment taken against defendant
on his default.-Lord v. Hawkins, 38 N. W. 689,
39 Minn. 73.
329. Merely reading a certified statement of a
court commissioner, without seeing the witnesses
or the contending parties, and thereupon setting
aside the determination of the commissioner, is
not a setting aside for "good cause shown," with-
in the meaning of the statute.-State v. Bechdel,
37 N. W. 338, 38 Minn. 278.
330. In the provision of the act relating to
the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, (Sp.
Laws Minn. 1889, c. 351, § 21, subd. 7,) provid-
ing that defaults may be opened for good cause
shown, etc. The cause must be such as would
justify the exercise of the power by a district
court.-Granse v. Frings, 49 N. W. 60, 46
Minn. 352.
Good faith.
331. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 69, § 2, as
amended by Laws 1889, c. 103, providing that a
deed made by a married woman, in good faith,
without joinder of her husband, shall, after a
divorce procured by her, be valid as if she had
been single at the time of the conveyance. The
words "good faith" are used in their ordinary
and popular sense, referring to the actual
knowledge and intentions of the parties.-Wis-
tar v. Foster, 49 N. W. 247, 46 Minn. 484.
332. Want of notice is an essential element
of good faith as the term is used in Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 1, providing that chattel
mortgages, not filed, and without change of pos-
session of the mortgaged property, shall be void
to subsequent purchasers, etc., in good
faith.-Tolbert v. Horton, 18 N. W. 647, 31
as
Minn. 518.
333. An attaching or judgment creditor is not
a purchaser in good faith, within the meaning of
Rev. St. Minn. c. 46, § 24, providing that an un-
recorded conveyance shall be void against sub-
sequent purchasers in good faith.-Greenleaf v.
Edes, 2 Minn. 264, (Gil. 226;) Gaston v. Mer-
riam, 22 N. W. 614, 33 Minn. 271.
334. One who purchases at a foreclosure sale,
or who takes an assignment from such purchas-
er, is not entitled to protection from the effect of
the statute prohibiting usury, (Gen St. Minn.
1878, c. 23,) as an innocent purchaser in good
faith, unless the purchase or assignment was
without notice, as well as for a valuable consid-
eration.-Jordan v. Humphrey, 18 N. W. 450,
31 Minn. 495.
336. "Good faith," as used in Laws Minn.
1887, c. 191, entitled "An act to regulate actions
for libel," and providing that to protect the pub-
lisher the publication must have been made in
good faith, etc., means made in the belief of its
truth, upon reasonable grounds for the belief,
after exercise of such means to verify its truth
as would be taken by a man of ordinary pru-
dence under like circumstances.-Allen v. Pio-
neer-Press Co., 41 N. W. 936, 40 Minn. 117.
See, also, § 86, supra.
Grade.
337. In an order of the common council of a
city to the board of public works to "grade" a
street. Construed to include macadamizing the
street, as well as putting down stone gutters
and curbing.-State v. District Court of Ram-
sey County, 22 N. W. 295, 33 Minn. 164.
Grant.
338. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 61, § 106, securing
to a married woman any property acquired by
her by grant, etc. Applies to corporeal and in-
corporeal, personal and real, property.-Rich v.
Rich, 12 Minn. 468, (Gil. 369.)
Gross earnings.
339. In Laws Minn. 1857, (Ex. Sess.) c. 1,
subc. 1, providing for payment to the state by
a railroad company of 3 per cent. upon its gross
earnings. The term does not include the com-
pensation paid to such company by another com-
pany for the use of its lines.-State v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 15 N. W. 307, 30 Minn. 311.
Guest.
340. One who stops at an inn as a traveler,
and is received as such, immediately becomes a
guest.-Ross v. Mellin, 32 N. W. 172, 36 Minn.·
421.
Half.
341. A conveyance of "one half" of a certain
piece of land is to be construed as meaning an
undivided half.-Baldwin v. Winslow, 2 Minn.
213, (Gil. 174.)
342. In a deed, conveying the east half of a
lot, the word "half" is to be taken in its gen-
cral and popular sense, and not as divided in the
usual and customary way of dividing govern-
meut lots into halves.-Cogan v. Cook, 22
Minn. 137.
Headquarters of a railroad.
343. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1879, c. 182, pro-
viding for the issuance of bonds by the city of
Minneapolis to the Minneapolis & Northwest-
335. To constitute such good faith on the part ern Railroad Company, provided the eastern
of a trespasser on land as will restrict the meas-terminus, general offices, and headquarters of
2039
2040
WORDS AND PHRASES.
said railroad shall be at Minneapolis. The | House of ill fame.
statute means the operating headquarters and
352. A mere synonym for bawdy house, hav-
general offices of the road, and requires that ing no reference to the fame of the place, but
they should be established and permanently denoting the fact.-State v. Smith, 12 N. W.
maintained in said city.-State v. City of Min- 524, 29 Minn. 193.
meapolis, 21 N. W. 722, 32 Minn. 501.
Heirs.
344. In a will. May be construed to mean dev-
isees, legatees, or distributees, when such ap-
pears to be the intention of the testator.
Greenwood v. Murray, 9 N. W. 629, 28 Minn.
120.
Highway.
345. A passage, road, or street which every
citizen has a right to use.-Carli v. Stillwater
Street Railway & Transfer Co., 10 N. W. 205,
28 Minn. 373.
Hindered and obstructed.
346. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, § 78,
authorizing a person who is hindered and ob-
structed in driving logs, by the logs of another,
to recover compensation for driving the hinder-
ing logs to some point for separation. It is not
necessary, to constitute a hindrance or obstruc-
tion, that the logs should come in actual con-
tact.-Anderson v. Maloy, 19 N. W. 387, 32
Minu. 76.
Homestead.
If.
353. In the charter of the village of Blue
Earth, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1872, c. 36,) providing
that persons licensed by the village council to
sell liquors shall not be required to obtain a
license from the board of county commission-
ers, and shall not be prosecuted for selling,
etc., liquors, "if having first obtained license
therefor, agreeably to the provisions of Gen.
St. 1866, c. 16, the word "if" is not intended to
preserve the right of license in the county
board, as it and the words following can be
read, without violence, as referring to a license
by the village council.-State v. Fleckenstein, 2
N. W. 475, 26 Minn. 177.
Immediately.
354. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 204, pro-
viding that application to enjoin a foreclosure
sale shall be made immediately on receiving no-
tice of the publication of notice of sale. Docs
not mean without any delay, but requires prompt-
ness in action. O'Brien v. Oswald, 47 N. W.
316, 45 Minn. 59.
Immunity.
355. In Const. Amend. Minn. 1881, prohibiting
347. In the acts exempting homesteads. The the legislature from enacting any special or pri-
place of residence of the family; a dwelling-vate law, granting any special or exclusive im-
house in which the family of the owner re- munity, etc. An exemption from any charge, du-
sides, and connected therewith a greater or less ty, office, tax, or imposition.-Dike v. State, 38
quantity of land. Tillotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. N. W. 95, 38 Minn. 366.
513, (Gil. 419;) Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154,
(Gil. 124;) Kresin v. Mau, 15 Minn. 116,
(Gil. $7;) Byrne v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 521,
(Gil. 469) Ferguson v. Kumler, 6 N. W.
618, 27 Minn. 156.
348. The land and dwelling, not the interest |
or title of the claimant, constitute the home-
stead.-Kaser v. Haas, 7 N. W. 824, 27 Minn.
406.
349. The legal home and dwelling place re-
main the homestead, although the owner is
temporarily absent therefrom.-Donaldson v.
therefrom.-Donaldson v.
Lamprey, 11 N. W. 119, 29 Minn. 18.
Implied contracts.
356. Such as reason and justice dictate, and
which therefore the law presumes that every
man has contracted to perform.-Deane v. Hodge,
27 N. W. 917, 35 Minn. 146.
Impotency.
357. In the law of divorce. Want of potentia
copulandi, and not merely incapacity for procre
ation. It is an incapacity that admits neither
copulation nor procreation. What the law re-
fers to is capacity for copula vera, not for par-
tial, imperfect, or unnatural copulation. The in-
capacity must also be incurable. - Payne v.
Payne, 49 N. W. 230, 46 Minn. 467.
Improve.
350. The right to the use and occupation of
certain premises as an exempt homestead is
treated as a substantial interest in itself, and
is frequently denominated in the books an 358. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 18, § 3, pro-
"estate of homestead."-Holbrook v. Wight-viding that occupants of land shall maintain par-
man, 17 N. W. 280, 31 Minn. 168.
Horse race
See §§ 322, 323, supra.
Household furniture.
351. A silver watch worn by a debtor is not
household furniture, and as such exempt from
execution under Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 279,
although it is the only time piece used in the
household.-Rothschild v. Boelter, 18 Minn.
361, (Gil. 331.)
tition fences in equal shares so long as they con-
tinue to improve the same. Is not used in the
sense of "cultivate." A fencing of land is an
improvement, within the statute.-Boenig v.
Hornberg, 24 Minn. 307.
Improvement.
359. That by which the value of anything is
increased, its excellence enhanced, or the like;
or an amelioration of the condition of property
affected by the expenditure of labor or money.
for the purpose of rendering it useful for other
purposes than those for which it was originally
}
2041
2042
WORDS AND PHRASES.
used, or more useful for the same purposes.- incumbrance of streets, embraces any kind of
State v. Reis, 38 N. W. 97, 38 Minn. 371.
obstruction of the streets.-Fox v. City of Wi-
nona, 23 Minn. 10.
Inchoate right of dower.
360. The right of the wife to such interests in
the lands of the husband as may be allowed by
the law in force at the time of his death. It is a
mere expectancy or possibility. — Guerin V.
Moore, 25 Minn. 462.
Incidental printing.
-
361. In Sess. Laws Minn. 1856, p. 24, § 4,
declaring it to be the duty of the state printer to
do the incidental printing of each house of the
legislature, etc. Does not include printing of the
proceedings of a constitutional convention, or
that of any body claiming to act as such.-Good-
rich v. Moore, 2 Miun. 61, (Gil. 49.)
Including.
362. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 62, § 9, providing
that the clerk must insert in the entry of judg-
ment the necessary disbursements, including
the fees of officers, etc. Does not necessarily
confine the items of disbursements recoverable to
those enumerated.- Cooper v. Stinson, 5 Minn.
522, (Gil. 416.)
Incorporated.
363. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1878, c. 19, § 1, enact-
ing that certain territory shall be incorporated as
the village of Pine Island. Is equivalent to "set
apart by act of the legislature for incorporation,
as found in Gen. Laws 1875, c. 139, §1.-State
v. Cornwall, 28 N. W. 144, 35 Minn. 176.
Incumbent.
364. Of an office. One in possession thereof.
State v. Benedict, 15 Minn. 198, (Gil. 153.)
365. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 9. § 2, subd. 1,
providing that an office shall become vacant on
the death of the incumbent. Does not apply to
one elected to an office, but deceased without
having qualified or entered upon its duties, and
before the commencement of his term.-State v.
Benedict, 15 Minn. 198, (Gil. 153.)
366. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 9, § 2, subd. 6,
providing that an office shall become vacant upon
the refusal or neglect of the incumbent to take
oath of office, to file it, etc. Refers not merely
to one already administering an office, but as
well to one elected or appointed to an office, but
not yet qualified.-Scott County v. Ring, 13 N.
W. 181, 29 Minn. 398.
Incumbrance.
367. In a covenant against incumbrances. In-
cludes any right or interest in the land which
may subsist in third persons to the diminution of
the value of the land, but consistent with the
passing of the fee by the conveyance.-Fritz v.
Pusey, 18 N. W. 94, 31 Minn. 368; Mackey v.
Harmon, 24 N. W. 702, 34 Minn. 168.
368. An easement may be an incumbrance,
within such a covenant.-Mackey v. Harmon, 24
N. W. 702, 34 Minn. 168.
369. The word "incumbrance" used in a city
charter, authorizing the council to prevent the
Indecent assault-Indecent liberties.
370. In Pen. Code Minn. § 245, which is en-
titled "Indecent assault," and declares a person
who takes "indecent liberties" with or on the per-
son of a female, without her consent, etc., guilty
of felony, the terms are, in effect, convertible ex-
pressions, and "indecent assault" is but the stat-
utory definition of the crime epitomized.-State
v. West, 40 N. W. 249, 39 Minn. 321.
Indemnify.
sense of giving security, as by the execution and
371. Is used in two general senses: (1) In the
delivery of a bond; (2) in the sense of compen-
sating for actual damage.-Weller v. Eames, 15
Minn. 461, (Gil. 376.)
372. In a bond to indemnify one delivering
goods to the obligor against legal liability, by rea-
son of such delivery. Is to be taken in the sense
of "to compensate for actual damage."-Weller
v. Eames, 15 Minn. 461, (Gil. 376.)
Indirectly.
See § 216, supra.
Indorse.
373. As applied to commercial paper. Im-
ports delivery.-Hoag v. Mendenhall, 19 Minn.
335, (Gil. 289.)
374. In its technical sense. Means to incur
the paper, provided it is duly presented at ma-
the liability of one who warrants payment of
turity to the maker, not paid by him, and such
fact is duly notified to the indorser.-Paine v.
Smith, 24 N. W. 305, 33 Minn. 495.
Indorsement.
375. Of a bill or note. Is not merely a trans-
fer of the title, but a fresh and substantive
contract by which the indorser becomes a party
certain conditions.-Paine v. Smith, 24 N. W.
to the bill or note, and liable for its payment on
305, 33 Minn. 495.
376. Of a deposition. A final certificate an-
nexed to the deposition is not an indorsement,
within the meaning of a rule of court requiring
a commissioner to take testimony to indorse
upon the commission the time or times and
place of taking it.-Beatty v. Ambs, 11 Minn.
331, (Gil. 234.)
Injunction.
See § 521, post.
Injuries.
377. In the provision of the charter of
Minneapolis, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 8, § 20,)
requiring a notice to the mayor, etc., of that
city before bringing an action "on account of
any injuries received by means of any defect,
etc. Includes as well injuries to property as to
persons.-Nichols v. City of Minneapolis, 16 N.
W. 410, 30 Minn. 545.
2043
2044
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Injuriously affected.
378. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, requiring
corporations exercising the right of eminent do-
main to compensate for property injuriously
affected. Means that the damage must be spe-
cial, differing in kind from that sustained by
the public generally, and, which, by common
law, would have given a private right of action.
-Rochette v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 20
N. W. 140, 32 Minn. 201.
Insanity.
379. Kleptomania is not insanity within the
meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 62, § 5,
allowing the annulment of a marriage for the
insanity of one of the parties, etc.-Lewis v.
Lewis, 46 N. W. 323, 44 Minn. 124.
Insolvency.
380. In its general and popular sense. Means
the insufficiency of one's entire property and
assets to pay all his debts.-Daniels v. Palmer,
29 N. W. 162, 35 Minn. 347.
381. In the insolvent law, (Laws Minn. 1881,
c. 148,) when applied to a merchant or trader.
Means his inability to pay his debts in the ordi-
nary course of business, and not an inability to
pay his debts at some future time.-Daniels v.
Palmer, 29 N. W. 162, 35 Minn. 347; Daniels
v. Bank of Zumbrota, 29 N. W. 165, 35 Minn.
351.
382. The "insolvency" of a debtor, which, as to
a guarantor of his promissory note, will excuse
the failure of tae holder of the note to take legal
proceedings against him, is such an utter insolv
ency as would make an action against him fruit
less.-Brackett v. Rich, 23 Minn. 485.
Intent.
387. In Pen. Code Minn. § 177, providing
that, to constitute the offense of mayhem, the
injury must be willfully inflicted, with the intent
to injure, etc. Defined to be the purpose
formed at the time.-State v. Hair, 34 N. W.
893, 37 Minn. 351.
388. The provision of the insolvent law
(Laws Minn. 1881, c. 148) refusing a release
to a debtor who has disposed of his property
"with intent to cheat and defraud his credit-
ors" means the commission of acts with the
actual, corrupt, and dishonest design or pur-
pose of cheating and defrauding.-In re Shot-
well, 45 N. W. 842, 43 Minn. 389.
See, also, §§ 405, 406, post.
Intentionally.
See §§ 577, 578, post.
Interest.
389. In Laws Minn. 1869, c. 56, § 4, inval-
idating a power of attorney from a wife to her
husband, authorizing the conveyance of any
interest in the wife's estate. Embraces
a leasehold interest.-Sanford v. Johnson, 24
Minn. 172.
390. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 75, § 2, pro-
viding that if a defendant in an action to deter-
mine adverse claims to real property disclaims
99 etc.,
in his answer any "interest or estate,
plaintiff cannot recover costs. Includes liens.
Donohue v. Ladd, 17 N. W. 381, 31 Minn.
244.
391. Of money. A rent paid by the debtor
for the use of the creditor's money.-Brewster
v. Wakefield, 1 Minn. 352, (Gil. 260.)
383. A debtor, who has, in his own name,
subject to be levied upon by execution, suffi-
cient property to pay all his debts, is not insol-s
vent, in such sense as to affect the validity of a
transfer of property by him as against his cred-
itors.-Camp v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 175.
Institution.
384. Although sometimes used as descriptive
of the establishment or place where a business
is carried on, "institution" properly means an
association or society organized or established
for promoting some specific purpose, in the act
incorporating Hamline University, (Laws Minn.
1854, c. 43,) the terms "institution" and "univer-
sity" are used synonymously.-State v. Hamline
University, (Nobles County v. Hamline Univer-
sity,) 48 N. W. 1119, 46 Minn. 316.
Instrument under seal.
385. Words in the testimonium clause, indi-
cating that a scroll or device was used as a seal,
will render an instrument one under seal.-
Brown v. Jordhal, 19 N. W. 650, 32 Minn. 135.
Insurance.
386. A non-enforceable contract for other in-
surance is not "other insurance," within the
meaning of a clause in a fire insurance policy
prohibiting the same without permission.
Funke v. Minnesota Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins.
Ass'n, 13 N. W. 164, 29 Minn. 347.
392. Interest, being the creature of contract,
recoverable strictly as interest only during the
continuance of the contract, as provided by its
terms before breach, and not after.-Mason v.
Callender, 2 Minn. 350, (Gil. 302;) Bailly v.
Weller, 2 Minn. 384, (Gil. 338.)
Interested in the estate.
393. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 55, § 1, providing
that bonds taken in or by order of the probate
court may be prosecuted in the name, etc., of a
person interested in the estate, includes an ad-
ministrator de bonis non.-Balch v. Hooper, 20
N. W. 124, 32 Minn. 158.
Interested in the event of the action.
394. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73, § 8, pro-
hibiting testimony, by a person so interested, as
to transactions, etc., with a deceased person,
through whom the adverse party claims. The
statute uses the expression in the sense in which
it was understood at common law. To render a
person incompetent on the ground of interest, he
must have some legal, certain, and immediate in-
terest, either in the event of the cause itself or
in the record, as an instrument of evidence for or
against him in some other action. The interest
must be pecuniary, certain, direct, and immedi-
ate, and not an uncertain, contingent, remote, or
a merely possible interest.-Perine v. Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 1022.
045
2046
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Interlocutory.
395. An interlocutory order or decree is one
made pending the cause, and before a final hear-
ing on the merits.-Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn.
24, (Gil. 8.)
Involuntary servitude.
396. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 2, forbidding in-
voluntary servitude. Includes enforced labor.
State v. West, 43 N. W. 845, 42 Minn. 147.
Irrelevant.
397. A pleading is irrelevant which has no
substantial relation to the controversy between
the parties to the suit.-Morton v. Jackson, 2
Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
Issue.
398. In a grant or devise of a remainder to is-
sue. Is a word of purchase, and not of limita-
tion.-Whiting v. Whiting, 44 N. W. 1030, 42
Minn. 548.
399. In a cause. The subject of difference be-
tween the parties, as settled by the pleadings,
whether oral or written.-Davidson v. Farrell, 8
Minn. 258, (Gil. 225.)
Issued.
400. The provision of Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c.
64, § 13, requiring an execution to be dated "on
the day on which it issued," means the day on
which the execution is taken out of the clerk's
office.-Mollison v. Eaton, 16 Minn. 426, (Gil.
383.)
Join.
401. In a conveyance. An assent to the sole
conveyance of a married woman, indicated or
implied by the husband assuming to execute it
for his wife as her agent, is not a sufficient com-
pliance with Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 69, § 2, re-
quiring a husband to join with his wife in a con-
veyance of her property.-Gregg v. Owens, 33
N. W. 216, 37 Minn. 61.
Jointly.
402. As to ownership. Imports an equal inter-
est in the thing held and owned.-Holmes v.
Campbell, 10 Minn. 401, (Gil. 320.)
Judge of the district court.
403. Gen. Laws Minn. 1876, c. 44, conferring
upon the "judge of the district court" jurisdiction
over assignments for the benefit of "reditors,
vests the jurisdiction in the court itself, to be ex-
ercised by the judge or the authorized officer.-
Clark v. Stanton, 24 Minn. 232.
Judgment.
404. The sentence of the law upon the record.
-Jordan v. Humphrey, 21 N. W. 713, 32 Minn.
522.
Judgment lien.
406. In Laws Minn. 1862, c. 27, providing that
when no execution shall have been issued and
levied, or returned "No property found," within
five years from the time of the entry of judg-
ment, the lien of the judgment shall be deter-
mined, and the property of the judgment debtor
discharged therefrom, the clause "the lien of the
judgment shall be discharged," and the clause,
"the property of the judgment debtor discharged
therefrom," are substantially synonymous.-En-
trop v. Williams, 11 Minn. 381, (Gil. 276.)
Judgment or other determination.
407. Rev. St. Minn. § 77, p. 339, providing that
in pleading a judgment or other determination of
the court, the facts conferring jurisdiction need
not be stated, does not apply to judgments of
courts in foreign states.-Karns v. Kunkle, 2
Minn. 313, (Gil. 268.)
Judicial.
408. Pertaining to courts of justice, as ju-
dicial powers; practiced in the distribution of jus-
tice, as judicial proceedings; proceeding from a
court of justice, as a judicial determination. Be-
longing to and emanating from a judge as such.
-Home Ins. Co. of St. Paul v. Flint, 13 Minn.
244, (Gil. 228.)
Judicial decree.
409. A foreclosure by advertisement is not a
judicial decree.-Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn.
315.
Judicial power.
410. The authority vested in judges. Bouv.
Law Dict.-Home Ins. Co. of St. Paul v. Flint,
13 Minn. 244, (Gil. 228.)
Judicial purposes.
411. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 64, § 33, attach-
ing the county of Manomin to the county of Hen-
nepin "for judicial purposes, to enforce civil
rights," embraces the purpose of enforcing civil
rights through a district court.-Beebe v. Frid-
ley, 16 Minn. 518, (Gil. 467.)
Junior.
412. Is no part of a man's name.-Bidwell v.
Coleman, 11 Minn. 78, (Gil. 45.)
Jurisdiction.
413. Of the legal department of the govern-
ment. The legal authority to administer justice.
Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 221, (Gil. 141.)
414. Of a court. The authority to hear and
determine.-Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minu. 384,
(Gil. 278.)
license of a guardian to sell his ward's lands
415. Pub St. c. 38, § 23, requiring that the
shall be given by a "probate court of competent
jurisdiction," signifies the probate court, whose
jurisdiction it is proper to invoke in each particu-
278.)
405. A judgment lien is not an estate or inter-lar oase.-Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 384, (Gil.
est in the land. It only confers a right to levy
on the same to the exclusion of other adverse in-
terests subsequent to the judgment.-Burwell v.
Tullis, 12 Minn. 572, (Gil. 186;) Ashton v.
Slater, 19 Minn. 347, (Gil. 300.)
416. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 57. § 47, subd. 1,
referring to an executor, etc., licensed to make a
sale by the "probate court having jurisdiction,
means the probate court whose jurisdiction
2047
2048
WORDS AND PHRASES.
it is proper to invoke in the case in hand.-Rum-
rill v. First Nat. Bank, 9 N. W. 731, 28 Minn.
202.
417. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 57, § 51, subd. 1,
providing that, in an action relating to any estate
sold by an executor, it must appear that the ex-
ecutor, etc., was licensed to make the sale by the
"probate court having jurisdiction," means the
probate court whose jurisdiction has attached to
the estate or property which it directs to be sold.
-Davis v. Hudson, 11 N. W. 136, 29 Minn. 27.
See, also, § 36, supra.
Jury.
418. In Const. Minn. art. 1. § 6, declaring that
a person accused of a crime shall be entitled to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Im-
ports a body of twelve men.-State v. Everett,
14 Minn. 439, (Gil. 330.)
Jury of the county.
419. A jury drawn from a city under a law au-
thorizing such drawing is a jury of the county
within which the city is located, within the mean-
ing of Const. Minn. art. 1, § 6.-State v. Kemp,
24 N. W. 349, 34 Minn. 61.
Kicking.
420. A railway car. Consists in giving a car
an impetus with an engine, and then uncoupling
it and letting it run to its place with this impe-
tus.-Mark v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 20 N.
W. 131, 32 Minn. 208; Howard v. Same, 20 N.
W. 93, 32 Minn. 214.
Kleptomania.
421. A morbid propensity to steal.-Lewis v.
Lewis, 46 N. W. 323, 44 Minn. 124.
Knowingly.
422. A charge in an indictment that defendant
willfully testified falsely includes an assertion
that he knowingly so testified.-State v. Stein,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 474.
Labor.
423. One who prepares plans and specifica-
tions, and superintends a building, performs la-
bor in its erection, within the meaning of Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, c. 90, p. 589, giving a lien to
one who performs labor, etc.-Knight v. Norris,
13 Minn. 473, (Gil. 438.)
Laborers.
424. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, relating to
liens for labor upon logs or timber, and providing
that the act is intended for the protection of la-
borers for hire. Those performing manual la-
bor.-King v. Kelly, 25 Minn. 522.
425. In Laws Minn. 1889, c. 204, relating to
the exemption of laborers' wages from attach-
ment, etc. Contemplates employes, other than
working men engaged in manual labor.-Boyle
v. Vanderhoof, 47 N. W. 396, 45 Minn. 31.
Laboring man.
426. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 310, subd.
11, exempting from garnishment wages of a la-
boring man to a certain amount. A person
whose work is manual; and does not include an
agent who sells goods by sample.-Wildner v.
Ferguson, 43 N. W. 794, 42 Minn. 112.
Larceny from the person.
427. Extends to every case of stealing, where
the property stolen is on the person, or in the
immediate charge and custody of the person,
upon whom the theft is committed.-State v.
no, 8 Minn. 220, (Gil. 190.)
Law of the land.
See §§ 237-243, supra.
Lawful.
428. In the provision of the statute concern-
ing fraudulent conveyances, that every convey-
ance made with intent to hinder or defraud cred-
itors or other persons of their lawful rights, etc.,
shall be void, etc. Excludes the idea that such
conveyances could be declared void, as against
any one holding a claim or demand that could
not be enforced in a court of justice.-Brugger-
man v. Hoerr, 7 Minn. 337, (Gil. 264.)
Lawfully administered oath.
429. Upon which an indictment for perjury
may be sustained. An oath administered pur-
suant to, or as required or authorized by, some
law.-State v. McCarthy, 42 N. W. 599, 41 Minn.
59.
Lawfully convey.
430. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 46, § 3, providing
that a quitclaim deed shall be sufficient to pass
all the estate which the grantor could lawfully
convey by deed of bargain and sale. Does not
mean that land already conveyed to another can
be lawfully conveyed, but that any real or fan-
cied interest may be released.-Martin v. Brown,
4 Minn. 282, (Gil. 201.)
Laying stock.
'T'he
431. In Laws Minn. 1855, pp. 58, 59, § 9, giv-
ing a lien from the time of "laying stock."
commencement of labor or placing materials on
the premises.-Farmers' Bank v. Winslow, 3
Minn. 86, (Gil. 43;) Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn.
34, (Gil. 18.)
Lease.
1
432. A conveyance by way of demise, always
for a less term than the party conveying has in
the premises.-Craig v. Summers, 19 N. W. 742,
47 Minn. 189.
Left.
433. In a clause of a will giving a remainder
to children on the death of the testator's widow,
the tenant for life, the words, "and which, or
any part of the estate and property then left by
her, shall be divided among my children," im-
ply a power to use some part of the principal or
capital, if necessary, for the support of the wid-
ow and the maintenance and education of the
children. In re Oertle, 24 N. W. 924, 34 Minn.
173.
Legal or equitable.
434. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 87, providing
that legal or equitable causes of action may be
2049
2050
WORDS AND PHRASES.
united in the same complaint. Includes every-
thing arising out of the same transaction or
transactions, connected with the same subject of
action, where the relief sought may be partly
legal and partly equitable, or wholly of the na-
ture of one or the other.-Montgomery v. Mc-
Ewen, 7 Minn. 351, (Gil. 276.)
Legal process.
435. A foreclosure by advertisement is not le-
gal process.-Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn.
315.
Legal residence.
See § 664, post.
Legal tender notes.
the payment of money only. Means the per-
sonal service of the summons, and proof of
such service, and of the defendant's default.-
Exley v. Berryhill, 33 N. W. 567, 37 Minn. 182.
Limitation.
441. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 60, § 24, providing
that the limitation upon an existing contract
shall commence from the time the last payment
is made thereon. The limitation within which
an action can be brought on the contract as
made originally between the parties.-Whit-
aker v. Rice, 9 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
List.
442. In statutes requiring a tax assessor to
"list" property for taxation. To describe prop-
cording to its character, to what particular
property the valuation relates.-Thompson v.
Davidson, 15 Minn. 412, (Gil. 333.)
436. In an indictment charging larceny oferty so as to show, more or less definitely, ac-
"United States legal tender notes."
Means genu-
ine and current treasury notes.-State v. Beebe,
17 Minn. 241, (Gil. 218.)
Less.
See § 475, post.
Let.
See § 210, supra.
Liable.
Local.
443. The words "local" and "vicinity," used
in connection with assessments, are not to be
taken as indicating any definite limits, but are
usually understood to extend to the real prop-
erty reported by the assessors to be actually
benefited to a certain amount.-State v. Dis-
trict Court of Ramsey County, 23 N. W. 222,
33 Minn. 295.
Local improvements.
437. In Const. Minn. art. 10, § 3, providing
that each stockholder in any corporation (with
certain exceptions) "shall be liable to the
amount of stock held or owned by him." Means 444. The term "local improvements" is com-
that the liability of the stockholders, in addi-monly applied to the grading, curbing, and
tion to the corporate liability for debts, shall be paving of streets.-Rogers v. City of St. Paul,
a sum equal to the amount of stock owned or 22 Minn. 494.
held by them.-Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation
Co., (Minn.) 50 N. W. 1110.
Liability.
438. In the mechanic's lien law, (Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 90, § 14,) providing that execu-
tors have the same rights and are subject to the
same liabilities that their testator would be or
might have if living. Means the liability to
have the lien preserved and continued by the fil-
ing of an account, and by bringing an action up-
on such account according to the course of legal
proceedings in like cases.-Cummings v. Hal-
sted, 1 N. W. 1052, 26 Minn. 151.
License.
439. Relating to the use of land. Is a mere
power or authority, founded on personal confi-
dence, not assignable, and revocable at pleas-
ure, unless subsidiary to a valid grant, to the
beneficial enjoyment of which its exercise is
necessary, or unless executed under such cir-
cumstances as to warrant the interposition of
equity.-Johnson v. Skillman, 12 N. W. 149, 29
Minn. 95.
Lien.
See §§ 405, 406, supra.
Like service and proof.
440. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 210,
allowing judgment upon default to be entered
in certain actions upon "like service and
proof" as in an action arising on contract for
V.2M.DIG.-65
445. In Const. Minn. art. 9, § 1, as amended
in 1869, allowing municipal corporations to levy
assessments for local improvements. Means
improvements made in a particular locality by
which the real property adjoining or near such
locality is specially benefited.-Rogers v. City
of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 494.
446. Sprinkling a street is a local improve-
ment, within the meaning of the constitutional
provision.-State v. Reis, 38 N. W. 97, 38
Minn. 371.
Local taxation.
447. In Const. Minn. art. 11, § 5, giving coun-
ty or township organizations power of local
taxation. The taxation of property, properly
subject thereto, in the place where such local
exist.
organizations
Davidson V. County
Com'rs Ramsey County, 18 Minn. 482, (Gil.
432.)
Lot.
448. In the statute relating to homesteads.
Is to be taken in the sense of a city, town, or
village lot, according to the survey and plat of
the city, town, or village where the property is
situated.-Wilson v. Proctor, S N. W. S30, 28
Minn. 13; Lundberg v. Sharvey, 49 N. W. 60,
46 Minn. 350.
449. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, § 1, al-
lowing a mechanic's lien upon a house and the
lot upon which it is erected, etc. Is synony-
2051
2052
WORDS AND PHRASES.
mous with "tract" or "parcel."-North Star | purposes at any election which may be held at
Iron Works Co. v. Strong, 21 N. W. 740, 33
Minn. 1.
450. The word denotes one single parcel of
land lying in a body, known and treated by
usage or otherwise as one tract, and as being
the lot, tract, or parcel which the parties natu-
rally understood as that which would appertain
to or be connected with building or buildings
after they should be erected.-Lax v. Peterson,
44 N. W. 3, 42 Minn. 214.
Lots as surveyed.
451. In a power of attorney, authorizing the
sale of real estate in lots as surveyed. Con-
strued as meaning small parcels as_surveyed
and designated on a plat.-Rice v. Tavernier,
8 Minn. 248, (Gil. 214.)
Lottery.
452. A scheme by a merchant tailor whereby
clubs were formed for the distribution of
suits of clothing, of a stipulated value, under
nominal contracts of purchase, the payment of
a weekly installment entitling the holders of
tickets to participate in weekly drawings by
lot, with the chance of securing goods of the
value of $40 at any drawing, without further
additional payments than the weekly install-
ments then paid, is a lottery, within Pen. Code
Minn. § 282, declaring and defining a lottery to
be a scheme for the distribution of property by
chance among persons who have paid, or
agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the
chance, whether called a "lottery," "raffle,"
"gift enterprise," or any other name.-State v.
Moren, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 618.
Maintain.
453. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 68, § 3, allowing
personal representatives of one whose death is
caused by the wrongful act of another to main-
tain an action, etc. To commence, institute, or
begin.-Boutiller v. Steamboat Milwaukee, 8
Minn. 97, (Gil. 72.)
Majority.
454. In Const. Minn. art. 11, § 1, providing
that laws removing county seats shall be sub-
mitted to the electors of the county at the
next general election, and be adopted by a
majority of such electors. The words "majority
of such electors" mean a majority of the
electors voting at such election.-Taylor
Taylor, 10 Minn. 107, (Gil. 81;) Bayard v.
Klinge, 16 Minn. 249, (Gil. 221;) Everett v.
Smith, 22 Minn. 53.
V.
455. The words cannot be construed as mean-
ing a majority of those voting on the particular
question.-Bayard v. Klinge, 16 Minn. 249,
(Gil. 221.)
456. In Const. Minn. art. 14, § 1, relating to
amendments to the constitution, the require-
ment that "a majority of the voters present and
voting shall have ratified such alterations or
amendments" means a majority of the voters
who are present, and vote upon the proposition
submitted to the electors, without respect to
those who may be present and vote for other
the same time and place at which the proposi-
tion may, for reasons of convenience or other
reasons, be submitted; and that those who
may, at such time and place, come and vote
for other purposes only, are not to be regarded
as present and voting, so far as respects the
proposed amendments.-Dayton v. City of St.
Paul, 22 Minn. 400.
457. Majority of stockholders means a ma-
jority per capita, where the right to vote is
per capita; and a majority of stock, where each
share of stock is entitled to one vote.-Mower
V. Staples, 20 N. W. 225, 32 Minn. 284.
See, also, § 799, post.
Make.
458. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1883, c. 281, au-
thorizing the city of Minneapolis to acquire
land for public parks, make assessments upon
lands benefited thereby, the provision empow
ering the court to make or order a new assess-
ment means to order to be made, or to revise,
correct, or amend the original assessment.-
State v. District Court, Hennepin County, 22
N. W. 625, 33 Minn. 235.
Malice.
459. Such as will authorize exemplary dam-
ages. Implies that the act complained of was
in the spirit of mischief, or of criminal indiffer-
ence to civil obligation.-Seeman v. Feeney, 19
Minn. 79, (Gil. 54.)
Manual labor.
460. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, § 63, giv-
ing a lien to persons performing manual labor,
in cutting, etc., logs and timber. Includes the
use and earnings of all implements, instrumen-
talities, or agencies, such
or agencies, such as axe, cant-hook,
team, or the like, which are actually used in
and necessary to the performance of such labor
by the lumberman or logger.-Martin v. Wake-
field, 43 N. W. 966, 42 Minn. 176.
Marketable title.
461. A title clearly shown to be good; one
free from reasonable doubt.-Richmond v.
Koenig, 45 N. W. 1093, 43 Minn. 480.
462. A title, as to the validity of which there
is a reasonable doubt, is unmarketable.-Hed-
derly v. Johnson, 44 N. W. 527, 42 Minn. 443.
Market hours.
463. There is no natural period known as
"market hours," as the words are used in the
provisions of the charter of the city of St.
Paul, (Sp. Laws Minn. 1881, c. 93, § 15,) relat-
ing to markets.-State v. Municipal Court of
St. Paul, 20 N. W. 243, 32 Minn. 329.
Matter or proceeding.
464. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 49, § 4, pro-
viding that "the jurisdiction acquired by any
probate court over a matter or proceeding is
exclusive of that of any other probate court, ex-
cept when otherwise provided by law." Includes
the administration of an estate.-Culver v. Har-
denbergh. 33 N. W. 792, 37 Minn. 225.
2053
2054
WORDS AND PHRASES.
May.
465. In its primary and common use, is not im-
perative, but enabling only. In statutes it means
"must" and "shall" only in cases when the public
interests or the rights of third parties require it
to be so construed.-Lovell v. Wheaton, 11 Minn.
92, (Gil. 57.)
466. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 85, § 15, relating to
arbitration, and providing that the award may
be returned at any term or session of the court
that may be held within the time limited by the
submission. "May" does not mean "must" or
"shall."-Lovell v. Wheaton, 11 Minn. 92, (Gil.
57.)
467. In Gen. St. Minn. c. 90, § 18, providing a
form of oath to the account in a mechanic's lien
suit that may be used, the obvious intent is that,
though the form need not literally be followed, it
must be conformed to in substance.-Clark v.
Schatz, 24 Minn. 300.
468. In Laws Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 124, provid-
ing that a certificate of tax sale may be in a
prescribed form. "May" is equivalent to "shall."
-Gilfillan v. Hobart, 28 N. W. 222, 35 Minn.
185.
Memorandum of sale.
See §§ 138, 139, supra.
Mental anguish.
469. The mental anguish, like physical pain,
to be taken into consideration in actions for per-
sonal injuries, is such only as is endured by
plaintiff in consequence of the injury, and does
not extend to anxiety respecting the safety of
others.-Keyes v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 N. W. 888, 36 Minn. 290.
Merits.
470. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 81, § 11, allowing
an appeal from an order involving the merits of
the action, the words "involving the merits"
mean "the strict legal rights of the parties, as
contradistinguished from those mere questions
of practice which every court regulates for it-
self, and from all matters which depend upon
discretion or favor of the court. "-Chouteau v.
Parker, 2 Minn. 118, (Gil. 95.)
More.
474. From October 3d, the date of a vacancy
in an office of judge, to November 3d, the date
of an election to fill such vacancy, is not more
than 30 days, within Const. Minu. art. 6, § 10,
providing that such a vacancy shall be filled at
the first annual election that occurs more than
30 days thereafter.-State v. Brown, 22 Minn.
482.
More or less.
475. In a description in a deed. The words
are controlled by the definite calls, and are imma-
terial.-Austrian v. Dean, 23 Minn. 62.
Mortgage.
See § 197, supra.
Mortgagee in possession.
See §§ 569-571, post.
Municipal corporations.
476. Includes such quasi corporations as coun-
ties or towns, as well as cities.-Dowlan v. Sib-
ley County, 31 N. W. 517, 36 Minn. 430; and
see cases cited.
Municipal regulations.
See § 94, supra.
Murder.
477. At common law. "When a person of sound
mind, memory, and discretion unlawfully killeth
any reasonable creature in being and under the
king's peace, with malice aforethought, either ex-
press or implied." [Coke.]-Bonfanti v. State,
2 Minn. 123, (Gil. 99.)
Must.
478. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, § 41, providing
that an action "must be tried in the county in
which the parties, or one of them, reside at the
commencement of the action." Is not mandato-
ry.-Merrill v. Shaw, 5 Minn. 148, (Gil. 113.)
Natural.
479. The natural state of a stream is that state
in which the stream is, under the ordinary oper-
ation of the physical laws which affect it.-Dor-
man v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
471. So, also, in the like provision of Gen. St. | Navigability.
Minn. 1866, c. 86, § S, subd. 3.-Holmes v.
Campbell, 13 Minn. 66, (Gil. 58.)
Mesne profits.
472. The profits or other pecuniary benefits
which one who dispossesses the true owner re-
ceives between disseisin and the restoration of
possession.-Nash v. Sullivan, 20 N. W. 144, 32
Minn. 189.
Minor heirs.
473. In Rev. St. U. S. § 2292, concerning a
land patent to minor heirs. Children under 21
years of age.-Anderson v. Peterson, 32 N. W❘
861, 36 Minn. 547
Money.
See §§ 604-608, post.
See § 566, post.
Necessaries.
480. As applied to a wife. Not confined to ar-
ticles of food and clothing required to sustain life
or preserve decency, but include such articles of
utility, or even ornament, as are suitable to
maintain the wife according to the estate and
rank of her husband.-Bergh v. Warner, 50 N.
W. 77, 47 Minn. 250.
Negative pregnant.
481. A negative that implies an affirmative.-
Stone v. Quaal, 29 N. W. 326, 36 Minn. 46.
Negotiable.
482. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 124, § 17, mak-
ing bills of lading negotiable. Does not mean ne-
2055
2056
WORDS AND PHRASES.
gotiable in the sense that bills or notes are ne-
gotiable, but merely makes a transfer and deliv-
ery of them equivalent, for certain purposes, to a
transfer and delivery of the property.-National
Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
46 N. W. 342, 560, 44 Minn. 224; Same v. Wis-
consin Cent. Co., Id.; Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.
T. L. T. Sowle Elevator Co., Id.; Wisconsin
Cent. Co. v. Same, Id.
Negotiating.
483. In Rev. St. U. S. § 5136, authorizing na-
tional banks to carry on, among other things, the
business of negotiating promissory notes. Is
used, in its ordinary, appropriate, transitive sense,
to indicate, not an act of purchase, but one of
transfer, whereby the negotiated paper is passed
from the owner or holder and put into circula-
tion. First Nat. Bank of Rochester v. Pierson,
24 Minn. 140.
New matter constituting a defense.
484. In the provision of the Code that an an-
swer may contain "a statement of any new mat-
ter constituting a defense.' Has the same mean-
ing as "matter in confession and avoidance.".
Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194, (Gil. 179;) Craig
v. Cook, 9 N. W. 712, 28 Minn. 232.
485. The defense of a former recovery is new
matter within the meaning of the provision.-
Bowe v. Minnesota Milk Co., 47 N. W. 151, 44
Minn. 460.
486. Within the meaning of Pub. St. Minn. c.
60, § 75, requiring a reply to new matter in an
answer, matter affirmatively pleaded as a de-
fense is new matter; but that which amounts
merely to a traverse of the complaint is not.
Nash v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 174, (Gil.
110.)
New road.
487. A road open to public travel is not, with-
in the proviso to Laws Minn. 1887, c. 13, § 1,
exempting a railway company from liability for
damages sustained by an employe while engaged
in the construction of a new road, etc.-Schnei-
der v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 43 N. W. 783,
42 Minn. 68.
488. The construction of a railway yard, and
tracks therein, to be used in connection with and
as a part of a railroad line, is not a construction
of a new road, or any part thereof, within that
proviso.-Moran v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minneso-
ta, (Minn.) 50 N. W. 930.
Newspaper.
489. In the ordinary understanding of the
word, a newspaper is a publication which usually
contains, among other things, the current general
news of the day, and is intended for general cir-
culation, and adapted to the general reader.-
Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minu. 146.
490. The "Northwestern Reporter," a weekly
publication purporting to be, and, in fact, "de-
voted specially to the interests of the legal pro-
fession," the usual contents of which were the
general laws of the state of Minnesota, published
shortly after their passage, the decisions of the
supreme court of the state and of the supreme
court of Wisconsin, and occasional decisions of
other courts, a court directory, cards of attorneys
and counselors at law, a list of transfers of real
estate in Ramsey county, Minn., advertisements
and notices of law books, and about a page of
miscellaneous business advertisements and legal
anecdotes, was not a newspaper, within the
meaning of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 65, § 15, pro-
viding that the publication of a summons is-
sued by a justice of the peace should be "made
in a newspaper published in the county," etc.-
Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minn. 146.
lication, usually in sheet form, intended for gen-
491. In a general sense, a newspaper is a pub-
eral circulation, and published regularly at short
current
intervals, containing intelligence of
King, 37 N. W. 792, 38 Minn. 349.
events, and news of general interest.-Hull v.
492. A religious weekly, devoting a portion of
its space to news of general interest, is a news-
paper, within the meaning of Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 81, § 5, requiring the publication of a
notice of sale in foreclosure by advertisement "in
a newspaper," etc.-Hull v. King, 37 N. W. 792,
38 Minn. 349.
See, also, § 182, supra.
New trial.
493. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 253,
specifying the causes for a new trial. A retrial
of issues of fact.-Dodge v. Bell, 34 N. W. 739,
37 Minn. 382.
Next before.
notice of an administrator's sale for such period
494. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 57, § 35, requiring
"three weeks successively next before such sale,
does not mean that the three weeks must expire
the day before such sale; it is not objectionable
if four days elapse after the three weeks, and
before the sale.-Wilson v. Thompson, 3 N. W.
699, 26 Minn. 299.
Noise.
495. In a city ordinance prohibiting noise, etc.
Construed to mean unreasonable noise.-State v.
Cantieuy, 24 N. W. 458, 34 Minn. 1.
Nonresident.
496. "A nonresident debtor," within Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 66, relating to attachments, may
be a debtor remaining out of the state so long
and under such circumstances as to be a nonres-
ident. But a mere casual or temporary absence
of a debtor from the state on business or pleas-
ure will not render him a nonresident, although
the state.-Keller v. Carr, 42 N. W. 292, 40
he may not have a house or usual abode, within
Minn. 428.
Note of sale.
See §§ 138, 139, supra.
Novation.
497. The essential elements are an extinguish-
ment of an old debt by a mutual agreement be-
tween all parties, whereby it becomes the
obligation of the new debtor.-Cornwell v. Me-
gins, 40 N. W. 610, 39 Minn. 407.
i
2057
2058
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Obligation.
498. A tie which binds one to pay or do some
thing agreeably to the laws and customs of the
country in which the obligation is made; the in-
strument or writing by which a contract is wit-
nessed; a deed whereby a man binds himself
under a penalty to do a thing; and in its most
technical signification imports a sealed instru-
ment. (Bouv. Law Dict.)—Morrison v. Lovejoy,
6 Minn. 319, (Gil. 224.)
499. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 30, § 71, allowing a
counterclaim in an action arising on obligation.
Means contract.-Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn.
319, (Gil. 224.)
500. In its general sense, obligation is syn-
onymous with duty.-Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6
Minn. 319, (Gil. 224.)
501. "Obligation" construed to have been
used in an instruction to the jury with respect
to carelessness as meaning "duty."-Sibilrud v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 11 N. W. 146, 29
Minn. 58.
Obstruct.
502. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 94, § 63, pro-
viding that whoever shall willfully obstruct any
engine, etc., upon a railroad, shall be punished,
etc. To put obstructions on a railway in such
a manner as is likely to cause disaster to en-
gines, etc., using it, and endanger the safety of
those conveyed, although no disaster actually
results.-State v. Kilty, 10 N. W. 475, 28 Minn.
421.
Obstructed.
See §.346, supra.
Occupancy and residence.
503. In the homestead exemption laws of
Minnesota. Refers to an actual occupancy of
the premises, and an actual residence thereon
as a home or a dwelling place. Quehl v. Peter-
son, 49 N. W. 390, 47 Minn. 13.
Occupant.
504. In the townsite act. Does not necessar-
ily mean one personally occupying the land.
The occupation may be by a representative.
Carson v. Smith, 12 Minn. 546, (Gil. 458,) fol-
lowing Leech v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448, (Gil.
332.)
Occupied.
505. Gen. St. Miun. 1878, c. 11, § 5, subd. 6,
exempting from taxation "buildings belonging
to public institutions of purely public charity,
મ ** together with the land actually occu-
pied by such institutions." Includes not only
the building and the ground covered by it, but
adjacent ground which is reasonably necessary
or appropriate to the purposes and objects in
view, and which is used directly for the promo-
tion and accomplishment of the same.-Henne-
pin County v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 8
N. W. 595, 27 Minn. 460.
Offense.
506. In its legal sense, imports an infraction
or transgression of a law; the willful doing of
an act which is forbidden by law, or omitting
to do what it commands.-State v. Oleson, 5 N.
W. 959, 26 Minn. 507.
507. A breach of the laws established for the
protection of the public, as distinguished from
an infringement of mere private rights; a pun-
ishable violation of law. State v. Cantieny, 24
N. W. 458, 34 Minn. 1.
508. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 7, providing
for the same offense. Does not include the
that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy
violation of city ordinances.-State v. Lee, 13
N. W. 913, 29 Minn. 445.
See, also, §§ 174–176, ¿upra.
Office.
See § 198, supra.
Officers.
509. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 80, § 23, pro-
viding that if there is no officer to whom an appli-
cation for a writ of habeas corpus can be made,
etc., within the county in which the applicant
is restrained, then it may be made to "some
adjoining county. Includes the court as well
officer having such authority" residing in an
as a judge thereof. In re Doll, 50 N. W. 607,
47 Minn. 518.
See, also, §§ 26, 200, 201, supra.
Officers of schools.
510. In Const. Minn. art. 7, § 8, as amended
in 1875, allowing women to vote for officers of
schools, means one whose office pertains solely
to the management of schools.-State v. Gor-
ton, 23 N. W. 529, 33 Minn. 345.
Omission.
511. Failure to appoint commissioners for
more than seven years is an omission to ap-
point, within the meaning of Pub. St. Minn.
c. 44, § 59, providing that the omission to ap-
point commissioners to allow claims against the
estate of a deceased person will not prevent the
prosecution of the claims against the executor,
etc.-Wilkinson v. Winne's Estate, 15 Minn.
159, (Gil. 123.)
Open and current.
512. An open and current account is one not
closed, settled, or stated, but running.-Taylor
v. Parker, 17 Minn. 469, (Gil. 447.)
Operation of the dam.
513. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, tit. 8,
relating to the operation of sluice dams. Con-
sists in controlling the water by means of the
dam, and in opening the sluiceway for the pas-
sage of logs when wanted.-Anderson v.
Munch, 13 N. W. 192, 29 Minn. 414.
Opportunity.
514. A fit and convenient time; a time favor-
able for the purpose; a convenience or fitness
of time and place. (Webst. Dict.) - In
Hause, 19 N. W. 973, 32 Minn. 155.
Opportunity to be heard.
re
515. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 49, § 14, pro-
viding that a party not appearing in the probate
2059
2060
WORDS AND PHRASES.
court can only appeal where he has not had due | periods of the year.-Ames v. Cannon River
notice, or an opportunity to be heard. Means Manuf'g Co., 6 Ñ. W. 787, 27 Minn. 245.
such opportunity as the party is entitled to by
law. In re Hause, 19 N. W. 973, 32 Minn. Organized-Established.
155. See In re Brown's Will, 21 Ń. W. 474,
32 Minn. 443.
516. The phrase refers to some act or omis-
sion in the proceedings which has deprived the
party of his full legal rights in the premises.-
În re Hause, 19 N. W. 973, 32 Minn. 155.
Or.
517. In Laws Minn. 1881, c. 148, § 2, provid-
ing that a receiver may be appointed when it
shall appear that a debtor is insolvent, "or" has
been giving or is about to give a preference to
any creditor, should be construed "and."-Wes-
ton v. Loyhed, 14 N. W. 892, 30 Minn. 221.
518. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 33, pro-
viding that the owner of land, across which a
railroad has been constructed, may recover his
land and damages, where no proceedings under
the law have been instituted, "or" are pending,
to ascertain and assess compensation. Is to be
construed in a conjunctive sense.-Kanne v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 N. W. 854,
33 Minn. 419.
519. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1885, c. 7, § 19,
amending the charter of the city of St. Paul, and
providing that no action for injuries received by
means of any defect in the condition of any
bridge, etc., shall be maintained, unless com-
menced within one year, etc., "or" unless cer-
tain notice is given to officers of the city. Should
be read as "nor."-Maylone v. City of St. Paul,
42 N. W. 88, 40 Minn. 406.
Order.
See §§ 294-297, supra.
Ordinance.
See § 94, supra.
Ordinary care.
520. In the law of negligence. Such care as
persons of ordinary care and prudence would ex-
ercise under similar circumstances. Care com-
mensurate with the risks of the situation.-Hall
v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 49 N. W. 239, 46
Minn. 439.
Ordinary course of law.
521. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 80, § 3, pro-
viding that a mandamus shall not issue where
there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. Refers to injune-
tion.-Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17
Minn. 215, (Gil. 188.)
See, also, § 235, supra.
Ordinary stage of water.
522. As defining the height to which a riparian
proprietor may raise or set back the water. of
the stream. Includes its stage or level in such
rises or high water as are usual, ordinary, and
reasonably to be anticipated, but not to include
its. stage or level in such extraordinary freshets
as cannot reasonably be anticipated at particular
523. The distinction between "organized" coun-
ties and "established" counties, recognized under
the constitution and statutes of Minnesota, is
that the establishing of a county is the setting
apart of territory to be in future organized as a
political community or quasi corporation for
political purposes, while the "organizing" is the
vesting the people of such territory with such
corporate rights and powers.-State v. Parker,
25 Minn. 215.
Original jurisdiction.
524. In Rev. St. Minn. art. 2, c. 69, § 3, as
amended by section 5, Amend. 1851, p. 6, limit-
ing the jurisdiction of the district court, and con-
ferring upon it original jurisdiction in certain
cases. Means jurisdiction to entertain in the
first instance.-Castner v. Chandler, 2 Minn. 86,
(Gil. 68.)
525. In Laws Minn. 1862, c. 18, providing
that the several district courts of the state shall
have original jurisdiction in all cases of manda-
mus. Does not mean exclusive jurisdiction.
Crowell v. Lambert, 10 Minn. 369, (Gil. 295.)
Other.
526. In Act Minn. Aug. 12, 1858, exempting
from execution certain tools and instruments of
mechanics, miners, or other persons. The words
whose trade or business tools or implements are
"or other persons" mean those to the exercise of
necessary, used, or kept for the purpose of carry-
ing on their trade or business.-Grimes v. Bryne,
2 Minn. 89, (Gil. 72.)
527. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 269, pro-
viding that whoever shall carry off wood, etc.,
or other personal property of another person,
without lawful authority, shall be liable to the
owner thereof in treble damages. The words
"other personal property" mean things ejusdem
generis with those enumerated.-Berg v. Bald-
win, 18 N. W. 821, 31 Minn. 541.
528. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 34, § 45, as
amended by Laws 1873, c. 13, authorizing the
formation of corporations to engage in certain
specified kinds of business, "or other lawful bus-
iness," includes any kind of business for pecunia-
ry profit, not enumerated, or which may have
been omitted from those specified.-Brown v.
Corbin, 42 N. W. 481, 40 Minn. 508.
529. "Other," as used in the charter of the
city of St. Paul, c. 4, § 3, subd. 18, (Sp, Laws
Minn. 1874, c. 1, § 3,) conferring power to estab-
lish markets and other public buildings, shows
that "markets" was used in a restricted sense, to
designate public buildings erected and devoted
to the use of receiving for sale and purchase
such marketable articles for daily use and con-
sumption as might be wanted to supply the in-
habitants of the city.-City of St. Paul v. Trae-
ger, 25 Minn. 248.
530. "Other," as used in Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 46, § 3, providing that the share of real
2061
2062
WORDS AND PHRASES.
540. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 62, § 9, allowing
disbursements for printing "papers on appeal.
Long, duplicate arguments are not within the
meaning of the words.-Hart v. Marshall, 4
Minn. 552, (Gil. 434.)
estate taken by a surviving husband or wife | Papers on appeal.
shall be subject in proportion with the other
real estate to the decedent's debts, implies that
the real estate which is to share with it the
burden of paying debts is also the property of
the deceased, which would not include property
conveyed by him or her during life.-Goodwin
v. Kumm, 45 N. W. 853, 43 Minn. 403.
Out of the state.
531. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 57, § 50, pro-
viding that "persons out of the state" may com-
mence an action to recover real estate, sold by
an executor or administrator, within five years
after their return to the state, extends to per-
sons who have always resided abroad.-Jordan
r. Secombe, 22 N. W. 383, 33 Minn. 220.
Overdue.
532. As applied to a demand bill of exchange,
and used in reference to a right of action
against a drawer or indorser. Such a bill is not
overdue until presentment for payment and
payment refused. It may be due, however,
though never in fact presented to the drawer
for payment; as where retained for a long time
without presentment.-La Due v. First Nat.
Bank of Kasson, 16 N. W. 426, 31 Minn. 33.
Owner.
533. In a petition for the appointment of
commissioners to condemn lands. Construed to
mean the owner in fee.-St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co. v. Matthews, 16 Minn. 341, (Gil. 303.)
534. In replevin. Does not necessarily im-
port general or absolute ownership, but may be
having the possessory title.-Miller v.
Adamson, 47 N. W. 452, 45 Minn. 99.
one
535. In the mechanic's lien law of August
12, 1858, giving a lien to one who furnishes ma-
terials, etc., for erecting, etc., a building, by
contract with the owner thereof. Includes the
equitable as well as the legal owner.-Atkins v.
Little, 17 Minn. 342, (Gil. 320.)
536. The similar provision of Gen. St. Minn.
1878, c. 90, § 1, includes a qualified owner, and
does not mean an absolute owner. Benjamin
v. Wilson, 26 N. W. 725, 34 Minn. 517.
537. As used in the homestead act. May in-
clude an equitable ownership.-Wilder V.
Haughey, 21 Minn. 101.
Partition.
541. A decree on final distribution in the pro-
bate court is a partition, within the meaning of
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 56, § 1, providing that,
before partition of an estate, an allowance shall
be made for the children under seven years of
age.-Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494, (Gil.
447;) Greenwood v. Murray, 9 N. W. 629, 28
Minn. 120.
Part payment.
542. Equivalent to the words "payment of a
part."-Young v. Perkins, 12 N. W. 515, 29
Minn. 173.
Part performance,
liance on a contract, either in performance or
543. "Part performance." Proceeding in re-
pursuance of it, so as to so alter the party's
position as to incur an unjust and unconscien-
tious injury and loss, is a part performance of
an_oral agreement, within the statute of frauds.
-Brown v. Hoag, 29 N. W. 135, 35 Minn. 373..
Party.
544. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 285,
authorizing an action to set aside a fraudulent
judgment, etc., to be brought by "the party ag-
grieved." Means a party to the action in
which the judgment was recovered.-Stewart
v. Duncan, 42 N. W. 89, 40 Minn. 410.
545. In Pub. St. Minn. 1849--1858, c. 50, § 3,
providing that contracts for the sale of goods for
the price of $50 or more shall be in writing,
signed by the parties to be charged therewith.
Does not mean all the parties to the writing,
but only those to be charged.-Morin v. Martz,
13 Minn. 191, (Gil. 180.)
Patent.
546. A monopoly or exclusive right to an in-
vention, not existing at the common law, but
by special grant from the government.-Deane
v. Hodge, 27 N. W. 917, 35 Minn. 146.
Patent ambiguity.
547. Exists where the mere perusal of an in-
538. In Laws Minn. March 10, 1860, provid-strument shows plainly that something more
ing that the removal of the owner of a home- must be added before the reader can determine
stead therefrom will not render such homestead which of several things is meant by it.-Mc-
liable or subject to forced sale on execution. Nair v. Toler, 5 Minn. 435, (Gil. 356.)
Applies only to a person who has dwelt upon
the homestead.-Kresin v. Mau, 15 Minn. 116, Patent medicines.
(Gil. 87.)
Paid.
548. Medicines, prepared for immediate use
by the public, put up in packages or bottles,
labeled with the name, and accompanied with
539. In Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 7, pro- wrappers containing directions for their use,
viding that a judgment and sale (for taxes) and the conditions for which they are specifics.
shall be void upon proof that such taxes shall-State v. Donaldson, 42 N. W. 781, 41 Minn.
have been paid. Embraces the meaning of the
words "satisfied by payment, redemption, or
sale," which, in section 1, define conditions au-
thorizing proceedings under the act.-Forrest v.
Henry, 23 N. W. 848, 33 Minn. 434.
74.
Payable.
549. In a certificate of deposit "payable" in
bonds. Equivalent to the expressions, "to be
2063
2064
WORDS AND PHRASES.
paid," or, "which I agree to pay."-Easton v. | gage foreclosure upon all parties against whom
Hyde, 13 Minn. 90, (Gil. 83.)
Pecuniary liability.
550. An agreement by a county to issue
county orders upon the completion of a jail is a
pecuniary liability, within the meaning of Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 78, prohibiting a county
from incurring pecuniary liability that will neces-
sitate the levy of a tax exceeding ten mills on the
dollar.-Johnston v. Board of Com'rs of Becker
County, 6 N. W. 411, 27 Minn. 64.
Peddling.
551. In a city ordinance forbidding peddling
within the city without a license. Selling meat
from a wagon, and soliciting orders therefor
from house to house, is peddling, although the
purchasers had been accustomed to buy in such
manner, and the seller had a meat-shop in the
city.-City of Duluth v. Krupp, 49 N. W. 235,
46 Minn. 435.
Penalty.
552. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, tit. 2,
limiting the time for bringing an action upon a
statute for a penalty, given, in whole or in
part, to a person who prosecutes for the same.
Embraces penal statutes, which involve the
feature of affording a private remedy to the
party aggrieved, by giving to him in whole or in
part the penalty which is imposed for the vio-
lation of the law.-Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Chicago v. Northwestern Manuf'g & Car Co.,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 117.
Perils of navigation.
553. As an excepted liability of a common
carrier. Such perils as cannot be foreseen or
avoided in the exercise of care and prudence.
Christenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn.
270, (Gil. 208.)
554. A snag in a river may be a "peril of
navigation," against liability for which a carrier
can contract.-Christenson v. American Express
Co., 15 Minn. 270, (Gil. 208.)
Permanent.
555. A hospital which is in a continuing and
lasting condition is "permanent," in the ordi-
nary sense of the word.-Atwater v. Russell,
(Minn.) 51 N. W. 629.
Person.
556. In the statutes relating to tax sales
(Laws Mian. 1874, c. 1, § 130; Laws 1875, c. 5,
33.) providing that the payment of an insufli-
cient amount for the purpose of redemption
shall not invalidate the redemption, but that
the auditor shall be liable for the deficiency to
the person entitled thereto. May be construed
to include the state; Gen. St. 1878, c. 4, § 1,
subd. 11, providing that "person" may extend
and be applied to bodies politic and corporate.
Forrest v. Henry, 23 N. W. 848, 33 Minn.
434.
See, also, § 260, supra.
Personal judgment.
557. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, tit. 2,
§ 28, allowing service of a summons in mort-
no personal judgment is sought, etc. Means a
money judgment for the mortgage debt.-Bard-
well v. Collins, 46 N. W. 315, 44 Minn. 97.
Personal property.
558. An assignment of all personal property
does not carry with it insurance policies there-
on.-White v. Robbins, 21 Minn. 370.
Personal representative.
559. An agent of heirs is not their personal
representative, within the meaning of Pub. St.
sale in foreclosure upon a personal representa-
Minn. c. 63, § 32, requiring service of notice of
tive of the mortgagor, residing within the coun-
ty where the mortgaged premises are situated.
Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 512, (Gil. 423;)
Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 45, (Gil. 30.)
560. The term "personal representatives,"
as used in a will, is synonymous with “execu-
tors or administrators," if nothing in the con-
text controls otherwise.-Boutiller v. Steamboat
Milwaukee, 8 Minn. 97, (Gil. 72.)
561. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 68, § 3, authorizing
an action by personal representatives for per-
sonal injuries, after the death of the party in-
jured. The term includes an administrator.-
Boutiller v. Steamboat Milwaukee, 8 Minn. 97,
(Gil. 72.)
Personal services.
See § 691, post.
Pint.
of liquor. Means one pint, no more.-State v.
562. In an indictment for selling "one pint"
Lavake, 6 N. W. 339, 26 Minn. 526; State v.
Bach, 30 N. W. 764, 36 Minn. 234.
Place.
563. "Place," merely naming a town in which
a sale is to be made, does not comply with Gen.
St. Minn. 1866, c. 57, § 35, requiring notice of
the time and place of an administrator's sale to
be published, etc.-Hartley v. Croze, 37 N. W.
449, 38 Minn. 325.
Pleadings.
564. The written allegations of what is af-
firmed on the one side, or denied on the other,
disclosing to the court or jury who have to try
the cause the real matter in dispute between
the parties.-Desnoyer v. L'Hereux, 1 Minn.
17, (Gil. 1.)
565. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 131, pro-
viding that intervention shall be by complaint,
and that all the pleadings therein shall be gov-
erned by the same principles and rules as obtain
in other pleadings, refers to and allows a course
of pleadings analogous to the ordinary plead-
ings in civil actions, including demurrer.-Shep-
ard v. Murray County, 24 N. W. 291, 33 Minn.
519.
Point of navigability.
566. In reference to the rights of a riparian
owner. Is not to be understood in the narrow
2065
2066
WORDS AND PHRASES.
1
sense of being limited to that point where the
waters of the stream may be navigable for some
purposes at certain stages of water, but must
have reference not only to an ordinarily low
stage of water, but also to the size and kind of
vessels which navigate the stream, and the kind
of business done upon it.-Union Depot, Street
Ry. & Transfer Co. of Stillwater v. Brunswick,
17 N. W. 626, 31 Minn. 297.
Point or question.
567. In Laws Minn. 1861, c. 25, p. 136, re-
quiring a judge to give his decision in writing
upon each point or question submitted to him.
Means, in case of demurrer, one of the grounds
of demurrer specified in the statutes.-Com-
monwealth Ins. Co. v. Pierro, 6 Minn. 569,
(Gil. 404.)
Points and authorities.
See § 92, supra.
Police regulation.
568. In its limited sense and common ac-
ceptation, relates to public order, health, etc.-
State v. Lee, 13 N. W. 913, 29 Minn. 445.
Policy.
See §§ 138, 139, supra.
Possession.
•
569. The use of the words "so possessed,"
"in possession as aforesaid," after an allegation
in a complaint of ownership and possession
under such title, sufficiently conveys the mean-
ing that plaintiff was owner and possessor at
the time of the injury complained of.-Gould V.
Sub-District No. 3 of Eagle Creek School-
Dist., 7 Minn. 203, (Gil. 145.)
570. Act Minn. March 10, 1873, § 1, provid-
ing that when any person "has peaceably taken
possession" of land under a deed, without notice
of any defects invalidating the same, he shall
not be ejected therefrom until he is compen-
sated for improvements made by him prior to
notice, shall have been tendered, refers to the
time of the making the improvements, and
means when any person at the time of making
the improvements has peaceably taken posses-
sion, etc.-Wilson v. Red Wing School-Dist., 22
Minn. 488.
571. To constitute a mortgagee in possession
the mortgagee must be in possession by agree-
ment or assent of the mortgagor or his assigns,
that he have possession under the mortgage and
because of it.-Rogers v. Benton, 38 N. W. 765,
39 Minn. 39.
See, also, § 686, post.
Power.
572. As distinguished from a franchise, is a
right possessed by all citizens who choose to
engage in a business without legislative grant.-
State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 41
N. W. 1020, 40 Minn. 213.
Power coupled with an interest.
573. To constitute a power coupled with an
interest, there must be an interest in the thing
|
itself which is the subject of the power, and
not merely in that which is produced by the ex-
ercise of the power. Such a power is one in-
grafted on an estate, or in the thing itself, and
the power and the thing must be united and
coexist.-Alworth v. Seymour, 44 N. W. 1030,
42 Minn. 526.
Power to sell.
574. In a power of attorney. Construed to
authorize the attorney to convey.-Farnham v.
Thompson, 26 N. W. 9, 34 Minn. 330.
Power to sell and convey.
575. Power to sell and power to convey are
distinguishable. A person
may give another
authority to sell land without giving him au-
thority to execute conveyances, or he may give
him power to execute conveyances without the
power to make sales, or he may give him pow-
er to do both.-Dayton v. Nell, 45 N. W. 231,
43 Minn. 246.
Practicable.
576. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 118, § 5,
providing that whenever practicable a term of
imprisonment shall be so fixed as to expire be-
tween certain specified dates. Means whenever
it may be done consistently with proper pun-
ishment for the offense.-Mims v. State, 5 N.
W. 369, 26 Minn. 494.
Premeditated design.
577. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 100, § 2, as amend-
ed by Laws 1853, p. 24, prescribing the degree
of murder where the killing was with a pre-
meditated design to effect death. Means or in-
volves an intention.-Bonfanti v. State, 2 Minn.
123, (Gil. 99.)
578. The expressions "intentionally," and
"with premeditated design," in Gen. St. Minn.
1866, c. 94, relating to homicide, are not used
as synonymous; the latter involving a greater
degree of deliberation and forethought than the
former.-State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 132, (Gil
125.)
Prescribed by law.
579. In Const. Minn. art. 6, § 13, declaring
that the duties of clerks of district courts shall
be prescribed by law. Means prescribed by
both statutory and common law.-Walter v.
Greenwood, 12 N. W. 145, 29 Minn. 87.
Present.
580. To present an indictment means to lay
before a court; to indict; to give notice offi-
cially of a crime or offense.-State v. Hinckley,
4 Minn. 345, (Gil. 261.)
Presumption.
581. The expressions "raise a presumption,"
"raise a strong presumption," in a charge re-
ferring to evidence, are equivalent to the ex-
pressions, "are strong evidence," or "are evi-
dence of great weight."-McArthur v. Craigie,
22 Minn. 351.
Previous chaste character.
582. A woman who has been previously in the
habit of illicit intercourse, but has reformed,
2067
2068
WORDS AND PHRASES.

bertson v. Fuller, 42 N. W. 203, 40 Minn. 413.
and become chaste from principle, and who is so | M. Ry. Co., 22 N. W. 300, 33 Minn. 189; Gil-
at the time of the act charged, is of "previous
chaste character," within the meaning of Pub.
St. c. 96, § 6, punishing the seduction of such a
woman.-State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325, (Gil.
241.)
583. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 100, § 6, pro-
viding that seduction of an unmarried female
of previous chaste character shall be a felony,
means of chaste character, immediately pre-
vious to the act.-State v. Gates, 6 N. W. 404,
27 Minn. 52.
Prior.
584. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1875, c. 132, provid-
ing that notice of a meeting to vote upon the
question of issuing mutual aid bonds shall be
given "at least ten days prior thereto." Notice
posted on the 13th, for a meeting on the 23d
day of the month, is sufficient.-Coe v. Cale-
donia & M. Ry. Co., 6 N. W. 621, 27 Minn.
197.
See, also, $$ 79, 80, supra.
Privilege.
591. For instituting a civil prosecution or ac-
tion. Such reasons, supported by facts and cir-
cumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in
the belief that his action, and the means taken
in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper.-
Burton v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry Co., 22 N. W.
300, 33 Minn. 189.
Probate.
592. Originally meant relating to proof and
afterwards relating to the proof of wills. In the
American law now a general name or term used
to include all matters of which probate courts.
have jurisdiction, which, in Minnesota, are the
estates of deceased persons, and of persons un-
der guardianship.-Johnson v. Harrisou, 50 N.
W. 923, 47 Minn. 575.
Probate Code.
593. The body or system of law relating to
the estates of deceased persons, and of persons
under guardianship.-Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.
W. 923, 47 Minn. 575.
Proceeding.
585. In Const. Amend. Minn. 1881, prohibiting
the legislature from enacting any special or pri-
vate law, granting any special or exclusive priv-
594. The examination of one charged with a
ilege, etc. A right or immunity granted either crime is a proceeding, within Gen. St. Minn. 1878,
against or beyond the course of the common or. 65, § 20, providing for the transfer of a pro-
general law.-Dike v. State, 38 N. W. 95, 38
Minn. 366.
See, also, § 870, post.
Privileged communication.
586. Between husband and wife. Includes all
conversations between husband and wife, though
on subjects not confidential in their nature. Lep-
pla v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 29 N. W. 127, 35
Minn. 310.
587. In the law of slander and libel. A com-
munication made in good faith upon any subject-
matter in which the party communicating it has
an interest, or in reference to which he has a du-
ty, public or private, either legal, moral, or so-
cial, if made to a person having a corresponding
interest or duty.-Marks v. Baker, 9 N. W. 678,
28 Minn. 162.
Privity.
588. Mutual or successive relationship to the
same rights of property.-Newman v. Home Ins.
Co., 20 Minn. 422, (Gil. 378.)
589. Privity exists between two successive
holders, where the later takes under the earlier,
as by descent, or by will, or grant, or by a vol-
untary transfer of possession.-Sherin v. Brack-
ett, 30 N. W. 551, 36 Minn. 152.
Probable cause.
590. For instituting a criminal prosecution. A
reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged.-Cole v. Curtis, 16 Minn.
182, (Gil. 161;) Casey v. Sevatson, 16 N. W.
407, 30 Minn. 516; Burton v. St. Paul, M. &
ceeding by the justice before whom the same is
pending to another justice.-State v. Bergman,
34 N. W. 737, 37 Minn. 407.
See, also, § 464, supra.
Process.
mous with "proceedings," and means the entire
595. In a large acceptation is nearly synony-
proceedings in an action from the beginning to
the end. In a stricter sense it is applied to the
several judicial writs issued in an action.-Han-
na v. Russell, 12 Miun. 80, (Gil. 43.)
596. Affidavits, recognizances, or justices' re-
turns, are not process, within the meaning of
Schedule B., U. S. Int. Rev. Law 1864, requiring
a stamp duty on process on appeal from justices'
courts.-Dorman v. Bayley, 10 Minn. 383, (Gil.
306.)
597. A summons is not process within the
meaning of Const. Minn. art. 6, § 14, providing
that the style of all process shall be "The State
of Minnesota."-Hanna v. Russell, 12 Minn. 80,
(Gil. 43;) Sherman v. Gundlach, 33 N. W. 549,
37 Minn. 118.
Profits.
598. Of a joint venture. An excess of receipts
over expenditures; net earnings.-Connolly v.
Davidson, 15 Minn. 519, (Gil. 428.)
Promoters.
599. Of a corporation. Those who bring about
its organization.-Battelle v. Northwestern Ce-
ment & Concrete Pavement Co., 33 N. W. 327,
37 Minn. 89.
Proof of loss.
600. In the law of insurance. The statement
of loss which an insured is required to give by
2069
2070
WORDS AND PHRASES.
the terms of the policy.-Cargill v. Millers' &
Manuf'rs' Mut. Ins. Co., 22 N. W. 6, 33 Minn.
90.
Proper county.
601. In Rev. St. Minn. c. 70, § 41, providing
that the court may change the place of trial,
where the county designated in the complaint is
not the proper county. The county where some
of the parties resided at the time of the com-
mencement of the action, or in which defendants
have property liable to attachment.-Merrill v.
Shaw, 5 Minn. 148, (Gil. 113.)
602. In Laws Minn. 1881, c. 40, requiring the
supreme court to transmit the record, etc., in
mandamus proceedings, to the district court of
the proper county. The county where the de-
fendants or one of them reside.-State v. Town
of Lake, 10 N. W. 17, 28 Minn. 362.
Proper probate court.
603. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 38, § 25, relating to
sales by guardians. Has the same meaning as
"probate court of competent jurisdiction" in
section 23.-Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 384,
(Gil. 278.)
See, also, §§ 413–417, supra.
Property.
604. The exclusive right of possessing, en-
joining, and disposing of a thing; ownership; the
thing owned; that to which a person has the le-
gal title, whether in his possession or not.-Ban-
ning v. Sibley, 3 Minn. 389, (Gil: 282.)
605. State railway bonds are property.-Ban-
ning v. Sibley, 3 Minn. 389, (Gil. 282.)
606. The right of a riparian proprietor is prop-
erty.-Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 42 N.
W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144, 43 Minn. 104.
607. The words "property," "money," or "ef-
fects," as used in the statute relating to garnish-
ment, do not include negotiable paper.-Hubbard
v. Williams, 1 Minn. 54, (Gil. 37.)
608. Those words include indebtedness from
the garnishee.-Crone v. Braun, 23 Minn. 239.
Proprietor.
609. An owner. The person who has the legal
right or exclusive title to anything, whether in
possession or not.-Davis v. Murphy, 3 Minn.
119, (Gil. 69.)
Prosecute with effect.
610. In a replevin bond, conditioned that the
action will be so prosecuted." Means with suc-
cess, or to a successful termination.-Boom v.
St. Paul Foundry & Manuf'g Co., 22 N. W. 538,
33 Minn. 253.
611. In an appeal hond, conditioned, as re
quired by Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 53, that appel-
lant shall prosecute his appeal with effect, etc.
Does not mean a prosecution to a successful is-
sue, but with due diligence to a final determina-
tion.-Riley v. Mitchell, 35 N. W. 472, 38
Minn. 9.
Protest.
612. Of a note. Includes in its popular sense
all the steps taken to fix the liability of a drawer
or indorser.-Wolford v. Andrews, 13 N. W.
167, 29 Minn. 250.
Proximate cause.
613. The primary cause may be the proximate
cause of a disaster, though it operate through
successive instruments; as, an article at the end
of a chain may be moved by force applied to the
other end, that force being the proximate cause
of the movement. The question always is, was
there an unbroken connection between the wrong-
ful act and the injury,-a continuous operation?
Did the facts constitute a continuous succession
of events so linked together as to make a natural
whole? or was there some new and independent
cause intervening between the wrong and the in-
jury?-Purcell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., (Minn.)
50 N. W. 1034.
Public.
614. A thing is public when owned by the pub-
lic, and also when its use is public.-Hennepin
County v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 8 N. W.
595, 27 Minn. 460.
Publication.
615. The requirement, in the charter of the
city of St. Paul, of "thirty days' notice by five
publications prior to the time when the right of
redemption will expire, that deeds will be given
in pursuance of sales for local assessments,
means that all five publications must be made
before the 30 days begin to run.-Gaston v.
Merriam, 22 N. W. 614, 33 Minn. 271.
Public charity.
Q
616. An institution established, maintained,
and operated for the purpose of taking care of
the sick, without any profit, or view to profit,
but at a loss which has to be made up by be-
nevolent contribution, and the benefits of which
the public are entitled to enjoy, is an institution
of public charity, within the meaning of Gen. St.
Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 5, exempting all buildings.
belonging to such institutions from taxation.-
Hennepin County v. Brotherhood of Gethsem-
ane, 8 N. W. 595, 27 Minn. 460.
Public landing.
617. The words "public landing" designating a
space on a plat of a townsite. May be consid
ered upon the question of dedication.-Village of
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 265, (Gil. 243.)
Public nuisance.
618. A nuisance affecting the surrounding com-
munity generally, or the people of some local
neighborhood.-Village of Pine City v. Munch,
44 N. W. 197, 42 Minn. 342.
Public offense.
619. As used in the general laws. Does not
refer to offenses against a municipal government.
State v. Lee, 13 N. W. 913, 29 Minn. 445.
620. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 105, § 11, au-
thorizing a peace officer to arrest without war-
rant for a public offense committed or attempted
2071
2072
WORDS AND PHRASES.
in his presence. Has the ordinary signification
and includes all such violations of municipal or-
dinances as are punishable by fine or imprison-
ment.-State v. Cantieny, 24 N. W. 458, 34
Minn. 1.
Public use.
621. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 1, § 251, providing
that a county may purchase and hold land for
the public use. Means actual use, occupation,
and possession, rendered necessary for the prop-
er charge of the administrative or other func-
tions of the county, through its appropriate offi-
cers.-Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 496, (Gil. 441;)
James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 305.
622. Public use of a railroad or railroad track
is one to which all the people have a right, though
the number who require the use may be small.
Kettle River R. Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Min-
nesota, 43 N. W. 469, 41 Minn. 461; Chicago,
B. & N. R. Co. v. Porter, 46 N. W. 75, 43 Minn.
527.
Purchaser in good faith.
See §§ 331-336, supra.
Purpose.
should be completed to a point of junction with
some other "railroad leading to Milwaukee and
Chicago," embraces not only a railway whose
line reaches Milwaukee and Chicago, or termi-
nates at those places, but a railroad connecting
either directly or by way of another railroad
whose line reaches Milwaukee and Chicago, and
terminates at those places.-State v. City of Has-
tings, 24 Minn. 78.
Ratification.
629. Of a contract. Implies an existing per-
been made at the time. There cannot, in law.
son on whose behalf the contract might havo
be a ratification of a contract which could not
have been made binding on the ratifier at the
time it was made, because the ratifier was not
then in existence.-McArthur v. Times Printing
Co., (Minn.) 51 N. W. 216.
630. Is only effectual when the act is done by
a person professedly acting as the agent of the
party sought to be charged as principal.-Mitch-
ell v. Minnesota Fire Ass'n, (Minn.) 51 N. W.
608.
Ravish.
631. In an indictment. To carnally know a
female by force, and against her will.-O'Connell
v. State, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
Real estate.
623. Sp. Laws Minn. 1865, c. 79, making it
the duty of the common council of the city of St.
Paul to elect an assessor who shall perform all
the duties required by law of assessors of prop:
erty for the purposes of taxation, does not limit
his duties to such as relate to taxation only, but 632. A will devising real estate, without a
is intended to point out the kind of assessor re-specification of the same as "my real estate,
ferred to.-McClung v. City of St. Paul, 14
Minn. 420, (Gil. 315.)
Purpresture.
624. The filling up of the bed of a navigable
stream beyond the point of navigability by a ri-
parian owner, for the sole purpose of extending
his possessions, and so as to obstruct and inter-
fere with the public right of navigation, consti-
tutes a purpresture.-Union Depot Street Ry. &
Transfer Co. of Stillwater v. Brunswick, 17 N.
W. 626, 31 Minn. 297.
Question.
625. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 51, § 4, relating to
fraudulent contracts and conveyances, the provi-
sion that the question of fraudulent intent shall
be deemed a question of fact and not of law
means the question of the existence of fraudulent
intent.-Gere v. Murray, 6 Minn. 305, (Gil. 213.)
See, also, § 567, supra.
Raceway.
626. An artificial canal, dug in the earth, lead-
ing from the dam of a stream to the machinery
which it drives; a water course leading from the
bottom of a water wheel.-Wilder v. De Cou, 1
N. W. 48, 26 Minn. 10.
Railroad.
or
words of like nature, will be taken to mean the
real estate of the testator.-Case v. Young, 3
Minn. 209, (Gil. 140.)
Real property.
633. As defined, for purposes of taxation, in
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 11, § 2, to include the
land itself, and all buildings, etc., thereon, and
all rights and privileges thereto belonging or in
anywise appertaining, and all mines, etc., under
the same, embraces leased water powers.-State
v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 2 N. W. 839, 26 Minn.
229.
634. The statutory definition, for the purpose
of taxation, has no application to assessments
for local improvements.-State v. District Court
of Ramsey County, 17 N. W. 954, 31 Minn. 354.
635. The easement of a street railway compa-
ny in a public street is not assessable as real es-
tate for local improvements.-State v. District.
Court of Ramsey County, 17 N. W. 954, 31
Minn. 354.
Reasonable cause.
636. On the question of what constitutes rea-
sonable cause to believe a debtor insolvent, actu-
al knowledge, or even actual belief, is not the
criterion; the true inquiry is whether a reasona-
627. Synonymous with "railway."-State v. ble man, acting with ordinary prudence, sagacity,
Brin, 16 N. W. 406, 30 Minn. 522.
628. The ordinance of the city of Hastings
providing that certain bonds should not be is-
Sued to a railroad company until the railroad
and discretion, and having in view all the facts
known, would have cause to believe a debtor in-
solvent.-Daniels v. Palmer, 29 N. W. 162, 35
Minn. 347. See Same v. Bank of Zumbrota, 29
N. W. 165, 35 Miun. 351.
2073
2074
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Reasonable doubt.
637. As to the guilt of a person charged with
a crime. Is not a mere possible doubt, but is
that state of the case which, after the entire
comparison and consideration of all the evidence,
leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition
that they cannot say they feel an abiding con-
viction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the
charge.-State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105, (Gil.
75.) See State v. Sauer, 38 N. W. 355, 38 Minn.
438.
638. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is such
proof as establishes the truth of the fact to a
reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that
convinces and directs the understanding, and sat-
isfies the reason and judgment of those who are
bound to act conscientiously upon it.-State v.
Staley, 14 Minn. 105, (Gil. 75.)
Receipt.
See § 5, supra.
Received.
639. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 73, § 8, pro-
viding that where all the original parties to a
joint or joint and several contract, on the same
side, are dead, the other parties cannot testify
to the contract in their favor, unless such trans-
action was had and performed on behalf of
such deceased parties, by an agent whose testi-
mony is received, etc. The words "is received"
do not mean received in fact, but received by
law, or, in other words, receivable under the
law of evidence.-Bigelow v. Ames, 18 Minn.
527, (Gil. 471.)
Receiver.
640. A receiver, provided for in a mortgage
or trust deed, is in no sense a technical re-
ceiver, to be appointed by a court.-Rice v. St.
Paul & P. R. Co., 24 Minu. 464.
Recognizance.
641. A form of security for the appearance of
an accused in criminal proceedings, whether in
the form of a common-law recognizance or of a
common bond.-Martin v. Elwood, 29 N. W.
135, 35 Minn. 309.
See, also, §§ 88, 89, supra.
Redeeming.
642. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 15, re-
lating to redemption from sales on foreclosure,
and providing that, after the period for re-
demption has expired, no one redeeming," the
court may grant a final decree, etc. Refers to
a redemption which annuls the sale.-Bovey De
Laittre Lumber Co. v. Tucker, (Minn.) 50 N.
W. 1038.
Refuses or neglects.
643. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 27, pro-
viding that when a person "refuses or neglects"
to make a statement of his personal property,
or to subscribe on oath to the statement, to a
tax assessor, the latter may examine any other
person whom he may suppose has knowledge,
etc. The words embrace all cases of refusal,
neglect, or omission, fraudulent, willful, inten-
tional, or otherwise, by any person, to make a
|
1
true statement of all the personal property ex-
empt, as well as unexempt, which, by the pro-
visions of the chapter, such person is required
to list for taxation, either as owner or holder,
guardian, parent, husband, trustee, executor,
etc.-Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 295, (Gil.
226.)
Release.
644. Rev. St. Minn. c. 71, § 93, providing
that no release or waiver of a homestead ex-
emption shall be valid unless in writing, sub-
scribed by the householder and his wife, refers
to release or waiver as to an execution or other
process of the court, and does not include a
mortgage.-Olson v. Nelson, 3 Minn. 53, (Gil.
22.)
Released.
645. In a finding that property was released
by an officer upon giving a bond. Construed to
mean "delivered" or "surrendered."-Hicks v.
Mendenhall, 17 Minn. 475, (Gil. 453.)
Relevant.
See § 397, supra.
Remedial cases.
646. In Const. Minn. art. 6, § 2, giving the su-
preme court original jurisdiction in remedial
cases prescribed by law. Includes a proceeding
to take land by eminent domain.-Warren v.
First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 384,
(Gil. 345.)
647. The remedial cases meant are those
where the remedy is afforded summarily,
through certain extraordinary writs, such as
prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, and quo war-
ranto.-State v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 28 N..
W. 245, 35 Minn. 222.
See, also, §§ 98, 99, supra.
Remedy.
648. The means employed to enforce a right
or redress a wrong.-Warren v. First Div. St..
Paul & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 384, (Gil. 345.)
649. A mechanic's lien is not a remedy, but a.
statutory security.-Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn.
342, (Gil. 320.)
Remittitur.
650. The filing and transcript of a judgment:
of the supreme court in any county of the state,
for the purpose of issuing an execution, is not.
a remittitur.-La Crosse & M. Steam Packet
Co. v. Reynolds, 12 Minn. 213, (Gil. 135.)
Rental value.
651. Of land. The value of the use.-Nelson
V. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 42 N. W. 788,
41 Minn. 131.
Representation.
652. In the law of insurance. A verbal or
written statement made by the assured to the
underwriter, before the subscription to the pol-
icy, as to the existence of some fact, or state of
facts, tending to induce the writer more readily
to assume the risk, by diminishing the estimate
2075
2076
WORDS AND PHRASES.
?
he would otherwise have formed of it.-Aetna | in an adjoining county, is not to be restricted to an
Ins. Co. v. Grube, 6 Minn. 82, (Gil. 32.)
653. A statement in regard to a material
fact, made by the applicant for the insurance,
to the insurer, with reference to a proposed con-
tract of insurance.-Price v. Phoenix Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, (Gil. 473.)
Representative.
654. Generally, one who stands in the place
of or represents another.-Walter v. Hensel,
44 N. W. 57, 42 Minn. 204.
655. In articles of association of a mutual
life insurance company, providing for paying a
certain sum to the representatives of a deceased
member. Means and includes any person whom
the member may designate, or, if he make no
designation, the person whom the by-laws
designate, as the one to whom the money shall
be paid. Walter v. Hensel, 44 N. W. 57, 42
Minn. 204.
656. Is not to be construed as limited to
members of the family of the assured.-Walter
v. Hensel, 44 N. W. 57, 42 Minn. 204.
Required.
657. In Pub. St. c. 39, § 52, providing that
an administrator's sale shall not be avoided, if
it appears, etc., that the administrator gave a
bond, in case a bond was required, upon grant-
ing the license for the sale. Is not used in the
sense of "ordered" or "demanded," but, in
speaking of the bond, has reference to any bond
required by law.-Babcock v. Cobb, 11 Minn.
347, (Gil. 247.)
Reservation.
658. In a deed. Something created or re-
served out of the thing granted that was not in
existence before.-Elliot v. Small, 29 N. W.
158, 35 Minn. 396; Winston v. Johnson, 45 N.
W. 958, 42 Minn. 398.
Residence.
659. In its popular sense, a place of abiding
or dwelling for some continuance of time, im-
plies an established abode, fixed permanently,
for a time, for business or other purposes, al-
though there may be an intent in the future at
some time or other to return to the original
domicile.-Lawson v. Adlard, 48 N. W. 1019,
46 Minn. 243.
660. In construing statutes relating to attach-
ment proceedings, a distinction has been recog-
nized between an actual and a legal residence;
the latter being generally deemed the domicile,
and not the residence contemplated.-Lawson v.
Adlard, 48 N. W. 1019, 46 Minn. 243.
officer having an actual, permanent residence in
the county, but to be held as including the case
of presence in the county for the purpose of
transacting judicial business therein.-In re
Doll, 50 N. W. 607, 47 Minn. 518.
See, also, §§ 496, 503, supra.
Resides out of the state.
viding that, where defendant departs from and
663. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 15, pro-
resides out of the state, the time of his absence
is not part of the time limited for the commence-
ment of an action, the expressions "resides out
of the state, and "time of his absence,'
similar in meaning.-Venable v. Paulding, 19
Minn. 488, (Gil. 422.)
Residue.
are
664. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 56, § 4, pro-
viding that, after payment of certain charges
against the decedent's estate, etc., the probate
court shall assign the residue of the estate, etc.,
by a decree for that purpose. The words "resi-
due of the estate" embrace all the estate, both
real and personal, which is to be affected by the
decree.-Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494, (Gil.
447.)
Revenue act.
665. A mere appropriation of public money,
though it may lead to the necessity of taxation,
is not a "revenue act," such as, under Const.
Minn. art. 4, § 10, must originate in the house of
representatives.-Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1.
Revocation of a will.
666. Is an act of the mind, which must be
demonstrated by some outward and visible sign.
-Graham v. Burch, 49 N. W. 697, 47 Minn. 171.
Right.
667. In Act Cong. Sept. 4, 1841, relating to
pre-emptions vitiating all assignments and trans-
fers of "the right hereby secured." Means the
right of pre-emption.-Camp v. Smith, 2 Minn.
155, (Gil. 131.)
668. In Laws Minn. March 7, 1861, § 60, sav-
ing certain causes of action against old school
districts in favor of a party who holds a "right,"
etc. Embraces other rights than those arising
under a contract, obligation, or lien, and includes
the right to indemnity or damages for injuries
to real and personal property.-Gould v. Sub-
Dist. No. 3 of Eagle Creek School Dist., 7 Minn.
203, (Gil. 145.)
669. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 81, § 15, relating
to redemption from mortgage foreclosure sales,
and providing that, if a lien creditor redeems,
the certificate of redemption operates as an as-
661. Residence and domicile are not synony-signment to him of the "rights acquired under
mous; the former is an act, the latter is an act
mous; the former is an act, the latter is an act
coupled with an intent.-Keller v. Carr, 42 N.
W. 292, 40 Minn. 428.
662. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 80, § 23, provid-
ing that in certain cases the application for a
writ of habeas corpus may be made to some offi-
cer having authority to grant the same, residing
such sale," includes the right to a final decree.-
Bovey De Laittre Lumber Co. v. Tucker, (Minn.)
50 N. W. 1038.
Right or privilege.
670. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 2, providing that
no member of the state shall be deprived of any
rights or privileges unless by the law of the
2077
2078
WORDS AND PHRASES.
land. The words "rights or privileges" do not | Scalped railway ticket.
include the compensation of public officers.-
County Com'rs Hennepin County v. Jones, 18
Minn. 199, (Gil. 182.)
River.
See § 300, supra.
River front.
671. Is applicable to the shores above low-
water mark.-Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls
Water-Power Co., 44 N. W. 882, 43 Minn. 60.
Road.
broker. Hoffman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 47
679. A railway ticket purchased from a ticket
N. W. 312, 45 Minn. 53.
Scalper.
680. A ticket broker.-Hoffman v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 47 N. W. 312, 45 Minn. 53.
Seal.
681. A scroll, with the word "seal" written
within, is a seal.-Brown v. Jordhal, 19 N. W.
650, 32 Minn. 135.
682. Such scroll or other device does not nec-
672. In a provision of a charter of a railway
company, requiring the bell of each of its en-essarily, as does a common-law seal, establish
gines to be rung, and its whistle blown, at a
distance of 80 rods from a crossing road. Does
not include a private way, used occasionally.
Locke v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 15
Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
See, also, § 202, supra.
Roadbed.
673. Of a railroad. Strictly speaking refers to
the bed upon which the superstructure of the
railroad rests.-Dunn v. Burlington, C. R. & N.
Ry. Co., 27 N. W. 448, 35 Minn. 73.
Rob.
its own character. There must be something.
in the instrument upon which it appears show
ing that it was intended to be used as a seal.-
Brown v. Jordhal, 19 N. W. 650, 32 Minn. 135
Search.
683. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 70, § 2, al-
lowing certain fees to a clerk for a search of
the records or files in his office. Is limited to
a search for some particular paper or record,
or to ascertain some particular fact.-Church
v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 23 N. W. 860,
33 Minn. 410.
Secreted.
674. May mean the felonious taking of the
property of another, and is applicable to a public
684. In Sess. Laws Minn. 1867, c. 76, pro-
body as well as to an individual; but when ap-viding that an attachment may be allowed
plied in a popular sense to an individual, in ref- where the debtor has secreted, etc., his proper-
erence to a public or municipal body, denotes ty, etc. Hidden, in fact.-Guile v. McNanny,
the acquisition of money or property of the pub- 14 Minn. 520, (Gil. 391.)
lic by fraud or indirection, or other means,
wrong in foro conscientiae, but not legally crim-
inal.--McCarty v. Barrett, 12 Minn. 494, (Gil.
398.)
675. An alleged slander in charging that plain-
tiff robbed a town, is to be construed as meaning
that he robbed the public, not that he was a no-
torious robber.-McCarty v. Barrett, 12 Minn.
494, (Gil. 398.)
Salary.
676. In Laws Minn. 1871, c. 90, relating to the
salary of the county auditor. Includes all the
compensation which a county auditor is entitled
to receive under the provisions of the act.-Bruce
v. County Com'rs Dodge County, 20 Minn. 388,
(Gil. 339.)
677. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1878, c. 216, fixing the
salaries of certain officers in Ramsey county.
Includes necessary clerk hire.-Beaumont v.
Ramsey County, 19 N. W. 727, 32 Minn. 108.
Save all rights.
678. The provisions of Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c.
86, § 10, that an appeal from an order "shall
stay all proceedings thereon and save all rights
affected thereby," if the bond prescribed is exe-
cuted, show more than the intent to merely arrest
affirmative action; show the intent that an in-
junction order, when appealed from and stayed,
shall not affect any rights,-shall be inoperative
pending the bill.-State v. Duluth St. Ry. Co.,
50 N. W. 332, 47 Minn. 369.
See, also, §§ 62, 63, supra.
Seduce.
685. To draw aside and entice from the path
of rectitude and duty; to corrupt; to deprave;
to entice to a surrender of chastity. [Webst.
Dict.]-State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325, (Gil.
241.)
Seised or possessed.
686. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 4, pro-
viding that no action for recovery of possession
of real property shall be brought unless the
plaintiff, his ancestor, etc., was "seised or pos-
sessed" of the premises within 20 years. The
term "seised" is not used in contradistinction
to "possessed," so as to admit an interpretation
that the legal title or ownership only would be
sufficient to prevent the title running as against
the true owner.-Seymour v. Carli, 16 N. W.
495, 31 Minn. 81.
Seisin.
687. The title of the owner of a freehold es-
tate.-Seymour v. Carli, 16 N. W. 495, 31
Minn. 81.
688. Seisin means, ex vi termini, the whole
legal title.-Allen v. Allen, (Minn.) 51 N. W.
473.
Sell.
See § 574, supra.
2079
2080
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Seminary.
Signature.
litho-
689. Seminary, a place of training; institu- 698. May be written, printed, or
tion of education; school, academy, college, or graphed.-Herrick v. Morrill, 33 N. W. 849, 37
university in which young persons are instruct- Minn. 250.
ed in the several branches of learning, which
may qualify them for their future employments.
[Webst. Dict.]-Hennepin County v. Grace, 8
N. W. 761, 27 Minn. 503.
Separate estate.
690. The wife's separate property is her sep-
arate estate, although the husband may have a
contingent interest therein.-Spencer v. Shee-
han, 19 Minn. 338, (Gil. 292.)
Services.
691. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 8, § 172, pro-
viding that the county treasurer shall receive
certain percentages for his services, provided
that he shall not receive more than $1,200 for
his personal services in any one year. The
terms "services," and "personal services," in-
clude all the labor of performing the duties of
treasurer, in receiving, collecting, and disburs-
ing, as above mentioned, whether such labor
be performed by the treasurer himself, or by a
deputy or clerk, and all the expenditures inci-
dental to such performance save those of which
the statute specifically directs the allowance.-
Yost v. Board of Com'rs of Scott County, 25
Minn. 366.
Settlement.
692. The terms "in settlement of a debt,"
"for or on account of a debt," and "in payment
of the same," have substantially the same
meaning when applied to the receipt of a note
for such purposes.-Combination Steel & Iron
Co. v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 49 N. W. 744, 47
Minu. 207.
693. In findings by the court, referring to
interest on a note. Construed to have been
used in the sense of payment, and not of com-
putation or adjustment.-Goenen v. Schroeder,
18 Minn. 66, (Ğil. 51.)
694. In 5 U. S. St. at Large, p. 453, § 10,
providing that every person who shall there-
after make a settlement on public land, etc.,
shall be authorized to enter a quarter section
thereof. Means a settlement with a view to
pre-empt.-Peterson v. First Div. St. Paul &
P. R. Co., 6 N. W. 615, 27 Minn. 218.
Sham pleading.
695. A pleading known by the pleader to be
false.-Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil.
180.)
Sheriff.
696. 'The term "sheriff's certificate" includes
a certificate by either the principal sheriff or his
deputy-Burke v. Lacock, 42 N. W. 1016, 41
Minn. 250.
Shyster.
697. A trickish knave; one who carries on
one who carries on
any business, especially a legal business, in a
dishonest way. Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co.,
25 N. W. 710, 34 Minn. 342.
Six successive weeks.
699. Pub. St. Minn. c. 75, § 4, providing for
publication of notice of sale in mortgage fore-
closure "for six successive weeks at least, once
in each week," means 42 days, or 6 weeks of 7
days each, including the day of sale.-Worley
v. Naylor, 6 Minn. 192, (Gil. 123.)
700. A publication commencing February 1,
1873, for a sale on March 10, 1873, is not a
compliance with Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 81,
§ 5, requiring publication of notice of sale for
six successive weeks.--Pratt v. Tinkcom, 21
Minn. 142.
Sluice.
701. The words "sluice," "sluicing," in Gen.
St. Minn. 1878, c. 32, tit. 8, authorizing the
licensing of sluice dams, are used in the sense
of opening the gates or sluiceway for logs, etc.,
and not in the sense of using manual labor in
driving them through.-Anderson v. Munch, 13
N. W. 192, 29 Minn. 414.
Society.
See § 69, supra.
Sold.
kind.--State v. Lavake, 6 N. W. 339, 26 Minn.
702. Implies a price or consideration of some
526.
Solicitor's lien on title deeds.
Solicitor's lien on title deeds.
703. A right to hold title deeds to enforce
payment by embarrassing the debtor, but unac-
companied by any charge upon the estate.-
Gardner v. McClure, 6 Minn. 250, (Gil. 167.)
Solvent.
See §§ 380-383, supra.
So made.
704. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 11, § 139,
providing that a tax deed "so made" by the
auditor shall vest in the grantee, etc., a good
and valid title, etc., and shall be received as
prima facie evidence of such title, etc. Means
made after compliance with all the previous
requirements of the law, as spoken of the vest-
ing of title.-Broughton v. Sherman, 21 Minn.
431.
Special execution.
705. A copy of a judgment. with a direction
to the sheriff indorsed thereon to execute it.-
Crombie v. Little, 50 N. W. 823, 47 Minn. 581.
Special proceeding.
See §§ 294-297, supra.
Specific question.
706. In Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 199,
providing that specific questions in a case triable
by the court may be tried by a jury or re-
2081
2082
WORDS AND PHRASES.
or
distinctly | stand to and abide by the decision and award of
the arbitrators" extends to the performance by
the principal of the award after it is made.
Washburne v. Lufkin, 4 Minn. 466, (Gil. 362.)
ferred. A question specified
stated.-Cummings v. Taylor, 21 Minn. 366.
Spirituous liquor.
707. Beer is not a spirituous liquor.-State
v. Quinlan, 41 N. W. 299, 40 Minn. 55.
Stock in trade.
708. In the statute exempting from attach-
ment or sale on execution, stock in trade not
exceeding $400 in value. Embraces unfinished
and incomplete articles, bought and held for
the sole purpose of finishing and fitting them
for sale and use.-McAbe v. Thompson, 6 N.
W. 479, 27 Minn. 134.
709. Includes articles purchased from whole-
sale dealers, kept indiscriminately for sale or
for manufacture, as the opportunity offers, in
the condition in which they were bought.-Hill-
ver v. Remore, 44 N. W. 116, 42 Minn. 254.
Storing.
710. The word "storing," as used in an insur-
ance policy, proh biting the storing of hazardous
or extrahazardous goods, means a keeping for
safe custody as the principal object, and not a
keeping for the purposes of consumption or sale.
-Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 5 Minn. 492, (Gil.
393.)
Stranger.
711. In the law of escrows. Is used in oppo-
sition to the party to whom the contract_runs.
-Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Davis,
41 N. W. 1026, 40 Minn. 110.
Street.
712. A public thoroughfare or highway in a
city or village.-Carli v. Stillwater St. Ry. &
Transfer Co., 10 N. W. 205, 28 Minn. 373.
Structure.
713. In Pen. Code Minn. § 476, making it a
felony to displace, remove, or injure a railway
structure, or any part thereof, etc. Does not in-
clude a fence bounding and inclosing land
used for railroad purposes.-State v. Walsh, 45
N. W. 721, 43 Minn. 444.
Subcontractor.
714. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, § 2, (re-
pealed by Laws 1889, c. 200, § 19,) which pro-
vided that all persons performing work of a
specified character, or furnishing any materials
therefor, whether such work was performed as
a subcontractor, etc., or otherwise, should have
a lien upon improved property, etc. Did not in-
clude one who simply furnishes materials, but
takes no part in the work of construction.
Merriman v. Jones, 44 N. W. 526, 43 Minn. 29.
Subject-matter.
See § 101, supra.
Sublease.
See §§ 64-67, supra.
Submit.
715. A condition in an arbitration bond that
the principal "shall well and truly submit and
v.2M.DIG.-66
Subscription.
716. The subscription of a summons by an
attorney, required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 53,
may be written or printed or lithographed, and
adopted by the attorney; the word does not
necessarily mean a written signature.-Herrick
v. Morrill, 33 N. W. 849, 37 Minn. 250.
Substantial performance.
717. A contract is substantially performed
where the omission or departure from the con-
tract is unintentional, slight, and easily reme-
died.-Leeds v. Little, 44 N. W. 309, 42 Minn.
414; Elliott v. Caldwell, 45 N. W. 845, 43
Minn. 357.
Successors in trust.
718. In an assignment. Refers to such per-
sons as might lawfully succeed the assignee in
case of resignation, removal, or death.-Lang-
don v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 509.
Sufficient.
719. Pub. St. Minn. c. 59, § 37, providing
that a justice may adjourn a case for sufficient
cause. Means some good and sufficient legal
cause or excuse for the delay asked, and not
any pretext, which, in the arbitrary discretion
of the party or justice, might be deemed suffi-
cient.-School Dist. No. 7 of Wright County v.
Thompson, 5 Minn. 280, (Gil. 221.)
720. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 13, § 60, provid-
ing for the execution of a bond upon an appeal
from the action of county commissioners, with
sufficient sureties, means two or more sureties.-
State v. Fitch, 16 N. W. 411, 30 Minn. 532.
Suitable.
721. Likely to suit; capable of suiting; adapt-
ed. Not equivalent to "adequate."-St. Anthony
Falls Water-Power Co. v. Eastman, 20 Minn.
277, (Gil. 249.)
722. “All suitable precautions," in an agree
ment that certain work in the construction of a
tunnel shall be prosecuted with all suitable pre-
cautions for safety, etc., mean all such suitable
precautions as a discreet, prudent, and cautious
man of ordinary capacity would adopt in the con-
struction of such a tunnel,, were the risk all his
own, under the facts and circumstances as then
and there known and understood, and which, by
the use of reasonable diligence, caution, and skill,
might have been known or anticipated.-St. An-
thony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Eastman, 20
Minn. 277, (Gil. 249.)
Surety.
723. Any person is a surety who, being liable
to pay a debt, is entitled, if it is enforced against
him, to be indemnified by some other person who
himself ought to have paid it before the surety
was compelled to do so.-Wendlandt v. Sobre,
33 N. W. 700, 37 Minn. 162; Cassan v. Max-
well, 40 N. W. 357, 39 Minn. 391.
2083
2084
WORDS AND PHRASES.
733. Land is to be deemed taken for a public
use as of the date of the filing of the award by '
commissioners in condemnation proceedings.
City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 15 Ñ. W. 668, 30
Minn. 145.
724. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 36, allow-
ing parties severally liable upon the same obliga-
tion or instrument, and sureties on the same in-
strument, to be included in the same action. A
surety, within the meaning of the statute, is any
one who is bound on the same instrument for its
payment with another, who, as between them-
734. In an indictment for larceny. A charge
selves, is the principal debtor, whatever may be that defendant did feloniously take, implies a
the particular form of the undertaking.-Hammel trespass.-State v. Friend, 50 N. W. 692, 47
v. Beardsley, 17 N. W. 858, 31 Minn. 314.
Surrender.
725. Of an interest in land. The yielding up of
an estate for life or for years to him that has
the immediate reversion or remainder; wherein
the particular estate becomes extinct by a mutual
agreement between the parties.-Dayton v. Craik,
1 N. W. 813, 26 Minn. 133.
726. Surrender by operation of law takes
place where the owner of a particular estate has
been a party to some act, the validity of which
be is by law afterwards estopped from disputing,
and which would not be valid if his particular es-
tate had continued to exist.-Smith v. Pender-
gast, 3 N. W. 978, 26 Minn. 318.
See, also, § 304, supra.
Syndic.
727. At common law in England. An agent
appointed by a corporation for the purpose of ob-
taining letters of guardianship and the like.
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Beebe, 41 N. W.
232, 40 Minn. 7.
Take.
728. In Const. Minn. art. 1, § 13, declaring
that private property shall not be taken for pub-
lic use without just compensation. Overflowing
land by backing water upon it is a taking of the
land, within the constitutional provision.-Wea-
ver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 11 N. W.
114, 28 Minn. 534.
729. Maintaining a boom which occasions pe-
riodic overflows is a taking by the exercise of the
right of eminent domain. McKenzie v. Missis-
sippi & R. R. Boom Co., 13 N. W. 123, 29 Minn.
288.
730. A direct physical obstruction or injury to
private property may amount to a taking of it.-
Rochette v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 20 N.
W. 140, 32 Minn. 201.
731. Property is taken, within the constitu-
tional meaning, where it is destroyed or mate-
rially impaired by rendering it impossible for the
owner of it to enjoy it to the full extent that he
is entitled to.-Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R.
Co., 39 N. W. 629, 39 Minn. 286.
732. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, relating to
the taking of land for railway purposes, "taking"
is used in a comprehensive sense, and embraces
not merely the appropriation of the right of way,
considered by itself alone, but also the facts, cir-
cumstances, and direct effects accompanying or
flowing from such appropriation.-Wilmes v.
Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 13 N. W. 39, 29
Minu. 242.
Minn. 449.
735. In Pen. Code Minn. § 240, subd. 1, mak-
ing it a criminal offense to take a female under
the age of 16 years for the purpose of prostitu-
tion, etc. "Take" does not mean a taking by
force or violence. Such taking may be accom-
plished by persuasion, enticement, or device.--
State v. Jamison, 35 N. W. 712, 38 Minn. 21.
Tax.
islative power of the state, upon property, to
736. A pecuniary charge, imposed by the leg-
raise money for public purposes.-Davidson v.
Board of Com'rs of Ramsey County, 18 Minn.
482, (Gil. 432.)
737. An assessment levied for a local improve-
ment is a tax.-State v. City of St. Paul, 32 N.
W. 781, 36 Minn. 529.
See, also, § 246, supra.
Tax certificate.
738. The term is equally applicable to the cer-
1878, c. 11, § 84, and the certificate of assign-
tificate of tax sale prescribed in Gen. St. Minn.
ment provided for in section 89.-Nelson v. Cen-
tral Land Co., 29 N. W. 121, 35 Minn. 408.
Tenancy from year to year.
739. Is substantially a tenancy at will, except
that such will cannot be determined by either
party without due notice to quit, terminating at
the end of a year.-Hunter v. Frost, 49 N. W.
327, 47 Minn. 1.
Tenancy in common.
several and distinct titles, but by unity of pos-
740. 'Tenants in common are such as hold by
session.-Gould v. Sub-District No. 3 of Eagle
Creek School Dist., 8 Minn. 427, (Gil. 382.)
Term.
741. In Gen. St. Minn. 18C6, c. 66, § 200, pro-
yiding for notice of trial, etc., "for the term.
Includes a special term at which the action no-
ticed may properly be tried.-Colt v. Vedder, 19
Minn. 539, (Gil. 469.)
Terms.
742. In a power of attorney authorizing the at-
torney to sell upon such terms as he shall deem
meet. Applies to the amount of and the time of
paying che consideration.-Carson v. Smith, 5
Minn. 78, (Gil. 58.)
There.
743. The words "then and there," used in an
indictment without reference to any place or
county, do not indicate the county in which the
alleged crime was committed, although a county
is mentioned as descriptive of other facts.-State
v. Brown. 12 Minn. 490. (Gil. 393.)
2085
2086
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Thoroughfare.
744. A passage through; a street or way open
at both ends and free from any obstruction.
City of Mankato v. Warreu, 20 Minn. 144, (Gil.
128.)
Time for which he is elected.
745. In Const. Minn. art. 4, § 9, providing
that no senator or representative shall, during
the time for which he is elected, hold any office.
Construed to mean during his term of office, un-
der the general or state government, etc.-Bar-
num v. Gilman, 8 N. W. 375, 27 Minn. 466.
Title.
746. To real property. The means whereby
the owner of lands or other real property has the
just and legal possession and enjoyment of it.
Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn. 315.
Tool or instrument.
747. A silver watch worn by debtor, a cigar
maker, and used by him to keep the time of his
workmen, is not a tool or instrument used and
kept for the purpose of carrying on his trade,
within Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 279, exempting cer-
tain tools and instruments from execution.-
Rothschild v. Boelter, 18 Minn. 361, (Gil. 331.)
To wit.
748. Its office and effect is to particularize
what is too general in a preceding sentence, and
render clear, and of certain application, that
which might seem otherwise doubtful or obscure.
---Buck v. Lewis, 9 Minn. 314. (Gil. 298.)
749. In an indictment. Its office is to mark
that the party does not undertake to prove the
precise circumstances alleged.-State v. Heck,
23 Minn. 549.
Town.
750. As a generic term, embraces all such pri-
mary municipal corporations as incorporated cit-
ies and villages, and, independently of any stat
utory provision, it has become a well-settled rule
utory provision, it has become a well-settled rule
of construction that the term "town," when used
in a general statute, may include cities, unless
the contrary appears from the whole statute to
have been the intent of the legislature.-Ode-
gaard v. City of Albert Lea, 23 N. W. 526, 33
Minn. 351.
751. In Const. Minn. art. 11, § 3, providing
that laws may be passed providing for organiza-
tion for municipal and other town purposes. A
portion of the state bounded by geographical
lines to which, to a greater or less extent, the
power of self-government is committed.-State
v. Sharp, 6 N. W. 408, 27 Minn. 38.
752. “Town” may mean "township."-Herrick
v. Morrill, 33 N. W. 849, 37 Minn. 250.
753. In Laws Minn. 1885, c. 172, requiring the
corporate authorities of a town to establish vot-
ing precincts, etc. Refers to an incorporated mu-
nicipality. Stemper v. Higgins, 37 N. W. 95, 38
Minn. 222.
Township.
754. Does not mean "town" in the sense of a
platted village or townsite.-Herrick v. Morrill,
33 N. W. 849, 37 Minn. 250.
Trader.
755. One who buys grain, mills it, sells it for a
profit, and also operates a warehouse, receiving
in store and buying and selling grain, is a trader.
Daniels v. Palmer, 29 N. W. 162, 35 Minn.
347.
756. One engaged in the brewing business,
buying malt and grain, and selling beer, is a
trader, within the bankrupt and insolvent laws.-
Hastings Malting Co. v. Heller, 49 N. W. 400,
47 Minn. 71.
Transaction.
757. Gen. St. Minn. 1866, c. 66, § 80, subd. 1,
allowing defendant to counterclaim a cause of
action arising out of the transaction set forth in
the complaint, means a transaction which refers
not merely to an occurrence or act, but to some
commercial or business transaction or dealing;
something in the nature of a contract, perhaps a
series of contracts, with respect to the same bus-
iness or subject.-Barker v. Walbridge, 14 Minn.
469, (Gil. 351.)
Transferable to or vested in.
758. Rev. St. U. S. § 5057, providing that no
suit shall be maintainable between an assignee in
bankruptcy and a person claiming an adverse in-
terest touching any "property or rights of prop-
erty transferable to or vested in such assignee,"
unless brought within two years from the time
when the cause of action accrued, etc., means
property or rights of property of such kind or
description as, by the provisions of the bankrupt
law, would, if they belonged to the bankrupt, be
transferred or vested in the assignee.-Haven
v. Place, 11 N. W. 117, 28 Minn. 551.
Traveler.
759. Dwellers and inhabitants of a city no
larger than the city of St. Paul in 1872, who
change their dwelling place from one part of it
of the rule as to an innkeeper's liability to trav-
to another, are not travelers, within the meaning
elers.-Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468.
Trespass.
See § 223, supra.
Trial.
760. The judicial hearing upon the issues in a
cause, for the purpose of determining it.-State
v. Bergman, 34 N. W. 737, 37 Minn. 407.
761. A judgment by default is not a trial, with-
in the meaning of Pub. St. Minn. c. 61, § 59, al-
lowing a new trial in certain cases.-Myrick v.
Pierce, 5 Minn. 65, (Gil. 47.)
True bill.
762. An indictment indorsed "a true bill," and
signed by the foreman of the grand jury, and
properly filed, is evidence that the indictment
has been found, as provided by Gen. St. Minn.
•
2087
2088
WORDS AND PHRASES.
!
1866, c. 107, §§ 57, 60.-State v. McCartey, 17] Unmarketable title.
Minn. 76, (Gil. 54;) State v. Beebe, 17 Minn.
241, (Gil. 218.)
Trust.
763. Implies two estates or interests,—one
equitable and one legal; one person as trustee
holding the legal title, while another as the
cestui que trust has the beneficial interest.-Hos-
pes v. Northwestern Manuf'g & Car Co., (Minn.)
50 N. W. 1117.
Trustee of an express trust.
764. An agent who takes a contract for the
benefit of his principal in his own name is within
Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 28, allowing such
a trustee to sue in his own name.-Cremer v.
Wimmer, 42 N. W. 467, 40 Minn. 511.
Two-thirds vote.
765. In the provisions of the constitution of
Minnesota requiring a two-thirds vote of the leg-
islature for certain purposes. A vote in each
house of two thirds of all the members thereof.
-State v. Gould, 17 N. W. 276, 31 Minn. 189.
Understanding.
766. May express a valid contract engagement,
but one of a somewhat informal character.--
Winslow v. Dakota Lumber Co., 20 N. W. 145,
32 Minn. 237.
Undue influence.
767. A coercion produced by importunity, or
by a silent, resistless power which the strong will
often exercises over the weak and infirm, and
which could not be resisted, so that the motive
was tantamount to force or fear.-In re Nelson's
Will, 39 N. W. 143, 39 Minn. 204.
768. As to the execution of a will. May be
through threats or fraud, but, however exercised,
must, in order to avoid a will, destroy the free
agency of the testator at the time when the in-
strument is made. In re Nelson's Will, 39 N.
W. 143, 39 Minn. 204.
See §§ 461, 462, supra.
Unoccupied.
See § 782, post.
Unprofessional.
771. In Laws Minn. 1883, c. 125, § 9, authoriz-
ing the state medical examining board to refuse
certificates of practice to those guilty of unpro-
fessional or dishonorable conduct, "unprofession-
al" is used convertibly with "dishonorable."-
State v. State Medical Examining Board, 20 N.
W. 238, 32 Minn. 324.
Unsatisfied.
772. Indorsed on a sheriff's return upon an
execution is not a return that no property could
be found. Sherburne v. Rippe, 29 N. W. 322, .
35 Minn. 540.
Unsold.
773. In Laws Minn. 1881, c. 135, § 9, provid-
ing that all lands remaining unsold at a tax sale
shall be stricken from the tax lists, and subse-
quently sold, etc. Not sold to an actual purchas-
er.-Mulvey v. Tozer, 42 N. W. 387, 40 Minn.
384.
Until.
774. In a stipulation that a party may have un-
til a certain date to answer. Construed as in-
clusive of the designated date.-Barker v. Keith,
11 Minn. 65, (Gil. 37.)
Use and occupy.
775. In a devise of land to trustees to permit a
person named to use and occupy the same for
life. The words "use and occupy" are not to be
interpreted in the narrow sense of personal oc-
cupation, but as entitling the beneficiary to the
whole estate for life.-Farmers' Nat. Bank of
Owatonna v. Moran, 14 N. W. 805, 30 Minn.
165.
Use of the county.
776. In Laws Minn. 1860, c. 15, § 2, authoriz-
769. To constitute undue influence in procuring sonal estate for the use of the county. The ex-
ing a county to purchase and hold real and per-
execution of a will the mind of the testator must pression "for the use of the county" has the
be so controlled or affected by persuasion or
same meaning as "for the public use of the coun-
pressure, artful or fraudulent contrivances, or ty."-James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 305; Shepard
by the insidious influence of persons in close con-
fidential relations with him, that he is not left. Murray County, 24 N. W. 291, 33 Minn. 519.
to act intelligently, understandingly, and volun- Usual business hours.
tarily, but become subject to the will or purposes
of another. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 44 N. W. 885,
43 Minn. 73.
Uninterrupted course.
770. In Laws Minn. 1889, c. 19, regulating the
practice of dentistry, and exempting students en-
gaged in a "regular, uninterrupted course" of
study from its provisions. Does not mean that
the course of study shall be without vacations,
such as all schools have. State v. Vandersluis,
43 N. W. 789, 42 Minn. 129.
University.
See § 384, supra.
777. The business hours of the community
v.
generally, and not the particular hours that
may be regarded in some
some cases.-Derosia
Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 133, (Gil.
1.19.)
778. The "usual business hours" of a railway
station agent are the time within which the
community generally did business with him.-
Derosia v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 Minn.
133, (Gil. 119.)
Usual covenants for title.
779. A deed with the usual covenants for title
includes a warranty deed with full covenants.-
Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil. 414.)
•
· 2089
2090
WORDS AND PHRASES.
Usury.
780. The taking or contracting for a greater
rate of interest than the law permits for the for-
bearance or use of money.-Stein v. Swensen,
49 N. W. 55, 46 Minn. 360.
Vacant.
781. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 9, § 2, provid-
ing that an office shall be vacant upon failure of
the incumbent to qualify, etc. Applies to the
particular term to which the event causing a va-
cancy relates.-Scott County v. Ring, 13 N. W.
181, 29 Minn. 398.
Vacant, unoccupied, or not in use.
782. In a policy of insurance against fire, ex-
empting the insurer from liability if the building
should be "vacant, unoccupied, or not in use" at
the time of the fire. A building containing fur-
niture and fixtures, and in which a person slept
part of the time, is not within such provision.
Stensgaard v. National Fire Ins. Co., 30 N. W.
468, 36 Minn. 181.
Vagrant grant.
783. As of swamplands. Where an act pur-
ports by words of present grant to give a certain
quantity of land not specifically designated, the
grantee acquires, by force of the act, the right to
receive that quantity; and when, in the manner
required by the act, the land is located, the gran-
tee becomes the owner thereof.-St. Paul & C.
Ry. Co. v. Brown, 24 Minn. 517.
Valuation.
784. Is susceptible of the same meaning as
"value."- Sergeant v. Dwyer, 46 N. W. 444, 44
Minn. 309.
Value.
785. In Laws Minn. 1857, Ex. Sess. c. 1, § 13,
providing for appraising the value of land taken
for public use. Embraces not only the value
of the land as an isolated parcel, but includes
such additional value as attaches to it by rea-
son of its connection with adjacent land of the
same owner.-Scott v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co.,
21 Minn. 322. See Simmons v. Same, 18 Minn.
184, (Gil. 168;) Colvill v. Same, 19 Minn. 283,
(Gil. 240.)
Value or contract price.
786. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 90, §§ 2, 5,
relating to liens for the value or contract
price of labor or materials. As between the
parties to a contract, the contract price fixed
is the measure of liability, but it is not intended
that the owner's contract should carry with it
an implied consent that the contractor should
bind him to pay whatever he might promise for
labor or materials, or any more than the rea-
sonable price or value.-Laird v. Moonan, 20
N. W. 354, 32 Minn. 358.
Value received.
787. In an ordinary written contract. Imports
a_consideration.-Frank v. Irgens, 6 N. W. 380,
27 Minn. 43.
788. Expresses the consideration required by
the statute of frauds.-Osborne v. Baker, 25 N.
W. 606, 34 Minn. 307.
Verdict contrary to law.
789. A verdict contrary to the law applicable
to the facts of the case; not contrary to the
law as given by the court.-Hurt v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 N. W. 613, 39 Minn. 485.
Vested.
See § 758, supra.
Vested rights.
izing amendments, not impairing vested rights, to
790. In Gen. Laws Minn. 1857, c. 93, author-
the charter (Sp. Laws 1861, c. 1) of the Lake Su-
perior & Mississippi Railroad Company. Means
valuable rights which the corporation might ac-
quire under the charter, by other action and
proceedings thereunder than the mere accept-
ance of the charter.-Ames v. Lake Superior &
M. R. Co., 21 Minn. 241.
Vicinity.
See § 443, supra.
Videlicet.
See §§ 748, 749, supra.
Village.
791. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 2, re-
quiring chattel mortgages to be filed with the
clerks of villages. Does not include boroughs.
-Bannon v. Bowler, 26 N. W. 237, 34 Minn.
416.
792. "Village of Lake City," in Sp. Laws
Minn. 1865, c. 6, requiring a line of railway to
be built through the village of Lake City, etc.,
is used inadvertently for "City of Lake City.'
-State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn. 404.
Void.
793. In an agreement that if title to prem-
ises is not good, and cannot be made good
within a certain period, the agreement should
be void. Means at an end.-Mackey v. Ames,
16 N. W. 541, 31 Minn. 103.
794. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 57, providing
that a purchase by an executor, etc., at his
sale, shall render the same void. Is used in the
sense of "voidable."-White v. Iselin, 5 N. W.
359, 26 Minn. 487.
795. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 15,
providing that want of service of notice in pro-
ceedings to condemn land shall render subse-
quent proceedings void as to the person not
served. Means void until they should be ren-
dered valid by some other event or act having
the effect of curing the want of jurisdiction.—
Rheiner v. Union Depot, Street Ry. & Transfer
Co., 17 N. W. 623, 31 Minn. 289.
796. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 39, § 1, de-
claring chattel mortgages without delivery of
possession to be absolutely void unless filed.
Bears the sense of "voidable" or "subject to be
avoided."-Tolbert v. Horton, 18 N. W. 647, 31
Minn. 518.
797. In a statute providing that a preferen-
tial transfer by an insolvent, etc., shall be
2091
2092
WORDS AND PHRASES.
!
void. Means "voidable," in proceedings under
and in aid of the law.-Smith v. Brainerd, 35 N.
W. 271, 37 Minn. 479.
Vote by ballot.
798. Designating an elector's choice of a per-
son for an office by the deposit of a ticket
bearing the name of such person in a receptacle
provided for the purpose, in such a way as to
secure to the elector the privilege of complete
and inviolable secrecy in regard to the persons
voted for.-Brisbin v. Cleary, 1 N. W. 825, 26
Minn. 107.
Vote of the electors.
799. In Sp. Laws Minn. 1869, c. 92, provid-
ing for the issuance of bonds by the corporation
therein created, in pursuance of a vote of the
electors. The expressed will of a majority of
such electors voting upon the question.-Board
of Education of Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17
Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)
Wagon.
800. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 66, § 310,
subd. 6, exempting from sale on execution "one
wagon, etc. A light open buggy with side
springs is a "wagon,' within the meaning of
the statute.-Allen v. Coates, 11 N. W. 132, 29
Minn. 46. See Dingman v. Raymond, 8 N.' W.
597, 27 Minn. 507.
801. So, also, is a two-seated, upholstered,
cne-horse carriage built and used for easy rid-
ing only.--Kimball v. Jones, 43 N. W. 74, 41
Minn. 318.
Wagon crossings.
802. In Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 54, re-
quiring railroads to build and maintain cattle
guards at "wagon crossings." Refers to wagon
roads used for public travel crossing railroads,
and not to private ways or farm crossings.-
Sather v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41 N.
W. 458, 40 Mină. 91.
Waiver.
803. A voluntary relinquishment of some
right which, but for such waiver, the party
would have enjoyed.-Fishback v. Van Dusen,
22 N. W. 244, 33 Minn. 111.
See, also, § 644, supra.
Wanton, willful, or malicious trespass.
804. Involves a conscious violation of the
rights of the party trespassed upon.-Carli v.
Union Depot, Street Ry. & Transfer Co., 20 N.
W. 89, 32 Minn. 101.
Warranty.
805. In the law of insurance. Warranties are
conditions precedent, the truth of which must
be pleaded and proved by the assured.-Price v.
Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, (Gil.
473.)
See, also, § 274, supra.
Waste.
806. Any unlawful act or omission of duty
on the part of a tenant, which results in perma-
nent injury to the inheritance.-Whitney v.
Huntington, 26 N. W. 631, 34 Minn. 458.
Wearing apparel.
807. A silver watch, worn by a person, is not
exempt from execution as wearing apparel un-
der Gen. St. Minn. c. 66, § 279.-Rothschild v.
Boelter, 18 Minn. 361, (Gil. 331.)
When.
808. In Pub. St. Minn. 1849--1858, c. 44, § 59,
providing that it shall be the duty of the court
to appoint commissioners to audit claims against
the estate, "when" letters testamentary or of
administration shall be granted. Means no more
than "in case" or "if. -Wilkinson v. Winne's
Estate, 15 Minn. 159, (Gil. 123.)
Willfully.
809. In an indictment. Means intentionally,
as distinguished from accidentally or involun-
tarily; designedly and perversely. - State v.
Stein, (Minn.) 51 N. W. 474.
Willfully and corruptly.
810. In an indictment for perjury. Equiva-
lent to the words "willfully" and "knowingly,'
used in the statute (Pen. Code Minn. § 87) de-
fining the offense.-State v. Stein, (Minn.) 51
N. W. 474.
Written instrument.
811. Written instruments, as used in Laws
Minn. 1867, c. 64, mean formal instruments or
agreements, and do not include mere entries or
memoranda made only for the use or conven-
ience of the party making them.-Board of
Com'rs of Mower County v. Smith, 22 Minn. 97.
Written instrument for the payment of
money only.
812. Laws Minn. 1856, pp. 6, 7, allowing
verification of a pleading by an attorney or oth-
er person, when the action or defense is found-
ed upon a "written instrument for the payment
of money only," refers to and comprehends bills
of exchange, notes, bonds, contracts, or any
instrument, the creature of contracting parties,
containing stipulations for the payment of mon-
ey only, but does not include judgments.-
Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn. 319, (Gil. 273.)
Wrongful act.
813. In Pub. St. Minn. c. 68, § 3, giving a
right of action to the personal representatives
of one whose death is caused by the wrongful
act of another. Does not mean willful or ma-
licious act.-McLean v. Burbank, 12 Minn. 530,
(Gil. 438.)
Wrongfully and feloniously.
"
814. The words "did wrongfully and felo-
niously take, steal, and carry away, in an in-
dictment for larceny, involve the possession
and the wrongful taking of the property from
the actual or constructive possession of the
owner, general or special, and without his con-
sent.-State v. Friend, 50 N. W. 692, 47 Minn.
449.
2093
2094
WORDS AND PHRASES-WORK AND LABOR.
Year.
815. In an indictment, in stating the time of
the alleged offense, such words as "one thou-
sand eight hundred and seventy-one," im-
mediately following the month and day of the
month, sufficiently denote the year.-State v.
Munch, 22 Minn. 67.
WORK AND LABOR.
Contract for work and material distinguished
from sale, see Sale, 7.
When action lies-Oral agreement.
1. An oral agreement for services not to be
performed within one year is not wholly void,
though no action can be maintained on it. And
where one by such an agreement contracts to ren-
der services for a specified time at a specified gross
sum, to be paid when they are all rendered, and
commences to render the services, but quits with-
out cause, he cannot recover for what he has done.
-Kriger v. Leppel, (Minn.) 43 N. W. 484.
42 Minn. 6.
2. In an action for services rendered by plain-
tiff in purchasing certain realty for defendant, the
evidence showed that plaintiff purchased the land
for defendant, and that plaintiff was to have an in-
terest therein, thereafter, on payment of an agreed
sum. There was a written contract by which de-
fendant agreed to convey to plaintiff an interest in
the land, and to allow him, as part payment, the
sum claimed by plaintiff, "for services heretofore
rendered in purchasing" the same. Plaintiff tes-
tified that, when the written contract was made,
defendant orally promised to pay him the amount
specified in case he should be unable to buy the in-
terest as contemplated. There was nothing in the
contract to show that, in case plaintiff failed to
comply with its conditions, he was to have noth
ing for the services. Held, that a verdict for plain-
tiff was sustained by the evidence.-Ashworth v.
Frost, (Minn.) 45 N. W. 431.
Quantum meruit.
43 Minn. 259.
3. In an action upon quantum meruit for
services rendered, it appeared that they were
rendered under a special contract, by which
plaintiff was to render the service, to be paid for
by defendant by furnishing her a room and
board, and that he had failed to comply with
his part of the contract during a portion of the
time while such services were being rendered.
Held, that the plaintiff, not having rescinded
upon failure of defendant to perform, had no rem
edy upon a quantum meruit, but should have
sued upon the special contract.-Bond v. Cor-
bett, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209.)
4. Where services are rendered on an express
contract, action therefor must be brought upon
the contract, unless it is rescinded before com-
pletion, when the action may be upon a quantum
meruit.-Marcotte v. Beaupre, 15 Minn. 152,
(Gil. 117.)
5. Plaintiff, an architect, was to have a cer-
tain sum for drawing plans, and 2 per cent. for
superintendence, but defendant would not allow
him to superintend the work. Held, that plain-
tiff might treat the contract as rescinded, and
sue for the value of his services in preparing the
plans.-Marcotte v. Beaupre, 15 Minn. 152, (Gil.
117.)
6. Where a party to a contract has so acted
upon it that he cannot be placed in statu quo,
and is prevented by the other party from com-
pleting the same, he may sue for work done and
materials furnished on quantum meruit and
quantum valebant, and refer to the contract as
furnishing a basis from which the reasonable
value of work and material may be ascertained."
-Siebert v. Leonard, 17 Minn. 433, (Gil. 410.)
7. Defendant's agent made a contract in be-
half of his principal, which defendant afterwards
refused to sign; plaintiff, in ignorance thereof,
going on and doing work thereunder. Held, that
plaintiff might, on learning of defendant's refus-
al, rescind the contract, and recover on a quan-
tum meruit for the value of the work done.-
Hawkins v. Lange, 22 Minn. 557.
8. The plaintiffs having performed services for
the defendant under a special agreement that they
should receive therefor an annual pass over the de-
fendant's road, and the defendant having then re-
fused to give the pass, the plaintiffs may recover
upon the quantum meruit for their services; the
value of such a pass being deemed to be impossible
of proof, or of estimation as a measure of damages.
Brown v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Minn.) 31
N. W.941.
36 Minn. 236.
services, the defendant alleging in defense an ex-
9. In an action upon the quantum meruit for
press contract that the plaintiff's compensation,
fixed by the contract, was to depend upon a speci-
fied contingent event, it is incumbent upon the de-
fendant to prove that the specified event had not
happened.-Evans v. Miller, (Minn.) 34 N. W.
596, 37 Minn. 371.
10. Plaintiff worked for one P., who was his
uncle, for several years without any express agree-
ment for compensation, but with the mutual un-
derstanding of both that he should be adequately
provided for in P.'s will, but P. died without mak-
ing such provision. Held, that plaintiff was enti-
tled to recover of P.'s estate the value of his serv-
ices as upon a quantum meruit.-Schwab v. Pier-
ro, (Minň.) 46 Ñ. W. 71.
Pleading.
43 Minn. 520.
11. A complaint alleging a written contract
for the performance of work, labor thereunder
within certain times, the value of the labor per-
formed, and the amount paid and remaining un-
paid, sufficiently states a cause of action. -Nash
v. Murnan, 6 Minn. 577, (Gil. 411.)
•
12. A complaint set forth that plaintiff and
defendant entered into a sealed agreement for
the erection of a building for defendant at a spe-
cific price, according to plans and specifications;
that no plans and specifications were furnished,
and that performance according thereto was
practically abandoned; that plaintiff did the
work as directed, under the immediate direction
and supervision of the defendant, frequently
A
2095
2096
WORK AND LABOR-WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT.
protesting that it was insecure, and, when nearly
completed, the building, without plaintiff's fault,
fell to the ground. Judgment was demanded for
Judgment was demanded for
the unpaid balance of the contract price, less the
value of the work yet to be done when the build-
ing fell. Held, that the action was upon a quan-
tum meruit, the contract being referred to for
the purpose of determining the reasonable value
of the work, and fully stating the origin of the
plaintiff's cause of action. -Siebert v. Leonard,
17 Minn. 433, (Gil. 410.)
Evidence-Sufficiency.
13. On a claim of $150 for certain extra work
in filling at a curve, the evidence showed that
about 100 days' labor was devoted to such filling
and to the moving of certain wood, but no evi-
dence as to how much was devoted to filling or
how much to the wood. Held insufficient to
support a finding that the value of such filling
was $150.-Schwerin v. De Graff, 19 Minn. 414,
(Gil. 359.)
14. A schedule to a complaint for work and
labor done contained an item for 2,800 yards of
excavation done in January, 1869. Plaintiff testi-
fied that "the work was to be measured by the
engineer of the railroad company. His measure
was to be taken as correct, and he was to be paid
according to such estimate;" and further, "that
he [plaintiff] thought he did about 2,800 yards
on that section in January, -he guessed at it."
Defendant testified that nearly all the work done
on that section was performed before January,
and what was done afterwards was included in
the December estimate. Held, that plaintiff's
evidence was too vague and indefinite to support
referee's finding that he had done 2,800 yards of
grading in January.-Schwerin v. De Graff, 19
Minn. 414, (Gil. 359.)
only testimony as to the value of the services
was that of plaintiff, who claimed they were
worth $50. Held, that a verdict for that amount
in plaintiff's favor would not be set aside as un-
supported by the evidence.-Svanoe v. Larson,
(Minn.) 49 N. W. 388.
47 Minn. 7.
Question for jury.
16. Whether extra or different work than called
for by a special contract, and not expressly agreed
to be paid for, is of such character as to raise an
implied assumpsit to pay for the same, is usually
a question for the iury to be determined by the
nature, amount, and value of such work.-Fravell
v. Nett, (Minn.) 48 N. W. 416.
46 Minn. 31.
WRECKING TRAINS.
What constitutes the offense.
Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 94, § 63, which
declares that "whoever shall willfully obstruct any
engine or carriage passing upon any railroad, so
as to endanger the safety of persons conveyed in
or upon the same," shall be punished, etc., the of
fense is complete when an obstacle is placed on a
railway in such manner that any train in passing
may strike it, and is of such a character that the
safety of persons conveyed will be endangered if a
train should come in collision with it.-State v.
Kilty, 10 N. W. 475, 28 Minn. 421.
Writs.
See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Gar
nishment: Habeas Corpus; Mandamus; Pro-
hibition, Writ of; Replevin; Search Warrunt;
Summons.
15. In an action for services rendered defeud-
ant in attending to and protecting his interests in
the estate of his deceased son, it appeared that
such services consisted almost entirely of cor-
respondence with various persons, the nature and
extent of which were given in evidence. The See Attachment, 99–109.
Wrongful Attachment.
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES
CITED, CONSTRUED, ETC.,
IN THE
MINNESOTA REPORTS, Vols. 1 TO 47, INCLUSIVE, AND THE MINNESOTA CASES
IN THE NORTHWESTERN REPORTER, VOLS.
I TO 52, INCLUSIVE.¹
ENGLISH STATUTES.
25 Edw. III., ch. 2.
3 Minn. 255, (Gil. 174.)
50 Edw. III., ch. 6.
4 Minn. 396, (Gil. 298.)
3 Hen. VII., ch. 4.
4 Minn. 396, (Gil. 298.)
4 Hen. VII., ch. 13.
3 Minn. 253, (Gil. 172.)
28 Hen. VIII., ch. 1.
3 Minn. 253, (Gil. 172.)
32 Hen. VIII., ch. 3.
3 Minn. 253, (Gil. 172.)
37 Hen. VIII., ch. 9.
2 Minn. 362, (Gil. 314.)
1 Edw. VI., ch. 12.
3 Minn. 253, (Gil. 172.)
1 & 2 Ph. & M., cb. 13.
10 Minn. 358, (Gil. 283.)
2 & 3 Ph. & M., ch. 10.
10 Minn. 358, (Gil. 284.)
13 Eliz. ch. 5.
4 Miun. 396, (Gil. 298;) 7 Minn. 345, (Gil.
271;) 12 Minn. 66, (Gil. 33;) 13 Minn. 330,
(Gil. 303;) 18 Minn. 424, (Gil. 382;) 51 N.
W. 476.
27 Eliz. ch. 4.
4 Minn. 396, (Gil. 298;) 7 Minn. 345, (Gil.
271.)
21 Jac. I., ch. 16.
9 Minn. 18, (Gil. 6.)
29 Chas. II., ch. 3, § 4.
29 Chas. II., ch. 3, §§ 7, 8.
14 Minn. 430, (Gil. 320.)
29 Chas. II., ch. 3, § 16.
25 Minn. 171.
2 Wm. & M. ch. 5.
24 Minn. 591, 617.
3 & 4 Anne, ch. 9.
3 Minn. 336, (Gil. 235.)
4 Anne, ch. 16, § 4.
5 Minn. 130, 143, 146, (Gil. 93, 108, 111.)
4 Anne, ch. 16, § 6.
1 Minn. 415, (Gil. 300;) 34 Minn. 63.
4 Anne, ch. 16, § 27.
25 Minn. 225.
5 Anne, ch. 6.
3 Minn. 254, (Gil. 173.)
6 Anne, ch. 31.
18 Minn. 342, (Gil. 314.)
6 Anne, ch. 32.
11 Minn. 44, (Gil. 22.)
7 Anne, ch. 20.
24 Minn. 283.
7 Anne, ch. 25.
3 Minn. 336, (Gil. 235.)
8 Anne, ch. 19.
3 Minn. 104, (Gil. 56.)
2 Geo. II., ch. 22, § 13.
6 Minn. 425, (Gil. 288.)
4 Geo. II., ch. 28.
24 Minn. 617.
24 Geo. II., ch. 18.
34 Minn. 63.
6 Minn. 260, (Gil. 171;) 13 Minn. 193, (Gil. 10 Geo. III., ch. 18.
181.)
1 Minn. 297, (Gil. 230.)
1 NOTE. The statutes cited in the Minnesota cases in vol. 52, N. W. Rep., are included to page 384.
(2097)
(2098)
2099
2100
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
!
14 Geo. III., ch. 78.
18 Minn. 342, (Gil. 314.).
1 & 2 Geo. IV., ch. 78, § 2.
8 Minn. 410, (Gil. 364.)
6 Geo. IV., ch. 50.
34 Minn. 63.
7 Geo. IV., ch. 64, § 12.
14 Minn. 452, (Gil. 336.)
7 Geo. IV., ch. 65, § 2.
10 Minn. 358, (Gil. 284.)
7 & 8 Geo. IV., ch. 28.
3 Minn. 254, (Gil. 173.)
9 Geo. IV., ch. 14.
9 Minn. 19, (Gil. 7.)
3 & 4 Wm. IV., ch. 74.
10 Minn. 55, (Gil. 37.)
3 & 4 Vict., ch. 97, § 15.
28 Minn. 422.
9 & 10 Vict., ch. 93.
28 Minn. 372.
19 & 20 Vict., ch. 97, § 3.
34 Minn. 310.
30 & 31 Vict., ch. 131.
50 N. W. 1120.
46 & 47 Vict., ch. 52.
51 N. W. 612.
Art. 2.
UNITED STATES.
ORDINANCE 1787.
18 Minn. 394, (Gil. 356.)
Art. 4.
1 Minn. 76, 206, (Gil. 54, 180;) 24 Minn. 619.
Art. 1, § 8.
CONSTITUTION.
7 Minn. 145, (Gil. 88;) 16 Minn. 139, (Gil.
125.)
Art. 1, § 10.
2 Minn. 94, (Gil. 76;) 12 Minn. 484, (Gil. 388.)
Art. 3.
19 Minn. 141, (Gil. 106.)
Art. 3, § 2.
1 Minn. 194, (Gil. 168;) 10 Minn. 248, (Gil.
193.)
Art. 4, § 2.
7 Minn. 20, (Gil. 8.)
Art. 4, § 3.
5 Minn. 234, (Gil. 180;) 21 Minn. 169.
Amend. 5.
1 Minn. 132, (Gil. 108;) 10 Minn. 280, (Gil.
219.)
Amend. 7.
4 Minn. 114, (Gil. 76;) 19 Minn. 139, (Gil.
104;) 47 Minn. 453, 454.
Amend. 10.
21 Minn. 170.
Amend. 14.
18 Minn. 404, (Gil. 364.)
STATUTES AT LARGE.
Vol. 1, p. 76, § 9.
10 Minn. 248, (Gil. 193;) 12 Minn. 467, (Gil.
368.)
Vol. 1, p. 78, § 11.
18 Minn. 227, (Gil. 207.)
Vol. 1, p. 79, § 12.
14 Minn. 414, 415, 418, 419, (Gil. 310, 311.
314, 315;) 18 Minn. 226, (Gil. 207;) 20
Minn. 494, (Gil. 448.)
Vol. 1, p. 84, § 22.
18 Minn. 227, (Gil. 207.)
Vol. 1, pp. 85, 86, § 25.
5 Minn. 237, (Gil. 183.)
Vol. 1, p. 122.
19 Minn. 242, (Gil. 201;) 20 Minn. 238, (Gil.
213;) 41 Minn. 109.
Vol. 1, p. 464.
10 Minn. 99, (Gil. 73.)
Vol. 2, p. 298.
41 Minn. 109.
Vol. 2, pp. 313, 314.
10 Minn. 99, (Gil. 73;) 17 Minn. 208, 307,
(Gil. 274, 283.)
Vol. 2, p. 445.
5 Minn. 89, (Gil. 63.)
Vol. 4, pp. 420, 496, 503, 603, 678.
2 Minn. 166, 167, 169, (Gil. 135--139.)
Vol. 4, p. 730.
10 Minn. 153, (Gil. 123.)
Vol. 5, p. 107.
7 Minn. 454, (Gil. 362.)
Vol. 5, p. 251.
2 Minn. 167, (Gil. 137;) 12 Minn. 559, (Gil.
473.)
Vol. 5, p. 260, § 29.
2 Minn. 170, (Gil. 140.)
Vol. 5, p. 306. § 13.
12 Minn. 371, (Gil. 248;) 13 Minn. 536, (G
502.)
2101
2102
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Vol. 5, p. 382.
2 Minn. 167, (Gil. 137.)
27 Minn. 222.
Vol. 5, p. 453.
Vol. 5, p. 455, § 9.
3 Minn. 452, 453, (Gil. 337, 338.)
Vol. 5, p. 455, § 10.
3 Minn. 452, 453, (Gil. 337, 338;) 12 Minn.
559, (Gil. 473.)
Vol. 5, p. 456, § 11.
7 Minn. 454, (Gil. 363;) 12 Minn. 72-74, (Gil.
36, 38.)
Vol. 5, p. 456, § 12.
2 Minn. 165, (Gil. 134;) 5 Minn. 245, (Gil.
191;) 7 Minn. 454, (Gil. 363.)
Vol. 5, p. 456, § 13.
2 Minn. 167, (Gil. 137;) 5 Minn. 89, 199, (Gil.
64, 157;) 7 Minn. 249, (Gil. 188;) 9 Minn.
259, (Gil. 244;) 14 Minn. 237 et seq., (Gil.
174.)
Vol. 5, p. 503, § 4.
2 Minn. 170, (Gil. 140.)
Vol. 5, p. 657.
1 Minn. 439, (Gil. 312;) 3 Minn. 450, (Gil.
335;) 5 Minn. 89, (Gil. 64;) 6 Minn. 122,
123, 128, (Gil. 66, 67, 73;) 8 Minn. 416, 459,
(Gil. 370, 409;) 12 Minn. 561, 566, (Gil.
480;) 15 Minn. 123, (Gil. 92;) 17 Minn. 271,
(Gil. 248;) 20 Minn. 145, (Gil. 129;) 45
Minn. 67; 51 N. W. 471; 52 N. W. 133.
Vol. 7, p. 328.
7 Minn. 242, (Gil. 181.)
Vol. 7, p. 330, art. 9.
20 Minn. 212, (Gil. 191.)
Vol. 9, p. 73.
18 Minn. 403, (Gil. 363.)
Vol. 9, p. 233.
3 Minn. 256, (Gil. 175.)
Vol. 10, p. 3.
8 Minn. 402, (Gil. 358.)
Vol. 10, p. 28.
17 Minn. 223, (Gil. 200;) 25 Minn. 451.
Vol. 10, p. 67, § 8.
12 Minn. 374, (Gil. 251;) 13 Minn. 526, (Gil.
493.)
Vol. 10, p. 69, § 12.
12 Minn. 374, (Gil. 251.)
Vol. 10, p. 170.
15 Minn. 435, (Gil. 350.)
Vol. 10, p. 302.
1 Minn. 130, (Gil. 106.)
Vol. 10, p. 304.
7 Minn. 242, (Gil. 184;) 12 Minn. 182, (Gil.
110;) 18 Minn. 359, (Gil. 328;) 20 Minn.
213, 214, (Gil. 192, 193.)
Vol. 10, p. 326.
18 Minn. 357, (Gil. 327.)
Vol. 10, p. 332.
7 Minn. 243, (Gil. 182.)
Vol. 10, p. 346.
41 Minn. 359.
Vol. 10, p. 575.
1 Minn. 130, (Gil. 106.)
Vol. 10, p. 576.
5 Minn. 89, (Gil. 63;) 7 Minn. 138, (Gil. 81;)
12 Minn. 73, 75, (Gil. 38, 39.)
Vol. 10, p. 683.
17 Minn. 223, (Gil. 200;) 25 Minn. 452; 41
Minn. 354.
Vol. 10, p. 699.
7 Minn. 244, (Gil. 182.)
Vol. 10, pp. 954-959.
18 Minn. 357, (Gil. 327.)
Vol. 10, p. 1109.
16 Minn. 528, (Gil. 476.)
Vol. 10, p. 1166.
15 Minn. 380, (Gil. 303.)
Vol. 11, p. 20.
38 Minn. 410.
Vol. 11, p. 167.
5 Minn. 234, 235, (Gil. 181, 185;) 7 Minn. 137,
138, (Gil. 80, 82;) 29 Minn. 556.
Vol. 11, p. 195.
11 Minn. 186, (Gil. 118;) 14 Minn. 324, 332,
(Gil. 248, 255;) 18 Minn. 42, 43, 113, (Gil.
23, 24, 98;) 21 Minn. 340; 25 Minn. 454;
27 Minn. 131; 29 Minn. 209; 38 Minn. 263;
39 Minn. 263; 40 Minn. 456; 41 Minn. 353,
356; 46 Minn. 390; 47 Minn. 40, 41, 45.
Vol. 11, p. 285.
29 Minn. 557.
Vol. 12, p. 6.
11 Minn. 217, (Gil. 139.)
Vol. 12, p. 257.
15 Minn. 425, (Gil. 344.)
Vol. 12, pp. 298, 300.
12 Minn. 513, (Gil. 422.)
Vol. 12, p. 392, (Act May 20, 1862.)
52 N. W. 271,`272.
Vol. 12, p. 393.
21 Minn. 168.
Vol. 12, p. 483 et seq., § 94.
10 Minn. 132, (Gil. 105;) 22 Minn. 396.
Vol. 12, p. 624.
29 Minn. 210.
Vol. 12, p. 666, § 6.
20 Minn. 237, (Gil. 213.)
:
2103
2104
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
}
Vol. 12, p. 732, § 8.
11 Minn. 216, (Gil. 139.)
Vol. 12, p. 1032.
18 Minn. 357, (Gil. 327.)
Vol. 12, p. 1038.
15 Minn. 437, (Gil. 352;) 18 Minn. 357. (Gil.
327.)
Vol. 12, p. 1039.
15 Minn. 437, (Gil. 352.)
Vol. 12, p. 1042.
18 Minn. 357, (Gil. 327.)
Vol. 12, ch. 119, (Act July 1, 1862.)
14 Minn. 348, (Gil. 267.)
Vol. 13, p. 66.
38 Minn. 410; 44 Minn. 345.
Vol. 13, p. 101, § 6.
20 Minn. 238, (Gil. 213.)
Vol. 13, p. 107, § 28.
20 Minn. 244, (Gil. 219.)
Vol. 13, p. 110.
38 Minn. 87, 88.
Vol. 13, p. 111, § 41.
11 Minn. 503, 512, (Gil. 379, 389.)
Vol. 13, p. 300.
22 Minn. 396.
Vol. 13, p. 365.
28 Minn. 258; 39 Minn. 25.
Vol. 13, p. 526, § 1.
18 Minn. 35, 37, (Gil. 17, 18.)
Vol. 13, p. 526, § 2.
27 Minn. 131; 29 Minn. 210, 285; 36 Minn
469; 40 Minn. 456, 457.
Vol. 13, p. 693.
Vol. 14, pp. 558, 559.
13 Minn. 459, (Gil. 427;) 14 Minn. 415. 416,
(Gil. 311, 312;) 20 Minn. 493, (Gil. 447.)
Vol. 15, p. 184.
25 Minn. 534.
Vol. 15, p. 258.
23 Minn. 161.
Vol. 16, p. 305.
28 Minn. 259.
Vol. 16, p. 588.
29 Minn. 210, 212.
Vol. 17, pp. 49, 333.
29 Minn. 19.
Vol. 18, p. 21.
43 Minn. 376.
Vol. 18, p. 182.
25 Minu. 126.
Vol. 18, p. 470.
25 Minn. 535; 35 Minn. 84.
Vol. 18, p. 482.
32 Minn. 97.
Vol. 18, ch. 137.
51 N. W. 478.
Vol. 20, p. 113.
34 Miun. 128.
Vol. 21, p. 140.
32 Minn. 98; 34 Minn. 130.
Vol. 23, p. 154.
43 Minn. 380.
Vol. 25, ch. 866.
51 N. W. 478.
REVISED STATUTES.
15 Minn. 380, (Gil. 303.)
§ 563.
Vol. 14, p. 87.
34 Minn. 539.
Vol. 14, p. 97.
29 Minn. 285; 40 Minn. 457.
Vol. 14, pp. 306, 307.
32 Minn. 431; 43 Minn. 193.
§ 639.
35 Minn. 82, 83.
§ 640.
25 Minn. 535
14 Minn. 415, (Gil. 311;) 20 Minn. 494. (Gil. § 711.
448.)
Vol. 14, p. 517.
25 Minn. UI.
Vol. 14, p. 522, §§ 14-16
16 Minn. 70, (Gil. 59.)
Vol. 14, p. 526.
25 Minn. 504.
§ 802.
34 Minn. 64.
§ 906.
29 Minn. 112.
§ 933.
16 Minn. 162, (Gil. 144.)
30 Minn. 240.
Vol. 14, p. 534, § 35
§ 2057.
23 Minn. 112.
45 Minn. 535.
2105
2106
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
§ 2165.
24 Minn. 56; 40 Minn. 70.
§ 2167.
24 Minn. 57.
§ 2258.
46 Minn. 21.
§ 5136.
24 Minn. 141.
§ 5201.
со
38 Minn. 87, 88.
§ 5242.
39 Minn. 416.
§ 5278.
co
34 Minn. 116; 37 Minn. 437.
§ 2263.
28 Minn. 37.
§ 2289.
34 Minn. 540; 36 Minn. 549; 40 Minn. 456.
§ 2290.
30 Minn. 530; 32 Minn. 96; 34 Minn. 540; 36
Minn. 549; 40 Minn. 396, 456.
§ 2291.
30 Minn. 530; 36 Minn. 387, 549; 37 Minn. Art. 1, § 2.
180, 182.
§ 2292.
36 Minn. 549.
§ 2293.
34 Minn. 540.
§ 2296.
36 Minn. 387; 37 Minn. 180; 40 Minn. 397.
§ 2298.
37 Minn. 181.
§ 2306.
52 N. W. 131, 271, 273.
§ 2308.
34 Minn. 542.
§ 2372.
44 Minn. 75.
§ 2464 et seq.
43 Minn. 124.
§ 2465.
28 Minn. 486.
§ 2477.
32 Minn. 96.
§ 2478.
28 Minn. 486.
§§ 3387, 3406.
24 Minn. 428.
§ 5046.
25 Minn. 507; 43 Minn. 141.
§§ 5056, 5057.
28 Minn. 553, 554.
§ 5106.
41 Minn. 364.
§ 5110.
42 Minn. 98.
§ 5128.
30 Minn. 62; 35 Minn. 349.
MINNESOTA.
CONSTITUTION.
13 Minn. 368, (Gil. 341.)
Art. 1, § 4.
4 Minn. 113, (Gil. 74;) 15 Minn. 229, (Gil.
179;) 16 Minn. 435, (Gil. 392;) 19 Minn.
138, 143, (Gil. 103, 109;) 21 Minn. 400; 23
Minn. 413; 25 Minn. 427, 477; 47 Minn.
452.
Art. 1, § 5.
22 Minn. 524.
Art. 1, § 6.
4 Minn. 113, (Gil. 74;) 13 Minn. 348, (Gil.
322;) 14 Minn. 444, 450, 453, 454, (Gil. 331,
334, 337, 338;) 19 Minn. 332, 485, (Gil. 286,
419;) 21 Minn. 50, 400; 23 Minn. 413.
Art. 1, § 7.
6 Minn. 239, (Gil. 157;) 7 Minn. 17, (Gil. 5;)
8 Minn. 262, (Gil. 229;) 16 Minn. 298, 435,
(Gil. 262, 392;) 19 Minn. 331, (Gil. 286;) 22
Minn. 491; 23 Minn. 413; 24 Minn. 349,
368.
Art. 1, § 8.
5 Minn. 101, (Gil. 75;) 6 Minn. 115, (Gil. 59;)
7 Minn. 17, (Gil. 5;) 11 Minn. 544, (Gil.
419;) 22 Minn. 64; 24 Minn. 590.
Art. 1, § 11.
2 Minn. 94, (Gil. 76:) 7 Minn. 17, (Gil. 5;) 12
Minn. 484, (Gil. 388;) 22 Minn. 524.
Art. 1, § 12.
2 Minn. 103, (Gil. 85;) 7 Minn. 467, (Gil. 375,.
376;) 10 Minn. 155, (Gil. 125;) 11 Minn.
477, (Gil. 356;) 21 Minn. 302; 22 Minn..
147; 23 Minn. 3, 413, 438.
Art. 1, § 13.
11 Minn. 539, (Gil. 414;) 16 Minn. 378, (Gil..
337.)
Art. 1, § 15.
22 Minn. 464; 24 Minn. 617.
Art. 1, § 16.
21 Minn. 205.
Art. 2, § 3.
5 Minn. 235, (Gil. 181;) 21 Minn. 171.
2107
2108
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Art. 3.
10 Minn. 81, (Gil. 57;) 18 Minn. 485, (Gil.
433;) 19 Minn. 105, (Gil. 75;) 20 Minn.
364, (Gil. 315;) 22 Minǹ. 369.
Art. 4.
6 Minn. 436, (Gil. 295.)
Art. 4, § 1.
18 Minn. 485, (Gil. 433.)
Art. 4, § 4.
2 Minn. 333, (Gil. 285.)
Art. 4, § 5.
24 Minn. 81.
Art. 4, § 10.
11 Minn. 544, (Gil. 419;) 25 Minn. 8.
Art. 4, § 11.
2 Minn. 334, (Gil. 286;) 8 Minn. 369, (Gil.
328;) 24 Minn. 81; 51 N. W. 224, 225.
Art. 4, § 12.
24 Minn. 574.
Art. 4, §§ 13, 20.
2 Minn. 331, 333, 334, (Gil. 282, 284, 285;) 24
Minn. 80, 81.
Art. 4, § 21.
}
Art. 6, § 4.
14 Minn. 453, (Gil. 338.)
Art. 6, § 5.
4 Minn. 18, (Gil. 6;) 9 Minn. 171, (Gil. 157;)
10 Minn. 372, (Gil. 298;) 11 Minn. 405, (Gil.
297;) 12 Minn. 228, (Gil. 147;) 14 Minn.
453, (Gil. 332.)
Art. 6, § 7.
9 Minn. 285, (Gil. 269;) 11 Minn. 405, (Gil.
297;) 20 Minn. 326, (Gil. 281;) 22 Minn.
338, 339; 23 Minn. 52; 24 Minn. 147.
Art. 6, § 8.
8 Minn. 390, (Gil. 346;) 16 Minn. 476, (Gil.
431;) 18 Minn. 69, (Gil. 54.)
Art. 6, § 9.
5 Minn. 86, (Gil. 60.)
Art. 6, § 10.
9 Minn. 285, (Gil. 269, 271;) 22 Minn. 337--
339, 483.
Art. 6, § 13.
15 Minn. 224, (Gil. 174.)
Art. 6, § 14.
9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 49;) 11 Minn. 196, (Gil. 126;)
12 Minn. 85, 264, (Gil. 44, 169;) 19 Minn.
30, (Gil. 12.)
2 Minn. 334, 335, (Gil. 286, 287;) 24 Minn. Art. 6, § 15.
81; 51 N. W. 224.
Art. 4, § 22.
51 N. W. 225.
Art. 4, § 27.
2 Minn. 331, 336, (Gil. 282, 288;) 7 Minn. 467,
(Gil. 376;) 11 Minn. 535, (Gil. 410:) 12
Minn. 50, (Gil. 21;) 13 Minn. 349, (Gil. 322)
14 Minn. 525, (Gil. 396;) 21 Minn. 303; 22
Minn. 319, 322; 47 Minn. 106, 107, 576.
Art. 4, § 30.
24 Minn. 81.
Art. 4, § 33.
47 Minn. 273; 52 N. W. 380.
Art. 5, § 1.
20 Minn. 364, (Gil. 315.)
Art. 5, § 4.
9 Minn. 287, (Gil. 271.)
Art. 5, § 7.
22 Minn. 71.
Art. 6, § 1.
5 Minn. 86, (Gil. 60;) 6 Minn. 185, (Gil. 118;)
15 Minn. 103, (Gil. 79;) 19 Minú. 138, (Gil.
104.)
Art. 6, § 2.
2 Minn. 342, (Gil. 295:) 3 Minn. 145, (Gil. 89;)
4 Minn. 367, (Gil. 276;) 9 Minn. 170, (Gil.
156;) 10 Minn. 372, (Gil. 298;) 11 Minn.
405, (Gil. 297;) 12 Minn. 228, (Gil. 147;) 18
Minn. 395, (Gil. 356;) 25 Minn. 427, 559.
3 Minn. 356, (Gil. 250.)
Art. 7, § 1.
3 Minn. 243, (Gil. 166.)
Art. 7, § 7.
3 Minn. 243, (Gil. 166;) 23 Minn. 17.
Art. 8, § 1.
17 Minn. 415, (Gil. 394;) 25 Minn. 5; 51 N.
W. 611, 815.
Art. 8, § 3.
17 Minn. 415, (Gil. 394.)
Art. 9, § 1.
8 Minn. 371, 373, (Gil. 330, 333;) 9 Minn. 277,
(Gil. 261;) 14 Minn. 262, (Gil. 193;) 20
Minn. 77, 397, (Gil. 63, 64, 348;) 22 Minu.
318, 369, 401, 506; 23 Minn. 233, 286, 474.
Art. 9, § 2.
20 Minn. 77, (Gil. 63, 64;) 22 Minn. 369; 23
Minn. 286.
Art. 9, § 3.
7 Minn. 261, (Gil. 201;) 11 Minn. 505, (Gil.
381, 383;) 12 Minn. 397, (Gil. 281;) 14
Minn. 262, (Gil. 193;) 20 Minn. 77, (Gil. 63,
64;) 22 Minn. 369; 23 Minn. 286, 474.
Art. 9, § 4.
11 Minn. 505, 506, (Gil. 382, 383;) 20 Minn.
77, (Gil. 63, 64;) 22 Minn. 369; 23 Minn.
286, 288.
Art. 9, §§ 5, 6.
18 Minn. 494, (Gil. 442.)
2109
2110
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Art. 9, § 10.
2 Minn. 14, 16, 26, (Gil. 2, 5, 16;) 4 Minn.
312, (Gil. 228:) 11 Minn. 187, (Gil. 119;) 18
Minn. 494, (Gil. 442;) 22 Minn. 71.
Art. 9. § 12.
22 Minn. 71, 75, 197.
Art. 9, § 13.
Art. 9, § 14.
25 Minn. 550.
23 Minn. 428.
Art. 10, § 1.
10 Minn. 25, (Gil. 10.)
Art. 10, § 2.
9 Minn. 171, (Gil. 158;) 10 Minn. 25, (Gil.
10;) 12 Minn. 46, (Gil. 17;) 14 Minn. 309,
(Gil. 234;) 17 Minn. 415, 417, (Gil. 394,
395;) 21 Minn. 282, 283.
Art. 10, § 3.
Schedule, §§ 18, 22.
10 Minn. 129. (Gil. 102.)
Preamble.
REVISED STATUTES 1851.
4 Minn. 459, (Gil. 356.)
Ch. 1.
25 Minn. 219.
Ch. 1, §§ 8, 18.
17 Minn. 271, (Gil. 247.)
Ch. 2, § 1.
3 Minn. 404, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 4, art. 6, § 5.
7 Minn. 431, (Gil. 346.)
Ch. 5, § 33.
2 Minn. 185, 347, (Gil. 154, 300.)
16 Minn. 370, (Gil. 329;) 25 Minn. 550; 50 Ch. 5, § 35.
N. W. 1110, 1113--1115.
Art. 10, § 4.
10 Minn. 280, (Gil. 219;) 11 Minn. 539, 542,
(Gil. 414, 417;) 18 Minn. 389, (Gil. 351;)
21 Minn. 324; 22 Minn. 374.
Art. 11.
25 Minn. 219.
Art. 11, § 1.
6 Minn. 434, 439, 441, (Gil. 294, 300, 301;) 10
Minn. 110, 116, 128, (Gil. 82, 88, 101;) 16
Minn. 251--253, (Gil. 226--228;) 22 Minn. 54,
403; 23 Minn. 41, 45.
Art. 11, § 2.
10 Minn. 125, (Gil. 98;) 16 Minn. 253, (Gil.
227.)
Art. 11, § 3.
14 Minn. 438, (Gil. 329.)
Art. 11, § 4.
15 Minn. 202, (Gil. 158.)
Art. 11, § 5.
18 Minn. 494, (Gil. 442;) 20 Minn. 77, 78,
(Gil. 63, 64;) 22 Minn. 369.
Art. 13, § 2.
15 Minn. 202, (Gil. 157.)
Art. 14, § 1.
2 Minn. 16, (Gil. 5;) 10 Minn. 129, (Gil. 102;)
22 Minn. 401, 403.
Art. 14, § 2.
10 Minn. 129, (Gil. 102;) 22 Minn. 403.
Schedule, § 2.
19 Minn. 140, (Gil. 106;) 24 Minn. 587.
Schedule, § 4.
3 Minn. 76, (Gil. 35.)
Schedule, § 16.
22 Minn. 71.
2 Minn. 348, (Gil. 300.)
Ch. 5, § 43.
2 Minn. 186, (Gil. 154.)
Ch. 5, § 44.
2 Minn. 347, (Gil. 300.)
Ch. 5, § 45.
3 Minn. 244, (Gil. 167, 168.)
Ch. 5, § 46.
2 Minn. 345, (Gil. 297;) 3 Minn. 244, (Gil.
167.)
Ch. 6, § 5.
17. Minn. 116, 119, (Gil. 92, 95.)
Ch. 8, art. 1, § 13.
6 Minn. 215, (Gil. 136;) 8 Minn. 510, (Gil.
452;) 11 Minn. 41, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 8, art. 1, § 20.
9 Minn. 26, (Gil. 15.)
Ch. 8, art. 2, § 2.
2 Minn. 345, (Gil. 297.)
Ch. 8, art. 2, § 4.
9 Minn. 26, (Gil. 14;) 19 Minn. 62, (Gil. 40;)
33 Minn. 276.
Ch. 8, art. 2, § 5.
24 Minn. 228.
Ch. 8, art. 2, §§ 7, 10.
2 Minn. 340, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 8, art. 3, §§ 4, 8, 9.
11 Minn. 41, 42, (Gil. 20, 21.)
Ch. 8, art. 4, § 5.
41 Minn. 255.
Ch. 8, art. 5.
3 Minn. 63, 244, (Gil. 30, 167.)
2111
2112
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 8, art. 5, § 1.
3 Minn. 245, (Gil. 168.) ·
Ch. 8, art. 6.
6 Minn. 229, (Gil. 148.)
Ch. 8, art. 10, § 5.
20 Minn. 399, (Gil. 350.)
Ch. 8, art. 11, § 5.
19 Minn. 456, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 8, art. 12, § 5.
3 Minn. 245, (Gil. 168.)
Ch. 11, § 2.
15 Minn. 356, (Gil. 290.)
Ch. 11, § 23.
Ch. 46, § 1.
2 Minn. 270, (Gil. 230.)
Ch. 46, § 2.
18 Minn. 373, (Gil. 336;) 21 Minn. 199.
Ch. 46, § 3.
16 Minn. 156, (Gil. 139.)
Ch. 46, § 8.
6 Minn. 229, (Gil. 148.)
Ch. 46, § 12.
18 Minn. 375, (Gil. 338.)
Ch. 46, § 24.
2 Minn. 270, (Gil. 231;) 18 Minn. 409. (Gil.
367;) 24 Minn. 228; 33 Minn. 278,
15 Minn. 356, 357, (Gil. 290, 291;) 31 Minn. Ch. 46, § 27.
452.
Ch. 12.
8 Minn. 447, (Gil. 396;) 45 Minn. 176.
Ch. 12, § 4, subd. 2.
17 Minn. 278, (Gil. 254.)
Ch. 12, § 23.
7 Minn. 271, (Gil. 208.)
Ch. 12, §§ 42, 43, 48 et seq.
2 Minn. 340, (Ġil. 292.)
Ch. 12, § 74.
30 Minn. 352; 35 Minn. 420.
Ch. 12, § 77.
15 Minn. 483, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 12, § 95.
11 Minn. 41, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 16, §§ 7, 8.
45 Minn. 469.
Ch. 27.
5 Minn. 485, (Gil. 387.)
Ch. 31.
17 Minn. 261, (Gil. 240.)
Ch. 31, §§ 1-4.
22 Minn. 253, 255.
Ch. 31, § 5.
17 Minn. 262, (Gil. 240.)
Ch. 31, § 6.
17 Minn. 271, (Gil. 247.)
Ch. 35.
22 Minn. 143, 144; 24 Minn. 229; 45 Minn.
120.
Ch. 46, § 30.
22 Minn. 143.
Ch. 46, § 33.
17 Minn. 271, (Gil. 247;) 40 Minn. 136.
Ch. 49, § 18.
34 Minn. 163; 46 Minn. 479.
Ch. 49, §§ 31--33.
24 Minn. 589.
Ch. 50, § 1.
42 Minn. 348.
Ch. 51, § 22.
30 Minn. 112.
Ch. 52, § 50.
30 Minn. 112.
Ch. 57, §§ 19, 20.
47 Minn. 581, 584.
Ch. 60, §§ 2, 6, 7.
24 Minn. 121.
Ch. 61, §§ 1-9.
40 Minn. 240, 242.
Ch. 62, § 6.
2 Minn. 283, (Gil. 245;) 42 Mirn. 373.
Ch. 64, § 1.
2 Minn. 272, 274, 293, (Gil. 233, 235, 255.)
Ch. 65, § 15.
41 Minn. 54.
1 Minn. 352, (Gil. 260;) 2 Minn. 371, (Gil. Ch. 67, § 12.
324;) 3 Minn. 344, (Gil. 243.)
Ch. 43, §§ 43--45.
43 Minn. 399.
Ch. 44, §§ 7, 8.
2 Minn. 283, (Gil. 245.,
Ch. 44, § 11.
2 Minn. 274, 283, (Gil. 235, 245.)
24 Minn. 148.
Ch. 69, art. 1.
1 Minn. 367, (Gil. 269.)
Ch. 69, art. 2, § 3.
2 Minn. 88, (Gil. 70.)
Ch. 69, art. 2, § 32.
1 Minn. 350, (Gil. 258.)
2113
2114
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 69, art. 3, § 3.
24 Minn. 148.
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 5.
2 Minn. 87, (Gil. 69.)
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 24.
18 Minn. 228, (Gil. 208.)
Ch. 69, art. 4, §§ 32, 33.
1 Minn. 227, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 120.
1 Minn. 211, (Gil. 185.)
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 123.
30 Minn. 207.
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 127.
1 Minn. 181, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 69, art. 4, § 198.
1 Minn. 211, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 70, § 1.
19 Minn. 141, (Gil. 107.)
Ch. 70, § 26.
1 Minn. 104, (Gil. 82.)
Ch. 70, $ 27.
1 Minn. 168, 251, (Gil. 143, 200.)
Ch. 70, § 29.
1 Minn. 251, (Gil. 200;) 2 Minn. 49, (Gil. 36.)
Ch. 70, § 30.
3 Minn. 205, (Gil. 135.)
Ch. 70, § 38.
1 Minn. 104, (Gil. 81;) 45 Minn. 359.
Ch. 70, § 39.
24 Minn. 588, 589.
Ch. 70, § 41.
5 Minn. 149, (Gil. 114.)
Ch. 70, § 50.
47 Minn. 585.
Ch. 70, § 52.
2 Minn. 263, (Gil. 225.)
Ch. 70, § 60.
1 Minn. 165, 377, (Gil. 140, 279;) 2 Minn. 85,
(Gil. 68;) 5 Minn. 149, (Gil. 114.)
Ch. 70, § 65.
2 Minn. 282, 316, 321, (Gil. 244, 271, 275.)
Ch. 70, § 69.
1 Minn. 414, (Gil. 299.)
Ch. 70, § 71.
2 Minn. 85, (Gil. 68.)
Ch. 70, § 76.
2 Minn. 222, (Gil. 184;) 3 Minn. 130, (Gil. 76.)
Ch. 70, § 77.
2 Minn. 317, (Gil. 272.)
V.2M.DIG.-67
Ch. 70, § 83.
Minn. 354, (Gil. 280.)
Ch. 70, §§ 84, 85.
2 Minn. 85, (Gil. 68.)
Ch. 70, § 86.
1 Minn. 178, (Gil. 152;) 4 Minn. 124, (Gil. 82.)
Ch. 70, §§ 87, 88.
1 Minn. 178, (Gil. 152.)
Ch. 70, § 90.
2 Minn. 263, (Gil. 225.)
Ch. 70, § 91.
45 Minn. 359.
Ch. 70, § 136.
11 Minn. 547, (Gil. 421.)
Ch. 70, § 140.
1 Minn. 187, (Gil. 162.)
Ch. 70, § 158.
2 Minn. 57, (Gil. 45.)
Ch. 70, §§ 159, 160.
1 Minn. 104, (Gil. 81.)
Ch. 70, § 162.
1 Minn. 182, (Gil. 156;) 2 Minn. 54, (Gil. 41.)
Ch. 70, § 165.
2 Minn. 53, 56, (Gil. 41. 43;) 19 Minn. 461,
(Gil. 403.)
Ch. 71.
40 Minn. 215.
Ch. 71, §§ 6, 7.
47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 71, § 10.
2 Minn. 54, (Gil. 41.)
Ch. 71, § 38.
1 Minn. 152, (Gil. 127.)
Ch. 71, § 39.
1 Minn. 368, (Gil. 270;) 2 Minn. 282, (Gil..
244.)
Ch. 71, § 41.
1 Minn. 104, (Gil. 82;) 2 Minn. 137, (Gil. 112.)
Ch. 71, § 42.
2 Minn. 53, 55, (Gil. 41, 43.)
Ch. 71, §§ 50--52.
19 Minn. 138, 141, (Gil. 103, 107.)
Ch. 71, § 54.
2 Minn. 137, (Gil. 112.)
Ch. 71, § 59.
4 Minn. 125, (Gil. 83;) 15 Minn. 264, (Gil,
202.)
Ch. 71, §§ 67, 68.
2 Minn. 282, (Gil. 244.)
2115
2116
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
•
Ch. 71, § 70.
1 Minn. 153, (Gil. 128.)
Ch. 71, § 72.
19 Minn. 455, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 71, § 73.
2 Minu. 57, (Gil. 45;) 19 Minn. 455, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 71, §§ 76, 77.
16 Minn. 235--238, (Gil. 208--210.)
Ch. 71, § 80.
35 Minn. 541; 38 Minn. 362.
Ch. 71, § 91.
Ch. 79, §§ 12, 16.
51 N. W. 815.
Ch. 80.
3 Minn. (Gil.) 190; 40 Minn. 215.
Ch. 80, §§ 5, 7-12.
3 Minn. 245, (Gil. 167, 168.)
Ch. 81.
1 Minn. 367, (Gil. 269.)
Ch. 81, § 1.
1 Minn. 403, (Gil. 290;) 2 Minn. 226, (Gil.
188;) 3 Minn. 146, (Gil. 90.)
1 Minn. 187, (Gil. 162;) 3 Minn. 285, (Gil. Ch. 81, § 2.
195.)
Ch. 71, § 93.
3 Minn. 58, 59, 61, (Gil. 24--26;) 5 Minn. 337,
(Gil. 269;) 7 Minn. 519, (Gil. 424;) 11 Minn.
457, (Gil. 340.)
Ch. 71, § 94.
3 Minn. 58, (Gil. 24.)
Ch. 71, § 100 et seq.
7 Minn. 192, (Gil. 134.)
Ch. 71, § 105.
12 Minn. 432, (Gil. 318;) 16 Minn. 246, (Gil.
218;) 18 Minn. 374, (Gil. 336;) 42 Minn.
373.
Ch. 71, § 112.
4 Minn. 303, (Gil. 221.)
Ch. 71, §§ 112--116.
45 Minn. 347.
Ch. 71, §§ 114, 115.
7 Minn. 440, 441, (Gil. 350;) 22 Minn. 88, 89.
Ch. 71, § 117.
45 Minn. 347, 348.
Ch. 72, § 2.
1 Minn. 155, (Gil. 130.)
Ch. 72, § 9.
2 Minn. 74, (Gil. 56.)
Ch. 72, § 11.
13 Minn. 300, (Gil. 277.)
Ch. 72, §§ 12, 16.
1 Minn. 189, 190, (Gil. 164, 165.)
Ch. 73, § 33.
7 Minu. 325, (Gil. 254.)
Ch. 74, §§ 1, 2.
2 Minn. 153, (Gil. 129.)
Ch. 75, §§ 21--23.
45 Miun. 347.
Chs. 76, 77.
25 Minn. 557; 50 N. W. 1115.
Ch. 77, §§ 9, 11, 12.
50 N. W. 1115, 1116.
1 Minn. 403, (Gil. 290;) 2 Minn. 316, (Gil.
270;) 3 Minn. 146, (Gil. 90.)
Ch. 81, § 8.
1 Minn. 367, (Gil. 270.)
Ch. 81, § 11.
1 Minn. 122, 184, (Gil. 98, 158;) 2 Minn. 35,
58, 121, (Gil. 25, 46, 97.)
Ch. 81, § 18.
1 Minn. 402, (Gil. 289.)
Ch. 81, § 22.
2 Minn. 226, 315, (Gil. 188, 270.)
Ch. 81, § 26.
1 Minn. 161, (Gil. 136.)
Ch. 81, §§ 27, 28.
2 Minu. 226, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 82, § 40.
19 Minn. 456, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 83, § 2.
1 Minn. 190, (Gil. 164.)
Ch. 83, § 4.
2 Minn. 346, (Gil. 299.)
Ch. 83, § 7.
2 Minn. 344, 345, (Gil. 296, 297.)
Ch. 83, §§ 8, 12.
2 Minn. 342, 343, (Gil. 294, 295.)
Ch. 83, § 13.
2 Minn. 342, 347, (Gil. 294, 300.)
Ch. 83, §§ 14, 17.
2 Minn. 342, (Gil. 294.)
Ch. 85.
7 Minn. 324, (Gil. 253.)
Ch. 85, § 4.
41 Minn. 252.
Ch. 85, § 10.
41 Minn. 252; 45 Minn. 378.
Ch. 85, §§ 11, 18.
45 Minn. 347.
2117
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
2118
Ch. 85, § 19.
41 Minn. 254.
Ch. 86.
1
2 Minn. 178, (Gil. 146;) 3 Minn. 194, 196, 197,
(Gil. 125, 127.)
Ch. 87.
1 Minn. 181, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 87, § 12.
4 Minn. 308, (Gil. 226.)
Ch. 89.
30 Minn. 237.
Ch. 91.
2 Minn. 311, (Gil. 265.)
Ch. 91, §§ 1, 2.
3 Minn. 363, (Gil. 256.)
Ch. 94, §§ 11-13, 30--32, 36.
}
19 Minn. 455, 456, 458, 459, 461, 462, (Gil.
397--399, 401--403.)
Ch. 94, § 57.
47 Minn. 585.
Ch. 94, § 58.
Ch. 101, § 39.
1 Minn. 295, (Gil. 228, 229.)
Ch. 102.
5 Minn. 21, (Gil. 8.)
Ch. 102, §§ 1-3.
3 Minn. 442, (Gil. 326.)
Ch. 103, § 16.
2 Minn. 225, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 107.
3 Minn. 258, (Gil. 177.)
Ch. 109, § 14.
3 Minn. 253, (Gil. 171, 175.)
Ch. 115, § 13.
3 Minn. 445, 446, (Gil. 330, 331.)
Ch. 119, §§ 66, 67.
3 Minn. 435, (Gil. 322.)
Ch. 119, § 73.
3 Minn. 441, (Gil. 326.)
Ch. 121, § 112.
2 Minn. 228, (Gil. 190.)
4 Minn. 308, (Gil. 226;) 19 Minn. 461, (Gil. Ch. 122, § 122.
402.)
Ch. 94, § 64.
19 Minn. 462, (Gil. 403.)
Ch. 94, § 73.
1 Minn. 197, (Gil. 170.)
Ch. 94, § 74.
2 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40;) 3 Minn. 204, (Gil. 134.)
Ch. 95, § 3.
2 Minn. 42, (Gil. 29.)
Ch. 95, §§ 21--23.
2 Minn. 123, (Gil. 98.)
Ch. 95, § 51.
42 Minn. 261.
Ch. 95, § 72.
3 Minn. 257, (Gil. 177.)
Ch. 97.
13 Minn. 481, (Gil. 445.)
Ch. 98, § 2.
42 Minn. 260.
Ch. 100, § 1.
3 Minn. 256, (Gil. 175.)
Ch. 100, § 2.
2 Minn. 226, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 128, § 205.
3 Minn. 447, (Gil. 331.)
Ch. 128, § 210.
4 Minn. 322, (Gil. 239.)
Ch. 128, §§ 211, 219, 220.
2 Minn. 126, 133, (Gil. 101, 102, 109.)
Ch. 129, § 222.
3 Minn. 261, (Gil. 181.)
Ch. 132, § 259.
2 Minn. 133, (Gil. 108.)
Ch. 137, § 1.
2 Minn. 371, (Gil. 325;) 4 Minn. 459, (Gil.
356;) 6 Minn. 228, (Gil. 148;) 24 Minn.
588; 25 Minn. 464.
Ch. 137, § 4.
4 Minn. 460, (Gil. 357;) 25 Minn. 464.
Ch. 137, § 12.
3 Miun. 257, (Gil. 176.)
AMENDMENTS OF 1852.
Page 6, § 5.
2 Minn. 88, (Gil. 70.)
2 Minn. 128, (Gil. 103;) 3 Minn. 256, (Gil. Page 9, § 26.
175.)
Ch. 100, § 32.
2 Minn. 129, (Gil. 104.)
Ch. 101, §§ 35--38.
3 Minn. 442, (Gil. 326.)
1 Minn. 413, (Gil. 298;) 2 Minn. 85, (Gil. 68.)
Page 9, § 27.
3 Minn. 130, (Gil. 76.)
Page 9, § 70.
2 Minn. 222, (Gil. 184.)
2119
2120
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Page 11, § 35.
2 Minn. 282, (Gil. 244.)
Page 13, § 52.
1 Minn. 161, (Gil. 136.)
Page 15, § 62.
1 Minn. 155, (Gil. 130.)
Page 15, § 63.
2 Minn. 342, (Gil. 294.)
Page 16, § 70.
1 Minn. 416, (Gil. 301.)
Page 20, § 93.
1 Minn. 208, (Gil. 182.)
Page 22, § 100.
42 Miun. 260.
Page 28, § 133.
2 Minn. 227, (Gil. 189.)
PUBLIC STATUTES 1849-1858.
Ch. 1, § 22.
9 Minn. 180, (Gil. 166.)
Ch. 1, § 31.
17 Minn. 271, (Gil. 247.)
Ch. 1, §§ 34, 40.
7 Minn. 148, (Gil. 92.)
Ch. 1, § 251.
8 Minn. 505, (Gil. 446;) 25 Minn. 310; 33
Minn. 520.
Ch. 1, § 254.
8 Minn. 505, (Gil. 447.)
Ch. 2.
6 Minn. 435, (Gil. 295, 299.)
Ch. 3, § 2.
4 Minn. 238, (Gil. 168;) 9 Minn. 222, (Gil.
207.)
Ch. 3, § 3.
4 Minn. 42, (Gil. 20;) 41 Minn. 252.
Ch. 3, §§ 4, 5.
13 Minn. 155, (Gil. 141.)
Ch. 3, § 19.
7 Minn. 318, 322, (Gil. 247, 251.)
Ch. 3, § 20.
6 Minn. 286, (Gil. 193.)
Ch. 3, §§ 24, 25.
3 Minn. 404, (Gil. 298;) 4 Minn. 42, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 4, § 15.
7 Minn. 137, (Gil. 81;) 10 Minn. 80, (Gil. 57.)
Ch. 5, § 91.
3 Minn. 331, (Gil. 231.)
Ch. 5, §§ 96, 101.
7 Minn. 431, (Gil. 347.)
Ch. 6, § 29.
13 Minn. 348, (Gil. 322.)
Ch. 6, § 70 et seq.
4 Minn. 110, (Gil. 71.)
Ch. 7, § 5.
6 Minn. 147, 215, (Gil. 90, 136;) 19 Minn. 297,
(Gil. 256.)
Ch. 7, § 6.
6 Minn. 215, (Gil. 137.)
Ch. 7, § 7.
13 Minn. 348, (Gil. 322.)
Ch. 7, § 16.
8 Minn. 449, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 7, § 17.
10 Minn. 241, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 7, § 22.
11 Minn. 368, (Gil. 265.)
Ch. 7, § 29.
7 Minn. 486, (Gil. 392.)
Ch. 7. § 35.
11 Minn. 368, (Gil. 265.)
Ch. 7, §§ 47, 49, 50.
17 Minn. 453, 454, (Gil. 431.)
Ch. 7, § 51.
14 Minu. 543, (Gil. 413;) 41 Minn. 255.
Ch. 7, § 53.
8 Minn. 446, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 7, § 54.
14 Minn. 543, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 7, § 132.
18 Minn. 376, (Gil. 339.)
Ch. 7, §§ 133, 136.
17 Minn. 454, (Gil. 431.)
Ch. 8, § 92.
8 Minn. 507, (Gil. 449.)
Ch. 8, § 98.
6 Minn. 147, (Gil. 90.)
Ch. 8, § 117.
8 Minn. 445, (Gil. 394.)
Ch. 8, § 118.
6 Minn. 147, (Gil. 90.)
Ch. 8, § 125.
7 Minn. 262, (Gil. 202.)
Ch. 8, § 164.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 9. § 1.
7 Minn. 264, (Gil. 204;) 35 Minn. 219.
2121
2122
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 9, §§ 5, 9, 10.
7 Miun. 261, 262, 264, (Gil. 201-204.)
Ch. 9, §§ 45, 69, 74.
8 Minn. 446--448, (Gil. 395, 397.)
Ch. 9, § 77.
8 Minn. 510, (Gil. 452.)
Ch. 9, § 93.
5 Minn. 106, (Gil. 81.)
Ch. 9, § 95.
30 Minn. 352.
Ch. 9, § 98.
15 Minn. 483, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 9, §§ 99, 100.
8 Minn. 448, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 9, § 101.
8 Minn. 336, 465, (Gil. 296, 415;) 19 Minn.
76, 224, (Gil. 50, 184.)
Ch. 9, § 115.
8 Minn. 446, (Gil. 395.)
Ch. 15, § 2.
32 Minn. 387.
Ch. 15, §§ 7, 8.
45 Minn. 469.
Ch. 17, §§ 20, 21, 39.
31 Minn. 176.
Ch. 17, §§ 56, 57.
23 Minn. 92, 94.
Ch. 17, § 321.
10 Minn. 328, (Gil. 256.)
Ch. 17, § 322.
7 Minn. 60, (Gil. 45;) 10 Minn. 328, (Gil.
256;) 16 Minn. 374, (Gil. 332.)
Ch. 17, §§ 323, 324.
7 Minn. 60, (Gil. 45;) 16 Minn. 374, (Gil. 332.)
Ch. 22, § 3.
Ch. 23, §§ 67, 68.
12 Minn. 30, (Gil. 6.)
Ch. 23, § 70.
5 Minn. 286, (Gil. 227;) 10 Minn. 346, (Gil.
272;) 12 Minn. 33, (Gil. 8.)
Ch. 26.
11 Minn. 127, (Gil. 77;) 12 Minn. 566, (Gil.
480;) 17 Minn. 281, (Gil. 256.)
Ch. 26, § 2.
11 Minn. 132, (Gil. 81.)
Ch. 26, § 4.
8 Minn. 492, (Gil. 437.)
Ch. 26, § 5.
11 Minn. 131, 135, (Gil. 81, 85.)
Ch. 26, § 12.
8 Minn. 458, (Gil. 408.)
Ch. 29.
8 Minn. 328, (Gil. 288.)
Ch. 29, § 7.
8 Minn. 409, (Gil. 364.)
Ch. 30.
3 Minn. 351, (Gil. 248;) 8 Minn. 205, (Gil.
175.)
Ch. 32.
6 Minn. 371, (Gil. 256;) 8 Minn. 198, (Gil.
167.)
Ch. 32, § 5.
6 Minn. 371, (Gil. 256;) 8 Minn. 318, (Gil.
278.)
Ch. 32, § 7.
5 Minn. 434, (Gil. 354;) 8 Minn. 318, 360,
(Gil. 278, 319;) 10 Minn. 406, (Gil. 325;) 12
Minn. 147, (Gil. 84;) 16 Minn. 514, (Gil.
463.)
Ch. 32, § 8.
5 Minn. 434, (Gil. 354;) 9 Minn. 189, (Gil.
175;) 12 Minn. 147, (Gil. 84.)
5 Minn. 485, (Gil. 388;) 7 Minn. 230, (Gil. Ch. 32, § 9.
172;) 8 Minn. 356, (Gil. 315.)
Ch. 23.
7 Minn. 70, (Gil. 46;) 12 Minn. 33, 39, (Gil. 8,
14.)
Ch. 23, § 21 et seq.
7 Minn. 71, (Gil. 47.)
Ch. 23, § 26.
7 Minn. 70, 71, (Gil. 47, 48.)
Ch. 23, § 59.
10 Minn. 348, (Gil. 274.)
Ch. 23, § 64.
(Gil
5 Minn. 287, (Gil. 228;) 10 Minn. 346, (Gil.
272;) 12 Minn. 30, 33, 39, (Gil. 6, 8, 14.)
Ch. 23, § 66.
40 Minn. 367.
5 Minn. 434, (Gil. 354.)
Ch. 32, § 10.
4 Minn. 69, (Gil. 37;) 6 Minn. 372, 374, (Gil.
257, 259.)
Ch. 32, § 26.
4 Minn. 16, (Gil. 4.)
Ch. 33.
6 Minn. 122, (Gil. 65;) 8 Minn. 456, (Gil. 406;)
11 Minn. 53, 55, (Gil. 28, 29;) 15 Minn. 126,
215, (Gil. 94, 167;) 17 Minn. 222, (Gil. 198;)
52 N. W. 134.
Ch. 33, § 4.
8 Minn. 423, (Gil. 378;) 15 Minn. 124, (Gil.
92.)
Ch. 33, § 5.
8 Minn. 458, (Gil. 407.)
2123
2124
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 33, § 11.
11 Minn. 52, (Gil. 26;) 15 Minn. 126, (Gil. 94.)
Ch. 33, § 12.
11 Minn. 52, (Gil. 26.)
Ch. 34, § 44.
6 Minn. 48, (Gil. 7.)
Ch. 34, §§ 58, 59.
11 Minn. 442, (Gil. 325.)
Ch. 35.
6 Minn. 262, (Gil. 174;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil.
223.)
Ch. 35, § 1.
3 Minn. 125, (Gil. 73;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil.
223.)
Ch. 35, § 2.
6 Minn. 48, (Gil. 7.)
Ch. 35, § 3.
4 Minn. 292, (Gil. 209;) 16 Minn. 32, (Gil. 18.)
Ch. 35, § 6.
8 Minn. 235, 469, (Gil. 204, 417.)
Ch. 35, § 8.
5 Minn. 330, (Gil. 261;) 6 Minn. 229, 295,
(Gil. 148, 202;) 8 Minn. 525, (Gil. 468.)
Ch. 35, § 12.
6 Minn. 48, (Gil. 7;) 15 Minn. 61, (Gil. 42.)
Ch. 35, § 23.
9 Minn. 231, (Gil. 216.)
Ch. 35, § 24.
3 Minn. 125, (Gil. 73;) 11 Minn. 112, (Gil.
69;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 35, § 26.
6 Minn. 46, (Gil. 5;) 9 Minn. 231, (Gil. 216.)
Ch. 35, § 28.
7 Minn. 181, (Gil. 125.)
Ch. 35, § 29.
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 35, § 30.
3 Minn. 125, (Gil. 73;) 6 Minn. 262, (Gil.
174;) 8 Minn. 526, (Gil. 468;) 15 Minn. 62,
(Gil. 42;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 35, § 37.
5 Minn. 516, (Gil. 410.)
Ch. 35, § 39.
7 Minn. 354, (Gil. 279;) 13 Minn. 197, (Gil.
186.)
Ch. 35, § 40.
5 Minn. 331, (Gil. 262.)
Ch. 35, § 43 et seq.
6 Minn. 48, (Gil. 7.)
Ch. 35, § 52.
5 Minn. 331, (Gil. 262;) 6 Minn. 181, 296,
(Gil. 115, 203;) 11 Minn. 443, 444, (Gil. 326,
328.)
Ch. 35, § 54.
5 Minn. 330, 331, (Gil. 261, 262;) 9 Minn.
231, (Gil. 216;) 10 Minn. 58, (Gil. 40;) 18
Minn. 241, 409, (Gil. 223, 367;) 20 Minn.
462, (Gil. 417;) 24 Minn. 282.
Ch. 35, § 56.
9 Minn. 271, (Gil. 216;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil.
223.)
Ch. 35, § 57.
5 Minn. 330, (Gil. 261;) 9 Minn. 231, (Gil.
216;) 15 Minn. 173, (Gil. 132;) 18 Minn.
241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 35, § 60.
5 Minn. 330, (Gil. 261;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil.
224.)
Ch. 35, § 62.
7 Minn. 181, (Gil. 125.)
Ch. 35, § 63.
7 Minn. 181, (Gil. 125;) 9 Minn. 231, (Gil.
216;) 10 Minn. 58, (Gil. 40;) 18 Minn. 241,
(Gil. 223.)
Ch. 35, § 68.
6 Minn. 93, (Gil. 43;) 9 Minn. 231, (Gil. 216;)
15 Minn. 62, (Gil. 42.)
Ch. 35, § 74.
5 Minn. 331, (Gil. 262;) 6 Minn. 229, (Gil.
149;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 36, § 4.
15 Minn. 517, (Gil. 426.)
Ch. 37, § 1.
20 Minn. 318, (Gil. 273;) 42 Minn. 348.
Ch. 38, § 6.
11 Minn. 404, (Gil. 297.)
Ch. 38, § 13.
11 Minn. 353, (Gil. 251.)
Ch. 38, §§ 14, 15.
11 Minn. 402, 403, (Gil. 295.)
Ch. 38, § 22.
37 Minn. 3.
Ch. 38, § 23.
11 Minn. 401, 406, (Gil. 294, 298, 299;) 28
Minn. 204; 38 Minn. 334.
Ch. 38, §§ 24, 25.
11 Minn. 406, (Gil. 298, 299.)
Ch. 39, § 1.
19 Minn. 126, (Gil. 93;) 20 Minn. 318, (Gil.
273.)
Ch. 39, § 2.
19 Minn. 120, 126, (Gil. 88, 93.)
1
2125
2126
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 39, §§ 3. 4.
19 Minn. 121, 126, 343, (Gil. 89, 93, 296.)
Ch. 39, § 8.
11 Minn. 352, (Gil. 251.)
Ch. 39, § 13.
19 Minn. 126, (Gil. 94.)
Ch. 39, § 16.
11 Minn. 402, (Gil. 295.)
Ch. 39, § 21.
19 Minn. 125, (Gil. 92;) 30 Minn. 111.
Ch. 39, § 22.
11 Minn. 403, (Gil. 295;) 52 N. W. 383.
Ch. 39, §§ 43, 44.
4 Minn. 420, (Gil. 324.)
Ch. 39, § 48.
11 Minn. 403, (Gil. 295.)
Ch. 39, § 50.
11 Minn. 354, (Gil. 252;) 19 Minn. 128, 340,
(Gil. 95, 293;) 24 Minn. 290.
Ch. 39, § 51.
19 Minn. 128, (Gil. 95;) 24 Minn. 290.
Ch. 39, § 52.
11 Minn. 353, 354, 406, (Gil. 251, 252, 299;)
19 Minn. 128, (Gil. 95;) 38 Minn. 334.
Ch. 39, § 54.
11 Minn. 406, (Gil. 299.)
Ch. 40, §§ 18, 39.
19 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 41, § 1. .
25 Minn. 354.
Ch. 41, § 2.
21 Minn. 448; 25 Minn. 353.
Ch. 41, § 3.
25 Minn. 353.
Ch. 42, § 1.
15 Minn. 167, (Gil. 127.)
Ch. 42, § 4.
21 Minn. 448.
Ch. 42, §§ 11, 14, 15.
15 Minn. 165, (Gil. 126.)
Ch. 43, § 1.
Ch. 44, §§ 14, 15.
15 Minn. 166, 167, (Gil. 126.)
Ch. 44, §§ 20, 21.
6 Minn. 568, (Gil. 403;) 9 Minn. 150, (Gil.
140.)
Ch. 44, §§ 25, 29.
6 Minn. 568, 569, (Gil. 403.)
Ch. 44, §§ 31, 32, 34.
15 Minn. 166, (Gil. 126.)
Ch. 44, § 36.
30 Minn. 214.
Ch. 44, § 38.
24 Minn. 124.
Ch. 44, § 39 et seq.
20 Minn. 337, (Gil. 276.)
Ch. 44, §§ 41-43, 47, 49--51.
15 Minn. 166, (Gil. 126.)
Ch. 44, §§ 53-58.
20 Minn. 321, (Gil. 276.)
Ch. 44, § 59.
15 Minn. 167, (Gil. 128.)
Ch. 45, § 4.
19 n. 227, 228, (Gil. 187, 188.)
Ch. 45, § 8.
20 Minn. 337, (Gil. 291.)
Ch. 46.
24 Minn. 124.
Ch. 49, § 6.
1
5 Minn. 434, (Gil. 354;) 6 Minr. 371, (Gil.
257.)
Ch. 49, § 7.
8 Minn. 526, (Gil. 469.)
Ch. 49, § 8.
3 Minn. 233, (Gil. 157:) 8 Minn. 526, (Gil.
467;) 10 Minù. 213, (Gil. 171.)
Ch. 49, § 10.
6 Minn. 372, (Gil. 257.)
Ch. 50, § 1.
3 Minn. 376, (Gil. 270;) 19 Minn. 370, (Gil.
315.)
Ch. 50, § 2.
8 Minn. 132, (Gil. 102.)
15 Minn. 167, (Gil. 127;) 20 Minn. 320, (Gil. Ch. 50, § 3.
275.)
Ch. 44.
15 Minn. 168, (Gil. 128;) 20 Minn. 329 et seq.,
(Gil. 284.)
Ch. 44, § 1.
15 Minn. 166, (Gil. 127.)
Ch. 44, §§ 5, 11.
20 Minn. 327, (Gil. 282.)
13 Minn. 192, (Gil. 181.)
Ch. 51.
4 Minn. 403, 539, (Gil. 306, 423;) 11 Minn.
110, (Gil. 67;) 19 Minn. 370, (Gil. 315.)
Ch. 51, § 1.
3 Minn. 375, (Gil. 269;) 4 Minn. 211, 403,
(Gil. 150, 306;) 6 Minn. 317, (Gil. 223;) 12
Minn. 66, (Gil. 32;) 13 Minn. 440, (Gil.
403;) 19 Minn. 22, 370, (Gil. 5, 315.)
2127
2128
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 51, § 3.
19 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5.)
Ch. 51, § 4.
4 Minn. 403, (Gil. 306;) 6 Minn. 316, 317,
(Gil. 221, 222.)
Ch. 51, § 5,
6 Minn. 317, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 53, § 7.
6 Minn. 464, (Gil. 321.)
Ch. 54, §§ 18, 19.
19 Minn. 225-227, 229, (Gil. 185--187, 189.)
Ch. 56, § 4.
Ch. 59, § 9.
34 Minn. 544.
Ch. 59, § 24.
5 Minn. 283, (Gil. 224:) 8 Minn. 246, (Gil.
211.)
Ch. 59, § 25.
5 Minn. 460, (Gil. 370.)
Ch. 59, § 26.
8 Minn. 261, (Gil. 228.)
Ch. 59, §§ 29, 33.
5 Minn. 460, (Gil. 370.)
4 Minn. 365, 429, (Gil. 274, 331;) 10 Minn. Ch. 59, § 37.
372, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 56, § 5.
4 Minn. 429, (Gil. 331.)
Ch. 57, § 1.
18 Minn. 227, (Gil. 207.)
Ch. 57, §§ 12, 13.
22 Minn. 192.
Ch. 57, § 19.
3 Minn. 50, (Gil. 18;) 4 Minn. 80, (Gil. 49;) 6
Minn. 353, 506, (Gil. 235, 351;) 12 Minn.
66, (Gil. 32;) 14 Minn. 484, 485, (Gil. 361.)
Ch. 57, § 20.
6 Minn. 353, (Gil. 235;) 12 Minn. 66, (Gil. 32.)
Ch. 57, §§ 21, 22.
14 Minn. 484, 485, (Gil. 361.)
Ch. 57, § 23.
6 Minn. 352, 495, (Gil. 235, 342;) 9 Minn.
106, (Gil. 95.)
Ch. 57, § 24.
5 Minn. 283, (Gil. 224.)
Ch. 59, § 38.
8 Minn. 390, (Gil. 347;) 9 Minn. 46, 48, (Gil.
35, 37;) 18 Minn. 69, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 59, § 44.
6 Minn. 425, (Gil. 288.)
Ch. 59, § 63.
8 Minu. 246, (Gil. 212.)
Ch. 59, § 79.
3 Minn. 34, (Gil. 11.)
Ch. 59, §§ 89, 90.
15 Minn. 244, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 59, § 106.
5 Minn. 72, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 59, § 107.
3 Minn. 32, (Gil. 9;) 5 Minn. 72, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 59, § 120.
3 Minn. 34, (Gil. 12.)
5 Minn. 377, (Gil. 305;) 6 Minn. 352, 495, Ch. 59, § 123.
(Gil. 235, 342.)
Ch. 57, § 27.
44 Minn. 147.
Ch. 58, § 43.
9 Minn. 150, (Gil. 140;) 19 Minn. 128, (Gil.
95;) 25 Minn. 354.
Ch. 58, § 46.
9 Minn. 150, (Gil. 140.)
Ch. 58, § 47.
6 Minn. 229, (Gil. 148.)
Ch. 58, § 53.
29 Minn. 36.
Ch. 59, § 5.
8 Minn. 453, (Gil. 402;) 18 Minn. 227, (Gil.
207.)
Ch. 59, § 6.
8 Minn. 453, (Gil. 402.)
Ch. 59, § 7.
11 Minn. 88, (Gil. 53;) 12 Minn. 220, (Gil.
140.)
3 Minn. 81, (Gil. 39, 40.)
Ch. 59, §§ 124, 126.
10 Minn. 301, 302, (Gil. 237.)
Ch. 59, § 127.
12 Minn. 218, (Gil. 138.)
Ch. 59, § 128.
5 Minn. 447, (Gil. 363.)
Ch. 59, § 130.
5 Minn. 446, (Gil. 363;) 12 Minn. 218, (Gil.
138.)
Ch. 59, § 133.
3 Minn. 81, (Gil. 40;) 5 Minn. 460, (Gil. 371.)
Ch. 59, § 136.
8 Minn. 260, (Gil. 226;) 10 Minn. 222, (Gil.
177;) 11 Minn. 76, 165, (Gil. 43, 104;) 30
Minn. 208.
Ch. 59, § 139.
3 Minn. 108, (Gil. 60;) 11 Minn. 76, (Gil. 44;)
18 Minn. 221, (Gil. 202;) 19 Minn. 479, (Gil.
413.)
2129
2130
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 59, § 140.
3 Minn. 108, (Gil. 60;) 8 Minn. 261, (Gil. 228:)
18 Minn. 221, (Gil. 202;) 19 Minn. 479, (Gil.
413.)
Ch. 59, § 147.
8 Miun. 263, (Gil. 230.)
Ch. 59, § 150.
10 Minn. 222, (Gil. 177.)
Ch. 59, § 199.
9 Minn. 168, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 59, § 206.
4 Miun. 323, (Gil. 240.)
Ch. 59, § 212.
9 Minn 170, (Gil. 157.)
Ch. 60, § 1.
6 Minn. 425, (Gil. 288;) 11 Minn. 469, (Gil.
350.)
Ch. 60, § 3.
9 Minn. 67, (Gil. 56;) 11 Minn. 469, (Gil. 350;)
13 Minn. 155, (Gil. 141.).
Ch. 60, § 4.
13 Minn. 500, (Gil. 460.)
Ch. 60. § 5.
13 Minn. 155, 156, (Gil. 141, 142.)
Ch. 60, § 6.
9 Minn. 69, (Gil. 56;) 11 Minn. 469, 470, (Gil.
350, 351;) 16 Minn. 219, 222, (Gil. 192, 195.)
Ch. 60, § 12.
11 Minn. 469, 473, (Gil. 350, 354;) 12 Minn.
142--144, (Gil. 80--82:) 13 Minn. 325, 499,
(Gil. 298, 460;) 36 Minn. 275.
Ch. 60, § 14.
3 Minn. 109, (Gil. 61.)
Ch. 60, $$ 16, 18.
15 Minn. 169, 170, (Gil. 129, 130.,
Ch. 60, § 23.
11 Minn. 147, (Gil. 89;) 35 Minn. 65.
Ch. 60, § 24.
9 Minn. 20, (Gil. 8:) 16 Minn. 218, 219, 222.
223, (Gil. 191, 194, 195;) 35 Minn. 65.
Ch. 60, § 27.
3 Minn. 336, (Gil. 235.)
Ch. 60, § 29.
11 Minn. 223, (Gil. 144.)
Ch. 60, § 30.
10 Minn. 135, (Gil. 107.)
Ch. 60, § 36.
5 Minn. 336, (Gil. 267.)
Ch. 60, § 37.
9 Minn. 93, 302, (Gil. 82, 286;) 10 Minn. 161,
(Gil. 130.)
Ch. 60, § 38.
8 Minn. 409, (Gil. 364;) 9 Minn. 62, (Gil. 51;)
11 Minn. 336, 342, (Gil. 237, 242.)
Ch. 60, §§ 44, 45.
10 Minn. 289, (Gil. 227.)
Ch. 60, § 48.
9 Minn. 244, (Gil. 229;) 10 Minn. 390, (Gil.
311;) 47 Minn. 587.
Ch. 60, § 49.
9 Minn. 221, (Gil. 207.)
Ch. 60, § 51.
6 Minn. 554, (Gil. 390.)
Ch. 60, § 52.
10 Minn. 390, (Gil. 311.)
Ch. 60, § 53.
9 Minn. 62, (Gil. 52;) 10 Minn. 390, (Gil.
311.)
Ch. 60, § 54.
9 Minn. 244, 245, (Gil. 229, 230;) 10 Minn.
390, 391, (Gil. 311-313.)
Ch. 60, § 57.
3 Minn. 109, (Gil. 61.)
Ch. 60, § 58.
4 Minn. 480, (Gil. 372.)
Ch. 60, § 59.
4 Minn. 480, (Gil. 372;) 10 Minn. 185, 390,
(Gil. 148, 311;) 14 Minn. 485, (Gil. 361.)
Ch. 60, § 69.
10 Minn. 190, 456, (Gil. 152, 365.)
Ch. 60, § 70.
6 Minn. 104, 495, (Gil. 48, 342;) 7 Minn. 363,
(Gil. 285;) 9 Minn. 201, (Gil. 186.)
Ch. 60, § 71.
6 Minn. 352, 425, 495, 555, (Gil. 235, 288, 342,
392;) 7 Minn. 364, (Gil. 286;) 9 Minn. 106,
(Gil. 95;) 11 Minn. 242, 245, (Gil. 159, 162.)
Ch. 60, § 72.
6 Minn. 495, (Gil. 342:) 7 Minn. 364, (Gil.
286;) 9 Minn. 106, (Gil. 95;) 11 Minn. 245,
(Gil. 162;) 17 Minn. 41, (Gil. 22.)
Ch. 60, § 73.
12 Minn. 36, (Gil. 11.)
Ch. 60, § 79.
5 Minn. 323, (Gil. 258.)
Ch. 60, § 80.
8 Minn. 66, (Gil. 43;) 9 Minn. 193, (Gil. 179;)
10 Minn. 138, (Gil. 110.)
Ch. 60, § 81.
7 Minn. 164, (Gil. 107.)
Ch. 60, § 87.
7 Minn. 353, (Gil. 279;) 8 Minn. 256, (Gil.
222;) 10 Minn. 203, (Gil. 164.)
2131
2132
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 60, § 88.
5 Minn. 239, (Gil. 185;) 11 Minn. 437, (Gil.
322.)
Ch. 60, § 89.
10 Minn. 138, (Gil. 110.)
•
Ch. 60, §§ 90--92.
10 Minn. 196-198, (Gil. 158, 160.)
Ch. 60, § 93.
8 Minn. 293, (Gil. 257.)
Ch. 60, § 94.
4 Minu. 82, (Gil. 52;) 5 Minn. 26, 66, (Gil. 12,
48;) 6 Minn. 61, 290, (Gil. 17, 197;) 7 Minn.
330, 492, (Gil. 259, 399;) 8 Minn. 293, (Gil.
257;) 9 Minn. 63, 182, (Gil. 53, 168;) 10
Minn. 197, (Gil. 159;) 11 Minn. 69, 71, 234,
(Gil. 40, 42, 153;) 15 Minn. 66, (Gil. 47.)
Ch. 60, § 96.
10 Minn. 426, (Gil. 340;) 14 Minn. 466, (Gil.
349.)
Ch. 60, § 99.
8 Minn. 471, (Gil. 422.)
Ch. 60, § 131.
12 Minn. 347, (Gil. 226.)
Ch. 60, § 135.
4 Minn. 250, (Gil. 175.)
Ch. 60, § 140.
14 Minn. 166, (Gil. 127.)
Ch. 60, § 142.
3 Minn. 411, (Gil. 303;) 5 Minn. 72, (Gil. 53;)
6 Minn. 185, (Gil. 118.)
Ch. 60, § 143.
6 Minn. 185, (Gil. 118.)
Ch. 60, § 144.
5 Minn. 72, (Gil. 53;) 6 Minn. 185, (Gil. 118;)
9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 49;) 11 Minn. 546, (Gil.
420;) 20 Minn. 441, (Gil. 393.)
Ch. 60, § 147.
13 Minn. 182, (Gil. 173.)
Ch. 60, § 148.
3 Minn. 412, (Gil. 303;) 10 Minn. 328, (Gil.
256;) 24 Minn. 496.
Ch. 60, § 149.
3 Minn. 412, (Gil. 303;) 25 Minn. 208.
Ch. 60, § 150.
3 Minn. 412, (Gil. 303.)
Ch. 60, § 151.
Ch. 60, § 168.
7 Minn. 223, (Gil. 165.)
Ch. 60, § 169.
9 Minn. 106, (Gil. 95.)
Ch. 60, § 170.
6 Minn. 555, 574, (Gil. 392, 409;) 10 Minn.
199, (Gil. 161;) 41 Minn. 479.
Ch. 60, § 172.
7 Minn. 224, (Gil. 165.)
Ch. 60, § 173.
3 Minn. 143, (Gil. 88;) 10 Minn. 186. (Gil.
150.)
Ch. 61.
19 Minn. 349, (Gil. 302.)
Ch. 61, §§ 6, 7.
6 Minn. 182, (Gil. 116.)
Ch. 61, § 8.
10 Minn. 319, (Gil. 250.)
Ch. 61, § 10.
6 Minn. 574, (Gil. 409.)
Ch. 61, § 22.
4 Minn. 50, (Gil. 25;) 27 Minn. 248.
Ch. 61, § 32.
4 Minn. 436, (Gil. 338.)
Ch. 61, § 35.
6 Minn. 534, (Gil. 372;) 7 Minn. 202, 273,
(Gil. 144, 210.)
Ch. 61, § 41.
4 Minn. 426, (Gil. 328;) 5 Minn. 295, (Gil.
233;),7 Minn. 329, (Gil. 258;) 8 Minn. 469,
(Gil. 419;) 12 Minn. 65, (Gil. 32.)
Ch. 61, § 43.
3 Minn. 357, (Gil. 250.)
Ch. 61, § 44.
5 Minn. 32, 34, 35, (Gil. 17, 19, 20;) 11 Minn.
275, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 61, § 47.
5 Minn. 86, 87, (Gil. 61.)
Ch. 61, § 54.
4 Minn. 426, 509, (Gil. 328, 395;) 8 Minn. 469,
(Gil. 419;) 11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245;) 12
Minn. 65, (Gil. 32.)
Ch. 61, § 55.
3 Minn. 239, (Gil. 164;) 11 Minn. 343, (Gil.
243, 244.)
3 Minn. 405, 411, (Gil. 299, 303;) 4 Minn. Ch. 61, § 58 et seq.
411, (Gil. 314.)
Ch. 60, § 156.
3 Minn. 138, (Gil. 82;) 7 Minn. 329, (Gil. 258;)
12 Minn. 506, (Gil. 416.)
3 Minn. 405, 412, (Gil. 299, 303:) 6 Minn. 277, Ch. 61, § 59.
(Gil. 188;) 10 Minn. 327, (Gil. 256.)
Ch. 60, § 161.
11 Minn. 231, (Gil. 152.)
3 Minn. 139, (Gil. 82;) 5 Minn. 67, (Gil.
48;) 6 Minn. 561, (Gil. 397;) 7 Minn. 328,
(Gil. 257, 258;) 8 Minn. 30, (Gil. 13;) 15
Minn. 264, (Gil. 202.)
1
2133
2134
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 61, § 60.
6 Minn. 561, (Gil. 397;) 8 Minn. 31, (Gil. 14.)
Ch. 61, § 61.
3 Minn. 141, (Gil. 85;) 16 Minn. 466, (Gil.
418.)
Ch. 61, § 62.
11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 61, § 63.
4 Minn. 426, (Gil. 328;) 6 Minn. 561, (Gil.
397;) 7 Minn. 329, (Gil. 258;) 11 Minn. 345,
(Gil. 245.)
Ch. 61, § 66.
11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 61, § 67.
12 Minn. 65, (Gil. 32.)
Ch. 61, § 70.
7 Minn. 115, (Gil. 73.)
Ch. 61, § 71.
3 Minn. 71, (Gil. 33;) 12 Minn. 65, (Gil. 32.)
Ch. 61, § 72.
10 Minn. 307, (Gil. 241;) 12 Minn. 65, (Gil.
32;) 14 Minn. 465, 466, (Gil. 347, 348.)
Ch. 61, § 73.
10 Minn. 307, (Gil. 241;) 14 Minn. 465, (Gil.
347.)
Ch. 61, § 75.
4 Minn. 426, (Gil. 328;) 11 Minn. 295, (Gil.
203.)
Ch. 61, § 76.
5 Minn. 337, (Gil. 269;) 10 Minn. 307, (Gil.
Ch. 61, § 92.
7 Minn. 518, 519, (Gil. 423, 424;) 8 Minn. 321,
(Gil. 281;) 10 Minn. 156, 157, (Gil. 126;) 11
Minn. 456, (Gil. 338;) 12 Minn. 574, (Gil.
494.)
Ch. 61, § 93.
11 Minn. 458, (Gil. 341;) 15 Minn. 517, (Gil.
426.).
Ch. 61, §§ 94--96.
10 Minn. 156, 157, (Gil. 126.)
Ch. 61, § 99.
2 Minn. 103, (Gil. 85;) 7 Minn. 191, (Gil. 132.)
Ch. 61, § 103.
5 Minn. 379, (Gil. 307;) 7 Minn. 191, (Gil.
133.)
Ch. 61, § 106.
4 Minn. 69, (Gil. 37;) 5 Minn. 164, (Gil. 128;)
9 Minn. 81, (Gil. 70;) 10 Minn. 55, (Gil. 37;)
12 Minn. 432, 473, (Gil. 318, 376;) 13 Minn.
52, 84, (Gil. 48, 79;) 15 Minn. 60, (Gil. 41;)
16 Minn. 246, (Gil. 218;) 19 Minn. 346, (Gil.
298.)
Ch. 61, §§ 109--121.
88
5 Minn. 415, (Gil. 335;) 10 Minn. 327, (Gil.
256.)
Ch. 61, § 111.
3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 153;) 21 Minn. 186.
Ch. 61, § 112.
4 Minn. 267, (Gil. 187;) 18 Minn. 72, (Gil. 56.)
Ch. 61, § 113.
5 Minn. 416, (Gil. 335.)
§
5
241) 12 Minn. 573, (Gil. 493;) 16 Minu. Ch. Ginn.116, (Gil. 336;) 22 Minn. 85; 29
235, (Gil. 208;) 19 Minn. 28, (Gil. 10.)
Ch. 61, § 77.
5 Minn. 337, 416, (Gil. 269, 335;) 7 Minn.
520, (Gil. 425;) 12 Minn. 574, (Gil. 491;) 16
Minn. 236, (Gil. 209.)
Ch. 61, § 78.
10 Minn. 307, (Gil. 241.)
Ch. 61, § 79.
9 Minn. 59, (Gil. 48.)
Ch. 61, § 80.
Minn. 435.
Ch. 61, § 118.
8 Minn. 511, (Gil. 454.)
Ch. 61, §§ 122, 129.
9 Minn. 271, 272, (Gil. 255, 256.)
Ch. 62, § 1.
8 Minn. 307, (Gil. 270.)
Ch. 62, §§ 2, 4, 5.
8 Minn. 453, 454, (Gil. 402--404.)
12 Minn. 574, 575, (Gil. 494, 495;) 38 Minn. Ch. 62, § 7.
362.
Ch. 61, § 82.
22 Minn. 83.
Ch. 61, § 85.
8 Minn. 344, (Gil. 304.)
Ch. 62, § 9.
4 Minn. 552, (Gil. 434;) 5 Minn. 522. (Gil.
416;) 8 Minn. 307, (Gil. 270.)
11 Minn. 382, 383, (Gil. 277, 278;) 12 Minn. Ch. 63, § 24.
574, (Gil. 494;) 35 Minn. 541.
Ch. 61, § 88.
11 Minn. 383, (Gil. 278;) 13 Minn. 182, (Gil.
173;) 24 Minn. 496; 25 Minn. 208.
Ch. 61, § 90.
8 Minn. 210, (Gil. 181.)
9 Minn. 26, 27, (Gil. 14, 15.)
Ch. 63, § 32.
7 Minn. 318, 320, (Gil. 246, 248:) 15 Minn.
517, (Gil. 427.)
Ch. 63, § 33.
6 Minn. 238, (Gil. 157.)
2135
2136
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 64, § 1.
5 Minn. 238, (Gil. 184;) 6 Minn. 179, (Gil.
113;) 8 Minn. 404, (Gil. 360;) 10 Minn. 60,
62, (Gil. 41, 44.)
Ch. 64, § 4.
10 Minn. 400, (Gil. 319.)
Ch. 64, § 5.
10 Minn. 400, (Gil. 318;) 11 Minn. 51, (Gil.
26.)
Ch. 64, § 7.
Ch. 71, § 11.
4 Minn. 167, 227, 320, 365, (Gil. 113, 163, 237,
274;) 5 Minn. 26, 36, 67, 349, (Gil. 12, 21,
48, 280;) 11 Minn. 255, 366, (Gil. 169, 264.)
Ch. 71, § 17.
12 Minn. 123, (Gil. 70.)`'
Ch. 71, § 22.
3 Minn. 145, 209, (Gil. 89, 139;) 4 Minn. 365,
(Gil. 274;) 5 Minn. 26, 444, (Gil. 12, 362;) 7
Minn. 329, (Gil. 258;) 15 Minn. 65, (Gil. 46.)
6 Minn. 233, (Gil. 153;) 10 Minn. 400, (Gil. Ch. 71, § 25.
319.)
Ch. 64, § 11.
4 Minn. 502, (Gil. 392;) 7 Minn. 174, 463,
(Gil. 117, 372;) 19 Minn. 224, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 64, § 15.
12 Minn. 461, (Gil. 360.)
Ch. 66, § 2.
4 Minn. 510, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 66, § 5.
9 Minn. 243, (Gil. 229.)
Ch. 66, § 7.
4 Minn. 510, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 67, § 8.
36 Minn. 258.
Ch. 68.
8 Minn. 101, 102, (Gil. 76, 77;) 15 Minn. 169,
(Gil. 129;) 20 Minn. 321, 329, (Gil. 276,
284.)
Ch. 68, §§ 1, 2.
15 Minn. 167, (Gil. 128.)
Ch. 68, § 3.
12 Minn. 533, (Gil. 442;) 15 Minn. 167, (Gil.
128.)
Ch. 69, §§ 15, 16.
10 Minn. 347, (Gil. 273.)
Ch. 71, § 1.
4 Minn. 365, (Gil. 274.)
Ch. 71. § 2.
6 Minn. 566, (Gil. 401.)
Ch. 71, § 26.
2 Minn. 328, (Gil. 279.)
Ch. 72, § 8.
12 Minn. 191, (Gil. 115.)
Ch. 72, § 15.
11 Minn. 275, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 72, § 17.
5 Minn. 32--34, (Gil. 17, 19;) 10 Minn. 166,
(Gil. 134;) 12 Minn. 421, (Gil. 306.)
Ch. 72, § 18.
11 Minn. 275, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 72, § 19.
13 Minn. 300, (Gil. 277.)
Ch. 72, § 26.
10 Minn. 185, (Gil. 148;) 41 Minn. 480.
Ch. 72, § 34.
10 Minn. 161, (Gil. 130.)
Ch. 72, § 35.
4 Minn. 411, (Gil. 314;) 5 Minn. 322, (Gil.
257;) 8 Minn. 126, (Gil. 98;) 11 Minn. 151,
(Gil. 93.)
Ch. 72, § 36.
36 Minn. 192; 45 Minn. 279, 280.
Ch. 72, § 37.
9 Minn. 243, (Gil. 229;) 10 Minn. 185, (Gil.
148.)
3 Minn. 145, (Gil. 89;) 5 Minn. 26, (Gil. 12;) Ch. 72, § 39.
11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 71, § 5.
9 Minn. 234, (Gil. 219.)
Ch. 71, § 6.
9 Minn. 67, (Gil. 56.)
Ch. 72, § 40.
10 Minn. 307, (Gil. 241;) 14 Minn. 465, (Gil.
347.)
4 Minn. 429, (Gil. 331;) 9 Minn. 235, (Gil. Ch. 72, § 43.
220.)
Ch. 71, § 7.
6 Minn. 542, (Gil. 377;) 8 Minn. 380. (Gil.
337.)
Ch. 71, § 8.
11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 71, § 9:
7 Minn, 329, (Gil. 258;) 15 Minn. 65. (Gil. 46.).
6 Minn. 199, (Gil. 126;) 18 Minn. 73, (Gil. 58.)
Ch. 72, § 47.
9 Minn. 171, (Gil. 157.)
Ch. 73, § 12.
10 Minn. 373, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 73, § 13.
4 Minn. 367, (Gil. 276;) 10 Minn. 373, (Gil.
298.)
2137
2138
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 73, § 17.
10 Minn. 373, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 73, § 20.
4 Minn. 367, (Gil. 276.)
Ch. 73, § 26.
10 Minn. 46, 66, (Gil. 28, 48.)
Ch. 73, §§ 27, 39.
10 Minn. 66, 67, (Gil. 48.)
Ch. 74, § 2.
7 Minn. 490, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 75.
4 Minn. 494, (Gil. 384;) 6 Minn. 175, (Gil.
109;) 7 Minn. 173, 321, (Gil. 116, 246;) 8
Minn. 337, (Gil. 297;) 19 Minn. 87, (Gil. 60.)
Ch. 75, § 1.
6 Minn. 175, (Gil. 109;) 7 Minn. 319, (Gil.
248.)
Ch. 75, § 2.
4 Minn. 183, (Gil. 128;) 11 Minn. 443, (Gil.
326;) 18 Minn. 236, (Gil. 219;) 20 Minn.
466, (Gil. 422.)
Ch. 75, § 3.
4 Minn. 177, 179, (Gil. 123, 124;) 8 Minn. 69,
(Gil. 47.)
Ch. 75, § 4.
6 Minn. 200, (Gil. 126;) 41 Minn. 252.
Ch. 75, § 5.
4 Minn. 29, (Gil. 13;) 6 Minn. 174, (Gil. 108;)
20 Minn. 451, (Gil. 405.)
Ch. 75, § 6.
Ch. 75, § 15.
8 Minn. 343, (Gil. 302.)
Ch. 75, § 17.
4 Minn. 180, (Gil. 126;) 7 Minn. 173, (Gil.
117.)
Ch. 75, § 18.
14 Minn. 100, 101, (Gil. 70, 71.)
Ch. 75, § 19.
6 Minn. 175, (Gil. 109;) 18 Minn. 72, 73, (Gil.
57, 58.)
Ch. 75, § 20.
8 Minn. 344, (Gil. 304.)
Ch. 75, § 21.
34 Minn. 318.
Ch. 76.
8 Minn. 101, (Gil. 76.)
Ch. 77.
9 Minn. 36, (Gil. 25.)
Ch. 77, §§ 1, 9.
8 Minn. 539, (Gil. 481, 483.)
Ch. 77, § 12.
4 Minn. 178, 309, (Gil. 124, 227;) 8 Minn. 536.
538, (Gil. 479, 481;) 18 Minn. 69, (Gil. 53.)
Ch. 77, § 13.
26 Minn. 293.
Ch. 78.
5 Minn. 88, (Gil. 63.)
Ch. 79.
8 Minn. 383, (Gil. 340;) 30 Minn. 237.
6 Minn. 175, (Gil. 109;) 18 Minn. 377, (Gil. Ch. 79, §§ 6, 7, 23, 24.
339;) 20 Minn. 451, (Gil. 405.)
Ch. 75, § 7.
4 Minn. 438, (Gil. 340;) 8 Minn. 434, (Gil.
385.)
Ch. 75, § 8.
4 Minn. 267, (Gil. 187;) 6 Minn. 201, (Gil.
128;) 18 Minn. 378, (Gil. 341.)
Ch. 75, § 9.
4 Minn. 30, (Gil. 14;) 6 Minn. 175, (Gil. 109;)
17 Minn. 66, (Gil. 44.)
Ch. 75, § 10.
18 Minn. 71, 377, (Gil. 56, 340;) 41 Minn. 252.
Ch. 75, § 11.
4 Minn. 176, (Gil. 121;) 12 Minn. 346, (Gil.
224;) 19 Minn. 224, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 75, § 12.
4 Minn. 180, (Gil. 126;) 7 Minn. 173, (Gil.
117.)
Ch. 75, § 13.
8 Minn. 383--386, (Gil. 340, 341, 343.)
Ch. 80.
4 Minn. 382, (Gil. 290;) 9 Minn. 61, (Gil. 50
Ch. 80, §§ 1, 9.
3 Minn. 399, (Gil. 293.)
Ch. 80, § 15.
3 Minn. 404, (Gil. 298;) 5 Minn. 473, (Gil.
382.)
Ch. 80, §§ 20, 21.
3 Minn. 399, 404, (Gil. 293, 298.)
Ch. 80, § 23.
4 Minn. 189, (Gil. 130.)
Ch. 82, § 10.
6 Minn. 144, (Gil. 87;) 9 Minn. 58, (Gil. 47;)
24 Minn. 495.
Ch. 82, §§ 11-13.
9 Minn. 59, (Gil. 48.)
7 Minn. 162, (Gil. 104;) 14 Minn. 100, (Gil. Ch. 82, § 12.
70.)
Ch. 75, § 14.
8 Minn. 343, (Gil. 302;) 18 Minn. 74, (Gil. 59.)
11 Minn. 103, (Gil. 61.)
Ch. 82, § 14.
11 Minn. 76, (Gil. 43;) 24 Minn. 495.
2139
2140
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 82, § 16.
8 Minn. 305, (Gil. 268.)
Ch. 83, §§ 8--24.
19 Minn. 27, (Gil. 9.)
Ch. 83, § 9.
4 Minn. 267, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 83, § 11.
5 Minn. 308, (Gil. 243.)
Ch. 83, § 25.
6 Minn. 542, (Gil. 377;) 10 Minn. 286, (Gil.
225.)
Ch. 84, §§ 8, 25.
7 Minn. 81, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 84, § 27.
4 Minn. 256, (Gil. 179.)
Ch. 84, §§ 50--52.
7 Minn. 81, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 84, § 51.
26 Minn. 30.
Ch. 84, §§ 53, 56.
4 Minn. 342, 344, (Gil. 258, 260.)
Ch. 84, § 60.
8 Minn. 384, (Gil. 341.)
Ch. 84, § 61.
18 Minn. 74, 377, (Gil. 59, 340.)
Ch. 84, § 62.
18 Minn. 377, (Gil. 340.)
Ch. 84, § 80.
3 Minn. 317, (Gil. 222;) 5 Minn. 41,
(Gil. 23, 29;) 7 Minu. 872, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 84, § 82.
11 Minn. 87, (Gil. 52.)
Ch. 84, § 88.
46,
6 Minn. 231, (Gil. 150;) 8 Minn. 132, (Gil.
103.)
Ch. 85, §§ 8, 9, 11, 15.
11 Minn. 101, 102, (Gil. 59--61.)
Ch. 86, §§ 1, 7.
17 Minu. 353, 358, (Gil. 327, 331.)
Ch. 86, § 9.
8 Minn. 39, (Gil. 21.)
Ch. 86, §§ 14, 15.
5 Minn. 292, (Gil. 230.)
Ch. 86, § 18.
17 Minn. 358, (Gil. 332.)
Ch. 86, § 19.
5 Minn. 77, (Gil. 56.)
Ch. 86, § 21.
5 Minn. 167, 292, 293, (Gil. 131, 230, 231;) 8
Minn. 40, 120, (Gil. 22, 93.)
Ch. 87, § 2.
12 Minn. 172, (Gil. 100, 101;) 42 Minn. 260.
Ch. 88, § 7.
4 Minn. 340, (Gil. 255.)
Ch. 89, § 37.
5 Minu. 15, (Gil. 2.)
Ch. 89, §§ 38, 40, 44.
6 Minn. 284, 286, (Gil. 191, 193.)
Ch. 90, § 15.
4 Minn. 359, (Gil. 267;) 8 Minn. 222, (Gil.
192.)
Ch. 90, § 34.
12 Minn. 172, (Gil. 101.)
Ch. 91, § 6.
5 Minn. 21, (Gil. 8.)
Ch. 96, § 1.
4 Minn. 343, (Gil. 259.)
Ch. 96, §§ 2, 3.
12 Minn. 478, 483, (Gil. 382, 387.)
Ch. 96, § 19.
8 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5;) 9 Minn. 199, (Gil. 185.)
Ch. 98, §§ 5, 6, 14.
12 Minn. 172, 174, (Gil. 101, 102.)
Ch. 98, § 18.
3 Minn. 405, (Gil. 299.)
Ch. 103, § 9.
7 Minn. 404, (Gil. 318.)
Ch. 103, § 15.
10 Minn. 357, (Gil. 283.)
Ch. 103, § 18.
7 Minn. 404, (Gil. 319.)
Ch. 103, § 25.
10 Minn. 357, (Gil. 283.)
Ch. 103, §§ 28--31.
10 Minn. 49, (Gil. 31.)
Ch. 104, § 4.
12 Minn. 545, (Gil. 457.)
Ch. 104, § 33.
4 Minn. 358, (Gil. 266.)
Ch. 105.
8 Minn. 222, (Gil. 192.)
Ch. 105, § 2.
4 Minn. 357, (Gil. 265:) 11 Minn. 161, (Gil
102;) 18 Minn. 521, (Gil. 465.)
Ch. 105, § 3.
11 Minn. 161, (Gil. 102:) 12 Minn. 172, 480,
(Gil. 101, 384.)
Ch. 105, §§ 12, 13.
4 Minn. 358, 359, (Gil. 267;) 11 Minn. 161,
(Gil. 102.)
2141
2142
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 105. § 17.
12 Minn. 172, (Gil. 101.)
Ch. 105, § 25.
4 Minn. 330, (Gil. 246.)
Ch. 108, § 2.
10 Minn. 232, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 108, § 3.
4 Minn. 362, (Gil. 271.)
Ch. 108, § 7.
4 Minn. 340, (Gil. 255.)
Ch. 109, § 11.
10 Minn. 232, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 112, §§ 7, 12, 14.
12 Minn. 541, 542, (Gil. 454, 455.)
Ch. 114, § 16.
4 Minn. 444, (Gil. 345;) 12 Minn. 541, (Gil.
454.)
Ch. 114, § 28.
6 Minn. 349, (Gil. 232.)
Ch. 129, § 1.
10 Minn. 36, 37, (Gil. 19;) 18 Minn. 390, (Gil.
352.)
Ch. 129, § 2.
10 Minn. 37, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 129, §§ 10, 13.
11 Minn. 255, (Gil. 169.)
Ch. 129, § 16.
10 Minn. 38, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 129, § 17.
11 Minn. 20, 339, (Gil. 3, 240;) 13 Minn. 499,
(Gil. 459.)
Ch. 129, § 25.
10 Minn. 38, (Gil. 20.)
Ch. 131.
15 Minn. 357, (Gil. 291.)
Ch. 133.
4 Minn. 387, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 114, § 30.
12 Minn. 541, (Gil. 453.)
GENERAL STATUTES 1866.
Ch. 114, § 35.
4 Minn. 444, (Gil. 345.)
Ch. 114, § 43.
3 Minn. 437, (Gil. 324;) 8 Minn. 225, (Gil.
194.)
Ch. 114, § 44.
4 Minn. 322, (Gil. 239.)
Ch. 115, § 1.
9 Minn. 168, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 115, § 6.
8 Minn. 44, (Gil. 26;) 10 Minn. 228, (Gil.
180.)
Ch. 115, § 8.
4 Minn. 357, (Gil. 264.)
Ch. 118, § 2.
4 Minn. 375, (Gil. 282.)
Ch. 118, §§ 3--5.
4 Minn. 449, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 118, § 6.
4 Minn. 375, (Gil. 282.)
Ch. 118, § 20.
Ch. 1, § 1.
15 Minn. 201, 224, (Gil. 156, 174.)
Ch. 1, § 7.
17 Minn. 426, (Gil. 404.)
Ch. 1, §§ 19, 21.
15 Minn. 458, (Gil. 373.)
Ch. 1, § 29.
15 Minn. 458, (Gil. 374;) 23 Minn. 446 et seq.
Ch. 1. § 30.
15 Minn. 458, (Gil. 374;) 17 Minn. 114, (Gil.
90.)
Ch. 1, § 40.
15 Minn. 458, (Gil. 374;) 18 Minn. 351, (Gil.
323.).
Ch. 1, §§ 42, 43, 45.
15 Minn. 201-203, (Gil. 156-158.)
Ch. 1, § 48.
23 Miun. 449.
Ch. 1, § 49.
13 Minn. 519, (Gl. 487;) 16 Minn. 260, (Gil.
234;) 23 Minu. 446 et seq.; 31 Minn. 212.
3 Minn. 436, (Gil. 323:) 6 Minn. 285, (Gil. Ch. 1. § 50.
192;) 8 Minn. 224, (Gil. 194.)
Ch. 118, § 21.
4 Minn. 323, (Gil. 239;) 8 Minn. 224, (Gil.
194.)
Ch. 118,. § 37.
12 Minn. 174, (Gil. 102.)
Ch. 125.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
13 Minn. 519, (Gil. 487.)
Ch. 1, § 52.
16 Minn. 250, 259, 260, (Gil. 225, 233;) 17
Minn. 115, 120, (Gil. 91, 96.)
Ch. 1, §§ 57, 58.
21 Minn. 25.
Ch. 1, § 73.
17 Minn. 425, (Gil. 403.)
J
2143
2144
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 4, § 1.
18 Minn. 363, (Gil. 332;) 21 Minn. 106; 25
Minn. 147.
Ch. 4, § 2.
21 Minn. 24.
Ch. 4, § 3.
25 Minn. 459; 39 Minn. 377.
Ch. 8.
25 Minn. 220; 33 Minn. 27.
Ch. 8. § 18.
24 Minn. 154.
Ch. 8, § 25.
20 Minn. 77, (Gil. 63.)
Ch. 8, § 31.
33 Minn. 27.
Ch. 8, § 36.
16 Minn. 519, (Gil. 467.)
Ch. 8. § 74.
20 Minn. 77, (Gil. 63.)
Ch. 8, § 75.
14 Minn. 69, (Gil. 52;) 16 Minn. 156, (Gil.
139;) 22 Minn. 108; 33 Minn. 520; 36
Minn. 431.
Ch. 8, § 79.
14 Minn. 69, (Gil. 52.)
Ch. 8, § 80.
22 Minn. 62, 108.
Ch. 8, § 81.
14 Minn. 68, (Gil. 52;) 15 Minn. 325, (Gil.
257.)
Ch. 8, § 82.
Ch. 8, § 116.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 8, § 122.
18 Minn. 207, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 8, § 125.
15 Minn. 201, (Gil. 156.)
Ch. 8, § 126.
18 Minn. 203, (Gil. 186;) 22 Minn. 110; 23
Minn. 561.
Ch. 8, § 128.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 8, § 130.
26 Minn. 188.
Ch. 8, §§ 132-134.
22 Minn. 112.
Ch. 8, § 136.
18 Minn. 200, (Gil. 183;) 22 Minn. 112.
Ch. 8, §§ 137, 138, 141, 142.
22 Minn. 112.
Ch. 8, §§ 143, 144.
18 Minn. 207, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 8, § 147.
16 Minn. 107, (Gil. 97.)
Ch. 8, § 150.
18 Minn. 201, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 8, § 154.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 8, § 155.
21 Minn. 339; 23 Minn. 171.
12 Minn. 392, (Gil. 277;) 14 Minn. 68, 69, Ch. 8, § 164.
(Gil. 52, 53;) 15 Minn. 325, (Gil. 257.)
Ch. 8, § 83.
14 Minn. 69, (Gil. 52.)
Ch. 8, § 87.
33 Minn. 28.
Ch. 8, § 93.
21 Minn. 38.
Ch. 8, § 95.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 8, § 97.
21 Minn. 38.
Ch. 8, § 98.
13 Minn. 348, (Gil. 322;) 23 Minn. 210.
Ch. 8, § 102.
15 Minn. 202, 203, (Gil. 157, 158.)
Ch. 8, § 103.
22 Minn. 112; 24 Minn. 460.
Ch. 8, § 104.
14 Minn. 438, (Gil. 329.)
16 Minn. 519, (Gil. 467.)
Ch. 8, § 167.
14 Minn. 490, (Gil. 366;) 16 Minn. 493. (Gil.
445;) 25 Minn. 441.
Ch. 8, § 168.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 8, § 172.
15 Minn. 325, (Gil. 257.)
Ch. 8, § 174.
25 Minn. 440.
Ch. 8, § 178.
25 Minn. 385.
Ch. 8, § 181.
16 Minn. 387, 417, (Gil. 345, 374;) 23 Minu.
300.
Ch. 8, § 230.
15 Minn. 203, (Gil. 158.)
Ch. 9, § 2.
15 Minn. 201, (Gil. 156;) 21 Minn. 84, 85
ย
2145
2146
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 9, § 6.
15 Minn. 202, 203, (Gil. 157, 158.)
Ch. 10.
23 Minn. 370.
Ch. 10, § 1.
22 Minn. 341.
Ch. 10, § 2.
14 Minn. 438, (Gil. 329.)
Ch. 10, § 10.
13 Minn. 384, (Gil. 356.)
Ch. 10, § 14.
15 Minn. 358, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 10, § 15.
14 Minn. 251, (Gil. 184;) 24 Minn. 15; 31
Minn. 453.
Ch. 10, §§ 16--19, 23, 32, 38, 39.
23 Minn. 523--525.
Ch. 10, § 43.
26 Minn. 27.
Ch. 10, & 61.
13 Minn. 384, (Gil. 356.)
Ch. 10, § 83.
31 Minn. 453.
Ch. 10, § 84.
20 Minn. 80, (Gil. 66.)
Ch. 10. § 85.
13 Minn. 384, (Gil. 356.)
Ch. 10. § 100.
14 Minn. 251, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 11.
15 Minn. 299, (Gil. 230;) 22 Minn. 63; 30
Minn. 274; 39 Minn. 96.
Ch. 11, § 4.
11 Minn. 515, (Gil. 391.)
Ch. 11, §§ 6, 7.
15 Minn. 297, (Gil. 228.)
Ch. 11, § 26.
14 Minn. 251, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 11, §§ 27, 29.
15 Minn. 300, (Gil. 231.)
Ch. 11, § 37.
14 Minn. 251, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 11, §§ 40, 41.
15 Minu. 40, (Gil. 22.)
Ch. 11, § 47.
15 Minn. 300, 303, (Gil. 232, 234.)
Ch. 11, § 54.
14 Minn. 251, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 11, §§ 55, 61.
18 Minn. 207, (Gil. 189.)
V.2M.DIG.-68
Ch. 11, § 62.
35 Minn. 37.
Ch. 11, § 75.
14 Minn. 551, (Gil. 420.)
Ch. 11, §§ 78--80.
27 Minn. 65.
Ch. 11, § 82.
15 Minn. 301, 303, (Gil. 232, 234.)
Ch. 11, § 86.
22 Minn. 111.
Ch. 11, § 93.
15 Minn. 296, 414, (Gil. 227, 334.)
Ch. 11, § 102.
22 Minn. 112.
Ch. 11, § 110.
15 Minn. 253, (Gil. 193.)
Ch. 11, § 115.
15 Minn. 252, (Gil. 193;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427.)
Ch. 11, § 117.
35 Minn. 34.
Ch. 11, §§ 118-122.
27 Minn. 261; 35 Minn. 34.
Ch. 11, §§ 119, 122.
20 Minn. 473, (Gil. 427.)
Ch. 11, § 124.
15 Minn. 254, (Gil. 194;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427;) 24 Minn. 376.
Ch. 11, § 127.
15 Minn. 253, (Gil. 193;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427.)
Ch. 11, § 129.
20 Minn. 473, (Gil. 427.)
Ch. 11, § 131.
15 Minn. 254, (Gil. 194.)
Ch. 11, § 137.
20 Minn. 473, (Gil. 427;) 24 Minn. 376; 30
Minn. 275; 31 Minn. 360, 363; 39 Minn. 96,
97.
Ch. 11, § 138.
20 Minn. 473, (Gil. 427;) 24 Minn. 376; 30
Minn. 275; 39 Minn. 96, 97.
Ch. 11, § 139.
14 Minn. 355, (Gil. 273;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427;) 21 Minn. 433; 35 Minn. 540: 39 Minn.
97.
Ch. 11, § 140.
14 Minn. 355, (Gil. 273:) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427;) 21 Minn. 433; 35 Minn. 15.
Ch. 11, § 142.
15 Minn. 252, (Gil. 193;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427;) 23 Minn. 231; 27 Minn. 94; 31 Minn.
262.
2147
2148
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 11, § 143.
14 Minn. 356, (Gil. 273.)
Ch. 11, § 149.
38 Minn. 464.
Ch. 11, § 151.
15 Minn. 252, (Gil. 192;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427;) 24 Minn. 198; 31 Minn. 262.
Ch. 11, § 152.
19 Minn. 76, 224; (Gil. 50, 184;) 20 Minn.
271, 473, (Ĝil. 243, 427.)
Ch. 11, § 153.
19 Minn. 76, (Gil. 50;) 20 Minn. 473, (Gil.
427.)
Ch. 11, § 154.
22 Minn. 62; 25 Minn. 458; 30 Minn. 276; 31
Minn. 361, 363.
Ch. 11, § 155.
Ch. 17.
23 Minn. 301.
Ch. 17, § 7.
23 Minn. 2.
Ch. 18, § 15.
24 Minn. 309.
Ch. 19, §§ 29--39.
15 Minn. 358, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 23, § 1.
15 Minn. 220, (Gil. 171;) 18 Minn. 431, (Gil.
389;) 21 Minn. 532; 22 Minn. 24; 26 Minn.
550; 27 Minn. 133; 39 Minn. 124.
Ch. 28, $ 4.
19 Min. 183, (Gil. 149.)
Ch. 26, § 4.
18 Minn. 93, (Gil. 76.)
27 Minn. 94; 30 Minn. 275; 31 Minn. 262; 45 Ch. 26, § 9.
Minn. 176.
Ch. 11, §§ 156, 157.
31 Minn. 360; 39 Minn. 96.
Ch. 13.
13 Minn. 131, (Gil. 123.)
Ch. 13, §§ 9, 13, 19-22.
20 Minn. 400, 403, (Gil. 351, 353, 354.)
Ch. 13, § 33.
13 Minn. 131, (Gil. 124;) 25 Minn. 124.
Ch. 13, §§ 34--37.
13 Minn. 131, (Gil. 124.)
Ch. 13, § 43.
25 Minn. 124.
Ch. 13, § 66.
18 Minn. 62, (Gil. 41.)
Ch. 13, §§ 68, 69.
14 Minn. 444, (Gil. 330.)
Ch. 15.
25 Minn. 259.
Ch. 16.
19 Minn. 405, (Gil. 348.)
Ch. 29.
12 Minn. 566, (Gil. 480.)
Ch. 29, §§ 1-4.
22 Minn. 253.
Ch. 31.
14 Minn. 366, 367, (Gil. 282, 283;) 18 Minn.
164, (Gil. 148;) 24 Minn. 28.
Ch. 31, §§ 2--15.
19 Minn. 479, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 31, § 16.
14 Minn. 367, 369, 370, (Gil. 283, 285, 286.)
Ch. 31, § 17.
12 Minn. 454, (Gil. 349;) 13 Minn. 325, 326,
499, (Gil. 298, 459;) 16 Minn. 363, (Gil.
322.)
Ch. 32.
20 Minn. 347, (Gil. 300;) 24 Minn. 305.
Ch. 32, § 11.
20 Minn. 348, (Gil. 300.)
22 Minn. 326; 25 Minn. 371, 430; 26 Minn. Ch. 32, § 16.
176, 177.
Ch. 16, §§ 1, 2.
16 Minn. 384, (Gil. 342;) 23 Minn. 140.
Ch. 16, § 4.
23 Minn. 140, 141; 26 Minn. 148.
·Ch. 16, § 10.
23 Miun. 83, 84,
23 Minn. 82, 84, 549.
Ch. 16, § 11.
Ch. 16, § 12.
23 Minn. 83.
34 Minn. 245.
Ch. 32, §§ 19--23.
23 Minn. 478.
Ch. 32, § 23.
14 Minn. 534, (Gil. 405.)
Ch. 32, §§ 29--38.
19 Minn. 162, (Gil. 125.)
Ch. 33.
25 Minn. 550.
Ch. 33, §§ 2, 10, 11, 13.
23 Minn. 202--204, 206.
2149
2150
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 33, § 21.
25 Minn. 550, 552.
Ch. 33, §§ 33, 34.
23 Minn. 204, 209.
Ch. 34.
16 Minn. 263, (Gil. 236;) 18 Minn. 157, 165,
172, 173, (Gil. 141, 148, 155, 156;) 19 Minn.
473, (Gil. 407;) 21 Minn. 498, 533; 23 Minn.
127; 32 Minn. 203; 37 Minn. 168.
Ch. 34, §§ 1--44.
20 Minn. 492, (Gil. 446.)
Ch. 34, § 5.
22 Minn. 287.
Ch. 34, §§ 9--11.
Ch. 34, § 27.
16 Minn. 264, (Gil. 237.)
Ch. 34, § 29.
22 Minn. 151.
Ch. 34, § 33.
25 Minn. 329.
Ch. 34, § 39.
36 Minn. 261, 265.
Ch. 34, § 45.
40 Minn. 509.
Ch. 34, §§ 45--53.
23 Minn. 6; 28 Minn. 294; 40 Minn. 509; 50
N. W. 1114.
16 Minn. 371--374, (Gil. 330--333;) 30 Minn. Ch. 34, § 46.
175.
Ch. 34, § 13.
20 Minn. 35, (Gil. 28.)
Ch. 34, § 14.
52 N. W. 268.
Ch. 34, § 49.
26 Minn. 55; 44 Minn. 186; 52 N. W. 269.
19 Minn. 473, 479, 503, (Gil. 407, 413, 435;) Ch. 34, §§ 68-91.
20 Minn. 35, (Gil. 28.)
Ch. 34, § 15.
20 Minn. 188, (Gil. 167;) 36 Minn. 87.
Ch. 34, § 16.
19 Minn. 479, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 34, § 17.
22 Minn. 174.
Ch. 34, § 19.
16 Minn. 266, (Gil. 239;) 17 Minn. 445, (Gil.
423;) 18 Minn. 169, 397, (Gil. 152, 358;) 19
Minn. 477, 506, (Gil. 411, 437;) 20 Minn. 35,
(Gil. 29.)
Ch. 34, § 20.
19 Minn. 473, (Gil. 407.)
Ch. 34, § 21.
16 Minn. 264, 265, (Gil. 237, 238.)
Ch. 34, § 22.
16 Minn. 264, (Gil. 237;) 18 Minn. 161, 172,
(Gil. 144, 155;) 19 Minn. 476, 505, 506, (Gil.
410, 436, 437;) 22 Minn. 176.
Ch. 34, § 23.
18 Minn. 161, 172, (Gil. 145, 155;) 21 Minn.
498, 499; 22 Minn. 45, 46; 24 Minn. 191,
192.
Ch. 34, § 24.
18 Minn. 161, 172, (Gil. 145, 155.)
Ch. 34, § 25.
16 Minn. 266, (Gil. 239;) 18 Minn. 172, (Gil.
155;) 19 Minn. 477, 478, 506, (Gil. 411, 412,
437) 20 Minn. 31, (Gil. 24;) 22 Minn. 174.
Ch. 34, § 26.
25 Minn. 203.
Ch. 34, §§ 117, 118.
12 Minn. 383, 384, (Gil. 264, 265.)
Ch. 34, § 162.
20 Minn. 534, (Gil. 477.)
Ch. 36, §§ 12, 32.
12 Minn. 449--451, (Gil. 344--346.)
Ch. 38.
23 Minn. 562.
Ch. 38, § 2.
26 Minn. 239.
Ch. 38, § 12.
21 Minn. 106; 33 Minn. 453.
Ch. 38, § 17.
33 Minn. 453.
Ch. 38, § 39.
23 Minn. 551, 562; 26 Minn. 186.
Ch. 38, § 41.
26 Minn. 187.
Ch. 39, § 1.
20 Minn. 86, (Gil. 72;) 21 Minn. 191; 23
Minn. 184; 25 Minn. 84, 298.
Ch. 39, § 2.
22 Minn. 40; 25 Minn. 84.
Ch. 39, § 3.
23 Minn. 184; 25 Minn. 84, 298.
Ch. 39, § 4.
25 Minn. 84.
16 Minn. 264, (Gil. 237;) 19 Minn. 504, (Gil. Ch. 39, § 5.
436;) 21 Minn. 498; 24 Minn. 192.
20 Minn. 416, (Gil. 368;) 25 Minn. 515.
2151
2152
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 39, § 6.
25 Minn. 140, 515.
Ch. 39, §§ 7, 8.
25 Minn. 85, 515.
Ch. 39, § 9.
25 Minn. 515.
Ch. 40.
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 40, § 1.
15 Minn. 87, (Gil. 65;) 18 Minn. 241, (Gil.
223.)
Ch. 40, § 2.
20 Minn. 534, (Gil. 477;) 51 N. W. 380.
Ch. 40, § 4.
16 Minn. 32, (Gil. 18.)
Ch. 40, § 6.
23 Minn. 35, 38.
Ch. 40, § 9.
24 Minn. 165.
Ch. 40, § 21.
17 Minn. 489, (Gil. 465;) 18 Minn. 241, 409,
(Gil. 223, 367;) 20 Minn. 462, (Gil. 417;) 21
Minn. 168; 22 Minn. 534; 23 Minn. 365;
Minn. 279.
Ch. 40, § 23.
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223;) 22 Minn. 143.
Ch. 40, § 24.
15 Minn. 176, (Gil. 135.)
Ch. 40, § 25.
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 40, § 26.
Ch. 41, § 11.
21 Minn. 130.
Ch. 41, § 12.
20 Minn. 186, (Gil. 165;) 22 Minn. 127; 25
Minn. 118.
Ch. 41, § 14.
25 Minn. 180.
Ch. 41, §§ 14--22.
13 Minn. 440, (Gil. 403.)
Ch. 41, § 15.
18 Minn. 310, (Gil. 279.)
Ch. 41, § 18.
22 Minn. 136; 24 Minn. 173; 25 Minn. 159.
Ch. 41, § 19.
19 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5.)
Ch. 41, § 20.
18 Minn. 425, (Gil. 382.)
Ch. 41, § 22.
24 Minn. 173.
Ch. 42, § 4.
15 Minn. 124, (Gil. 92.)
Ch. 43, § 2.
33
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223;) 22 Minn. 532, 534;
23 Minn. 35, 38
Ch. 40, § 28.
17 Minn. 489, (Gil. 466.)
Ch. 40, §§ 32, 34, 35.
18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 41.
21 Minn. 402.
Ch. 41, tit. 2.
20 Minn. 226, 228, (Gil. 204, 207.)
Ch. 41, tit. 2, § 6.
16 Minn. 72, (Gil. 61;) 20 Minn. 45, (Gil. 34;)
22 Minn. 450; 23 Minn. 544; 24 Minn. 515.
Ch. 41, § 7.
14 Minn. 132, (Gil. 98.)
Ch. 41, § 9.
23 Minn. 57.
Ch. 41, § 10.
16 Minn. 460, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 43, § 6.
21 Minn. 130.
Ch. 43, § 7.
13 Minn. 469, (Gil. 434;) 14 Minn. 430, (Gil.
321;) 20 Minn. 241, (Gil. 216;) 22 Minn.
134, 385; 26 Minn. 98.
Ch. 43, § 8.
13 Minn. 469, (Gil. 434;) 14 Minn. 430, (Gil.
321;) 22 Minn. 134, 385;• 24 Minn. 244; 26
Minn. 98.
Ch. 43, § 9.
20 Minn. 241, (Gil. 216.)
Ch. 43, §§ 11, 16.
25 Minn. 511.
Ch. 43, §§ 26, 27.
24 Minn. 244.
Ch. 45, §§.14, 15.
24 Minn. 183.
Ch. 45, §§ 43-45.
43 Minn. 400, 401.
Ch. 46, § 1.
16 Minn. 511, (Gil. 461.)
Ch. 46, § 2.
22 Minn. 353.
Ch. 47, § 5.
20 Minn. 253, (Gil. 226;) 25 Minn. 41.
21 Minn. 130; 24 Minn. 173; 25 Minn. 118; Ch. 47, § 9.
26 Minn. 135.
20 Minn. 254, 255, (Gil. 228, 229.)
2153
2154
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 47, § 14.
19 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 47, §§ 17--21.
16 Minn. 511, (Gil. 461.)
Ch. 47, § 22.
14 Minn. 20, (Gil. 12.)
Ch. 47, § 35.
19 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 48, § 7.
25 Minn. 463.
Ch. 48, §§ 14-17.
27 Minn. 297.
Ch. 48, § 18.
34 Minn. 163; 46 Minn. 479.
Ch. 49, § 3.
24 Minn. 148; 28 Minn. 203.
Ch. 49, § 7.
22 Minn. 394.
Ch. 49, § 8, subd. 3.
28 Minn. 204.
Ch. 49, § 14.
23 Minn. 416, 419; 24 Minn. 135; 28 Minn.
203.
Ch. 49, § 16.
22 Minn. 394; 23 Minn. 416.
Ch. 51, § 2.
23 Minn. 86.
Ch. 51, §§ 5, 7.
23 Minn. 417, 418.
26 Minn. 404.
Ch. 51, § 12.
Ch. 52, § 1.
20 Minn. 320, (Gil. 275.)
Ch. 52, § 5.
14 Minn. 66, (Gil. 50.)
Ch. 52, § 6.
14 Minn. 66, (Gil. 50;) 16 Minn. 511, (Gil.
461;) 22 Minn. 250; 25 Minn. 25; 31 Minn.
71.
Ch. 52, § 11.
24 Minn. 319.
Ch. 52, § 15.
24 Minn. 385.
Ch. 53.
20 Minn. 318 et seq., (Gil. 274;) 25 Minn. 468.
Ch. 53, § 8.
24 Minn. 135.
Ch. 53, §§ 9--12.
20 Minn. 444, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 53, § 14.
21 Minn. 173, 175; 25 Minn. 380.
Ch. 53, § 16.
21 Minn. 173.
Ch. 53, §§ 20, 22.
20 Minn. 444, 446, (Gil. 398, 400.)
Ch. 53, §§ 26, 27.
25 Minn. 26.
Ch. 53, § 50.
21 Minn. 175.
Ch. 54, § 4.
19 Minn. 227, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 54, §§ 7, 8.
25 Minn. 25.
Ch. 54, § 14.
23 Minn. 54; 25 Minn. 381.
Ch. 55.
23 Minn. 52; 24 Minn. 121; 26 Minn. 95.
Ch. 55, § 1.
23 Minn. 297; 24 Minn. 122.
Ch. 55, § 2.
16 Minn. 506, (Gil. 457;) 23 Minn. 297 et seq.
Ch. 55, § 3.
23 Minn. 297 et seq.
Ch. 55, § 4.
23 Minn. 297, 298.
Ch. 55, §§ 6, 7.
16 Minn. 497, 505, (Gil. 448, 456;) 23 Minn.
298.
Ch. 56, § 1.
16 Minn. 501, (Gil. 452.)
Ch. 56, § 4.
16 Minn. 498, 500, 502, (Gil. 450. 451, 453;)
25 Minn. 25; 26 Minn. 261.
Ch. 56, § 5.
16 Minn. 500, (Gil. 452;) 20 Minn. 319, (Gil.
274.)
Ch. 56, §§ 6-8.
16 Minn. 499-501, (Gil. 450-452.)
Ch. 56, § 23.
25 Minn. 25.
Ch. 57, § 13.
14 Minn. 67, (Gil. 51.)
Ch. 57, §§ 29, 33.
33 Minn. 221, 222.
Ch. 57, § 34.
37 Minn. 236.
Ch. 57, § 35.
22 Minn. 395; 26 Minn. 300; 38 Minn. 334.
2155
2156
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
!
Ch. 57, § 41.
33 Minn. 222; 52 N. W. 383.
Ch. 57, § 44.
22 Minn. 396.
Ch. 57, § 46.
19 Minn. 340, (Gil. 293;) 37 Minn. 3.
Ch. 57, § 47.
22 Minn. 395; 28 Minn. 204; 38 Minn. 334.
Ch. 59, § 2.
24 Minn. 195.
Ch. 59, § 8.
24 Minn. 148.
Ch. 59, § 13.
51 N. W. 221.
Ch. 59, §§ 17, 18.
23 Minn. 54, 55.
Ch. 61, § 1.
23 Minn. 533 et seq.
Ch. 61, § 17.
22 Minn. 353.
Ch. 62, §§ 6, 9.
23 Minn. 563.
Ch. 62, §§ 10, 11, 14.
18 Minn. 92, 95, (Gil. 74, 75, 77.)
Ch. 62, § 25.
23 Minn. 215.
Ch. 63, § 1.
28 Minn. 41.
Ch. 64, § 4.
20 Minn. 3+1, (Gil. 295;) 22 Minn. 246.
Ch. 64, § 5.
22 Minn. 116.
Ch. 64, § 13.
Ch. 65, § 7.
14 Minu. 359, (Gil. 276;) 15 Minn. 450, (Gil.
365;) 17 Minn. 339, (Gil. 315;) 18 Minn.
222, 314, (Gil. 203, 284;) 20 Minn. 105, (Gil.
91.)
Ch. 65, § 8.
15 Minn. 451, (Gil. 366;) 20 Minn. 104, (Gil.
90;) 25 Minn. 43.
Ch. 65, § 9.
34 Minn. 544.
Ch. 65, § 10.
25 Minn. 43, 44.
Ch. 65, § 11.
25 Minn. 43; 26 Minn. 156.
Ch. 65, § 13.
25 Minn. 146.
Ch. 65, § 18.
15 Minn. 448, 449, (Gil. 363, 364;) 17 Minn.
42, 43, (Gil. 24, 25;) 26 Minn. 28.
Ch. 65, § 19.
22 Minn. 37, 38.
Ch. 65, § 21.
14 Minn. 144, (Gil. 112.)
Ch. 65, § 25.
18 Minn. 228, (Gil. 208.)
Ch. 65, § 28.
17 Minn. 470, (Gil. 449;) 21 Minn. 330.
Ch. 65, § 29.
18 Minn. 314, (Gil. 284.)
Ch. 65, § 33.
21 Minn. 330.
Ch. 65, § 34.
22 Minn. 131.
Ch. 65, § 35.
24 Minn. 325; 25 Minn. 185.
16 Minu. 428, (Gil. 384;) 20 Minn. 199, (Gil. Ch. 65, § 56.
179.)
Ch. 64, § 15.
19 Minu. 540, (Gil. 470.)
Ch. 64, § 17.
16 Minn. 291, 317, (Gil. 255, 280;) 17 Minn.
81, (Gil. 59.)
Ch. 64, § 33.
16 Minn. 519, (Gil. 468;) 18 Minn. 92, (Gil.
74.)
Ch. 65, § 3.
26 Minn. 28.
Ch. 65, § 4.
22 Minn. 246.
Ch. 65, § 5.
16 Minn. 52, (Gil. 40;) 18 Minn. 226, (Gil.
206;) 20 Minn. 394, 419, (Gil. 345, 373.)
23 Minn. 139.
Ch. 65, § 68.
15 Minn. 245, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 65, §§ 81-84.
16 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40, 41.)
Ch. 65, § 95.
21 Minn. 435.
Ch. 65, §§ 103-118.
23 Minn. 419.
Ch. 65, § 104.
15 Minn. 197, 452, (Gil. 152, 367;) 23 Minn.
5; 26 Minn. 28.
Ch. 65, § 106.
15 Minn. 197, (Gil. 152;) 18 Minn. 220, 224,
225, (Gil. 201, 204, 205;) 19 Minn. 478, 479,
(Gil. 412;) 24 Minn. 96.
2157
2158
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 65, § 107.
12 Minn. 335, (Gil. 220;) 14 Minn. 144, 219,
462, (Gil. 112, 156, 345;) 18 Minn. 220, (Gil.
201;) 19 Minn. 478-480, (Gil. 412--414;) 24
Minn. 96.
Ch. 65, § 108.
17 Minn. 191, (Gil. 165.)
Ch. 65, §§ 109, 111.
15 Minn. 452, 453, (Gil. 367, 368.)
Ch. 65, § 112.
15 Minn. 453, (Gil. 368;) 23 Minn. 5.
Ch. 65, § 117.
15 Minn. 453, (Gil. 368.)
Ch. 65, § 131.
25 Minn. 372.
Ch. 65, § 132.
16 Minn. 415, (Gil. 373.)
Ch. 65, § 133.
26 Minn. 7.
Ch. 65, § 145.
21 Minn. 50.
Ch. 65, § 146.
25 Minn. 371.
Ch. 65, § 149.
16 Minn. 57, (Gil. 45;) 21 Minn. 461.
Ch. 65, § 150.
13 Minn. 522, (Gil. 490;) 21 Minn. 461.
Ch. 65, §§ 151, 152.
21 Minn. 461.
Ch. 65, § 153.
Ch. 66, § 9.
17 Minn. 473, (Gil. 451.)
Ch. 66, § 11.
14 Minn. 104, (Gil. 74;) 15 Minn. 80, (Gil. 58;)
20 Minn. 457, (Gil. 412;) 24 Minn. 361.
Ch. 66, § 13.
13 Minn. 332, (Gil. 304;) 25 Minn. 121.
Ch. 66, § 14.
13 Minn. 332, (Gil. 304.)
Ch. 66, § 15.
13 Minn. 392, (Gil. 363;) 14 Minn. 271, (Gil.
201;) 16 Minn. 312, (Gil. 276:) 19 Minn.
491, (Gil. 423;) 21 Minn. 20; 24 Minn. 361;
39 Minn. 42.
Ch. 66, § 16.
13 Minn. 392, (Gil. 363;) 18 Minn. 528, (Gil.
472.)
Ch. 66, § 17.
15 Minn. 211, (Gil. 165.)
Ch. 66, § 24:
12 Minn. 354, (Gil. 230;) 16 Minn. 220, (Gil.
193;) 24 Minn. 110; 35 Minn. 65.
Ch. 66, § 26.
12 Minn. 378, (Gil. 257;) 14 Minn. 34, 149,
(Gil. 26, 116;) 17 Minn. 500, (Gil. 476;) 21
Minn. 386; 23 Minn. 361; 25 Minn. 511.
Ch. 66, § 27.
19 Minn. 182, 186, (Gil. 148, 151;) 23 Minn.
176.
Ch. 66, § 28.
17 Minn. 500, (Gil. 477;) 21 Minn. 386; 22
Minn. 111; 25 Minn. 511.
19 Minn. 334, (Gil. 288;) 21 Minn. 461; 25 Ch. 66, § 29.
Minn. 372.
Ch. 65, § 157.
15 Minn. 451, (Gil. 366.)
Ch. 65, § 162.
25 Minn. 372.
Ch. 66.
13 Minn. 286, (Gil. 263.) ·
Ch. 66, § 1.
14 Minn. 397, (Gil. 301;) 19 Minn. 138, 141,
(Gil. 103, 107;) 25 Minn. 292.
Ch. 66, § 3.
13 Minn. 392, (Gil. 363;) 14 Minn. 271, (Gil.
201.)
Ch. 66, §§ 3--25
24 Minn. 19.
Ch. 66, § 4.
18 Minn. 183, (Gil. 168.)
Ch. 66, § 6.
17 Minn. 360, (Gil. 334;) 19 Minn. 346, (Gil.
298;) 22 Minn. 566.
Ch. 66, § 30.
17 Minn. 500, (Gil. 476;) 24 Minn. 343; 25
Minn. 339.
Ch. 66, § 33.
23 Minn. 467.
Ch. 66, § 34.
19 Minn. 176, (Gil. 140.)
Ch. 66, § 36.
12 Minn. 379, (Gil. 257;) 20 Minn. 175, (Gil.
160;) 22 Minn. 543, 545; 25 Minn. 121.
Ch. 66, § 38.
21 Minn. 18; 24 Minn. 589.
Ch. 66, § 40.
30 Minn. 445.
Ch. 66, § 42.
19 Minn. 480, (Gil. 414;) 21 Minn. 18.
12 Minn. 353, (Gil. 230:) 14 Minn. 104, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 45.
74;) 22 Minn. 476, 478.
21 Minn. 336.
2159
2160
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 47.
15 Minn. 292, (Gil. 223;) 39 Minn. 376.
Ch. 66, § 48.
13 Minn. 284, 286, 289, 290, (Gil. 261, 264,
19 Minn. 492, (Gil, 424.)
267;)
Ch. 66, § 49.
13 Minn. 284, 290, (Gil. 261, 267;) 44 Minn.
99.
Ch. 66. §§ 50, 51.
15 Minn. 65, (Gil. 46.)
Ch. Jo, § 52.
22 Minn. 204.
Ch. 66, § 53.
Ch. 66, § 81.
13 Minn. 160, (Gil. 148.)
Ch. 66, § 82.
13 Minn. 170, (Gil. 161.)
Ch. 66, § 83.
19 Minn. 186, (Gil. 151;) 22 Minn. 232; 25
Minn. 157.
Ch. 66, § 89.
20 Minn. 191, (Gil. 170.)
Ch. 66, § 90.
13 Minn. 170, (Gil. 161;) 18 Minn. 526, (Gil.
470;) 22 Minn. 549.
15 Minn. 292, (Gil. 223;) 18 Minn. 92, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 92.
75.)
Ch. 66, § 55.
45 Minn. 279.
Ch. 66, § 56.
13 Minn. 284, 286, 287, 289, (Gil. 261, 264,
267.)
Ch. 66, § 57.
12 Minn. 529, (Gil. 438.)
Ch. 66, § 62.
23 Minn. 300,
Ch. 66, § 68.
16 Minn. 48, 241, (Gil. 35, 213;) 23 Minn. 61;
45 Minn. 232, 233.
Ch. 66, § 69.
16 Minn. 48, (Gil. 35.)
Ch. 66, § 70.
25 Minn. 292.
Ch. 66, § 73.
17 Minn. 398, (Gil. 375;) 18 Minn. 92, (Gil.
74.)
Ch. 66, § 74.
18 Minn. 110, (Gil. 96;) 22 Minn. 273, 305,
482; 25 Minn. 307; 26 Minn. 59.
Ch. 66, § 77.
20 Minn. 373, (Gil. 324.)
Ch. 66, § 94.
14 Minn. 56, (Gil. 41.)
Ch. 66, § 95.
22 Minn. 278.
Ch. 66, § 96.
23 Minn. 180.
Ch. 66, § 98.
14 Minn. 137, (Gil. 103:) 15 Minn. 115, (Gil.
86;) 16 Minn. 169, (Gil. 148;) 22 Minn. 377;
24 Minn. 112; 25 Minn. 292; 26 Minn. 82,
182.
Ch. 66, § 99.
15 Minn. 294, (Gil. 225;) 22 Minn. 232.
Ch. 66, § 100.
13 Minn. 332, 444, (Gil. 304, 410;) 21 Minn.
360; 22 Minn. 27.
Ch. 66, § 101.
13 Minn. 444, (Gil. 410;) 21 Minn. 360; 22
Minn. 27.
Ch. 66, § 104.
13 Minn. 444, (Gil. 410;) 20 Minn. 175, (Gil.
160;) 21 Minn. 55.
22 Minn. 305, 482; 25 Minn. 307; 26 Minn. Ch. 66, § 105.
59.
Ch. 66, § 78.
12 Minn. 204, (Gil. 170;) 17 Minn. 398, (Gil.
375;) 18 Minn. 110, (Gil. 96;) 22 Minn. 305,
482; 25 Minn. 307; 26 Minn. 59.
Ch. 66, § 79.
12 Minn. 517, (Gil. 426;) 14 Minn. 475, (Gil.
353;) 15 Minn. 294, (Gil. 225;) 17 Minn. 26,
102, 103, 192, 294, (Gil. 9, 80, 166, 271;) 19
Minn. 386, (Gil. 333;) 20 Minn. 204. (Gil.
183;) 21 Minn. 313, 454; 25 Minn. 228.
Ch. 66, § 80.
14 Minn. 141, 475, (Gil. 109, 353;) 17 Minn.
102, 192, (Gil. 80, 166;) 19 Minn. 186, 386,
(Gil. 151, 333;) 20 Minn. 104, 434, (Gil. 90,
388;) 21 Minn. 313, 368; 22 Minn. 136, 542;
25 Minn. 157; 26 Minn. 106, 255.
12 Minn. 424, (Gil. 309;) 13 Minn. 70, (Gil.
65;) 15 Minn. 66, (Gil. 47;) 16 Minn. 81,
494, (Gil. 70, 446;) 17 Minn. 402, (Gil. 378;)
19 Minn. 409, (Gil. 354;) 22 Minn. 548; 23
Minn. 228, 541; 24 Minn. 347; 25 Minn.
244.
Ch. 66, § 107.
12 Minn. 444, 528, (Gil. 333, 436;) 14 Minn.
466, (Gil. 349.)
Ch. 66, § 108.
17 Minn. 219, (Gil. 196.)
Ch. 66, § 111.
25 Minn. 149.
Ch. 66, § 112.
16 Minn. 491, (Gil. 444;) 17 Minn. 476, (Gil.
454.)
2161
2162
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 113.
16 Minn. 491, (Gil. 444;) 17 Minn. 476, (Gil.
454;) 24 Minn. 386.
Ch. 66, §§ 114-117.
16 Minn. 491, 492, (Gil. 444, 445;) 17 Minn.
476, (Gil. 454.)
Ch. 66, § 128.
Ch. 66, § 165.
25 Minn. 513.
Ch. 66, § 166.
20 Minn. 416, (Gil. 368.)
Ch. 66, § 170.
23 Minn. 72.
12 Minn. 424, (Gil. 309;) 13 Minn. 332, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 173.
304;) 20 Minn. 200, (Ġil. 180.)
Ch. 66, § 129.
20 Minn. 199, (Gil. 179.)
Ch. 66, § 130.
12 Minn. 425, (Gil. 309;) 13 Minn. 424, (Gil.
391;) 20 Minn. 199, 441, (Gil. 179, 393.)
Ch. 66, § 131.
12 Minn. 424, (Gil. 308;) 25 Minn. 120.
Ch. 66, § 132.
20 Minn. 200, (Gil. 180.)
Ch. 66, § 133.
13 Minn. 207, (Gil. 194.)
Ch. 66, § 136.
20 Minn. 201, (Gil. 180.)
Ch. 66, § 137.
19 Minn. 417, (Gil. 361.)
Ch. 66, § 174.
23 Minn. 72, 240, 241.
Ch. 66, §§ 175, 176.
23 Minn. 72.
Ch. 66, § 178.
23 Minn. 240, 241.
Ch. 66, § 180.
12 Minn. 392, (Gil. 277.)
Ch. 66, §§ 182, 186.
17 Minn. 461, (Gil. 440.)
Ch. 66, § 189.
44 Minn. 147.
Ch. 66, §§ 189--191.
24 Minn. 478.
18 Minn. 311, (Gil. 280;) 23 Minn. 33; 2 Ch. 66, § 192.
Minn. 437; 26 Minn. 122, 174.
Ch. 66, § 140.
15 Minn. 64, 103, (Gil. 45, 78;) 18 Minn. 95,
(Gil. 77.)
12 Minn. 421, (Gil. 306;) 15 Minn. 488, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 197.
402.)
Ch. 66, § 142.
51 N. W. 115.
Ch. 66, § 147.
21 Minn. 46; 24 Minn. 454.
Ch. 66, § 150.
21 Minn. 46.
Ch. 66, §§ 153, 154.
23 Minn. 547.
Ch. 66, §§ 155, 156.
21 Minn. 45, 46.
Ch. 66, § 157.
21 Minn. 46; 23 Minn. 240, 241.
Ch. 66, § 158.
19 Minn. 165, (Gil. 128;) 21 Minn. 46; 22
Minn. 247; 23 Minn. 477.
Ch. 66, § 159.
23 Minn. 72.
Ch. 66, §§ 160, 161.
25 Minn. 513.
Ch. 66, § 162.
21 Minn. 45.
Ch. 66, § 164.
23 Minn. 240, 241; 25 Minn. 513.
14 Minn. 398, (Gil. 302;) 17 Minn. 108, (Gil.
85.)
Ch. 66, § 198.
13 Minn. 330, (Gil. 302;) 14 Minn. 398, (Gil.
302;) 16 Minn. 363, (Gil. 322;) 17 Minu.
108, (Gil. 85;) 18 Minn. 95, (Gil. 77;) 21
Minn. 328; 26 Minn. 407; 47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 66, § 199.
13 Minn 330, (Gil. 302;) 14 Minn. 398, (Gil.
302;) 16 Minn. 363, (Gil. 322;) 17 Minn.
108, (Gil. 85;) 20 Minn. 94, 274, (Gil. 78,
247;) 21 Minn. 328, 369; 22 Minn. 353;
26 Minn. 407; 47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 66, § 200.
19 Minn. 540, (Gil. 470.)
Ch. 66, § 202.
13 Minn. 263, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 66, § 204.
22 Minn. 467.
Ch. 66, § 208.
18 Minn. 84, (Gil. 67;) 20 Minn. 312, 311,
(Gil. 270, 295.)
Ch. 66, § 209.
17 Minn. 192, 250, (Gil. 165, 227.)
Ch. 66, § 215.
12 Minn. 436, (Gil. 325;) 20 Minn. 143, (Gil.
126.)
2163
2164
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 216.
12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 325;) 20 Minn. 143, (Gil.
126;) 24 Minn. 369.
Ch. 66, § 217.
21 Minn. 368.
Ch. 66, § 218.
12 Minn. 536, (Gil. 446;) 16 Minn. 365, (Gil.
324;) 17 Minn. 298, (Gil. 275;) 20 Minn.
144, (Gil. 128.)
Ch. 66, § 222.
Ch. 66, § 252.
13 Minn. 49, 51, (Gil. 45, 47;) 16 Minn. 353,
(Gil. 313;) 24 Minn. 3.
Ch. 66, § 254.
13 Minn. 49, (Gil. 45;) 16 Minn. 236--239, 486,
(Gil. 208--211, 439;) 17 Minn. 72, (Gil. 49;)
19 Minn. 349, (Gil. 302:) 22 Minn. 383, 381;
45 Minn. 232, 233.
Ch. 66, § 255.
16 Minn. 453--455, (Gil. 408, 409.)
16 Minn. 465, (Gil. 417;) 18 Minn. 123, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 256.
108;) 22 Minn. 22.
Ch. 66, § 224.
23 Minu. 487.
Ch. 66, § 226.
12 Minn. 442, (Gil. 331;) 25 Minn. 362.
Ch. 66, § 228.
14 Minn. 398, (Gil. 302;) 19 Minn. 137, (Gil.
103.)
Ch. 66, § 229.
14 Minn. 398, (Gil. 302.)
Ch. 66, § 231.
19 Minn. 446, (Gil. 386.)
Ch. 66, § 233.
19 Minn. 135, (Gil. 101;) 25 Minn. 245.
Ch. 66, § 235.
1
12 Minn. 506, (Gil. 416;) 13 Minn. 238, (Gil.
222;) 15 Minn. 264, (Gil. 202;) 16 Minn.
466, (Gil. 418;) 19 Minn. 136, 395, (Gil. 102,
341;) 20 Minn. 143, (Gil. 127;) 25 Minn. 60.
Ch. 66, §§ 235-237.
26 Minn. 408.
Ch. 66, § 237.
13 Minn. 297, (Gil. 274;) 19 Minn. 408, (Gil.
353;) 25 Minn. 244.
Ch. 66, § 241.
23 Minn. 61, 72.
Ch. 66, § 242.
14 Minn. 337, 496, (Gil. 257, 372;) 16 Miun.
178, (Gil. 156;) 17 Minn. 50, (Gil. 32;) 18
Minn. 87, (Gil. 70;) 19 Minn. 446, (Gil.
386;) 20 Minn. 172, 10, (Gil. 155, 362.)
Ch. 66, § 246.
19 Minn. 25, (Gil. 7;) 21 Minn. 333.
Ch. 66, § 249.
22 Minn. 204.
Ch. 66, § 262.
16 Minn. 240-242, 486, (Gil. 212, 213, 439;)
17 Minn. 72, (Gil. 49;) 19 Minn. 352, (Gil.
305;) 20 Minn. 195, (Gil. 174;) 22 Minu.
384; 45 Minn. 232, 233.
Ch. 66, § 263.
19 Minn. 352, (Gil. 305.)
Ch. 66, § 264.
19 Minn. 352, (Gil. 305;) 20 Minn. 195, (Gil.
174;) 25 Minn. 441.
Ch. 66, § 265.
24 Minn. 23.
Ch. 66, § 266.
16 Minn. 240, (Gil. 212.)
Ch. 66, § 269.
16 Minn. 18, 488, (Gil. 6, 442;) 23 Minn. 50;
25 Minn. 171.
Ch. 66, § 270.
16 Minn. 18, (Gil. 6;) 45 Minn. 234.
Ch. 66, § 271.
21 Minn. 195; 26 Minn. 144.
Ch. 66, §§ 272, 273.
21 Minn. 195.
Ch. 66, § 279.
18 Minn. 362, (Gil. 331.)
Ch. 66, § 280.
16 Minn. 488, (Gil. 442.)
Ch. 66, § 284.
19 Minn. 351, (Gil. 304;) 23 Minn. 50.
Ch. 66, § 285.
16 Minn. 532, (Gil. 480.)
Ch. 66, § 287.
24 Minn. 288.
12 Minn. 294, (Gil. 271;) 14 Minn. 462, (Gil. Ch. 66, § 288.
345;) 24 Minn. 386.
Ch. 66, § 250.
13 Minn. 49, (Gil. 45;) 15 Minn. 65, 191, (Gil
47, 146;) 21 Minn. 306.
Ch. 66, § 251.
13 Minn. 49, (Gil. 45.)
16 Minn. 520, (Gil. 469.)
Ch. 66, § 299.
16 Minn. 519, 520, (Gil. 467, 468;) 22 Minn.
453.
Ch. 66, §§ 299--308.
23 Minn. 412; 25 Minn. 264.
2165
2166
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, §§ 304--306.
22 Minn. 455.
Ch. 66, § 307.
23 Minn. 412.
Ch. 67.
16 Minn. 259, (Gil. 233;) 23 Minn. 72.
Ch. 67, § 1.
21 Minn. 414.
Ch. 67, § 2.
Ch. 70, § 24.
23 Minn. 171.
Ch. 70, § 36.
14 Minn. 288, (Gil. 215;) 15 Minn. 325, (Gil.
257.)
Ch. 70, § 41.
21 Minn. 460.
Ch. 71, §§ 4, 12-14.
16 Minn. 291, (Gil. 255.)
14 Minn. 287, 553, (Gil. 215, 422;) 20 Minn. Ch. 71, §§ 15, 16.
419, (Gil. 373;) 21 Minn. 414.
Ch. 67, § 3.
14 Minn. 553, (Gil. 422.)
Ch. 67, § 5.
19 Minn. 389, (Gil. 335.)
Ch. 67, § 8.
17 Minn. 34, (Gil. 17.)
Ch. 68.
15 Minn. 118, (Gil. 89;) 21 Minn. 108; 23
Minn. 438; 25 Minn. 188.
Ch. 68, § 1.
13 Minn. 513, (Gil. 476;) 16 Minn. 524, (Gil.
472;) 21 Minn. 105, 302.
Ch. 68, § 2.
13 Minn. 513, (Gil. 476;) 21 Minn. 105, 303;
22 Minn. 144.
Ch. 68, § 6.
12 Minn. 111, (Gil. 60.)
Ch. 69.
43 Minn. 400; 51 N. W. 380.
Ch. 69, § 1.
16 Minn. 245, (Gil. 217;) 27 Minn. 297.
Ch. 69, § 2.
16 Minn. 245--247, (Gil. 217--219.)
Ch. 69, § 3.
14 Minn. 148, (Gil. 116;) 16 Minn. 245--247,
(Gil. 217-219.)
Ch. 69, § 4.
27 Minn. 297.
Ch. 69, § 7.
19 Minn. 346, (Gil. 299.)
Ch. 70, § 7.
22 Minn. 379.
Ch. 72, §§ 1-4.
18 Minn. 95, (Gil. 77.)
Ch. 72, § 5.
16 Minn. 180, 318, (Gil. 159, 281;) 18 Minn.
95, (Gil. 77;) 22 Minn. 7, 174; 23 Minn.
537.
Ch. 73, § 7.
14 Minn. 41, 42, 117, (Gil. 32, 85;) 16 Minn.
298, (Gil. 262;) 19 Minn. 527, (Gil. 458;) 21
Minn. 109; 43 Minn. 327.
Ch. 73, § 8.
18 Minn. 529, 530, (Gil. 473, 474;) 21 Minn.
109; 32 Minn. 437.
Ch. 73, § 10.
19 Minn. 527, (Gil. 458.)
Ch. 73, § 27.
18 Minn. 516, (Gil. 461.)
Ch. 73, § 49.
19 Minn. 242, 243, (Gil. 201, 202;) 20 Minn.
238, (Gil. 213.)¸
Ch. 73, § 58.
14 Minn. 243, (Gil. 179.)
Ch. 73, § 66.
13 Minn. 50, (Gil. 47;) 20 Minn. 238, (Gil.
214.)
Ch. 73, §§ 68, 69.
14 Minn. 409, (Gil. 309.)
Ch. 73, § 70.
21 Minn. 240.
Ch. 73, § 71.
32 Minn. 50.
16 Minn. 334, (Gil. 296;) 21 Minn. 460; 25 Ch. 73, § 80.
Minn. 278.
Ch. 70, § 8.
16 Minn. 334, (Gil. 296.)
Ch. 70, § 10.
15 Minn. 325, (Gil. 256;) 23 Minn. 462.
Ch. 70, § 18.
16 Minn. 334, (Gil. 296.)
19 Minn. 241, (Gil. 200.)
Ch. 73, § 82.
21 Minn. 223; 29 Minn. 175.
Ch. 73, § 83.
18 Minn. 76, (Gil. 60.)
Ch. 73, § 84.
26 Minn. 206.
2167
2168
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
ļ
Ch. 73, § 86.
12 Minn. 454, (Gil. 354;) 21 Minn. 335; 26
Minn. 206.
Ch. 73, § 87.
16 Minn. 460, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 73, § 89.
Ch. 75, § 25.
12 Minn. 461, (Gil. 360;) 16 Minn. 363, (Gil
322;) 17 Minn. 221, 226, (Gil. 198, 202;) 18
Minn. 263, (Gil. 239.)
Ch. 75, § 26.
16 Minn. 66, (Gil. 54.)
12 Minn. 483, (Gil. 387;) 16 Minn. 248, (Gil. Ch. 75, § 28.
220;) 25 Minn. 35.
Ch. 73, § 93.
22 Minn. 80.
Ch. 74.
14 Minn. 14, (Gil. 1;) 19 Minn. 168, (Gil. 131.)
Ch. 74, § 1.
19 Minn. 170, (Gil. 133.)
Ch. 74, §§ 2, 3.
14 Minn. 14, 15, (Gil. 2.)
Ch. 74, §§ 8, 9, 23.
19 Minn. 171, (Gil. 133, 134.)
Ch. 75.
12 Minn. 160, (Gil. 96;) 31 Minn. 245.
Ch. 75, § 1.
12 Minn. 197, (Gil. 121;) 15 Minn. 64, 183,
250, (Gil. 45, 140, 190;) 16 Minn. 231, 459,
481, 522, (Gil. 203, 412, 435, 469;) 20 Minn.
434, (Gil. 388;) 21 Minn. 313; 22 Minn. 81;
25 Minn. 13.
Ch. 75, § 2.
12 Minn. 197, 198, (Gil. 121.)
Ch. 75, § 4.
17 Minn. 220, (Gil. 196.)
Ch. 75, § 5.
22 Minn. 537.
Ch. 76.
25 Minn. 555.
Ch. 76, §§ 5, 6.
17 Minn. 399, 400, (Gil. 376, 377.)
Ch. 76, § 11.
36 Minn. 258.
Ch. 76, §§ 17–23.
25 Minn. 556.
Ch. 77.
20 Minn. 319, (Gil. 274;) 25 Minn. 468.
Ch. 77, § 1.
14 Minn. 148, (Gil. 116;) 20 Minn. 319, (Gil
274.)
Ch. 77, § 2.
22 Minn. 477.
Ch. 77, § 6.
16 Minn. 511, (Gil. 461;) 20 Minn. 238, (Gil
214;) 23 Minn. 304, 305.
Ch. 77, §§ 13, 14, 16, 27, 28.
20 Minn. 318, 319, 321, (Gil. 273. 274. 276.)
Ch. 78, §§ 1, 2.
22 Minn. 110.
14 Minn. 171, 173, (Gil. 132, 133;) 21 Minn. Ch. 79, § 2.
516; 22 Minn. 548; 25 Minn. 185.
Ch. 75, § 6.
17 Minn. 461, (Gil. 440;) 21 Minn. 516.
Ch. 75, § 11.
24 Minn. 319.
Ch. 75, § 14.
21 Minn. 305; 24 Minn. 575.
Ch. 75. § 15.
36 Minn. 258.
Ch. 79, § 3.
15 Minn. 226, (Gil. 176;) 25 Minn. 218, 344.
Ch. SO, §§ 1--13.
12 Minn. 383, (Gil. 265.)
Ch. 80, § 2.
17 Minn. 226, (Gil. 202;) 18 Minn. 41, (Gil.
22.)
14 Minn. 172, (Gil. 132;) 16 Minn. 66, (Gil. Ch. 80, § 3.
54.)
Ch. 75, § 16.
20 Minn. 168, (Gil. 152.)
Ch. 75, §§ 18-20.
24 Minn. 589.
Ch. 75, § 21.
24 Minn. 174.
Ch. 75, § 24.
25 Minn. 225.
17 Minn. 226, (Gil. 202;) 25 Minn. 343.
Ch. 80, § 4.
15 Minn. 223, (Gil. 173.)
Ch. 80, § 12.
28 Minn. 41.
Ch. 80, § 13.
12 Minn. 392, (Gil. 277;) 15 Minn. 456, (Gil.
372.)
Ch. 80, § 42.
24 Minn. 90.
2169
2170
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 81, § 1.
20 Minn. 267, (Gil. 238;) 21 Minn. 338; 40
Minn. 480.
Ch. 81, §§ 1--22.
36 Minn. 138; 44 Minn. 99; 45 Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 2.
16 Minn. 122, (Gil. 111;) 21 Minn. 145, 338;
22 Minn. 158.
Ch. 81, § 3.
20 Minn. 110, (Gil. 94;) 22 Minn. 351; 26
Minn. 340, 551; 36 Minn. 138; 45 Minn.
286.
Ch. 81, § 4.
26 Minn. 312, 340, 552; 36 Minn. 138; 45
Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 5.
16 Minn. 48, 49, (Gil. 35, 36;) 20 Minn. 461,
(Gil. 415;) 21 Minn. 144, 145.
Ch. 81, § 6.
16 Minn. 48, (Gil. 35;) 20 Minn. 458, (Gil.
413.)
Ch. 81, § 7.
20 Minn. 458, (Gil. 413.)
Ch. 81, § 9.
24 Minn. 419; 36 Minn. 138; 44 Minn. 354;
45 Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 10.
21 Minn. 137; 24 Minn. 419.
Ch. 81, § 11.
20 Minn. 459, (Gil. 414;) 21 Minn. 139;
Minn. 164; 36 Minn. 138; 45 Minn. 286.
24
Ch. 81, § 12.
20 Minn. 111, (Gil. 95;) 21 Minn. 136, 137.
Ch. 81, § 13.
18 Minn. 501, (Gil. 450;) 20 Minn. 113, 115,
270, 271, (Gil. 98, 99, 242, 243;) 21 Minn.
135; 22 Minn. 550; 27 Minn. 19; 45 Minn.
289.
Ch. 81, § 14.
14 Minn. 293, (Gil. 220;) 20 Minn. 113, 114,
272, (Gil. 98, 243, 244;) 21 Minn. 141; 27
Minn. 23; 45 Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 15.
20 Minn. 113-115, 271, (Gil. 98, 99, 242, 243;)
21 Minn. 137; 23 Minn. 79; 27 Minn. 23;
36 Minn. 138; 45 Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 16.
20 Minn. 113, 114, 270--272, (Gil. 98, 99, 242,
243;) 21 Minn. 137; 27 Minn. 19.
Ch. 81, § 17.
36 Minn. 138; 45 Minn. 286.
Ch. 81, § 18.
20 Minn. 271, (Gil. 242.)
Ch. 81, §§ 19, 20.
20 Minn. 461, (Gil. 416.)
Ch. S1, §§ 23--39.
21 Minn. 103, 328.
Ch. 81, § 25.
44 Minn. 95.
Ch. 81, § 29.
14 Minn. 139, 227, 228, (Gil. 107, 165, 166.)
Ch. 81, § 30.
25 Minn. 323.
Ch. 81, § 32.
21 Minn. 322; 36 Minn. 138.
Ch. 81, § 48.
17 Minn. 340, (Gil. 319.)
Ch. 83, § 22.
12 Minn. 392, (Gil. 277.)
Ch. 84.
14 Minn. 173, 474, (Gil. 133, 352;) 19 Minn.
175, (Gil. 138;) 23 Minn. 419; 26 Minn. 163.
Ch. 84, § 2.
19 Minn. 178, (Gil. 141.)
Ch. 84, § 5.
21 Minn. 401; 22 Minn. 37, 38.
Ch. 84, § 9.
21 Minn. 401.
Ch. 84, § 11.
21 Minn. 398, 401; 22 Minn. 38, 350; 25
Minn. 185; 26 Minn. 99.
Ch. 86, § 1.
12 Minn. 389, 392, (Gil. 274, 277;) 15 Minn.
191, (Gil. 146;) 24 Minn. 314.
Ch. 86, § 3.
12 Minn. 391, (Gil. 276;) 15 Minn. 191, (Gil.
146;) 23 Minn. 300.
Ch. 86, § 4.
15 Minn. 191, (Gil. 146;) 21 Minn. 331; 24
Minn. 3.
Ch. 86, § 5.
15 Minn. 191, (Gil. 146;) 19 Minn. 475, (Gil.
409.)
Ch. 86, § 6.
13 Minn. 367, (Gil. 340;) 15 Minn. 191, (Gil.
146;) 24 Minn. 3.
Ch. 86, § 7.
16 Minn. 453, (Gil. 408;) 21 Minn. 331.
Ch. 86, § 8.

12 Minn. 366, 389, 394, (Gil. 243, 274, 278;)
13 Minn. 68, (Gil. 64;) 14 Minn. 126, 338,
(Gil. 94, 257;) 15 Minn. 234, (Gil. 180;) 16
Minn. 178, (Gil. 156;) 17 Minn. 182, (Gil.
156;) 18 Minn. 388, (Gil. 350;) 19 Minn.
475, (Gil. 409;) 20 Minn. 247, (Gil. 221;)
21 Minn. 1, 41; 22 Minn. 267, 453, 494, 539,
548; 23 Minn. 188; 24 Minn. 314; 25 Minn.
150, 295, 362; 26 Minn. 10, 235.
2171
2172
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 86, § 9.
16 Minn. 383, (Gil. 341;) 23 Minn. 419.
Ch. 86, § 10.
15 Minn. 190, (Gil. 145;) 17 Minn. 115, (Gil.
91;) 23 Minn. 419.
Ch. 86, § 11.
Ch. 90, § 9.
13 Minn. 479, (Gil. 443.)
Ch. 90, § 11.
17 Minn. 360, (Gil. 334.)
Ch. 90, § 14.
14 Minn. 148, (Gil. 116.)
13 Minn. 410, (Gil. 379;) 17 Minn. 119, (Gil. Ch. 90, § 16.
95;) 23 Minn. 420.
Ch. 86, § 12.
17 Minn. 115, (Gil. 91;) 23 Minn. 420.
Ch. 86, §§ 13, 14.
23 Minn. 420.
Ch. 86, § 15.
13 Minn. 410, (Gil. 379;) 14 Minn. 557, (Gil.
426, 427.)
Ch. 86, § 19.
23 Minn. 420.
Ch. 87, § 15.
23 Minn. 412, 414.
Ch. 88, §§ 1, 4
26 Minn. 28.
Ch. 88, § 8.
19 Minn. 451, (Gil. 391.)
Ch. 88, § 9.
21 Minn. 53, 54; 24 Minn. 495.
Ch. 88, § 11.
19 Minn. 176, (Gil. 139.)
Ch. 88, § 12.
21 Minn. 54.
Ch. 88, § 13.
24 Minn. 495.
Ch. 88, §. 14.
21 Minn. 55.
Ch. 88, § 15.
21 Minn. 412, 415.
Ch. 88, §§ 18, 30.
26 Minn. 28.
Ch. 89, § 11.
22 Minn. 18.
Ch. 89, § 17.
23 Minn. 48.
Ch. 90.
13 Minn. 457, (Gil. 425;) 24 Minn. 302; 26
Minn. 152.
Ch. 90, § 1.
13 Minn. 474, 479, (Gil. 438, 443;) 15 Minn.
66, (Gil. 47.)
Ch. 90, § 7.
19 Minn. 162, (Gil. 125.) ·
Ch. 90, § 18.
24 Minn. 303; 32 Minn. 488.
Ch. 91, § 1.
16 Minn. 477, (Gil. 432.)
Ch. 91, § 3.
17 Minn. 247, (Gil. 224.)
Ch. 91, § 8.
21 Minn. 85.
Ch. 91, § 10.
17 Minn. 247, (Gil. 224.)
Ch. 91, § 12.
21 Minn. 384; 22 Minn. 51.
Ch. 92, §§ 7--10.
18 Minn. 400, (Gil. 360.)
Ch. 94, § 2.
16 Minn. 78, (Gil. 66;) 19 Minn. 95, (Gil. 66.)
Ch. 94, § 11.
19 Minn. 96, 97, (Gil. 68.)
Ch. 94, §§ 12, 13.
13 Minn. 144, 145, 149, (Gil. 129, 130, 134.)
Ch. 94, § 32.
13 Minn. 125, (Gil. 117.)
Ch. 94, § 33.
13 Minn. 125, (Gil. 117;) 22 Minn. 51, 312.
Ch. 95, § 23.
22 Minn. 42, 78; 25 Minn. 490.
Ch. 95, § 24.
26 Minn. 192.
Ch. 95, §§ 26, 27.
22 Minn. 72, 75.
Ch. 96, § 1.
13 Minn. 123, (Gil. 115;) 19 Minn. 100, (Gil.
71.)
Ch. 96, § 2.
13 Minn. 123, (Gil. 115;) 16 Minn. 474, (Gil.
426.)
Ch. 98, § 7.
20 Minn. 137, 138, (Gil. 120, 121.)
Ch. 99, § 9.
17 Minn. 75, (Gil. 50.)
13 Minn. 457, 475, 479, 481, (Gil. 426, 439, Ch. 100, § 9.
443, 444;) 32 Minn. 488.
16 Minn. 476, (Gil. 431.)
2173
2174
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 100, $ 19.
20 Minn. 420, 521, (Gil. 376, 467;) 21 Minn.
206.
Ch. 100, § 21.
20 Minn. 521, (Gil. 467.)
Ch. 102.
16 Minn. 189, (Gil. 167.)
Ch. 102, § 4.
22 Minn. 246.
Ch. 103, §§ 3-5.
14 Minn. 392, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 105, § 1.
16 Minn. 435, (Gil. 392.)
Ch. 105, § 11.
14 Minn. 490, (Gil. 367.)
Ch. 105, §§ 17, 20.
16 Minn. 435, (Gil. 392.)
Ch. 106.
19 Minn. 486, (Gil. 420.)
Ch. 106, §§ 22, 24.
18 Minn. 400, 402, (Gil. 360, 362.)
Ch. 106, § 32.
20 Minn. 377, (Gil. 328.)
Ch. 107, § 1.
16 Minn. 315, (Gil. 278.)
Ch. 107, §§ 5, 6.
23 Minn. 210.
Ch. 107, § 8.
16 Minn. 291, (Gil. 255.)
Ch. 107, § 10.
16 Minn. 316, (Gil. 280;) 17 Minn. 80, (Gil.
58.)
Ch. 107, § 12.
16 Minn. 315, (Gil. 278.)
Ch. 107, § 13.
22 Minn. 426.
Ch. 107, § 14.
13 Minn. 347, (Gil. 321;) 23 Minn. 211.
Ch. 107, §§ 15-19, 21--23.
16 Minn. 315--318, (Gil. 278--281.)
Ch. 107, § 27.
16 Minn. 319, (Gil. 282;) 26 Minn. 149.
Ch. 107, §§ 28--32.
16 Minn. 319, (Gil. 282.)
Ch. 107, § 33.
17 Minn. 243, (Gil. 220.)
Ch. 107, §§ 34--42.
16 Minn. 319, (Gil. 282.)
Ch. 107, § 49.
17 Minn. 246, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 107, § 53.
22 Minn. 70.
Ch. 107, § 57.
17 Minn. 246, (Gil. 223.)
Ch. 108, § 1.
13 Minn. 373, (Gil. 346;) 18 Minn. 400, 521,
(Gil. 361, 465;) 19 Minn. 95, (Gil: 66.)
Ch. 108, § 2.
18 Minn. 521, (Gil. 465;) 19 Minn. 485, 486,
(Gil. 419;) 22 Minn. 70; 25 Minn. 34.
Ch. 108, § 3.
19 Minn. 485, (Gil. 419.)
Ch. 108, § 4.
19 Minn. 95, (Gil. 66;) 22 Minn. 522.
Ch. 108, § 6.
13 Minn. 124, (Gil. 115;) 22 Minn. 242.
Ch. 108, § 7.
22 Minn. 80; 26 Minn. 527.
Ch. 108, § 8.
26 Minn. 93.
Ch. 108, § 10.
13 Minn. 373, (Gil. 346;) 14 Minn. 453, (Gil.
337;) 17 Minn. 81, (Gil. 59;) 18 Minn. 522,
(Gil. 466;) 22 Minn. 71, 74; 25 Minn. 67.
Ch. 108, § 11.
13 Minn. 362, 374, (Gil. 335, 346;) 17 Minn.
81, (Gil. 59;) 18 Minn. 522, (Gil. 466;) 22
Minn. 74.
Ch. 108, § 16.
19 Minn. 485, (Gil. 419.)
Ch. 108, § 20.
14 Minn. 449, (Gil. 334;) 25 Minn. 68.
Ch. 108, § 23.
22 Minn. 76, 80.
Ch. 108, § 57.
17 Minn. 80, (Gil. 59.)
Ch. 108, § 59.
17 Minn. 243, (Gil. 221.)
Ch. 108, § 60.
17 Minn. 80, (Gil. 59.)
Ch. 109, § 6.
22 Minn. 70.
Ch. 110.
13 Minn. 352, (Gil. 325.)
Ch. 110, § 1.
23 Minn. 211.
Ch. 111, § 3.
13' Minn. 123, (Gil. 114;) 19 Minn. 95, 276,
(Gil. 66, 234.)
Ch. 111, § 7.
19 Minn. 276, (Gil. 234;) 22 Minn. 272.
2175
2176
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
!
Ch. 111, § 11.
21 Minn. 49.
Ch. 112, § 3.
16 Minn. 479, (Gil. 434.)
Ch. 112, § 10.
13 Minn. 127, (Gil. 118.)
Ch. 113.
15 Minn. 348, (Gil. 281.)
Ch. 113, § 1.
16 Minn. 288, (Gil. 252.)
Ch. 114, § 3.
21 Minn. 50.
Ch. 114, § 10.
19 Minn. 278, (Gil. 235.)
Ch. 114, § 12.
16 Minn. 115, (Gil. 105;) 26 Minn. 150.
Ch. 114, § 13.
16 Minn. 180, (Gil. 159.)
Ch. 114, § 16.
16 Minn. 180, (Gil. 159;) 24 Minn. 93.
Ch. 114, § 17.
24 Minn. 93.
Ch. 114, § 18.
13 Minn. 127, (Gil. 118;) 16 Minn. 78, (Gil.
66;) 21 Minn. 384; 22 Minn. 243.
Ch. 114, §§ 20, 21.
12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 325.)
Ch. 116, § 4.
17 Minn. 81, (Gil. 59.)
Ch. 116, § 9.
13 Minn. 354, (Gil. 327.)
Ch. 116, § 10.
25 Minn. 33.
Ch. 116, § 11.
17 Minn. 82, (Gil. 60;) 25 Minn. 33.
Ch. 116, § 12.
Ch. 117, § 1.
21 Minn. 463; 23 Minn. 367; 24 Minn. 175.
Ch. 117, §§ 2, 4.
24 Minn. 175, 368.
Ch. 117, § 5.
16 Minn. 76, (Gil. 64.)
Ch. 117, § 6.
23 Minn. 354, 367.
Ch. 117, §§ 8, 9.
24 Minn. 367.
Ch. 118, § 1.
16 Minn. 76, (Gil. 65.)
Ch. 120.
25 Minn. 385.
Ch. 121.
12 Minn. 581, (Gil. 503.)
Ch. 121, §§ 1-3.
1
13 Minn. 158, 285, (Gil. 144, 262.)
Ch. 121, § 4.
13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 144;) 16 Minn. 221, 237,
238, (Gil. 194, 209, 210;) 24 Minn. 122; 30
Minn. 352; 45 Minn. 232.
Ch. 121, § 7.
13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 144;) 16 Minn. 237, (Gil.
209;) 22 Minn. 383, 384; 45 Minn. 232.
Ch. 121, § 9.
13 Minn. 285, (Gil. 263;) 16 Minn. 237, (Gil.
209;) 33 Minn. 279.
Ch. 122.
15 Minn. 358, (Gil. 292;) 20 Minn. 95, (Gil.
78;) 22 Minn. 383; 24 Minn. 122; 30 Minn.
352.
Ch. 122, § 1.
13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 144;) 16 Minn. 236, (Gil.
208.)
Ch. 122, § 7.
13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 144.)
GENERAL STATUTES 1878.
25 Minn. 33.
Ch. 116, § 13.
20 Minn. 313, (Gil. 270.)
Ch. 116, §§ 17, 18.
19 Minn. 488, (Gil. 421;) 26 Minn. 503, 504.
Ch. 116, § 19.
18 Minn. 84, (Gil. 67;) 19 Minn. 488, (Gil.
421;) 20 Minn. 342, (Gil. 295;) 26 Minn.
503, 504.
Ch. 116, § 31.
26 Minn. 185.
Ch. 116, § 33.
25 Minn. 33.
Ch. 1.
35 Minn. 386.
Ch. 1, § 2.
37 Minn. 27; 38 Minn. 189, 223.
Ch. 1, § 14.
27 Minn. 472.
Ch. 1, § 19.
26 Minn. 539; 27 Minn. 473.
Ch. 1, § 32.
26 Minn. 539; 31 Minn. 27.
Ch. 1, § 48.
27 Minn. 472.
2177
2178
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
L
Ch. 1, §§ 49--51.
33 Minn. 82.
Ch. 1, § 52.
26 Minn. 529; 31 Minn. 27; 33 Minn. 537.
Ch. 1, § 55.
35 Minn. 481.
Ch. 1, § 76.
33 Minn. 537.
Ch. 1, § S2.
37 Minn. 440.
Ch. 1, § 84.
26 Minn. 107.
Ch. 1, §§ 86, 88, 89.
31 Minn. 27, 29.
Ch. 4, § 1.
28 Minn. 398; 31 Minn. 355; 33 Minn. 353.
436; 41 Minn. 70; 43 Minn. 515.
Ch. 4, § 3.
31 Minn. 363.
Ch. 5, § 23.
45 Minn. 454.
Ch. 5, §§ 42, 43.
45 Minn. 380.
Ch. 6, § 46.
42 Minn. 154.
Ch. 6, §§ 75, 76.
34 Minn. 88.
Ch. 6. $$ 116, 118.
37 Minn. 434, 435.
Ch. 7, § 3.
34 Minn. 555, 556; 47 Minn. 219.
Ch. 7, §§ 5, 7-9.
40 Minn. 232, 233.
Ch. 8, §§ 2, 11.
29 Minn. 402, 403.
Ch. 8, §§ 83, 86.
28 Minn. 518.
Ch. 8, §§ 83--91.
30 Minn. 356.
Ch. 8, § 89.
32 Minn. 139.
Ch. 8, § 90.
46 Minn. 163.
Ch. 8, §§ 93, 94.
45 Minn. 315, 316.
Ch. 8, § 102.
47 Minn. 240.
Ch. 8, § 107.
47 Minn. 374.
V.2M.DIG.-69
Ch. 8, § 114.
28 Minn. 518.
Ch. 8, § 115.
34 Minn. 215.
Ch. 8, § 129.
39 Minn. 427.
Ch. 8, § 138.
26 Minn. 335.
Ch. 8, § 144.
29 Minn. 402.
Ch. 8, § 145.
28 Minn. 47; 29 Minn. 402.
Ch. 8, §§ 146, 147.
29 Minn. 402.
Ch. 8, § 150.
25 Minn. 363.
Ch. 8, § 156.
26 Minn. 188.
Ch. 8. § 158.
42 Minn. 57.
Ch. 8, §§ 163, 164.
26 Minn. 334.
Ch. 8, § 167.
36 Minn. 309.
Ch. 8, § 172.
25 Minn. 367; 30 Minn. 392; 32 Minn. 470,
471; 39 Minn. 434.
Ch. 8, § 173.
28 Minn. 47; 29 Minn. 85.
Ch. 8, § 174.
39 Minn. 427.
Ch. 8, § 177.
40 Minn. 443; 46 Minn. 159.
Ch. 8, § 179.
37 Minn. 373.
Ch. 8, § 180.
46 Minn. 159.
Ch. 8, § 186.
36 Minn. 11.
Ch. 8, § 187.
40 Minn. 442.
Ch. 8, § 188.
36 Minn. 11; 40 Minn. 442.
Ch. 8, § 195.
35 Minn. 365.
Ch. 8, § 198.
29 Minn. 163, 164; 33 Minn. 149; 39 Minn.
60.
Ch. 8, § 199.
33 Minn. 149; 39 Minn. 60.
2179
2180
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 8, § 208.
34 Minn. 215; 35 Minn. 366.
Ch. 8, § 209.
25 Minn. 386.
Ch. 8, § 210.
45 Minn. 310.
Ch. 8, §§ 213r. 214.
47 Minn. 220.
Ch. 8, § 225.
28 Minn. 456.
Ch. 8, § 235.
45 Minn. 96.
Ch. 8, § 259.
40 Minn. 70.
Ch. 9, § 2.
45 Minn. 317.
Ch. 9, § 3.
36 Minn. 142.
Ch. 10.
37 Minu. 325.
Ch. 10, tit. 4.
29 Minn. 457.
Ch. 10, § 14.
37 Minn. 476.
Ch. 10, § 16.
31 Minn. 453; 38 Minn. 190, 191; 43 Minn.
207.
Ch. 10, § 42.
35 Minn. 168.
Ch. 10, § 200.
28 Minn. 196.
Ch. 10, § 207, subd. 13.
29 Minn. 457; 33 Minn. 103.
Ch. 11.
35 Minn. 5, 258; 36 Minn. 472; 40 Minn. 3.
Ch. 11, § 1.
45 Minn. 156.
Ch. 11, § 2.
31 Minn. 358.
Ch. 11, § 3.
39 Minn. 504; 45 Minn. 156.
Ch. 11, § 4.
32 Minn. 13; 39 Minn. 504; 45 Minn. 156.
Ch. 11, § 5.
27 Minn. 461, 505; 42 Minn. 312; 43 Minn.
344; 45 Minn. 230.
Ch. 11, § 6.
40 Minn. 139.
Ch. 11, § 7.
35 Minn. 219; 39 Minn. 510.
Ch. 11, § 8.
35 Minn. 219; 39 Minn. 510; 47 Minn. 553.
Ch. 11, § 11. ·
31 Minn. 358.
Ch. 11, § 14.
47 Minn. 555, 557.
Ch. 11, § 15.
39 Minn. 510.
Ch. 11, § 16.
38 Minn. 533; 39 Minn. 504.
Ch. 11, § 18.
39 Minn. 505, 507.
Ch. 11, § 22.
45 Minn. 156.
Ch. 11, § 24.
40 Minn. 139.
Ch. 10, §§ 48, 49.
26 Minn. 313.
Ch. 10, § 62.
32 Minn. 532.
Ch. 10, § 66.
33 Minn. 130.
Ch. 10, § 87.
31 Minu. 452, 453.
Ch. 10, §§ 102, 104.
38 Minn. 190, 191.
Ch. 10, § 112.
Ch. 11, § 27.
33 Minn. 546.
33 Minn. 353; 37 Minn. 476; 38 Minn. 189; Ch. 11, §§ 33, 34.
41 Minn. 138.
Ch. 10, § 113.
27 Minn. 43.
Ch. 10, § 124.
30 Minn. 30.
·Ch. 10, § 149.
51 N. W. 220.
Ch. 10, § 164, subd. 2.
33 Minn. 103.
43 Minn. 332.
Ch. 11, § 38.
39 Minn. 504.
Ch. 11, § 39.
43 Minn. 332; 44 Minn. 13.
Ch. 11, § 40.
44 Minn. 14.
Ch. 11, §§ 41, 43, 44.
43 Minn. 332, 333.
2181
2182
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 11, § 48.
38 Minn. 190.
Ch. 11, § 49.
38 Minn. 190; 40 Minn. 368.
Ch. 11, § 50.
40 Minn. 368.
Ch. 11, § 52.
35 Minn. 217.
Ch. 11, § 54.
40 Minn. 368.
Ch. 11, § 56.
29 Minn. 84; 35 Minn. 33.
Ch. 11, § 58.
40 Minn. 521, 522; 44 Minn. 67, 384.
Ch. 11, § 59.
44 Minn. 67, 384.
Ch. 11, § 60.
44 Minn. 14, 384, 385.
Ch. 11, § 62.
44 Minn. 384--386.
Ch. 11, § 69.
Ch. 11. § 83.
40 Minn. 385--387.
Ch. 11, § 84.
35 Minn. 411; 37 Minn. 159; 38 Minn. 436.
Ch. 11, § 85.
27 Minn. 450; 31 Minn. 389; 35 Minn. 4, 7,
9, 33, 38; 36 Minn. 339; 37 Minn. 159; 39
Minn. 432; 40 Minn. 510.
Ch. 11, § 86.
40 Minn. 385--387.
Ch. 11, § 87.
42 Minn. 404; 47 Minn. 238.
Ch. 11, § 88.
34 Minn. 477.
Ch. 11, § 89.
35 Minn. 411; 44 Minn. 210, 211.
Ch. 11, § 90.
27 Minn. 99; 28 Minn. 359; 34 Minn. 477,
476.
Ch. 11, §§ 91, 92.
27 Minn. 99, 100.
35 Minn. 35, 40; 40 Minn. 523; 42 Minn. 181. Ch. 11, § 97.
Ch. 11, § 70.
27 Minn. 110; 31 Minn. 380, 381; 35 Minn.
3, 9, 10, 22, 23; 38 Minn. 402; 42 Minn.
181; 47 Minn. 327.
Ch. 11, § 71.
31 Minn. 380, 381; 35 Minn. 3, 10, 40; 44
Minn. 58, 59.
Ch. 11, § 72.
30 Minn. 69, 71; 31 Minn. 380, 381; 35 Minn.
3, 11; 43 Minn. 493; 47 Minn. 240, 241.
Ch. 11, § 73.
27 Minn. 110; 31 Minn. 378; 35 Minn. 3, 5,
11, 12, 35, 40; 36 Minn. 338, 339.
Ch. 11, § 74.
28 Minn. 325.
Ch. 11, § 75.
31 Minn. 377; 34 Minn. 306; 35 Minn. 11;
38 Minn. 403; 40 Minn. 518; 47 Minn. 514,
517.
Ch. 11. §§ 76--78.
35 Minn. 7, 8, 12, 14, 38.
Ch. 11, § 79.
28 Minn. 197; 30 Minn. 351; 31 Minn. 259,
262; 35 Minn. 4, 5, 419; 37 Minn. 50; 38
Minn. 473; 40 Minn. 440; 45 Minn. 175; 46
Minn. 525.
Ch. 11, § 98.
34 Minn. 477.
Ch. 11, § 99.
44 Minn. 58--60.
Ch. 11, § 100.
31 Minn. 389; 38 Minn. 436.
Ch. 11, § 101.
36 Minn. 459; 40 Minn. 385, 386; 47 Minn.
100.
Ch. 11, § 102.
36 Minn. 459; 47 Minn. 100.
Ch. 11, § 104.
35 Minn. 128; 45 Minn. 169.
Ch. 11, § 105.
33 Minn. 535; 35 Minn. 32; 40 Minn. 139.
Ch. 11, § 106.
26 Minn. 524.
27 Minn. 111; 31 Minn. 257; 35 Minn. 3, 11, Ch. 11, § 108.
14, 36; 40 Minn. 518; 47 Minn. 514.
Ch. 11, § 80.
28 Minn. 361; 31 Minn. 263; 33 Minn. 539;
35 Minn. 4, 5, 7, 8, 13; 38 Minn. 398; 40
Minn. 515; 42 Minn. 313, 452; 45 Minn.
511; 52 N. W. 44.
Ch. 11, § 82.
31 Minn. 378.
32 Minn. 440.
Ch. 11, § 110.
28 Minn. 325; 30 Minn. 70, 71.
Ch. 11, § 113.
38 Minn. 102; 39 Minn. 381; 40 Minn. 515.
Ch. 11, § 118.
40 Minn. 139.
2183
2184
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 11, § 119.
47 Minn. 555.
Ch. 11, § 120.
31 Minn. 363.
Ch. 11, § 121.
26 Minn. 146; 32 Minn. 480; 33 Minn. 281;
35 Minn. 258; 37 Minn. 159; 38 Minn. 436;
39 Minn. 432; 41 Minn. 22, 348; 42 Minn.
156, 157; 43 Minn. 4; 44 Minn. 210, 211;
47 Minn. 243, 497, 535.
Ch. 11, § 128.
33 Minn. 540; 42 Minn. 142.
Ch. 11, § 129.
33 Minn. 540; 36 Minn. 211; 42 Minn. 142.
Ch. 11, § 141.
40 Minn. 139.
Ch. 11, § 148.
38 Minn. 92.
Ch. 13, § 1.
51 N. W. 815.
Ch. 13, § 33.
46 Minn. 302.
Ch. 13, § 35.
35 Minn. 146.
Ch. 13, § 37.
36 Minn. 292.
Ch. 13, § 39.
28 Minn. 61.
Ch. 13, § 41.
30 Minn. 536.
Ch. 13, § 42.
39 Minn. 66.
Ch. 13, § 47.
Ch. 13, § 61.
39 Minn. 66; 46 Minn. 129.
Ch. 13, § 62.
33 Minn. 515; 35 Minn. 469.
Ch. 13, § 64.
30 Minn. 535.
Ch. 13, §§ 65, 66.
27 Minn. 16; 29 Minn. 187; 33 Minn. 24.
Ch. 13, §§ 76, 78, 80, 82.
26 Minn. 447.
Ch. 13, § 102.
38 Minn. 441.
Ch. 15.
33 Minn. 352.
Ch. 15, § 2.
32 Minn. 387.
Ch. 15, § 3.
29 Minn. 158.
Ch. 15, § 4.
29 Minn. 241,
Ch. 15, § 14.
45 Minn. 466.
Ch. 15, § 15.
29 Minn. 241.
Ch. 16.
38 Minn. 145, 151.
Ch. 16, § 1.
27 Minn. 318.
Ch. 16, § 4.
27 Minn. 318; 33 Minn. 103; 38 Minn. 151,
152; 41 Minn. 30, 32; 47 Minn. 271.
28 Minn. 115; 42 Minn. 392, 543; 51 N. W. Ch. 16, § 5.
606, 607.
Ch. 13, § 49.
38 Minn. 442.
Ch. 13, § 50.
38 Minn. 442; 39 Minn. 240.
Ch. 13, §§ 51, 52.
38 Miun. 442.
47 Minn. 523, 524.
Ch. 16, § 10.
27 Minn. 154; 29 Minn. 134; 30 Minn. 49, 53.
Ch. 16, § 11.
30 Minn. 53; 47 Minn. 377.
Ch. 16, § 17.
33 Minn. 103.
Ch. 13, § 53.
27 Minn. 124; 30 Minn. 536; 38 Minn. 442.
Ch. 13, §§ 54, 55.
27 Minn. 124.
Ch. 13, § 59.
A
27 Minn. 254; 33 Minn. 129; 39 Minn. 66;
46 Minn. 129.
Ch. 13, § 60.
30 Minn. 533; 33 Minn. 129; 35 Minn. 51;
39 Minn. 66; 43 Minn. 525; 46 Minn. 120;
47 Minn. 315, 316.
Ch. 16, § 26.
38 Minn. 152.
Ch. 16, § 28.
38 Minn. 152; 41 Minn. 211.
Ch. 16, § 29.
38 Minn. 152.
Ch. 17.
42 Minn. 32.
Ch. 17, § 1.
29 Minn. 133; 35 Minn. 239; 47 Minn. 475.
2185
2186
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 17, § 3.
35 Minn. 239; 47 Minn. 436, 437.
Ch. 17, §§ 6, 11.
35 Minn. 239.
Ch. 18.
42 Minn. 364.
Ch. 18, § 1.
30 Minn. 492.
Ch. 18, § 2.
29 Minn. 340; 30 Minn. 3, 492; 32 Minn. 88.
Ch. 18, § 5.
42 Minn. 365.
Ch. 18, §§ 6, 7.
30 Minn. 2.
Ch. 19, §§ 1-10, 28, 32, 33.
31 Minn. 453.
Ch. 19, §§ 39, 40.
26 Minn. 155.
Ch. 21, § 11.
39 Minn. 144.
Ch. 22, § 2.
40 Minn. 70.
Ch. 23.
27 Minn. 87; 28 Minn. 214; 31 Minn. 497.
Ch. 23, § 9.
28 Minn. 296.
Ch. 23, § 11.
37 Minn. 337.
Ch. 26, § 3.
28 Minn. 119; 39 Minn. 103.
Ch. 26, § 8.
31 Minn. 332.
Ch. 29, § 5.
46 Minn. 324.
Ch. 29, § 9.
39 Minn. 158.
Ch. 29, §§ 12--14.
42 Minn. 514.
Ch. 31, § 7.
46 Minn. 120.
Ch. 31, §§ 10, 13.
35 Minn. 405.
Ch. 31, § 17.
39 Minn. 62; 46 Minn. 119, 120.
Ch. 32, § 1.
33 Minn. 456.
Ch. 32, § 11.
46 Minn. 219.
Ch. 32, § 12.
33 Minn. 46.
Ch. 32, § 14.
46 Minn. 217, 218.
Ch. 32, § 15.
34 Minn. 291; 46 Minn. 218, 219.
Ch. 32, § 16.
34 Minn. 245.
Ch. 32, § 19.
26 Minn. 442.
Ch. 32, § 27.
35 Minn. 430; 43 Minn. 42.
Ch. 32, § 46.
39 Minn. 342.
Ch. 32, § 63.
25 Minn. 523; 32 Minn. 127, 129; 42 Minn.
177.
Ch. 32, §§ 64--70.
25 Minn. 522; 32 Minn. 127–129.
Ch. 32, §§ 71, 72.
25 Minn. 522.
Ch. 32, §§ 73--75.
32 Minn. 127-129.
Ch. 32, §§ 76, 77.
25 Minn. 522.
Ch. 32, § 78.
32 Minn. 77; 33 Minn. 286, 456; 34 Minn.
429; 35 Minn. 326, 416; 46 Minn. 340.
Ch. 32, §§ 83--89.
29 Minn. 416.
Ch. 33, § 14.
38 Minn. 87, 88.
Ch. 34.
34 Minn. 325; 37 Minn. 167, 169; 41 Minn.
87.
Ch. 34, §§ 1-81.
32 Minn. 96; 34 Minn. 230; 37 Minn. 14; 38
Minn. 124; 42 Minn. 142; 52 N. W. 268,
269.
Ch. 34, § 3.
51 N. W. 664.
Ch. 34, § 4.
43 Minn. 354; 46 Minn. 493.
Ch. 34, §§ 7, 8.
44 Minn. 479.
Ch. 34, § 9.
30 Minn. 175; 44 Minn. 479; 51 N. W. 120.
Ch. 34, §§ 10, 11.
34 Minn. 326; 41 Minn. 87; 44 Minn. 479.
Ch. 34, § 13.
37 Minn. 168; 43 Minn. 530.
2187
2188
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 34, § 14.
29 Minn. 243; 32 Minn. 203; 37 Minn. 168;
40 Minn. 169; 42 Minn. 246.
Ch. 34, § 15.
31 Minn. 294; 34 Minn. 230, 231; 36 Minn.
86, 87; 37 Minn. 168; 38 Minn. 507; 42
Minn. 246.
Ch. 34, § 16.
37 Minn. 168.
Ch. 34, § 17.
29 Minn. 243; 32 Minn. 203;
37 Minn. 167, 168, 170; 40
Minn. 530, 531.
34 Minn. 231;
Minn. 169; 43
Ch. 34, § 18.
29 Minn. 243; 32 Minn. 203; 34 Minn. 231;
40 Minn. 169.
Ch. 34, § 23.
29 Minn. 243; 38 Minn. 525.
Ch. 34, § 24.
31 Minn. 292; 32 Minn. 453; 35 Minn. 406,
407, 440, 442.
Ch. 34, § 25.
35 Minn. 443; 38 Minn. 525.
Ch. 34, § 26.
30 Minn. 543; 35 Minn. 405.
Ch. 34, § 29.
32 Minn. 453.
Ch. 34, § 31.
32 Minn. 453; 35 Minn. 407.
Ch. 34, § 33.
28 Minn. 505; 33 Minn. 421; 40 Minn. 133;
42 Minn. 170; 45 Minn. 367; 46 Minn. 329.
Ch. 34, § 34.
Ch. 34, § 56.
27 Minn. 113; 29 Minn. 428, 430; 31 Minn.
92; 34 Minn. 217; 37 Minn. 54.
Ch. 34, § 57.
26 Minn. 270; 27 Minn. 113; 29 Minn. 339;
31 Minn. 92; 35 Minn. 504; 37 Minn. 106;
40 Minn. 91; 41 Minn. 131, 132; 46 Minn.
251, 252.
Ch. 34, § 60.
29 Minn. 14, 60; 31 Minn. 59; 32 Minn. 526;
35 Minn. 362; 36 Minn. 523; 40 Minn. 61.
Ch. 34, § 69.
28 Minn. 444, 445; 36 Minn. 265.
Ch. 34, §§ 72, 73.
44 Minn. 117.
Ch. 34, § 82.
37 Minn. 377.
Ch. 34, § 86.
46 Minn. 457.
Ch. 34, §§ 89, 90.
34 Minn. 33.
Ch. 34, §§ 92-94.
27 Minn. 227.
Ch. 34, §§ 92--105.
25 Minn. 358.
Ch. 34, § 95.
27 Minn. 227.
Ch. 34, § 96.
36 Minn. 510.
Ch. 34, § 98.
27 Minn. 227; 36 Minn. 510.
28 Minn. 505; 30 Minn. 101; 35 Minn. 407; Ch. 34, § 106.
40 Minn. 133.
Ch. 34, §§ 34--38.
46 Minn. 329.
Ch. 34, § 35.
30 Minn. 101; 40 Minn. 133.
Ch. 34. § 36.
40 Minn. 133; 42 Minn. 180.
Ch. 34, §§ 37, 38.
40 Minn. 133.
Ch. 34, § 47.
28 Minn. 444, 445; 37 Minn. 205.
Ch. 34, § 109.
40 Minn. 223, 346; 45 Minn. 155; 52 N. W.
138.
Ch. 34, §§ 109--119.
35 Minu. 155, 512; 37 Minn. 14; 40 Minn.
218, 221, 223, 225; 41 Minn. 87; 44 Minu.
479; 52 N. W. 268.
Ch. 34, § 110.
30 Minn. 175; 40 Minn. 223, 346; 52 N. W.
268, 269.
32 Minn. 309; 35 Minn. 463; 37 Minn. 166--| Ch. 34, § 111.
168, 170; 39 Minn. 163.
Ch. 34, § 54.
26 Minn. 269; 27 Minn. 113, 360; 30 Minn.
75; 31 Minn. 92; 32 Minn. 88; 33 Minn.
137; 36 Minn. 518; 39 Minn. 486; 40 Minn.
91; 46 Minn. 251.
Ch. 34, § 55.
27 Minn. 113, 360; 30 Minn. 75, 76; 31 Minn.
92; 32 Minn. 89; 33 Minn. 137; 35 Minn.
505; 36 Minn. 518; 39 Minn. 486.
30 Minn. 174; 40 Minn. 223, 346; 41 Miun.
$8.
Ch. 34, §§ 112, 113.
40 Minn. 223, 346.
Ch. 34, § 114.
35 Minn. 512; 40 Minn. 223, 346; 44 Minn.
186; 52 N. W. 268, 269.
Ch. 34, §§ 115-119.
40 Minn. 223, 346.
2189
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
2190
Ch. 34, § 120.
37 Minn. 92; 39 Minn. 418; 40 Minn. 218,
220, 344.
Ch. 34, § 121.
31 Minn. 150; 37 Minn. 92; 40′ Minn. 218,
220, 344.
Ch. 34, § 122.
31 Minn. 150; 37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218,
220, 344; 52 N. W. 275.
Ch. 34, §§ 123, 124.
Ch. 34, § 269.
39 Minn. 542.
Ch. 34, § 292.
43 Minn. 350.
Ch. 34, 368.
42 Minn. 207; 46 Minn. 69, 70.
Ch. 34, § 369.
46 Minn. 70--72.
31 Minn. 147, 149, 150; 37 Minn. 92; 40 Ch. 34, § 415.
Minn. 218, 220, 344.
Ch. 34, §§ 125--134.
37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 221, 344.
Ch. 34, § 135.
35 Minn. 512; 37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218,
220, 344.
Ch. 34, §§ 136, 137.
37 Minn. 92, 93; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344.
Ch. 34, § 138.
37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344; 41
Minn. 88.
Ch. 34, § 139.
44 Minn. 462.
Ch. 34, § 416.
38 Minn. 116, 117; 44 Minn. 462, 463.
Ch. 35, § 21.
50 N. W. 934, 935.
Ch. 36.
44 Minn. 427.
Ch. 36, § 12 et seq.
42 Minn. 359.
Ch. 36, §§ 13, 14.
33 Minn. 347.
37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344; 41 Ch. 36, § 17.
Minn. 88, 91; 44 Minn. 38, 40.
Ch. 34, $$ 140, 141.
37 Minn. 92, 93; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344; 41
Minn. 88.
Ch. 34, § 142.
37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344; 41
Minn. 88, 89; 44 Minu. 40; 51 N. W. 117--
119,
Ch. 34, § 143.
37 Minn. 92; 40 Minn. 218, 220, 344.
Ch. 34, §§ 144--154.
36 Minn. 40.
Ch. 34, § 166.
37 Minn. 14.
Ch. 34, §§ 166--183.
35 Minn. 459; 42 Minn. 205; 46 Minn. 69.
Ch. 34, § 174.
51 N. W. 63.
Ch. 34, §§ 209--238.
37 Minn. 242, 448.
Ch. 34, § 214.
31 Minn. 176.
Ch. 34. § 225.
41 Minn. 95.
Ch. 34, § 227.
37 Minn. 242.
Ch. 34, § 259.
36 Minn. 529.
27 Minn. 41.
Ch. 36, § 24.
31 Minn. 229.
Ch. 36, § 31.
31 Minn. 333; 39 Minn. 500.
Ch. 36, § 38.
45 Minn. 89.
Ch. 36, § 45.
32 Minn. 477.
Ch. 36, § 58, 59.
33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, § 60.
32 Minn. 478; 33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, §§ 61--66.
33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, § 67.
32 Minn. 478; 33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, § 68.
33. Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, § 69.
32 Minn. 477; 33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, §§ 70-74.
33 Minn. 347.
Ch. 36, §§ 86, 93.
31 Minn. 229.
Ch. 36, § 94.
27 Minn. 40; 42 Minn. 358.
:
2191
2192
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 36, § 107.
44 Minn. 427, 430.
Ch. 36, § 115.
27 Minn. 41.
Ch. 36, § 117.
51 N. W. 815.
Ch. 36, § 119.
39 Minn. 300; 43 Minn. 495.
Ch. 36, §§ 120-122.
39 Minn. 300.
Ch. 37, § 14.
33 Miun. 103.
Ch. 38, §§ 1, 2.
28 Minn. 51.
Ch. 38, §§ 7, 9.
32 Minn. 229.
Ch. 38, § 12.
33 Minn. 452.
Ch. 38, § 18.
32 Minn. 229.
Ch. 38, § 21.
47 Minn. 100.
28 Minn. 46; 39 Minn. 434.
Ch. 38, § 35.
Ch. 38, § 36.
28 Minn. 46.
Ch. 38, § 40.
39 Minn. 434.
Ch. 38, § 53.
26 Minn. 239.
Ch. 39.
Ch. 39, § 13.
25 Minn. 85.
Ch. 39, § 14.
27 Minn. 310; 32 Minn. 537; 34 Minn. 340,
341.
Ch. 39, § 15.
35 Minn. 535; 39 Minn. 211; 44 Minu. 231;
46 Minn. 241.
Ch. 39, §§ 16, 17.
35 Minn. 535.
Ch. 39, § 21.
27 Minn. 387; 32 Minn. 196; 44 Minn. 390.
Ch. 39, § 22.
27 Miun. 387; 32 Minn. 196; 36 Minn. 127.
Ch. 39, §§ 23, 24.
32 Minn. 196.
Ch. 40, § 2.
43 Minn. 517.
Ch. 40, § 4.
30 Minn. 378; 38 Minn. 317.
Ch. 40, § 6.
28 Minn. 289; 31 Minn. 539; 34 Minn. 121;
42 Minn. 92.
Ch. 40, § 10.
45 Minn. 280.
Ch. 40, § 21.
27 Minn. 398; 28 Minn. 411; 29 Minn. 325;
30 Minn. 271; 31 Minn. 68; 33 Minn. 27;
34 Miun. 294; 36 Minn. 315; 37 Miun.
57; 38 Minn. 317; 39 Minn. 422; 40 Mina.
135; 43 Minn. 542; 46 Minn. 311.
Ch. 40, § 23.
34 Minn. 549; 45 Minn. 120; 46 Minn. 139.
33 Minn. 388; 35 Minn. 545; 37 Minn. S3; Ch. 40, § 24.
43 Minn. 432; 45 Minn. 125.
Ch. 39, § 1.
30 Minn. 271; 31 Minn. 306, 520; 32 Minn.
530; 42 Minn. 38, 117, 489; 51 N. W. 383.
Ch. 39, § 2.
34 Minn. 419; 35 Minn. 400; 42 Minn. 38,
117.
Ch. 39, § 3.
29 Minn. 179.
Ch. 40, § 26.
37 Minn. 62; 39 Minn. 422.
Ch. 40, § 28.
39 Minn. 421, 422.
Ch. 40, § 30.
40 Minn. 136.
35 Minn. 401; 37 Minn. 59; 39 Minn. 103; 42 Ch. 40, § 34.
Minn. 38, 117.
Ch. 39, § 5.
37 Minn. 59.
Ch. 39, § 7.
36 Minn. 157.
Ch. 39, § 8.
27 Minn. 34.
Ch. 39, § 9.
42 Minn. 52.
28 Minn. 288; 51 N. W. 382.
Ch. 40, $ 35.
34 Minn. 3S3; 39 Minn. 34.
Ch. 40, § 36.
27 Minn. 398.
Ch. 40, § 37.
27 Minn. 398; 39 Minn. 34.
Ch. 40, §§ 39--42.
29 Minn. 285.
2193
2194
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 41.
36 Minn. 305, 306; 39 Minn. 521.
Ch. 41, § 6.
34 Minu. 308, 511; 43 Minn. 166--168.
Ch. 41, §§ 6--13.
43 Minn. 166.
Ch. 41, § 7.
44 Minn. 310; 52 N. W. 273.
Ch. 41, § 10.
26 Minn. 322; 30 Minn. 516; 31 Minn. 432;
34 Minn. 273; 43 Minn. 166, 167; 47
Minn. 6.
Ch. 41. § 12.
31 Minn. 313; 39 Minn. 272, 273; 43 Minn.
167.
Ch. 41, S$ 14-22.
35 Minn. 196, 475; 41 Minn. 4.
Ch. 41, § 15.
27 Minn. 533; 39 Minn. 270; 40 Minn. 423;
41 Minn. 292; 42 Minn. 459; 44 Minn. 543;
45 Minn. 126; 51 N. W. 223.
Ch. 41, § 16.
40 Minn. 424; 41 Minn. 293; 44 Minn. 543.
Ch. 41, § 20.
27 Minn. 533; 44 Minn. 169; 45 Minn. 127;
51 N. W. 223.
Ch. 41, § 23.
27 Minn. 259; 28 Minn. 95, 119; 31 Minn.
138, 246; 32 Minn. 64, 73; 33 Minn. 414;
34 Minn. 418; 36 Minn. 306; 40 Minn.
496; 46 Minn. 139.
Ch. 41, § 24.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64, 73.
Ch. 41, § 25.
26 Minn. 143; 28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64, 73;
35 Minn. 341; 41 Minn. 306.
Ch. 41, § 26.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64; 39 Minn. 384.
Ch. 41, § 27.
25 Minn. 474; 28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64; 37
Minn. 84; 46 Minn. 81, 242; 51 N. W. 223.
Ch. 41, § 28.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64; 46 Minn. 29.
Ch. 41, § 29.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64.
Ch. 41, § 30.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64; 35 Minn. 342.
Ch. 41, § 31.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64, 73.
Ch. 41, §§ 32, 33.
28 Minn. 95; 32 Minn. 64.
Ch. 42.
28 Minn. 506; 45 Minn. 67.
Ch. 43.
37 Minn. 452.
Ch. 43, § 3.
42 Minn. 550.
Ch. 43, § 5.
30 Minn. 167.
Ch. 43, § 6.
37 Minn. 471.
Ch. 43, § 7.
28 Minn. 87; 35 Minn. 302;
41 Minn. 19; 46 Minn. 4;
Ch. 43, § 8.
36 Minn. 35, 279;
51 N. W. 121.
28 Minn. 87; 34 Minn. 139; 35 Minn. 302;
36 Minn. 35; 41 Minn. 19; 43 Minn. 10;
44 Minn. 160; 46 Minn. 2, 4, 82; 47 Minn.
95, 96; 51 N. W. 121.
Ch. 43, § 9.
33 Minn. 336; 37 Minn. 471; 41 Minn. 19.
Ch. 43, § 10.
30 Minn. 540.
Ch. 43, § 11.
30 Minn. 167; 51 N. W. 630, 633.
Ch. 43, § 14.
33 Minn. 333.
Ch. 43, § 19.
52 N. W. 30.
Ch. 44, §§ 7, 22.
45 Minn. 426.
Ch. 44, § 25.
51 N. W. 633.
Ch. 45.
42 Minn. 550.
Ch. 45, § 1.
47 Minn. 3.
Ch. 45, § 12.
36 Minn. 33; 45 Minn. 344.
Ch. 45, § 13.
34 Minn. 177.
Ch. 45, §§ 14, 15.
52 N. W. 28.
Ch. 45, §§ 24, 28.
42 Minn. 550.
Ch. 45, § 33.
34 Minn. 177; 36 Minn. 33; 45 Minn. 344.
Ch. 45, §§ 43-45.
43 Minn. 400.
Ch. 45, § 46.
51 N. W. 906.
Ch. 46.
31 Minn. 169.
2195
2196
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 46, § 2.
27 Minn. 298: 40 Minn. 173, 174; 42 Minn.
193; 46 Minn. 480.
Ch. 46, § 3.
25 Minn. 28; 27 Minn. 298, 414; 32 Minn.
348; 33 Minn. 55; 35 Minn. 393; 42 Minn.
16; 43 Minn. 405; 47 Minn. 576.
Ch. 47.
40 Minn. 373, 374.
Ch. 47, § 1.
32 Minn. 348.
34 Minn. 178.
Ch. 47, § 5.
Ch. 47, § 2.
45 Minn. 365.
Ch. 47, § 9.
38 Minn. 172; 47 Minn. 173.
Ch. 47, § 11.
32 Minn. 445.
Ch. 47, § 14.
28 Minn. 123: 30 Minn. 202.
Ch. 47. §§ 15-17.
40 Minn. 373, 374.
Ch. 47, § 18.
40 Minn. 434; 45 Minn. 244.
Ch. 49.
38 Minn. 11, 13.
Ch. 49, § 2.
37 Minn. 233; 44 Minn. 6.
Ch. 49, § 3.
37 Minn. 233; 38 Minn. 453.
Ch. 49, § 4.
37 Minn. 235.
Ch. 49, § 19.
26 Minn. 407; 47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 50, § 2.
31 Minn. 275.
Ch. 50, § 8.
35 Minn. 182.
Ch. 51.
46 Minn. 528.
Ch. 51, § 1.
27 Minn. 299; 30 Minn. 81; 34 Minn. 166; 35
Minn. 293; 39 Minn. 335; 45 Minn. 48.
Ch. 51, §§ 11, 13.
37 Minn. 232.
Ch. 51, § 19.
28 Minn. 123.
Ch. 52.
46 Minn. 528.
Ch. 52, § 4.
39 Minn. 335.
Ch. 52, § 6.
29 Minn. 419; 33 Minn. 224; 42 Minn. 429.
Ch. 52. § 15.
46 Minn. 382.
Ch. 53.
26 Minn. 152; 35 Minn. 308; 38 Minn. 11, 13,
.45 Minn. 201; 46 Minn. 527, 528; 50 N. W.
1118, 1122.
Ch. 53, § 3.
28 Minn. 123.
Ch. 53, § 8.
34 Minn. 297; 47 Minn. 284.
Ch. 53, § 14.
39 Minn. 216; 42 Minn. 96; 47 Minn. 384.
Ch. 53, § 15.
29 Minn. 295; 39 Minn. 29, 217.
Ch. 53, § 16.
27 Minn. 477; 29 Minr. 296; 35 Minn. 192;
39 Minn. 216; 45 Minn. 199, 200, 203.
Ch. 49, § 7.
32 Minn. 445.
Ch. 49, § 8, subd. 3.
29 Minn. 38.
Ch. 49, § 13.
28 Minn. 382, 383; 30 Minn. 204, 206;
Minn. 274; 32 Minn. 143; 33 Minn. 95;
Minn. 502; 45 Minn. 324.
31
29 Minn. 296.
34
Ch. 53, § 20.
34 Minn. 503.
Ch. 49, § 14.
Ch. 53, §§ 17, 18.
32 Minn. 156, 443; 34 Minn. 502; 35 Minn. Ch. 53, § 21.
194.
Ch. 49, § 15.
28 Minn. 382; 32 Minn. 354; 34 Minn. 501;
35 Miun. 308.
Ch. 49, § 16.
33 Minn. 479.
32 Minn. 354; 33 Minn. 479.
Ch. 49, § 17.
28 Minn. 382; 34 Minn. 503, 504.
Ch. 53, §§ 22, 23.
34 Minn. 503.
Ch. 53, § 24.
28 Minn. 382; 34 Minn. 501, 502; 35 Minn.
439; 37 Minn. 454.
Ch. 53, § 28.
31 Minn. 274.
2197
2198
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUtes cited, etc.
Ch. 53, § 31.
34 Minn. 502.
Ch. 53, § 38.
35 Minn. 217.
Ch. 53, §§ 39, 42, 43.
32 Minn. 163, 164.
Ch. 53, § 46.
42 Minn. 93.
Ch. 53, § 49.
26 Minn. 440; 34 Minn. 502.
Ch. 53, § 53.
29 Minn. 296; 39 Minn. 217.
Ch. 54.
46 Minn. 528.
Ch. 54, § 13.
29 Minn. 296.
Ch. 54, § 14.
32 Minn. 162.
Ch. 55.
35 Minn. 169; 46 Minn. 528.
Ch. 55, § 1.
32 Minn. 161.
Ch. 55, § 3.
31 Minn. 275; 32 Minn. 161, 164.
Ch. 55, § 4.
32 Minn. 161, 164.
Ch. 55, § 5.
28 Minn. 151; 31 Minn. 275.
Ch. 55, § 6.
26 Minn. 440; 32 Minn. 161.
Ch. 55, §§ 7-10.
26 Minn. 440.
Ch. 56.
37 Minu. 161; 46 Minn. 528.
Ch. 56, § 4.
32 Minn. 164; 33 Minn. 224.
Ch. 50. $$ 5, 6.
32 Minn. 164.
Ch. 56, § 8.
28 Minn. 122.
Ch. 57, § 1.
52 N. W. 381.
Ch. 57, § 18.
37 Minn. 237.
Ch. 57, §§ 19-22.
35 Minn. 192.
Ch. 57, § 32.
33 Minn. 221; 40 Minn. 255
Ch. 57, § 36.
43 Minn. 363.
Ch. 57, § 39.
28 Minn. 123.
Ch. 57, § 41.
26 Minn. 489; 29 Minn. 39.
Ch. 57, § 45.
33 Minn. 222; 52 N. W. 381, 382.
Ch. 57, § 50.
26 Minn. 493; 33 Minn. 222; 37 Minn. 3; 47
Minn. 528, 530.
Ch. 57, § 51.
26 Minn. 493; 29 Minn. 33, 37, 39; 37 Minn.
229, 230; 38 Minn. 334; 45 Minn. 382; 51
N. W. 915, 916.
Ch. 57, § 53.
26 Minn. 493.
Ch. 57, § 54 et seq.
38 Minn. 333.
Ch. 57, §§ 61--63.
30 Minn. 111.
Ch. 58, §§ 1-5.
40 Minn. 238, 240, 242.
Ch. 59, § 1.
29 Minn. 3.
Ch. 59, §§ 8--11.
50 N. W. 935.
Ch. 59, § 21.
29 Minn. 31, 32; 51 N. W. 221.
Ch. 59, § 22.
29 Minn. 31.
Ch. 59, § 27.
38. Minn. 453.
Ch. 59, § 29.
32 Minn. 156; 50 N. W. 1023.
Ch. 59, § 47.
32 Minn. 162.
Cu. 61, § 15.
41 Minn. 54.
Ch. 62, § 1.
41 Minn. 203, 204.
Ch. 62, § 2.
44 Minn. 125.
Ch. 62, § 3.
41 Minn. 203.
Ch. 62, §§ 4, 5.
44 Minn. 125.
Ch. 62, § 6.
27 Minn. 330; 43 Minn. 31.
1
42
2199
Ch. 62, § 15.
34 Minn. 442.
Ch. 62, § 25.
28 Minn. 35.
Ch. 62, § 30 et seq.
43 Minn. 31.
Ch. 62, § 34.
36 Minn. 240.
Ch. 62, § 36.
28 Minn. 35.
Ch. 63, § 1.
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 64, § 105.
2200
26 Minn. 265; 27 Minn. 238; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, §§ 106, 107.
31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 108.
27 Minn. 238; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 109.
28 Minn. 389; 29 Minn. 188; 33 Minn. 24,
37; 36 Minn. 407; 42 Minn. 36.
Ch. 64, §§ 110-114.
37 Minn. 24, 37.
27 Minn. 39; 40 Minn. 214; 44 Minn. 244; Ch. 64, § 115.
51 N. W. 613.
Ch. 64, § 4.
26 Minn. 502.
Ch. 64, § 5.
26 Minn. 503; 36 Minn. 129.
Ch. 64, §§ 12, 13.
40 Minn. 70.
Ch. 64, § 17.
52 N. W. 276.
Ch. 64, § 23.
26 Minn. 266.
Ch. 64, § 81.
31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 82.
26 Minn. 163; 28 Minn. 275; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, §§ 83-86.
31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 87.
28 Minn. 272, 463; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 88.
25 Minn. 146; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 89.
31 Minn..394.
Ch. 64, § 990.
26 Minn. 247; 28 Minn. 370; 31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, §§ 91--95.
31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 96.
31 Minn. 394; 39 Minn. 309; 43 Minn. 159.
Ch. 64, § 97.
31 Minn. 394.
4
33 Minn. 37; 36 Minn. 407.
Ch. 64, 116.
28 Minn. 389; 33 Minn. 37; 42 Minn. 36.
Ch. 64, §§ 117--120.
33 Minn. 24, 37.
Ch. 64, § 121.
28 Minn. 389; 33 Minn. 37; 39 Minn. 386.
Ch. 64, $$ 122-130.
33 Minn. 24, 25, 37.
Ch. 64, § 132.
30 Minn. 28.
Ch. 64, § 133.
27 Minn. 293.
Ch. 65, § 2.
26 Minn. 324; 45 Minn. 146.
Ch. 65, §§ 3, 6.
38 Minn. 477.
Ch. 65, § 7.
30 Minn. 50.
Ch. 65, § 10.
28 Minn. 402; 37 Minn. 240.
Ch. 65, § 11.
34 Minn. 543.
Ch. 65, § 12.
31 Minn. 480.
Ch. 65, § 20.
37 Minn. 408.
Ch. 65, § 23.
38 Minn. 389; 42 Minn. 36; 50 N. W. 1038
Ch. 65, § 28.
36 Minn. 301; 46 Minn. 532.
Ch. 65, § 33.
Ch. 64, § 98.
31 Minn. 394; 37 Minn. 15.
Ch. 64, §§ 99-103.
31 Minn. 394.
Ch. 64, § 104.
27 Minn. 238; 31 Minn. 394.
38 Minn. 389.
Ch. 65, § 34.
30 Minn. 311.
Ch. 65, § 37.
28 Minn. 275; 33 Minn. 25; 36 Minn. 174; 37
Minn. 211; 51 N. W. 819.
2201
2202
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 65, § 39.
36 Minn. 301.
Ch. 65, § 40.
31 Minn. 37.
Ch. 65, § 45.
45 Minn. 282.
Ch. 65, § 58.
42 Minn. 47.
Ch. 65, §§ 72, 73, 75.
32 Minn. 545, 546.
Ch. 65, § 89.
32 Minn. 494; 43 Minn. 338.
Ch. 65, § 91.
27 Minn. 306.
Ch. 65, § 94.
31 Minn. 429.
Ch. 65, § 95.
27 Minn. 306; 36 Minn. 301.
Ch. 65, § 96.
27 Minn. 306.
Ch. 65, §§ 102, 103.
46 Minn. 319.
Ch. 65, § 110.
37 Minn. 297.
Ch. 65, § 113.
30 Minn. 207; 46 Minn. 259.
Ch. 65, § 114.
Ch. 65, § 169.
33 Minn. 24.
Ch. 65, § 171.
31 Minn. 44.
Ch. 66, § 1.
39 Minn. 116.
Ch. 66, § 3.
39 Minn. 115; 45 Minn. 396; 46 Minn. 423.
Ch. 66, § 4.
31 Minn. 83; 36 Minn. 274; 45 Minn. 396,
398, 399.
Ch. 66, § 5.
45 Minn. 396.
Ch. 66, § 6.
35 Minn. 168; 36 Minn. 275; 39 Minn. 116,
302; 40 Minn. 507; 45 Minn. 396; 46 Minn.
423, 424; 47 Minn. 203.
Ch. 66, §§ 6--8, 10.
51 N. W. 118, 119.
Ch. 66, § 7.
35 Minn. 168; 45 Minn. 396.
Ch. 66, §§ 8--10.
45 Minn. 396.
Ch. 66, § 11.
45 Minn. 396; 46 Minn. 423, 424.
Ch. 66, § 12.
38 Minn. 402; 40 Minn. 525; 45 Minn. 396.
45 Minn. 293; 46 Minn. 238; 51 N. W. 1103. Ch. 66, § 13.
Ch. 65, § 115.
51 N. W. 1103.
Ch. 65, § 116.
27 Minn. 501; 30 Minn. 51; 38 Minn. 415.
Ch. 65, § 117.
27 Minn. 30; 38 Minn. 377, 415; 45 Minn. 185.
Ch. 65, § 123.
27 Minn. 501.
Ch. 65, § 124.
28 Minn. 39; 44 Minn. 512.
Ch. 65, § 140.
27 Minn. 16; 40 Minn. 65.
Ch. 65, § 141.
27 Minn. 17; 37 Minn. 492.
Ch. 65, § 142.
30 Minn. 50; 34 Minn. 256.
Ch. 65, § 157.
30 Minn. 517.
Ch. 65, § 159.
30 Minn. 50.
26 Minn. 422; 30 Minn. 163.
Ch. 66, § 14.
26 Minn. 422.
Ch. 66, § 15.
44 Minn. 265; 45 Minn. 113, 168, 398, 399,
406; 51 N. W. 1162.
Ch. 66, § 16.
44 Miun. 265; 45 Minn. 114; 51 N. W. 1162.
1163.
Ch. 66, § 18.
39 Minn. 45; 44 Minn. 450: 45 Minn. 114,
168.
Ch. 66, § 19.
39 Minn. 45; 44 Minn. 450.
Ch. 66, § 21.
41 Minn. 364.
Ch. 66, § 24.
35 Minn. 65; 39 Minn. 519.
Ch. 66, § 25.
45 Minn. 396.
Ch. 66, § 26.
36 Minn. 229.
2203
2204
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 27.
33 Minn. 423; 37 Minn. 65.
Ch. 66, § 28.
37 Minn. 454; 40 Minn. 148, 512; 44 Minn.
530; 50 N. W. 1022.
Ch. 66, §§ 31, 32.
42 Minn. 85, 86.
Ch. 66, §§ 33, 34.
50 N. W. 1022, 1023.
Ch. 66, § 36.
31 Minn. 315; 33 Minn. 22; 40 Minn. 28.
Ch. 66, § 41.
31 Minn. 450; 33 Minn. 224; 36 Minn. 452;
38 Minn. 235; 44 Minn. 395; 45 Minn. 161.
Ch. 66, § 42.
45 Minn. 359.
Ch. 66, § 43.
34 Minn. 347; 39 Minn. 222.
Ch. 66, §§ 44-46.
34 Minn. 347.
Ch. 66, § 47.
34 Minn. 507; 45 Minn. 173; 46 Minn. 536.
Ch. 66, §§ 47-51.
30 Minn. 473.
Ch. 66, § 48.
34 Minn. 507; 45 Minn. 173.
Ch. 66, § 49.
Ch. 66, § 63.
36 Minn. 87.
Ch. 66, § 64.
26 Minn. 422; 37 Minn. 195; 43 Minn. 141;
44 Minn. 98, 100, 507; 46 Minn. 66, 67.
Ch. 66, § 65.
26 Minn. 422; 44 Minn. 507; 46 Minn. 67.
Ch. 66, § 66.
35 Minn. 279; 39 Minn. 74-76; 42 Minn.
245; 44 Minn. 394, 503; 46 Minn. 66, 67.
Ch. 66, § 67.
36 Minn. 341.
Ch. 66, § 68.
39 Minn. 337; 44 Minn. 507.
Ch. 66, § 69.
26 Minn. 422; 43 Minn. 140.
Ch. 66, § 70.
36 Minn. 192; 44 Minn. 507; 45 Minn. 279.
Ch. 66, §§ 73, 74.
32 Minn. 434, 445.
Ch. 66, § 75.
32 Minn. 434; 37 Minn. 515.
Ch. 66, § 76.
32 Minn. 434.
Ch. 66, § 77.
32 Minn. 445.
28 Minu. 364; 29 Minn. 47; 30 Minn. 445; Ch. 66, § 78.
33 Minn. 88; 34 Minn. 507, 508; 45 Minn.
173, 187; 46 Minn. 312.
Ch. 66, § 51.
42 Minn. 41.
Ch. 66, § 79.
28 Minn. 68; 39 Minn. 115.
27 Minn. 501; 45 Minn. 187; 46 Minn. 536. Ch. 66, § 82.
Ch. 66, § 52.
47 Minn. 587.
Ch. 66, §§ 52--83.
34 Minn. 240.
Ch. 66, § 53.
43 Minn. 144.
Ch. 66, § 54.
34 Minn. 396; 43 Minn. 144.
Ch. 66, § 55.
43 Minn. 144.
Ch. 66, § 56.
39 Minn. 376; 46 Minn. 166.
Ch. 66, § 59.
27 Minn. 202; 34 Minn. 405; 39 Minn. 427;
45 Minn. 232.
Ch. 66, § 92.
31 Minn. 188; 32 Minn. 123, 550; 36 MinL.
119.
Ch. 66, § 94.
32 Minn. 550.
Ch. 66, § 95.
32 Minn. 550; 46 Minn. 56, 58.
Ch. 66, § 96.
33 Minn. 161; 36 Minn. 313, 314; 37 Minn.
321; 44 Minn. 62.
Ch. 66, § 97, subd. 2.
40 Minn. 177.
29 Minn. 110; 40 Minn. 430; 42 Minn. 86; Ch. 66, § 98.
46 Minn. 67, 166.
Ch. 66, § 60.
46 Minn. 67.
Ch. 66, § 62.
36 Minn. 87; 46 Minn. 67.
31 Minn. 423.
Ch. 66, § 99.
43 Minn. 296.
Ch. 66, § 100.
34 Minn. 244.
2205
2200
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
I
Ch. 66, § 105.
42 Minn. 233; 43 Minn. 296; 52 N. W. 131.
Ch. 66, § 107.
30 Minn. 106; 35 Minn. 468; 36 Minn. 119.
Ch. 66, § 109.
41 Minn. 520.
Ch. 66, § 112.
28 Minn. 398; 31 Minn. 444; 43 Minn. 530.
Ch. 66, § 114.
28 Minn. 398.
Ch. 66, § 115.
47 Minn. 340.
Ch. 66, § 116. ·
28 Minn. 165.
Ch. 66, § 118.
28 Minn. 234; 37 Minn. 502; 51 N. W. 819.
Ch. 66, § 120.
27 Minn. 483; 31 Minn. 397.
Ch. 66, § 121.
27 Minn. 483; 44 Minn. 442.
Ch. 66, § 122.
27 Minn. 483; 45 Minn. 252.
Ch. 66, § 123.
27 Minn. 483; 40 Minn. 85.
Ch. 66, § 124.
27 Minn. 483; 28 Minn. 68; 29 Minn. 72: 32
Minn. 550; 35 Minn. 443; 36 Minu. 101;
43 Minn. 403; 50 N. W. 1023.
Ch. 66, § 125.
27 Minn. 483; 28 Minn. 134, 253; 29 Minn.
192; 34 Minn. 267; 35 Minn. 280, 338, 443;
36 Minn. 343, 533; 38 Minn. 161, 280, 361;
39 Minn. 74--76, 483; 40 Minu. 466; 43
Minn. 306, 403; 44 Minn. 394, 502-504; 45
Minn. 253; 47 Minn. 259, 401.
Ch. 66, § 126.
45 Minn. 359.
Ch. 66, § 130.
37 Minn. 163.
Ch. 66, § 131.
25 Minn. 151; 28 Minn. 430; 30 Minn. 88;
31 Minn. 276; 33 Minn. 519; 42 Minn. 501;
44 Minn. 64.
Ch. 66, § 132.
43 Minn. 147.
Ch. 66, §§ 132--144.
34 Minn. 507.
Ch. 66, § 133.
32 Minn. 444; 43 Minn. 338.
Ch. 66, § 136.
36 Minn. 199.
Ch. 66, § 145.
27 Minn. 275; 29 Minn. 110; 40 Minn. 81.
Ch. 66, §§ 145-163.
29 Minn. 110; 32 Minn. 127; 44 Minn. 507.
Ch. 66, § 146.
27 Minn. 275.
Ch. 66, § 147.
27 Minn. 275; 36 Minn. 191; 40 Minn. 81,
429; 46 Minn. 244.
Ch. 66, § 148.
27 Minn. 275; 41 Minn. 240.
Ch. 66, § 149.
27 Minn. 275.
Ch. 66, § 151.
27 Minn. 534; 30 Minn. 196; 44 Minn. 507,
508.
Ch. 66, § 154.
28 Minn. 1, 3. 391, 392, 528; 29 Minn. 371;
30 Minu. 323, 333; 35 Minn. 250; 36 Minn.
183; 38 Minn. 425; 43 Minn. 338; 47
Minn. 71; 52 N. W. 30.
Ch. 66, § 155.
30 Minn. 333; 43 Minn. 338.
Ch. 66, § 157.
30 Minn. 367; 31 Minn. 450; 39 Minn. 171;
46 Minn. 197.
Ch. 66, § 158.
38 Minn. 383; 46 Minn. 197.
Ch. 66, § 159.
27 Minn. 275; 44 Minn. 508.
Ch. 66, § 100.
44 Minn. 508.
Ch. 66, §§ 164, 166.
30 Minn. 192, 193.
Ch. 66, § 167.
30 Minn. 193; 32 Minn. 67.
Ch. 66, §§ 170, 171.
32 Minn. 67.
Ch. 66, § 172.
30 Minn. 193; 32 Minn. 67.
Ch. 66, § 174.
28 Minn. 65; 30 Minn. 245; 32 Minn. 382:
38 Minn. 528.
Ch. 66, § 175.
28 Minn. 64; 41 Minn. ♣
Ch. 66, § 177.
41 Minn. 4.
Ch. 66, § 183.
27 Minn. 34.
Ch. 66, §§ 187, 190, 194.
41 Minn. 4.
**207
2208
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 197.
26 Minn. 317; 40 Minn. 378; 41 Minn. 4.
Ch. 66, § 198.
25 Minn. 513; 38 Minn. 542.
Ch. 66, § 200.
32 Minn. 317; 43 Minn. 508.
Ch. 66, § 203.
32 Minn. 278; 34 Minn. 330.
Ch. 66, § 204.
45 Minn. 60.
Ch. 66, § 210.
37 Minn. 183; 43 Minn. 140; 44 Minn. 509.
Ch. 66, § 214.
27 Minn. 30; 37 Minn. 383.
Ch. 66, § 216.
35 Minn. 477; 47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 66, § 217.
Ch. 66, § 262.
30 Minn. 158, 502; 31 Minn. 331, 417: 33
Minn. 256; 34 Minn. 398; 35 Minn. 71: 36
Minn. 313; 37 Minn. 490; 39 Minn. 399; 40
Minn. 134; 44 Minn. 400, 407, 448.
Ch. 66, § 263.
30 Minn. 502; 34 Minn. 398; 44 Minn. 448.
Ch. 66, § 264.
37 Minn. 51; 44 Minn. 86.
Ch. 66, § 266.
27 Minn. 59; 47 Minn. 574.
Ch. 66, § 267.
32 Minn. 196; 43 Minn. 462; 46 Minn. 279;
47 Minn. 466.
Ch. 66, §§ 269, 270.
31 Minn. 542; 37 Minn. 518; 38 Minn. 156.
Ch. 66, § 272.
34 Minn. 509.
27 Minu. 314; 31 Minn. 108; 44 Minn. 280; Ch. 66, § 273.
47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 66, § 218.
39 Minn. 427; 43 Minn. 240.
Ch. 66, § 226.
26 Minn. 502.
Ch. 66, § 227.
33 Minn. 496; 47 Minn. 414, 415.
Ch. 66, § 232.
46 Minn. 215.
Ch. 66, § 236.
36 Minn. 4.
Ch. 66, § 238.
30 Minu. 370.
Ch. 66, § 239.
34 Minn. 509.
Ch. 66, § 242.
31 Minn. 327; 38 Minn. 360.
37 Minn. 534.
Ch. 66, § 274.
27 Minn. 477.
Ch. 66, § 275.
37 Minn. 534; 39 Minn. 337.
Ch. 66, § 277.
28 Minn. 249; 34 Minn. 460; 37 Minn. 534;
45 Minn. 232, 345.
Ch. 66, § 283.
42 Minn. 236.
Ch. 66, § 284.
39 Minn. 374.
Ch. 66, § 285.
26 Minn. 139; 29 Minn. 237; 38 Minn. 231,
233; 39 Minn. 343; 40 Minn. 411; 42 Minn.
64.
Ch. 66, § 286.
Ch. 66, § 244.
27 Minn. 238.
36 Minn. 155.
Ch. 66, § 287.
39 Minn. 180.
Ch. 66, § 247.
35 Minn. 382.
Ch. 66, § 253.
27 Minn. 144, 423; 28 Minn. 333; 29 Minn.
302; 32 Minn. 221; 36 Minn. 107; 37 Minn.
383; 44 Minn. 306.
Ch. 66, § 254.
28 Minn. 468; 29 Minn. 302; 32 Minn. 449;
37 Minn. 383.
Ch. 66, § 255.
Ch. 66, § 293.
45 Minn. 232.
Ch. 66, §§ 293--336.
26 Minn. 356.
Ch. 66, § 296.
29 Minn. 89.
Ch. 66, § 298.
29 Minn. 296; 39 Minn. 29.
27 Minn. 402; 30 Minn. 230; 35 Minn. 452; Ch. 66, § 300.
37 Minn. 383.
Ch. 66, § 259.
38 Minn. 27.
42 Minn. 235; 43 Minn. 515; 45 Minn. 345.
Ch. 66, § 301.
27 Minn. 276; 43 Minn. 27; 45 Minn. 234
2209
2210
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 66, § 303.
28 Minn. 473; 35 Minn. 391.
Ch. 66, § 305.
30 Minu. 196.
Ch. 66, § 306.
43 Minn. 27.
Ch. 66, § 310.
27 Minn. 135, 508; 31 Minn. 542; 35 Minn.
343, 390; 42 Minn. 113, 255; 45 Minn. 31.
Ch. 66, § 311.
34 Minn. 280.
Ch. 66, § 313.
42 Minn. 236.
Ch. 66, § 314.
35 Minn. 391.
Ch. 66, § 315.
27 Minn. 529; 35 Minn. 389, 391.
Ch. 66, § 317.
32 Minn. 547; 43 Minn. 27.
Ch. 66, §§ 318, 319.
43 Minn. 28.
Ch. 66, § 321.
30 Minn. 163; 34 Minn. 460; 43 Minn. 27; 45
Minn. 234.
Ch. 66, § 322.
29 Minn. 435; 31 Minn. 232; 34 Minn. 460;
41 Minn. 159; 43 Minn. 28, 516.
Ch. 66, § 323.
Ch. 67, § 5.
32 Minn. 208.
Ch. 67, § 6.
41 Minn. 552.
Ch. 67, § 8.
35 Minn. 298.
Ch. 67, § 9.
26 Minn. 105,
Ch. 67, § 12.
29 Minn. 296.
Ch. 67, § 14.
27 Minn. 30.
Ch. 67, §§ 16, 17.
37 Minn. 46; 52 N. W. 26, 27.
Ch. 67, § 20.
43 Minn. 296.
Ch. 68, § 1.
27 Minn. 117, 407; 28 Minn. 17; 31 Miun.
214; 39 Minn. 245; 40 Minn. 173; 41 Minn.
413; 42 Minn. 192, 193; 45 Minn. 324-326;
16 Minn. 351; 47 Minn. 14.
Ch. 68, § 2.
28 Minn. 467; 44 Minn. 149, 485.
Ch. 68, § 3.
27 Minn. 160; 30 Minn. 86.
Ch. 68, § 4.
27 Minn. 161.
29 Minn. 204; 41 Minn. 151; 45 Minn. 346, Ch. 68, § 8.
348.
Ch. 66, § 324,
29 Minn. 436.
Ch. 66, § 325.
29 Minn. 204; 45 Minn. 348.
Ch. 66, § 326.
41 Minn. 160.
Ch. 66, § 327.
31 Minn. 233.
Ch. 66, § 328.
34 Minn. 461, 462.
Ch. 66. § 330.
37 Minn. 110.
Ch. 66, §§ 342, 343, 345.
35 Minn. 232.
Ch. 66, § 347.
30 Minn. 488.
Ch. 67, § 1.
31 Minn. 241; 47 Minn. 490.
Ch. 67, § 2.
14 Minn. 407.
27 Minn: 117, 161, 407; 28 Minn. 549; 29
Minn. 21; 30 Minn. 85; 38 Minn, 304; 40
Minn. 174; 47 Minn. 14, 15.
Ch. 68, § 9.
27 Minn. 407; 29 Minn. 22; 38 Minn. 304; 39
Minn. 195; 40 Minn. 174; 47 Minn. 14, 15.
Ch. 69.
26 Minn. 432, 51 N. W. 379.
Ch. 69, § 1.
34 Minn. 369; 36 Minn. 4.
Ch. 69, § 2.
34 Minn. 274; 37 Minn. 62; 40 Minn. 443; 43
Minn. 243; 46 Minn. 83, 485; 50 N. W.
1018, 1025, 1026.
Ch. 69, § 3.
28 Minn. 209; 34 Minn. 369.
Ch. 69, § 4.
32 Minn. 229; 34 Minn. 109, 369; 35 Minn.
293; 36 Minn. 4; 39 Minn. 491.
Ch. 69, § 5.
27 Minn. 330.
Ch. 70, § 2.
33 Miun. 411; 34 Minn. 214; 41 Minn. 284.
V.2M.DIG.-70
2211
2212
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 70, § 4.
25 Minn. 345.
Ch. 70, § 8.
30 Minn. 411; 35 Minn. 293; 36 Minn. 537.
Ch. 70, § 10.
34 Minn. 214; 45 Minn. 282.
Ch. 70, $ 11.
Ch. 73, § 38.
34 Minn. 438, 439.
Ch. 73, § 39.
33 Minn. 89; 35 Minn. 477; 36 Minn. 244;
51 N. W. 920.
Ch. 73, § 65.
35 Minn. 533.
26 Minn. 355; 29 Minn. 163; 35 Minn. 366; Ch. 73; § 67.
37 Minn. 492.
Ch. 70. § 12.
29 Minn. 198.
Ch. 70, § 14.
37 Minn. 492.
Ch. 70, § 30.
34 Minn. 214.
Ch. 70. § 42.
37 Minn. 492.
Ch. 70, § 44.
45 Minn. 281, 282.
Ch. 71, § 3.
40 Minn. 69.
Ch. 71, § 4.
32 Minn. 213; 36 Minn. 194.
Ch. 71, § 15.
36 Minn. 194; 42 Minn. 47.
Ch. 72. § 3.
30 Minn. 143.
Ch. 73, § 1.
30 Minn. 143.
Ch. 73, § 7.
27 Minn. 436; 29 Minn. 133.
Ch. 73, § 8.
20 Minn. 29, 401; 32 Minn. 437; 35 Minn. 62;
36 Minn. 202, 395; 37 Minn. 257; 38 Minn.
113; 39 Minn. 547; 40 Minn. 154; 44 Minn.
46 Minn. 37; 50 N. W.
360; 45 Minn. 65;
1022, 1024.
Ch. 73, § 9.
27 Minn. 436.
34 Minn. 265; 36 Minn. 157.
Ch. 73, § 70.
32 Minn. 50.
Ch. 73, § 78.
36 Minn. 194.
Ch. 73, § 84.
32 Minn. 546.
Ch. 73, § 88.
31 Minn. 28; 46 Minn. 249.
Ch. 73, § 89.
28 Minn. 398; 29 Minn. 176; 30 Minn. 310,
442; 31 Minn. 63; 36 Minn. 131; 37 Minn.
404; 45 Minn. 281; 47 Minn. 377, 378.
Ch. 73, § 90.
29 Minn. 174, 176.
Ch. 73, § 91.
29 Minn. 286; 42 Minn. 314.
Ch. 73, § 92.
29 Minn. 286; 39 Minn. 192.
Ch. 73, § 94.
42 Minn. 314.
Ch. 73, § 96.
.1
33 Minn. 276; 45 Minn. 280.
Ch. 73, § 97.
41 Minn. 54.
Ch. 73. § 98.
30 Minn. 310.
Ch. 73, § 103.
29 Minn. 222.
B
Ch. 73, § 10.
27 Minn. 69; 35 Minn. 311; 40 Minn. 372; 44
Minn. 164, 165.
Ch. 73, § 34.
34 Minn. 438.
Ch. 73, § 35.
47 Minn. 568.
Ch. 73, § 36.
40 Minn. 178; 43 Minn. 377; 45 Minn. 16;
51 N. W. 920.
Ch. 73, § 37.
Ch. 73, § 104.
28 Minn. 224; 29 Minn. 359; 30 Minn. 525;
37 Minn. 213; 40 Minn. 57.
Ch. 74.
39 Minn. 96.
Ch. 74, § 6.
44 Minn. 527--529.
Ch. 74, § 8.
40 Minn. 451; 44 Minn. 528, 529.
Ch. 74, § 9.
40 Minn. 451.
29 Minn. 268; 35 Minn. 478; 36 Minn. 245; Ch. 75. § 1.
51 N. W. 920.
36 Minn. $6.
2213
2214
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 75, § 2.
25 Minn. 13; 26 Minn. 205; 27 Minn. 93; 28
Minn. 414; 30 Minn. 434; 31 Minn. 245,
308, 360; 32 Minn. 153; 33 Minn. 358; 35
Minn. 319, 367; 36 Minn. 313; 40 Minn.
439; 46 Minn. 175, 180; 51 N. W. 614.
Ch. 75, § 3.
28 Minn. 414; 30 Minn. 434.
Ch. 75, §§ 5, 8.
44 Minn. 394.
Ch. 75, § 11.
25 Minn. 185; 26 Minn. 76; 29 Minn. 190;
32 Minn. 130; 35 Minn. 338, 367, 369; 40
Minn. 191; 51 N. W. 662.
Ch. 75, § 13.
32 Minn. 190; 37 Minn. 157-159.
Ch. 75, § 14.
40 Minn. 398.
Ch. 75, § 15.
27 Minn. 62, 101, 452; 30 Minn. 376; 32
Minn. 528; 37 Minn. 157, 159; 38 Minn.
30, 238, 436; 39 Minn. 38; 40 Minn. 452,
453.
Ch. 75, § 16.
27 Minn. 62, 453; 29 Minn. 266; 39 Minn.
473; 40 Minn. 452, 453.
Ch. 75, § 17.
27 Minn. 62; 38 Minn. 436; 39 Minn. 473;
40 Minn. 452, 453; 46 Minn. 459.
Ch. 75, § 18.
27 Minn. 62; 38 Minn. 436; 40 Minn. 452,
453.
Ch. 75, §§ 19--24.
27 Minn. 62; 40 Minn. 452, 453.
Ch. 75, § 25.
32 Minn. 207.
Ch. 75, § 29.
31 Minn. 118; 39 Minn. 43; 44 Minn. 146.
Ch. 75, § 33.
36 Minn. 173; 41 Minn. 545,
Ch. 75, § 34.
25 Minn. 209; 39 Minn. 37.
Ch. 75, § 40.
Ch. 76.
34 Minn. 325, 326; 35 Minn. 223; 37 Minn.
83, 84; 41 Minn. 87, 88, 90--92, 257; 44
Minn. 39, 41, 412, 413; 46 Minn. 58; 47
Minn. 464, 465, 467; 50 N. W. 1117; 51
N. W. 921.
Ch. 76, §. 1.
30 Minn. 176.
Ch. 76, §§ 1-4.
50 N. W. 1114, 1115.
Ch. 76, § 9.
34 Minn. 327; 35 Minn. 545; 41 Minn. 150.
151; 44 Minn. 401, 403; 51 N. W. 377.
Ch. 76, § 10.
34 Minn. 327; 35 Minn. 545; 41 Minn. 151;
51 N. W. 377.
Ch. 76, § 11.
34 Minn. 328; 36 Minn. 258, 268.
Ch. 76, § 12.
34 Minn. 328; 50 N. W. 1115, 1116; 51 N.
WV. 908, 909.
Ch. 76, §§ 13-16.
34 Minn. 328.
Ch. 76, §§ 15--22.
50 N. W. 1115, 1116.
Ch. 76, § 17.
30 Minn. 176; 34 Minn. 328; 40 Minn. 344,
347; 46 Minn. 494,
Ch. 76, §§ 18--22.
34 Minn. 328.
Ch. 76, §§ 21, 22.
46 Minn. 494.
Ch. 76, § 23.
34 Minn. 328; 35 Minn. 546; 40 Minn. 344.
Ch. 77, § 1.
28 Minn. 5; 32 Minn. 125; 33 Minn. 224; 38
Minn. 184.
Ch. 77, § 2.
26 Minn. 500; 28 Minn. 5, 104, 371; 30 Minn.
386, 463; 32 Minn. 125, 519; 35 Minn. 194;
44 Minn. 6.
44 Minn. 526; 47 Minn. 1--3, 5, 6; 52 N. W. Ch. 77. § 5.
384.
Ch. 75, § 43.
29 Minn. SS, 252.
Ch. 75, § 44.
27 Minn. 249; 33 Minn. 517.
Ch. 75, §§ 45. 46.
36 Minn. 381, 382.
Ch. 75, § 50.
34 Minn. 472.
29 Minn. 421, 424.
Ch. 77, § 6.
35 Minn. 192.
Ch. 77, § 13.
47 Minu. 383.
Ch. 78, §§ 1, 2.
35 Minn. 168, 169.
Ch. 78, § 3.
35 Minn. 168; 42 Minn. 57.
}
2216
2215
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 78, § 9.
47 Minn. 524.
Ch. 78, § 10.
29 Minn. 187; 38 Minn. 149.
Ch. 79.
27 Minn. 39; 35 Minn. 223; 40 Minn. 224; 51
N. W. 613.
Ch. 79, §§ 3, 5--7, 9.
41 Minn. 123, 130.
Ch. 80, §§ 2, 3.
31 Minn. 444, 445.
Ch. 80, § 9.
39 Minn. 222, 224.
Ch. 80, § 12.
30 Minn. 99; 38 Minn. 293.
Ch. 80, § 13.
28 Minn. 50.
Ch. 80, § 14.
31 Minn. 211.
Ch. 80, §§ 21--54.
29 Minn. 463.
Ch. 80, § 22.
31 Minn. 113; 43 Minn. 251.
Ch. 80, § 23.
31 Minn. 111; 38 Minn. 280; 47 Minn. 518,
520.
Ch. 80, 8 24.
47 Minn. 518, 519.
Ch. 80, §§ 25, 36–38.
31 Minn. 113.
Ch. 80. § 46.
37 Minn. 406.
Ch. 81, §§ 1--26.
44 Minn. 99; 45 Minn. 287.
Ch. 81, § 2.
32 Minn. 206: 38 Minn. 42; 41 Minn. 114;
51 N. W. 285, 286.
Ch. 81, § 3.
43 Minn. 16.
Ch. 81, § 4.
30 Minn. 7; 43 Minn. 16.
Ch. 81, § 5.
Ch. 81, § 11.
35 Minn. 235.
Ch. 81, § 12.
29 Minn. 57; 35 Minn. 235; 43 Minn. 175.
Ch. 81, § 13.
28 Minn. 7, 49, 497; 29 Minn. 436; 36 Minn.
137, 140; 37 Minn. 72--74; 43 Minn. 174.
Ch. 81, § 14.
40 Minn. 533; 45 Minn. 348, 349.
Ch. 81, § 15.
29 Minn. 57; 37 Minn. 72, 73; 50 N. W.
1040.
Ch. 81, § 16.
28 Minn. 49, 348; 29 Minn. 56, 229, 436; 37
Minn. 73, 74; 45 Minn. 346, 348; 50 N. W.
1039.
Ch. 81, § 18.
34 Minn. 546; 37 Minn. 73, 75.
Ch. 81, § 23.
28 Minn. 7; 37 Minn. 532.
Ch. 81, § 24.
28 Minn. 7.
Ch. 81; § 25.
38 Minn. 42.
Ch. 81, §§ 27, 28.
44 Minn. 99, 100.
Ch. 81, §§ 27--43.
46 Minn. 424.
Ch. 81, § 29.
27 Minn. 381; 44 Minn. 529; 46 Minn. 423.
Ch. 81, § 30.
39 Minn. 53.
Ch. 81, § 33.
46 Minn. 423, 425.
Ch. 81, §§ 34--36.
50 N. W. 1038-1040.
Ch. 81, § 36.
27 Minn. 380; 44 Minn. 529.
Ch. 81, § 42.
36 Minn. 389.
Ch. 81, § 43.
28 Minn. 22.
28 Minn. 467; 30 Minn. 24; 32 Minn. 206; 38 Ch. 81, §§ 45, 46.
Minn. 349; 46 Minn. 165--167.
Ch. 81, § 6.
30 Minn. 539; 45 Minn. 208; 51 N. W. 285.
Ch. 81, § 7.
32 Minu. 206.
Ch. 81, § 9.
42 Minn. 478.
28 Minn. 466.
Ch. 82, §§ 2, 3.
27 Minn. 481, 482.
Ch. 83.
43 Minn. 194.
Ch. 83, §§ 7, 9.
44 Minn. 511, 512.
2217-
2218
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 84.
27 Minn. 238; 28 Minn. 272, 388; 32 Minn.
291; 37 Minn. 77; 39 Minn. 386;
211; 47 Minn. 269.
Ch. 84, § 2.
28 Minn. 461, 462; 37 Minn. 77.
Ch. 84, §§ 3, 5.
28 Minn. 462.
Ch. S4, § 7.
41 Minn. 547.
Ch. 84, § 9.
28 Minn. 462.
Ch. 84, § 11.
40 Minn.
26 Minn. 292; 28 Minn. 462; 30 Minn. 28,
123, 393; 31 Minn. 393, 431; 34 Minn. 471;
35 Minn. 368; 36 Minn. 82, 102, 173; 37
Minn. 77; 41 Minn. 546; 42 Minn. 35; 45
Minn. 26, 27; 47 Minn. 3.
Ch. 84, § 12.
26 Minn. 292; 29 Minn. 432, 433; 45 Minn.
26, 27.
Ch. 84, § 13.
26 Minn. 293.
Ch. 84. §§ 14, 15.
29 Minn. 432, 433.
Ch. 84, § 18.
28 Minn. 272.
Ch. 85, § 1.
43 Minn. 125.
Ch. 86, § 5.
28 Minn. 320, 404.
Ch. 86, § 6.
36 Minn. 121.
Ch. 86, § 8.
27 Minn. 109, 144; 29 Minn. 163, 271, 463:
30 Minn. 207, 359, 478; 31 Minn. 211; 33
Minn. 406; 34 Minn. 443; 36 Minn. 101,
163; 37 Minn. 382, 445; 39 Minn. 477; 41
Minn. 259; 44 Minn. 323, 528; 46 Minn.
332; 47 Minn. 259.
Ch. 86, § 9.
34 Mian. 372.
Ch. 86, § 10.
35
31 Minn. 211-213; 34 Minn. 370, 372;
Minn. 385, 462, 463; 37 Minn. 183; 45
Minn. 97; 47 Minn. 369, 370.
Ch. 86, §§ 11, 12.
34 Minn. 372.
Ch. 86, § 21.
28 Minn. 68.
Ch. 87, § 6.
30 Minn. 262.
Ch. 88, §§ 1--4.
32 Minn. 445.
1
Ch. 88, § 9.
33 Miinn. 89; 39 Minn. 356, 374.
Ch. 88, § 16.
31 Minu. 201.
Ch. SS, § 31.
32 Minn. 445.
Ch. 89.
39 Minn. 360.
Ch. 89, § 3.
27 Minn. 404; 30 Minn. 40.
Ch. 89. § 8.
30 Minn. 40.
Ch. 90.
29 Minn. 23; 32 Minn. 360; 38 Minn. 274;
39 Minn. 193, 447; 40 Minn. 420; 44 Minn.
453; 45 Minn. 11, 12; 46 Minn. 285, 336;
50 N. W. 1017, 1019.
Ch. 90, § 1.
27 Minn. 518; 28 Minn. 264, 406; 32 Minn.
489; 33 Minn. 4, 6, 8; 34 Minn. 294, 519;
38 Minn. 242, 276; 40 Minn. 443; 42 Minn.
290; 45 Minn. 12, 14, 16; 51 N. W. 469,
470.
Ch. 90, § 2.
26 Minn. 330; 32 Minn. 362, 364, 487, 489;
33 Minn. 6-8, 387; 34 Minn. 525; 36 Miun.
545; 38 Minn. 423, 424; 40 Minn. 444; 13
Minn. 29, 30; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 3.
26 Minn. 330; 27 Minn. 465; 32 Minn. 361,
363; 38 Minn. 423, 424; 40 Minn. 28, 420;
43 Minn. 161; 44 Minn. 26; 45 Minn. 12;
46 Minn. 12, 288.
Ch. 90, § 4.
26 Minn. 330; 27 Minn. 465; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 5.
26 Minn. 330; 32 Minn. 364; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 6.
26 Minn. 330; 32 Minn. 364, 489, 535; 33
Minn. 6-8, 388; 34 Minn. 404; 35 Minn.
454; 36 Minn. 545; 42 Minn. 412, 415; 45
Minn. 12, 63; 46 Minn. 232.
Ch. 90, § 7.
27 Minn. 517; 28 Minn. 406; 32 Minn. 489;
33 Minn. 7, 8; 36 Minn. 10; 40 Minn. 442;
42 Minn. 412; 43 Minn. 230; 44 Minn. 545;
45 Minn. 12; 47 Minn. 32.
Ch. 90, § 8.
27 Minn. 314; 33 Minn. 8; 44 Minn. 98; 45
Minn. 12; 50 N. W. 1038, 1039.
Ch. 90, § 9.
45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 10, § 10.
28 Minn. 406; 36 Minn. 10; 42 Minn. 291; 45
Minn. 12; 50 N. W. 1038, 1039.
}
2219
2220
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 90. § 11.
45 Minn. 12; 50 N. W. 1038, 1039.
Ch. 90, §§ 12--14.
45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 15.
34 Minn. 408; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 16.
36 Minn. 303; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 17.
36 Minn. 303; 43 Minn. 148; 45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 18.
28 Minn. 406; 32 Minn. 489; 33 Minn. 5, 388;
43 Minn. 230; 45 Minn. 12, 63; 47 Minn.
31--33, 126.
Ch. 90, §§ 19--21.
45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 90, § 22.
Ch. 95, § 33.
25 Minn. 490; 26 Minn. 92, 193.
Ch. 95, § 36.
29 Minn. 85; 38 Minn. 192.
Ch. 95, § 37.
26 Minn. 496; 38 Minn. 149.
Ch. 95, §§ 75, 76.
36 Minn. 432.
Ch. 96, § 1.
27 Minn. 316; 28 Minn. 53.
Ch. 96, § 2.
28 Minn. 52.
Ch. 96, § 10.
27 Minn. 311.
Ch. 99, § 12.
39 Minn. 154.
26 Minn. 425; 35 Minn. 288; 37 Minn. 299; Ch. 99, § 13.
46 Minn. 489, 491.
Ch. 90, § 23.
26 Minn. 425; 35 Minn. 288; 37 Minn. 299.
Ch. 90, §§ 24-26.
35 Minn. 288; 37 Minn. 299.
Ch. 91, § 1.
42 Minn. 260.
Ch. 91, § 11.
26 Minn. 382.
Ch. 94, § 2.
37 Minn. 494; 41 Minn. 323.
Ch. 94, § 10.
34 Minn. 4.
Ch. 94, § 22.
34 Minn. 5; 1 Minn. 323.
Ch. 94, §§ 23, 24, 31, 32.
34 Minn. 5, 6.
Ch. 94, § 34.
29 Minn. 217.
Ch. 94, § 43.
34 Minn. 25.
Ch. 94, § 51.
34 Minn. 248.
Ch. 99, § 15.
29 Minn. 142.
Ch. 100, § 6.
27 Minn. 53; 34 Minn, 286.
Ch. 100, § 9.
26 Minn. 510.
Ch. 100, § 20.
41 Minn. 191.
Ch. 100, § 24.
33 Minn. 103.
Ch. 103, § 2.
34 Minn. 117.
Ch. 105, § 11.
30 Minn. 506; 34 Minn. 8.
Ch. 106.
33 Minn. 24; 37 Minn. 408.
Ch. 106, § 2.
37 Minn. 492.
Ch. 106, § 10.
26 Minn. 408.
Ch. 106, § 15.
35 Minn. 183.
31 Minn. 110.
Ch. 106, § 18.
Ch. 94, § 63.
28 Minn. 422.
Ch. 95, § 8.
28 Minn. 386.
Ch. 95, §§ 23, 25.
26 Minn. 381.
Ch. 95, § 26.
30 Minn. 524.
34 Minn. 342.
Ch. 106, § 25.
28 Minn. 457, 400; 31 Minn. 110.
Ch. 106, § 27.
36 Minn. 408.
Ch. 106, § 32.
28 Minn. 456.
2221
2222
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 107, § 3.
40 Minn. 69.
Ch. 107, § 8.
36 Minn. 194.
Ch. 107, § 41.
27 Minn. 283.
Ch. 108, § 1.
35 Minn. 183; 38 Minn. 370.
Ch. 108, § 2.
37 Minn. 494; 38 Minn. 369, 370; 51 N. W.
474.
Ch. 108, §§ 4, 6.
29 Minn. 143, 145.
Ch. 108, § 7.
45 Minn. 129.
Ch. 108, § 8.
27 Minn. 311; 52 N. W. 276.
Ch. 108, § 9.
38 Minn. 370.
Ch. 108, § 10.
26 Minn. 528.
Ch. 108, § 11.
38 Minn. 370.
Ch. 108, § 13.
27 Minn. 526.
Ch. 108, § 20.
45 Minn. 129.
Ch. 108, § 25.
52 N. W. 276.
Ch. 109, § 19.
47 Minn. 374.
Ch. 110, § 1.
41 Minn. 52, 53; 47 Minn. 374.
Ch. 110, §§ 2--4.
47 Minn. 374.
Ch. 111, § 1.
41 Minn. 52.
Ch. 111, § 10.
42 Minn. 203.
Ch. 111, § 11.
27 Minn. 525.
Ch. 112.
41 Minn. 52.
Ch. 114, §§ 6, 8.
43 Minn. 326, 327.
Ch. 114, § 11.
34 Minn. 6, 21.
Ch. 114, § 14.
41 Minn. 104.
Ch. 114, § 19.
26 Minn. 382; 39 Minn. 321; 41 Minn. 287;
47 Minn. 427.
Ch. 114, § 22.
41 Minn. 105.
Ch. 116, § 19.
26 Minn. 502.
Ch. 116, § 24 et seq.
34 Minn. 432.
Ch. 116, § 28.
40 Minn. 68.
Ch. 117, § 2.
42 Minn. 155.
Ch. 117, § 6.
33 Minn. 36; 42 Minn. 183.
Ch. 117, §§ 7, 8.
26 Minn. 495, 496.
Ch. 117, § 9.
26 Minn. 496; 43 Minn. 492.
Ch. 117, § 11.
27 Minn. 524; 33 Minn. 25; 40 Minn. 64: 42
Minn. 203.
Ch. 118, § 1.
43 Minn. 379.
Ch. 118, § 3.
38 Minn. 370, 371; 40 Minn.' 75.
Ch. 118, § 5.
26 Minn. 497.
Ch. 120, § 8.
35 Minn. 366.
Ch. 120, §§ 10, 11, 18.
29 Minn. 198.
Ch. 123, §§ 7, 10, 11.
28 Minn. 59.
Ch. 123, §§ 15, 16.
26 Minn. 207.
Ch. 123, § 29.
28 Minn. 59.
Ch. 124, § 1.
32 Minn. 121; 41 Minn. 269.
Ch. 124, § 3.
29 Minn. 369; 32 Minn. 278; 35 Minn. 308,
309.
Ch. 124, §§ 7, 8.
27 Minn. 527; 34 Minn. 89.
Ch. 124, §§ 9--12.
27 Minn. 527.
Ch. 124, § 13.
27 Minn. 527; 33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157;
40 Minn. 183; 41 Minn. 118; 43 Miun. 35;
44 Minn. 473.
2223
2224
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 124, §. 14.
27 Minn. 527; 33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157;
40 Minn. 183; 43 Minn. 35.
Ch. 124, § 15.
27 Minn. 527; 33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157;
37 Minn. 464; 40 Minn. 183; 43 Minn. 35.
Ch. 124, § 16.
§§ 177, 180.
37 Minn. 352.
§ 187.
39 Minn. 476; 41 Minn. 285; 42 Minn. 258.
§ 227.
38 Minn. 477.
27 Minn. 527; 33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157; § 229.
40 Minn. 183; 43 Minn. 35, 36.
Ch. 124, § 17.
27 Minn. 528; 33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157;
40 Minn. 183; 43 Minn. 35; 44 Minn. 236.
Ch. 124, § 18.
33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157; 40 Minn. 183;
43 Minn. 35, 37.
Ch. 124, §§ 19, 20.
33 Minn. 121; 43 Minn. 35.
Ch. 124, §§ 21, 22.
31 Minn. 224; 37 Minn. 55.
Ch. 124, § 23.
28 Minn. 425.
Ch. 124, § 45.
33 Minn. 103.
Ch. 124, § 60.
38 Minn. 482.
Ch. 124, §§ 70-72.
37 Minn. 212; 41 Minn. 192.
§ 235.
39 Minn. 279; 41 Minn. 135.
§ 240.
38 Minn. 22, 154 155; 47 Minn. 559, 500.
§ 242.
43 Minn. 492.
§ 245.
39 Minn. 321, 322.
§ 262.
41 Minn. 52.
§§ 282, 283, 287.
51 N. W. 618.
§§ 294-305.
39 Minn. 154, 156.
§ 329.
40 Minn. 104.
37 Minn. 535.
§ 343.
51 N. W. 1045.
PENAL CODE.
883, 4.
§§ 375, 378.
39 Minn. 154; 42 Minn. 260.
$ 5.
42 Minn. 260.
52 N. W. 276.
§ 393.
47 Minn. 427.
§ 6.
39 Minn. 154; 42 Minn. 260.
$13.
39 Minn. 154.
§§ 19, 21.
41 Minn. 369, 371, 372.
§ 32.
45 Minn. 130.
§ 87.
41 Minn. 60; 51 N. W. 474, 475.
§§ 104, 105.
37 Minn. 492.
§ 112.
40 Minn. 56, 58.
§ 152.
37 Minn. 494; 38 Minn. 369.
§§ 153, 155, 160--162.
41 Minu. 323.
§ 398, subd. 2, par. 6.
43 Minn. 198.
§ 415.
39 Minn. 464; 47 Minn. 428, 449, 450.
§ 418.
38 Minn. 324, 378.
§ 420.
39 Minn. 173.
§ 425.
36 Minn. 539.
§ 471.
44 Minn. 237.
§ 476.
43 Minn. 445.
§ 491.
47 Minn. 336.
§ 525.
43 Minn. 492.
2225
2226
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
§ 531.
39 Minn. 359; 42 Minn. 259--261; 43 Minn.
200.
§ 532, subd. 5.
43 Minn. 199.
PROBATE CODE.
§ 4.
50 N. W. 932.
§§ 32, 33.
47 Minn. 20, 21; 50 N. W. 932, 933.
§ 34.
50 N. W. 932.
§§ 63, 64.
47 Minn. 576.
§ 80.
47 Minn. 22.
$ 102.
47 Minn. 281, 282.
§§ 104, 107.
47 Minn. 383, 384.
§ 148.
50 N. W. 1023.
§ 253.
47 Minn. 256.
§ 261.
47 Minn. 452.
ORGANIC ACT.
§ 3 (9 U. S. St. p. 404.)
29 Minn. 557.
§ 4 (9 U. S. St. p. 404.)
6 Minn. 433, (Gil. 293.)
§ 6 (9 U. S. St. p. 405.)
2 Minn. 306, (Gil. 261;) 7 Minn. 137, (Gil.
81;) 14 Minn. 326, 327, (Gil. 250, 251;) 19
Minn. 140, (Gil. 105;) 42 Minn. 312.
§ 9 (9 U. S. St. p. 406.)
1 Minn. 27 31, 91, (Gil. 11, 15, 77;) 18 Minn.
227, (Gil. 207.)
§ 12 (9 U. S. St. p. 407.)
1 Minn. 69, (Gil. 48;) 3 Minn. 256, (Gil. 175;)
6 Minn. 228, (Gil. 148;) 24 Minn. 587.
§ 18 (9 U. S. St. p. 408.)
7 Minn. 137, (Ĝil. 81.)
SESSION LAWS 1849.
Ch. 6, art. 4, § 7.
1 Minn. 19, (Gil. 3.)
Ch. 6, art. 5, § 1.
1 Minn. 96, (Gil. 75.)
Ch. 6, art. S, § 5.
1 Minn. 96, (Gil. 74.)
Ch. 6, art. 10.
31 Minn. 429.
Ch. 6, art. 10, § 6.
1 Minn. 44, (Gil. 29.)
Ch. 6, art. 11, §§ 1, 2.
11 Minn. 546, (Gil. 421.)
Ch. 6, art. 13, § 5.
1 Minn. 19, 22, (Gil. 3, 6.)
Ch. 6, art. 14, § 11.
1 Miun. 42, (Gil. 26.)
Ch. 12.
2 Minn. 243, (Gil. 203.)
Ch. 20, subch. 2, §§ 3, 46, 47.
19 Minn. 456, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 20, subch. 2, § 54.
1 Minn. 27, 31, (Gil. 11, 16.)
Ch. 20, subch. 3, § 1.
6 Minn. 228, (Gil. 148;) 29 Minn. 36.
Ch. 20, subch. 3, §§ 2, 8.
29 Minn. 36.
Ch. 40, § 13.
1 Minn. 98, (Gil. 77.)
Ch. 44.
25 Minn. 398.
Ch. 50, §§ 4, 7, 8.
1 Minn. 22, (Gil. 6.)
Ch. 68, § 7.
9 Minn. 115, (Gil. 105.)
Ch. 69, § 3.
1 Minn. 84, (Gil. 63;) 3 Minn. 32, (Gil. 10.)
Ch. 69, § 8.
9 Minn. 115, (Gil. 105.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1853.
1 Minn. 164, (Gil. 139;) 2 Minn. 32, (Gil. 22;)
4 Minn. 302, (Gil. 220 et seq.;) 7 Minn. 351,
355, (Gil. 280.)
Ch. 1, § 1.
9 Minn. 82, (Gil. 73;) 19 Minn. 141, (Gil. 107.)
Ch. 1, § 2.
4 Minn. 303, 305, (Gil. 221.)
Ch. 1, § 12.
5 Minn. 418, 421, (Gil. 338, 341.)
Ch. 2, § 7.
2 Minn. 128, (Gil. 103.)
Chs. 7, 8.
24 Minn. 76.
2227
2228
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 9, § 9.
44 Minn. 147.
Ch. 9, § 12.
2 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40.)
Ch. 10.
23 Minn. 311 et seq.
Ch. 10, § 3.
20 Minn. 535, (Gil. 478.)
Ch. 10, § 8.
39 Minn. 225.
Ch. 61, § 1.
9 Minn. 82, (Gil. 73;) 19 Minn. 141, (Gil. 107.)
SESSION LAWS 1854.
Ch. 6, subch. 7, §§ 2, 5.
5 Minn. 101, 102, 104, (Gil. 76, 77, 79.)
Ch. 6, subch. 7, § 6.
2 Minn. 307, (Ğil. 263:) 5 Minn. 118, (Gil. 85.)
Ch. 6, subch. 8, § 26.
5 Miun. 101, (Ğil. 75.)
Ch. 6, subch. 10, § 15.
33 Minn. 182.
Ch. 16, § 16.
5 Minn. 468, (Gil. 378.)
Ch. 21, § 4.
24 Minn. 228.
Ch. 41.
3 Minn. 58, (Gil. 24;) 4 Minn. 305, (Gil. 223;)
22 Minn. 88.
Ch. 42, § 3.
3 Minn. 243, (Gil. 166.)
Ch. 43.
46 Minn. 316.
Ch. 47.
1 Minn. 129, (Gil. 105.)
Ch. 7.
SESSION LAWS 1855.
1 Minn. 439, (Gil. 312;) 28 Minn. 506; 45
Minn. 67.
Ch. 16, §§ 4, 6.
11 Minn. 128, (Gil. 78.)
Ch. 16, §§ 9--25.
3 Minn. 92, (Gil. 44;) 4 Minn. 24, 464, 550,
(Gil. 9, 359, 433;) 5 Minn. 291, (Gil. 230;)
33 Minn. 5.
Ch. 16, § 10.
3 Minn. 154, (Gil. 97.)
Ch. 16, § 22.
1 Minn. 417, (Gil. 302.)
Ch. 24, § 2.
6 Minn. 157, (Gil. 96.)
Ch. 24, § 5.
19 Minn. 508, (Gil. 439.)
Ch. 24, § 6.
15 Minn. 235, (Gil. 181;) 17 Minn. 191. (Gil.
105.)
Ch. 24, § 50.
18 Minn. 440, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 27.
19 Minn 424, (Gil. 368;) 21 Minn. 316.
Ch. 27, § 4.
11 Minn. 529, (Gil. 404;) 39 Minn. 263, 267.
Ch. 27, § 5.
10 Minn. 279, (Gil. 219;) 11 Minn. 529, (Gil.
404.)
Ch. 48, §§ 1-6.
4 Minn. 279--281, (Gil. 198--200.)
Ch. 3.
SESSION LAWS 1856.
2 Minn. 320, 321, (Gil. 274, 276.)
Ch. 5, § 4.
7 Minn. 431, (Gil. 346.)
Ch. 5, § 5.
3 Minn. 321, 331, (Gil. 225, 231.)
Ch. 5, § 11.
2 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40.)
Ch. 5, § 18.
2 Minn. 58, 121, 240, (Gil. 46, 97, 200.)
Ch. 15.
25 Minn. 402.
Ch. 18, § 4.
2 Minn. 65, (Gil. 52.)
Ch. 27, § 15,
5 Minn. 103, (Gil. 78.)
Ch. 27, § 17.
2 Minn. 307, (Gil. 263.)
Ch. 48.
10 Minn. 445, (Gil. 357.)
Ch. 71.
4 Minn. 331, (Gil. 246.)
Ch. 71, § 5.
40 Minn. 136.
Ch. 137.
7 Minn. 58, (Gil. 42;) 20 Minn. 301, (Gil.
260;) 26 Minn. 223.
Ch. 137, § 9.
43 Minn. 63.
2229
2230
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 141, § 20.
8 Minn. 279, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 145.
26 Minn. 230.
Joint Resolution No. 1, Hennepin County.
4 Minn. 331, (Gil. 246.)
Memorial 33, p. 368.
7 Minn. 138, (Gil. 82.)
SESSION LAWS 1857.
Ch. 1. (Ex. Sess.)
14 Minn. 300, (Gil. 227;) 18 Minn. 113, (Gil.
98;) 23 Minn. 472 et seq.; 25 Minn. 452; 29
Minn. 209: 34 Minn. 204; 36 Minn. 208,
260, 468; 38 Minn. 263; 47 Minn. 41.
Ch. 1, subch. 1. (Ex. Sess.)
18 Minn. 386, (Gil. 348;) 21 Minn. 340; 35
Minn. 227.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, §§ 1, 2. (Ex. Sess.)
38 Minn. 164.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 3. (Ex Sess.)
13 Minn. 321, (Gil. 294;) 17 Minn. 442, (Gil.
421;) 38 Minn. 164, 420; 39 Minn. 263.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 7. (Ex. Sess.),
10 Minn. 103, (Gil. 77;) 13 Minn. 318--320,
(Gil. 291-293;) 23 Minn. 160; 35 Minn. 133.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 13. (Ex. Sess.)
16 Minn. 277, 280, 281, (Gil. 245, 248;) 17
Minn. 443, 448, (Gil. 421, 426;) 18 Minn.
186, (Gil. 170;) 21 Minn. 124 et seq., 323,
324, 425; 30 Minn. 480.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 16. (Ex. Sess.)
14 Minn. 324, (Gil. 248;) 38 Minn. 164.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 18. (Ex. Sess.)
14 Minn. 324, (Gil. 248;) 21 Minn. 527, 528;
23 Minn. 220, 473; 30 Minn. 312; 32 Minn.
295; 33 Minn. 535; 34 Minn. 204; 38 Minn.
164.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 20. (Ex. Sess.)
38 Minn. 161.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 21. (Ex. Sess.)
24 Minn. 474.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 25. (Ex. Sess.)
19 Minn. 530, (Gil. 460;) 23 Minn. 158.
Ch. 1, subch. 2. (Ex. Sess.)
19 Minn. 424, (Gil. 368.)
Ch. 1, subch. 2, § 2.
11 Minn. 187, 189,
Ch. 1, subch. 2, § 4.
21 Minn. 316, 474,
(Ex. Sess.)
(Gil. 118, 121.)
(Ex. Sess.)
et seq.; 38 Minn. 400.
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
18 Minn. 45, (Gil. 26.)
Ch. 1, subch. 3, §§ 2, 3. (Ex. Sess.)
26 Minn. 295.
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 9. (Ex. Sess.)
21 Minn. 340; 23 Minn. 471, 473; 26 Minn.
295; 38 Minn. 116.
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 10. (Ex. Sess.)
18 Minn. 113, (Gil. 98.)
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 19. (Ex. Sess.)
19 Minn. 520, (Gil. 451.)
Ch. 1, subch. 4, § 11. (Ex. Sess.)
24 Minn. 474,
Ch. 2.
9 Minn. 26, 27, (Gil. 14, 15;) 23 Minn. 171.
Ch. 15. (Ex. Sess.)
19 Minn. 424, (Gil. 368.)
Ch. 16.
18 Minn. 111, (Gil. 97.)
Ch. 17, § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
2 Minn. 307, (Gil. 263 et seq.)
Ch. 18, §§ 1--52. (Ex. Sess.)
52 N. W. 133-135.
Ch. 31, § 5. (Ex. Sess.)
24 Minn. 351.
Ch. 37, § 1.
6 Minn. 157, (Gil. 96.)
Ch. 38. (Ex. Sess.)
11 Minn. 380, (Gil. 275.)
Ch. 39. (Ex. Sess.)
35 Minn. 405.
Ch. 39, § 9.
18 Minn. 261, 263, (Gil. 237, 239;) 19 Minn.
261, (Gil. 220.)
Ch. 39, § 17. (Ex. Sess.)
12 Minn. 144, (Gil. 82.)
Ch. 60. (Ex. Sess.)
22 Minn. 372.
Ch. 62, §§ 10--15. (Ex. Sess.)
25 Minn. 126.
Ch. 65.
18 Minn. 45, (Gil. 26.)
Ch. 65, § 2. (Ex. Sess.)
6 Miun. 157, (Gil. 96;) 18 Minn. 113, (Gil. 98.)
Ch. 71.
10 Minn. 24, 26, (Gil. 9, 10.)
Ch. 71, §§ 1, 7.
18 Minn. 111, (Gil. 97.)
Ch. 80, § 3. (Ex. Sess.)
7 Minn. 397, (Gil. 315;) 11 Minn. 44, (Gil. 23.)
Ch. 93. (Ex. Sess.)
21 Minn. 249.
2231
2232
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1858, (General.)
29 Minn. 557.
Ch. 5, §§ 18, 20.
9 Minn. 219, (Gil. 204, 205.)
Ch. 25, § 7.
2 Minn. 67, (Gil. 54.)
Ch. 35.
Ch. 94.
2 Minn. 172, (Gil. 143.)
Ch. 96.
4 Minu. 42, (Gil. 20;) 41 Minn. 252
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1858, (Special.)
8 Minn. 185, (Gil. 157.)
4 Minn. 301, (Gil. 219;) 7 Minn. 192, 467, Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 11.
(Gil. 134, 375;) 21 Minn. 302.
Ch. 35, § 1.
3 Minn. 59, 61, (Gil. 25, 27.)
Ch. 35, § 8.
2 Minn. 95, (Gil. 76 et seq.)
Ch. 49.
23 Minn. 426.
Ch. 52, § 1.
2 Minn. 271, (Gil. 232;) 5 Minn. 417, (Gil.
337;) 7 Minn. 509, (Gil. 416;) 20 Minn.
193, (Gil. 171;) 24 Minn. 282; 33 Minn.
278.
Ch. 53.
4 Minn. 550, (Gil. 432;) 38 Minn. 273.
Ch. 54.
13 Minn. 482, (Gil. 445;) 44 Minn. 69.
Ch. 54, §§ 17, 19.
38 Minn. 273.
Ch. 55.
13 Minn. 63, (Gil. 55.)
Ch. 60.
22 Minn. 90.
Ch. 61.
4 Minn. 301 et seq., 488, (Gil. 219 et seq., 378;)
8 Minn. 392, (Gil. 349;) 12 Minn. 346, (Gil.
224;) 45 Minn. 347.
Ch. 72.
11 Minn. 187, (Gil. 119;) 14 Minn. 301, (Gil.
227.)
Ch. 75.
2 Minn. 337, (Gil. 288 et seq.;) 20 Minn. 400,
(Gil. 351.)
Ch. 75, art. 15, §§ 9, 10.
2 Minu. 331, 341, (Gil. 282, 293.)
Ch. 75, art. 16, § 5.
2 Minn. 341, (Gil. 293.)
Ch. 75, art. 20.
2 Minn. 340, (Gil. 292.)
Ch. 77.
14 Minn. 421, (Gil. 316.)
Ch. 84.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
9 Minn. 168, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 1, subch. 5, §§ 11, 12.
9 Minn. 217, 219, (Gil. 202, 205.)
Ch. 1, subch. 10, § 25.
9 Minn. 168, (Gil. 155.)
Ch. 1, subch. 10, § 26.
15 Minn. 484, (Gil. 398.)
Ch. 2, subch. 5, § 10.
9 Minn. 216, 218, (Gil. 201, 202.)
Ch. 26.
7
7 Minu. 155, (Gil. 98;) 14 Minn. 234, (Gil.
171.)
Ch. 28.
22 Minn. 120.
Chs. 71, 78, 79.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 100.
23 Minn. 426.
Ch. 104.
10 Minn. 25, 26, (Gil. 10, 11;) 18 Minn. 115,
(Gil. 100.)
Ch. 111.
7 Minn. 397, (Gil. 315.)
Ch. 183.
7 Minn. 155, (Ġil. 98;) 14 Minn. 234, (Gil.
171.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1860, (General.)
7 Minn. 263, (Gil. 203;) 11 Minn. 507, (Gil.
384 et seq.
Ch. 1, § 1.
14 Minn. 255, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 1, § 3.
12 Minn. 397, (Gil. 281;) 17 Minn. 278, (Gil.
254.)
Ch. 1, §§ 9, 11.
14 Minn. 255, 262, (Gil. 187, 193.)
Ch. 1, § 18.
14 Minn. 262, (Gil. 193;) 15 Minn. 415, (Gil.
335.)
2233
2234
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 1, §§ 19--21.
15 Miun. 415, (Gil. 335.)
Ch. 1, §§ 22, 28.
12 Minn. 400, 401, (Gil. 284, 285.)
Ch. 1, § 30.
14 Minn. 262, (Gil. 193.)
Ch. 1, §§ 31, 33, 37.
12 Minn. 400--402, (Gil. 284--286.)
Ch. 1, §§ 42, 43.
14 Minn. 261, (Gil. 193.)
Ch. 1, § 73.
14 Minn. 549, 550, (Gil. 419.)
Ch. 1, § 77.
14 Minn. 258, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 1, § 99.
27 Minn. 453; 45 Minn. 176.
Ch. 1, § 105.
35 Minn. 420.
Ch. 2.
4 Minn. 107, (Gil. 67;) 19 Minn. 217, (Gil.
178.)
Ch. 2, §§ 7, 9.
10 Minn. 375, (Gil. 301.)
Ch. 2, §§ 12, 21, 22.
19 Minn. 217, 218, (Gil. 179.)
Ch. 2, § 25.
10 Minn. 375, (Gil. 301;) 24 Minn. 197.
Ch. 2, § 38.
15 Minn. 254, (Gil. 194;) 24 Minn. 197.
Ch. 2, § 39.
Ch. 3, § 37.
8 Minn. 448, (Gil. 397.)
Ch. 3, §§ 38, 39.
19 Minn. 219, 220, (Gil. 180, 181.)
Ch. 3, §§ 46, 47.
4 Minn. 108, (Gil. 68.)
Ch. 4, art. 1, § 8.
14 Minn. 257, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 4, art. 3, § 4.
34 Minn, 494.
Ch. 14, art. 1, § 1.
12 Minn. 406, (Gil. 290.)
Ch. 14, art. 11, § 3.
31 Minn. 452, 453.
Ch. 15.
6 Minn. 147, 218, (Gil. 90, 140;) 8 Minn. 505,
510, (Gil. 447, 452.)
Ch. 15, art. 1, § 2.
25 Minn. 311; 33 Minn. 520.
Ch. 15, art. 1, § 8.
6 Minn. 148, (Gil. 91.)
Ch. 15, art. 2, § 7.
6 Minn. 148, (Gil. 91;) 19 Minn. 220, (Gil.
181.)
Ch. 15, art. 2, § 22.
6 Minn. 218, (Gil. 140;) 14 Minn. 257, 550,
(Gil. 188, 418.)
Ch. 15, art. 2, § 23.
12 Minn. 406, 407, (Gil. 289--291.)
15 Minn. 254, (Gil. 194;) 19 Minn. 218, (Gil. Ch. 18, § 49 et seq.
180.)
Ch. 2, § 40.
19 Minn. 218, (Gil. 180.)
Ch. 3.
4 Minn. 107, (Gil. 67;) 6 Minn. 147, (Gil. 90;)
19 Minn. 217, 220, (Gil. 179, 181.)
Ch. 3, §§ 7, 8.
19 Minn. 217, 218, (Gil. 179, 180.)
Ch. 3, § 9.
4 Minn. 107, (Gil. 68;) 14 Minn. 264, (Gil.
195;) 19 Minn. 218, (Gil. 180.)
Ch. 3, § 12.
19 Minn. 217, (Gil. 179.)
Ch. 3, §§ 21, 24.
4 Minn. 107, (Gil. 68.)
Ch. 3, § 30.
19 Minn. 494, (Gil. 426.)
Ch. 31, §§ 4, 5.
11 Minn. 353, 355, (Gil. 251, 253.)
Ch. 33.
5 Minn. 485, (Gil. 388;) 8 Minn. 356, (Gil
315;) 21 Minn. 191.
Ch. 33, §§ 2, 3.
14 Minn. 230, 232, (Gil. 168, 170.)
Ch. 37.
5 Minn. 33, (Gil. 18.)
Ch. 38, §§ 4, 5.
15 Minn. 243, 244, (Gil. 188, 189.)
Ch. 48.
6 Minn. 271, 556, (Gil. 180, 392;) 9 Minn. 89,
(Gil. 78;) 12 Minn. 39, (Gil. 14;) 13 Minn.
365, (Gil. 338.)
4 Minn. 107, (Gil. 68;) 19 Minn. 218, 220, (Gil. Ch. 49.
180, 181.)
Ch. 3, §§ 33, 34.
19 Minn. 220, (Gil. 181.)
9 Minn. 81, (Gil. 70.)
Ch. 56, § 1.
15 Minn. 423, (Gil. 342.)
2235
2236
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 60.
25 Minn. 208.
Ch. 66.
13 Minn. 63, (Gil. 55.)
Ch. 69.
Ch. 87, § 3.
7 Minn. 54, (Gil. 38;) 16 Minn. 49, (Gil. 36;)
21 Minn. 149.
Ch. 91, § 51.
11 Minn. 88, (Gil. 53.)
8 Minn. 308, 454, (Gil. 271, 403;) 13 Minn. Ch. 95.
300, (Gil. 277.)
Ch. 70.
7 Minn. 520, (Gil. 425;) 21 Minn. 304; 23
Minn. 438; 38 Minn. 304.
9 Minn. 61, 245, (Gil. 50, 231;) 10 Minn. 397, Ch. 95, § 1.
(Gil. 316.)
Ch. 70, § 1.
5 Minn. 349, (Gil. 281;) 9 Minn. 59, (Gil. 50.)
Ch. 70, §§ 2, 3.
12 Minn. 574, (Gil. 494;) 16 Minn. 524, (Gil.
471;) 30 Minn. 85.
SESSION LAWS 1860, (Special.)
5 Minn. 351, (Gil. 282;) 9 Minn. 245, (Gil. Ch. 1, subch. 8.
231.)
Ch. 70, § 7.
5 Minn. 473, (Gil. 382;) 12 Minn. 284, (Gil.
184.)
12 Minn. 284, (Gil. 184.)
Ch. 70, § 8.
Ch. 70, § 10.
9 Minn. 61, (Gil. 50.)
Ch. 70, § 12.
5 Minn. 348, (Gil. 280.)
Ch. 70, § 13.
10 Minn. 167, (Gil. 135;) 15 Minn. 243, (Gil.
188.)
Ch. 70, § 14.
15 Minn. 243, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 70, § 18.
5 Minn. 473, (Gil. 382.)
Ch. 70, § 24.
15 Minn. 243, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 70, §§ 27, 28.
10 Minn. 167, (Gil. 135.)
Ch. 70, § 32.
15 Minn. 244, (Gil. 188.)
Ch. 72.
14 Minn. 161, 162, (Gil. 124, 125.)
Ch. 82.
11 Minn. 188, (Gil. 120;) 14 Minn. 302, 303,
(Gil. 228, 230.)
Ch. $7.
4 Minn. 488, 494, (Gil. 378, 384, 385;) 5 Minn.
279, (Gil. 220;) 8 Minn. 391, 392, (Gil. 348,
349.)
Ch. 87, § 1.
21 Minn. 149, 321.
Ch. 87, § 2.
4 Minn. 490, (Gil. 380;) 12 Miun. 346, (Gil.
225.)
11 Minn. 325, (Gil. 227, 229.)
Ch. 40.
10 Minn. 434, 436, (Gil. 346 et seq.)
SESSION LAWS 1861, (General.)
Ch. 1, § 2 et seq.
11 Minn. 507, (Gil. 384 et seq.;) 12 Minn.
397, 400, (Gil. 282, 284.)
Chs. 2, 3.
19 Minn. 217, 219, (Gil. 179, 180.)
Ch. 6, § 2.
6 Minn. 219, (Gil. 140;) 14 Minn. 257. 550,
(Gil. 188, 419.)
Ch. 11.
10 Minn. 348, (Gil. 274.)
Ch. 11, §§ 1, 2.
10 Minn. 446, (Gil. 358.)
Ch. 11, § 5.
7 Minn. 210, (Gil. 151.)
Ch. 11, §§ 37-39.
14 Minn. 258, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 14.
12 Minn. 473, (Gil. 376.)
Ch. 15, § 31.
9 Minn. 236, (Gil. 221 et seq.;) 23 Minu. 446
et seq.
Ch. 15, § 43.
10 Minn. 111, (Gil. 83.)
Ch. 15, § 45.
9 Minn. 288, (Gil. 272.)
Ch. 15, § 49.
9 Minn. 236, (Gil. 221 et seq.)
Ch. 15, § 51.
10 Minn. 115, (Gil. 87.)
Ch. 15, § 52.
1
9 Minn. 236, 237, (Gil. 221, 222;) 23 Minn.
446 et seq.
2237
2238
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 15, § 56.
10 Minn. 110, (Gil. 82.)
Ch. 15, § 74.
19 Minn. 494, (Gil. 426.)
Ch. 19.
25 Minn. 208.
Ch. 21.
9 Minn. 153, (Gil. 143.)
Ch. 22.
11 Minn. 276, (Gil. 189;) 12 Minn. 162, (Gil.
97;) 34 Minn. 371; 50 N. W. 1037.
Ch. 22, § 1.
10 Minn. 172, (Gil. 139;) 11 Minn. 382, (Gil.
277.)
Ch. 25.
6 Minn. 570, (Gil. 405.)
Ch. 36.
Ch. 4, § 5.
11 Minn. 488, 489, (Gil. 366, 367;) 15 Minn.
482, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 4, § 6.
10 Minn. 70, (Gil. 50;) 11 Minn. 488. 492,
(Gil. 366, 369;) 45 Minn. 70.
Ch. 4, § 7.
10 Minn. 60, 70, (Gil. 42, 50;) 11 Minn. 490,
492, (Gil. 367, 369;) 13 Minn. 452, 453, (Gil.
421, 422.)
Ch. 4, § 9.
10 Minn. 296, (Gil. 234;) 11 Minn. 490, 492,
(Gil. 368, 369.)
Ch. 6, § 4.
8 Minn. 465, (Gil. 415;) 19 Minn. 76, (Gil. 50.)
Ch. 8.
13 Minn. 442, (Gil: 406.)
8 Minn. 357, (Gil. 316;) 18 Minn. 530, (Gil. Ch. 8. § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
474;) 32 Minn. 437.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1861, (Special.)
17 Minn. 331, (Gil. 307;) 21 Minn. 251.
Ch. 1, § 10.
38 Minn. 235.
Ch. 1, § 16.
38 Minn. 416.
Ch. 5, §§ 1-4.
14 Minn. 305, 306, (Gil. 231, 232.)
Ch. 16.
34 Minn. 494.
Ch. 20.
8 Minn. 369, 370, (Gil. 328, 329.)
Ch. 20, § 3.
7 Minu. 397, (Gil. 315.)
Ch. 37.
14 Minn. 78, (Gil. 60.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1862, (General.)
10 Minn. 349, (Gil. 275.)
Ch. 4.
10 Minn. 60, 70, (Gil. 42, 50;) 13 Minn. 452,
(Gil. 421;) 14 Minn. 421, (Gil. 316;) 37
Minu. 114; 45 Minn. 67.
Ch. 4, 88 1, 2.
11 Minn. 488, (Gil. 366;) 15 Minn. 481, 482.
(Gil. 395, 397.)
Ch. 4, §§ 3, 4.
15 Minn. 481, 482, (Gil. 396.)
14 Minn. 259, (Gil. 190.)
Ch. 8, § 2. (Ex. Sess.)
12 Minn. 129, (Gil. 73.)
Ch. 11.
7 Minn. 15, 27, 31, (Gil. 3, 12, 17;) 8 Minn.
117, (Gil. 91.)
Ch. 14.
12 Minn. 543, (Gil. 455.)
Ch. 15.
11 Minn. 274, (Gil. 187.)
Ch. 16.
9 Minn. 73, (Gil. 62.)
Ch. 18.
10 Minn. 373, (Gil. 298.)
Ch. 19.
41 Minn. 253.
Ch. 19, § 3.
47 Minn. 417, 419, 421.
Ch. 19, § 4.
7 Minn. 174, (Gil. 117;) 14 Minn. 292, (Gil.
219.)
Ch. 19, § 5.
21 Minn. 322; 45 Minn. 348.
Ch. 19, § 7.
7 Minn. 174, (Gil. 117.)
Ch. 24.
20 Minn. 320, (Gil. 275.).
Ch. 27.
11 Minn. 382, 383, (Gil. 277, 278;) 12 Minn.
577, 581, (Gil. 497, 503;) 14 Minn. 480, (Gil.
357;) 16 Minn. 240, 484, 486, (Gil. 206, 438,
439;) 17 Minn. 71, (Gil. 48;) 22 Minn. 382;
35 Minn. 541; 38 Minn. 362; 45 Minn. 232.
2239
2240
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 86.
22 Minn. 373.
Ch. 29.
10 Minn. 241, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 38.
23 Minn. 171.
Ch. 39.
18 Minn. 530, (Gil. 474.)
Ch. 41.
9 Minn. 100, (Gil. 89;) 14 Minn. 166, (Gil.
128.)
Ch. 41, § 2.
8 Minn. 83, (Gil. 58;) 9 Minn. 100, (Gil. 90;)
14 Minn. 231, (Gil. 169.)
Ch. 67.
Ch. 5.
SESSION LAWS 1863, (General.)
13 Minn. 452, (Gil. 421.)
Ch. 13.
31 Minn. 453.
Ch. 31.
10 Minn. 80, (Gil. 57.)
Ch. 41.
11 Minn. 443, 445, (Gil. 326, 328.)
10 Minn. 131, (Gil. 104;) 12 Minn. 406, 407, Ch. 58.
(Gil. 290.)
Ch. 68, § 1.
10 Minn. 131, (Gil. 104.)
Ch. 68, § 6.
10 Minn. 241, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 71.
8 Minn. 132, (Gil. 103.)
SESSION LAWS 1862, (Special.)
Ch. 1, subch. 5, § 1.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 2.
14 Minn. 258, (Gil. 190.)
Ch. 17, §§ 1-4.
11 Minn. 416, (Gil. 304 et seq.)
Ch. 17, § 6.
21 Minn. 340; 38 Minn. 116.
Ch. 19.
+
:
23 Minn. 92.
Ch. 3.
SESSION LAWS 1863, (Special.)
29 Minn. 210.
Ch. 4.
23 Minn. 158; 24 Minn, 576; 34 Minn. 204.
Ch. 6. subch. 6, § 1.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 9.
14 Minn. 259, 260, (Gil. 191.)
Ch. 20.
10 Minn. 110, (Gil. 82.)
Ch. 24.
16 Minn. 257, (Gil. 231.)
SESSION LAWS 1864, (General.)
11 Minn. 190, 252, (Gil. 122 et seq., 167;) 19 Ch. 5, § 4.
Minn. 424, (Gil. 368.)
Ch. 19, § 4.
11 Minn. 535, (Gil. 407, 410.)
Ch. 20.
14 Minn. 307, (Gil. 233;) 18 Minn. 31, 36,
(Gil. 13, 17;) 19 Minn. 530, (Gil. 460;) 23
Minn. 147 et seq.; 34 Minn. 204; 35 Minn.
228; 36 Minn. 468.
Ch. 20. § 7.
22 Minn. 12.
Ch. 20, § 8.
27 Minn. 218.
Ch. 27.
14 Minn. 258, (Gil. 190.)
Ch. 56.
19 Minn. 104, 105, (Gil. 74, 75;) 26 Minn. 21.
Ch. 63.
10 Minn. 28, (Gil. 13.).
13 Minn. 452, 453, (Gil. 421, 422.)
Ch. 11.
12 Minn. 130, (Gil. 74;) 14 Minn. 259, (Gil.
190.)
Ch. 16, § 18.
14 Minn. 258, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 23.
33 Minn. 520.
Ch. 41.
10 Minn. 410, (Gil. 326;) 11 Minn. 160, (Gil.
101;) 18 Minn. 521, (Gil. 465.)
Ch. 42, § 1.
47 Minn. 581, 585.
Ch. 42, § 3.
11 Minn. 234, (Gil. 153.)
Ch. 45.
11 Minn. 407, 408, (Gil. 300.).
2241
2242
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
34 Minn. 184.
19 Minn. 130, (Gil. 97;) 24 Minn. 289; 30/ Ch. 15.
Minn. 112.
Ch. 52.
13 Minn. 63, (Gil. 55.)
Ch. 55.
14 Minn. 319, 321, (Gil. 243, 245;) 19 Minn.
532, (Gil. 462.)
SESSION LAWS 1864, (Special.)
Ch. 1, subch. 1, §§ 3. 4.
18 Minn. 42, 46, 51, 54, (Gil. 23, 26, 32, 34.)
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 5.
21 Minn. 345, 350.
Ch. 1, subch. 1, § 14.
21 Minn. 31.
Ch. 1, subch. 2.
35 Minn. 223.
Ch. 1, subch. 2, § 1.
26 Minn. 295.
Ch. 1, subch. 2, § 2.
19 Minn. 508, 516, 521, (Gil. 439, 447, 451;)
22 Minn. 10.
Ch. 1, subch. 2, § 3.
23 Minn. 474.
Ch. 2.
21 Minn. 340; 36 Minn. 260.
Ch. 2, § 20.
Ch. 15, § 4.
35 Minn. 224.
Ch. 15, § 5.
40 Minn. 361, 366; 41 Minn. 453, 460.
Ch. 16.
13 Minn. 481, (Gil. 445.)
Ch. 20.
13 Minn. 155, (Gil. 142.)
Ch. 22.
13 Minn. 522, (Gil. 490;) 25 Minn. 46.
Ch. 24.
14 Minn. 231, 232, (Gil. 169, 170.)
Ch. 24, § 1.
13 Minn. 175, 177, (Gil. 167, 168;) 14 Miun.
166, (Gil. 127.)
Ch. 51.
14 Minn. 421, (Gil. 316.)
Ch. 53
12 Minn. 130, (Gil. 74.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1865, (Special.)
18 Minn. 42, 57, (Gil. 23, 37.)
Ch. 3, §§ 1--4.
45 Minn. 105, 108, 109.
13 Minn. 513, (Gil. 476;) 15 Minn. 235, (Gil. Ch. 5.
181.)
Ch. 3.
34 Minn. 205.
Ch. 3, §§ 1, 2.
14 Minn. 315, (Gil. 240.)
Ch. 3, § 3.
23 Minn. 158.
Ch. 3, § 7.
23 Minn. 150.
Ch. 6.
13 Minn. 39, (Gil. 26.)
Ch. 6, subch. 6, § 1.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 6, subch. 6, § 5.
21 Minn. 340; 23 Minn. 474; 33 Minn. 541.
Ch. 5, § 1.
38 Minn. 116.
Ch. 6.
19 Minn. 531, (Gil. 461;) 23 Minn. 159. 162,
et seq., 220, 474; 25 Minn. 412; 29 Minn.
214; 34 Minn. 204; 36 Minn. 208, 469, 471.
Ch. 6, § 1.
23 Minn. 150.
Ch. 6, § 2.
18 Minn. 36, 37, (Gil. 17, 18;) 23 Minn. 151.
Ch. 6, § 8.
18 Minn. 37, (Gil. 18.)
Ch. 7.
23 Minn. 474.
}
28 Minn. 196.
Ch. 18, §§ 1, 8.
11 Minn. 322, 323, 325, (Gil. 226--228.)
SESSION LAWS 1865, (General.)
Ch. 5.
24 Minn. 578.
Ch. 8.
32 Minn. 298.
Ch. 8, § 1.
39 Minn. 25.
Ch. 9.
14 Minn. 325, (Gil. 249;) 34 Minn. 205; 36
Minn. 469, 471, 472.
V.2M.DIG.-71
2243
2244
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 10.
21 Minn. 316; 23 Minn. 474.
Ch. 10, § 4.
11 Minn. 532, (Gil. 407 et seq.)
Ch. 11, subch. 5, § 15.
18 Minn. 314, (Ġil. 283.)
Ch. 12, §§ 5, 10.
19 Minn. 328, 330, 332, (Gil. 283, 285, 286.)
Ch. 13, § 11.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 16, §§ 5, 7.
12 Minn. 46, 50, (Gil. 18, 21.)
Ch. 40.
14 Minn. 259, (Gil. 191.)
Ch. 61.
24 Minn. 76.
Ch. 67.
32 Minn. 517.
Ch. 79.
14 Minn. 421, (Gil. 316.)
Ch. 3.
SESSION LAWS 1866, (General.)
13 Minn. 441, (Gil. 405.)
Ch. 3, §§ 1, 2.
39 Minn. 110.
Ch. 6.
24 Minn. 149.
Ch. 10.
24 Minn. 279.
Ch. 23.
12 Minn. 211, (Gil. 133;) 18 Minn. 517, (Gil.
462;) 22 Minn. 143.
Ch. 26, § 1.
17 Minn. 418, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1866, (Special.)
14 Minn. 316 et seq., (Gil. 241;) 18 Minn. 3C,
(Gil. 17;) 29 Minn. 215; 36 Minn. 469.
Ch. 8.
36 Minn. 261.
Ch. 9.
19 Minn. 424, 433, (Gil. 368, 376.)
Ch. 12, § 4.
22 Minn. 26.
Ch. 12, § 7.
19 Minn. 261, (Gil. 220.)
Ch. 12, § 15.
36 Minn. 263.
Ch. 18, subch. 5, § 8.
20 Minn. 400, (Ġil. 351.)
Chs. 76--78.
16 Minn. 257, (Gil. 231.)
Ch. 90.
23 Minn. 131.
Ch. 111.
19 Minn. 105, (Gil. 75;) 26 Minn. 21.
SESSION LAWS 1867, (General.)
Ch. 3, § 1.
17 Minn. 418, (Gil. 396.)
Ch. 12.
24 Minn. 149.
Ch. 30, § 4.
25 Minn. 124.
Ch. 49.
39 Minn. 110.
Ch. 62, § 3.
18 Minn. 95, (Gil. 78.)
Ch. 63.
13 Minn. 262, (Gil. 245.)
Ch. 64.
21 Minn. 223; 22 Minn. 115.
Ch. 66, § 1.
13 Minn. 423, (Gil. 391;) 18 Minn. 542, (Gil.
486;) 20 Minn. 441, (Gil. 393.)
Ch. 66, § 3.
15 Minn. 487, (Gil. 402;) 18 Minn. 543, (Gil
486.)
Ch. 67, § 1.
17 Minn. 182, (Gil. 156.)
Ch. 67, § 3.
12 Minn. 421, (Gil. 306.)
Ch. 67, § 4.
15 Minn. 487, (Gil. 402;) 22 Minn. 116.
Ch. 72.
15 Minn. 184, (Gil. 141;) 16 Minn. 231, 460.
(Gil. 203, 413;) 22 Minn. 81.
Ch. 72, § 1.
15 Minn. 64, (Gil. 45;) 31 Minn. 245.
Ch. 72, § 2.
14 Minn. 172, (Gil. 132;) 16 Minn. 448, (Gil.
404;) 20 Minn. 434, (Gil. 388;) 25 Minn.
185.
Ch. 76.
14 Minn. 521. (Gil. 392.)
:
2245
2246
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 81.
14 Minn. 445, (Gil. 331;) 16 Mian. 57, (Gil.
45.)
Ch. 86.
16 Minn. 113, (Gil. 103.)
Ch 112.
16 Minn. 287, (Gil. 251.)
Ch. 112, § 1.
13 Minn. 344, (Gil. 318;) 17 Minn. 81, (Gil.
59;) 18 Minn. 92, (Gil. 74.)
Ch. 112, §§ 2--4, 8.
13 Minn. 345, 346, (Gil. 319, 320.)
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1867, (Special.)
29 Minn. 215; 34 Minn. 204.
Ch. 1, § 1.
19 Minn. 530, (Gil. 460.,
Ch. 8.
21 Minn. 342; 36 Minn. 261.
Ch. 9, § 4.
36 Minn. 263.
Ch. 11, § 19.
36 Minn. 263.
Ch. 13.
29 Minn. 215.
Ch. 17.
23 Minn. 427.
Ch. 19, subch. 1, § 1.
19 Minn. 210, (Gil. 173.)
Ch. 19, subch. 3.
16 Minn. 412, (Gil. 370.)
Ch. 19, subch. 3, §§ 8, 14, 15, 17, 18.
19 Miun. 210, 211, (Gil. 173, 174.)
Ch. 19, subch. 5, § 2.
17 Minn. 313, (Gil. 289;) 19 Minn. 211, (Gil.
173.)
Ch. 19, subch. 5, § 8.
20 Minn. 400, (Gil. 351.)
Ch. 19, subch. 6, § 1.
Ch. 20, subch. 4, § 2.
43 Miun. 528.
Ch. 21.
34 Minn. 62; 42 Minn. 321.
Ch. 21, subch. 5, § 1.
19 Minn. 112, (Gil. 81;) 24 Minn. 249.
Ch. 21, subch. 9, § 5.
19 Minn. 109, (Gil. 79.)
Ch. 31, §§ 1--5.
19 Minn. 329, (Gil. 283, 284.)
Ch. 66, § 46.
52 N. W. 134, 135.
Ch. 84.
16 Minn. 317, (Gil. 280.)
Ch. 95, §§ 1, 3, 7.
16 Minn. 250, 251, (Gil. 225.)
Ch. 134.
42 Minn. 533.
Ch. 134, § 10.
34 Minn. 82.
Ch. 134, § 11.
34 Minn. 83.
Ch. 134, § 13.
22 Minn. 374; 30 Minn. 478.
Ch. 134, § 14.
34 Minn. 83.
Ch. 134, § 17.
3
22 Minn. 373.
Ch. 18.
SESSION LAWS 1868, (Ġeneral.)
24 Minn. 149.
Ch. 22.
36 Minn. 436.
Ch. 22, § 7.
17 Minn. 129, 141, (Gil. 103, 114.)
Ch. 44, § 1.
16 Minn. 71, (Gil. 60.)
17 Minn. 312, (Gil. 288;) 19 Minn. 301, (Gil. Ch. 46, § 1.
259.)
Ch. 19, subch. 6, § 2.
19 Minn. 211, 301, (Gil. 173, 259.)
Ch. 19, subch. 8, §§ 1, 5.
19 Minn. 301, (Gil. 259.)
Ch. 19, subch. 9, § 1.
19 Minn. 211, (Gil. 174.)
Ch. 20, subch. 4.
23 Minn. 11; 24 Minn. 64.
20 Minn. 365, 366, (Gil. 315, 317.)
Ch. 46, § 14.
32 Minn. 463.
Ch. 46, § 15.
20 Minn. 365, 366, (Gil. 316, 317.)
Ch. 48, § 2.
25 Minn. 124.
Ch. 48, § 3.
18 Minn. 62, (Gil. 41.)
2247
2248
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 58.
23 Minn. 438; 38 Minn. 304.
Ch. 60, §§ 1, 2.
14 Minn. 403, (Gil. 304, 305.)
Ch. 61.
24 Minn. 165.
Ch. 62.
18 Minn. 93, (Gil. 76.)
Ch. 70.
SESSION LAWS 1868, (Special.)
Pages 69, 70.
26 Minn. 511.
Ch. 2.
18 Minn. 59, (Gil. 39.)
Ch. 5.
36 Minn. 261.
Ch. 8.
21 Minn. 252, 291.
14 Minn. 41, 116, 117, (Gil. 32, 85, 86;) 16 Ch. 11.
Minn. 298, (Gil. 262;) 43 Minn. 327.
Ch. 70, § 1.
14 Minn. 124, (Gil. 92.)
Ch. 71.
18 Minn. 399, (Gil. 359.)
Ch. 73, § 1.
13 Minn. 367, (Gil. 340;) 14 Minn. 527, (Gil.
399.)
Ch. 74.
44 Minn. 99.
Ch. 75.
31 Minn. 542.
Ch. 76.
16 Minn. 492, (Gil. 445;) 17 Minn. 476, (Gil.
454.)
Ch. 80.
16 Minn. 383, (Gil. 341;) 35 Minn. 462.
Ch. 83.
16 Minn. 463, (Gil. 416.)
Ch. 84, § 1.
15 Minn. 103, (Gil. 78.)
Ch. 86.
13 Minn. 373, (Gil. 345;) 25 Minn. 34.
Ch. 88.
13 Minn. 373, 377, (Gil. 345, 350;) 22 Minn.
515, 525.
Ch. 88, § 4.
13 Minn. 379, (Gil. 350.)
Ch. 89.
14 Minn. 553, (Gil. 422;) 15 Minn. 189, (Gil.
145;) 20 Minn. 419, (Gil. 373.)
Ch. 90.
15 Minn. 488, (Gil. 402.)
Ch. 93.
14 Minn. 219, 462, (Gil. 157, 345;) 18 Minn.
221, (Gil. 201;) 24 Minn. 96.
Ch. 93, § 2.
20 Minn. 61, (Gil. 47;) 23 Minn. 159.
Ch. 14.
23 Minn. 155.
Ch. 15.
•
25 Minn. 411.
Ch. 20.
18 Minn. 485, (Gil. 434.)
Ch. 24.
23 Minn. 425.
Ch. 26.
16 Minn. 103, 477, (Gil. 93, 432;) 17 Minn.
75, (Gil. 53.)
Ch. 26, subch. 3, § 9.
20 Minn. 125, (Gil. 109.)
Ch. 26, subch. 4, § 1, subds. 3, 35.
16 Minn. 477, (Gil. 432.)
Ch. 26, subch. 4, § 3.
16 Minn. 477, (Gil. 432;) 19 Minn. 268, 391,
(Gil. 227, 337;) 21 Minn. 422.
Ch. 26, subch. 7, § 1.
20 Minn. 118, (Gil. 103.)
Ch. 26, subch. 8, § 12.
22 Minn. 528; 33 Minn. 182.
Ch. 26, subch. 11, § 18.
16 Minn. 477, (Gil. 432.)
Ch. 27.
21 Minn. 67.
Ch. 27, subch. 4.
36 Minn. 64.
Ch. 27, subch. 4, § 3.
32 Minn. 365.
Ch. 27, subch. 6, § 1.
45 Minn. 79.
Ch. 28, § 10.
16 Minn. 57, (Gil. 45.)
Ch. 36, § 24.
34 Minn. 419; 37 Minn. 27.
17 Minn. 45, (Gil. 26;) 19 Minn. 478, 480, (Gil. Ch. 102.
412, 414.)
18 Minn. 201, (Gil. 184.)
2249
2250
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 120.
22 Minn. 375; 46 Minn. 217.
Ch. 20.
SESSION LAWS 1869, (General.)
15 Minn. 219, (Gil. 170.)
Ch. 22.
23 Minn. 370.
Ch. 23.
22 Minn. 62; 30 Minn. 276; 31 Minn. 361.
Ch. 26.
22 Minn. 145.
Ch. 26, § 1.
44 Minn. 485.
Ch. 28.
24 Minn. 16.
Ch. 51.
22 Minn. 494, 506.
Ch. 56, § 1.
22 Minn. 32.
Ch. 56, § 2.
20 Minn. 224, (Gil. 203;) 51 N. W. 380, 381.
Ch. 56, § 3.
23 Minn. 340, 341; 51 N. W. 380, 381.
Ch. 56, § 4.
24 Minn. 173; 51 N. W. 380, 381.
Ch. 57.
51 N. W. 380, 381.
Ch. 58.
22 Minn. 566.
Ch. 63.
20 Minn. 238, (Gil. 214.)
Ch. 64.
19 Minn. 281, (Gil. 238;) 24 Minn. 60.
Ch. 70.
14 Minn. 528, (Gil. 399;) 16 Minn. 463, (Gil.
416;) 22 Minn. 560.
Ch. 73.
44 Minn. 98.
Ch. 74.
15 Minn. 245, (Gil. 189.)
Ch. 75.
17 Minn. 461, (Gil. 440;) 25 Minn. 209.
Ch. 79.
15 Minn. 229, (Gii. 178;) 28 Minn. 41.
Ch. 83.
15 Minn. 40, (Gil. 22.)
Ch. 85.
25 Minn. 550.
! Ch. 96.
19 Minn. 107, (Gil. 77.)
Ch. 2.
SESSION LAWS 1869, (Special.)
26 Minn. 176.
Ch. 34.
22 Minn. 438, 440; 24 Minn. 80.
Ch. 35.
20 Minn. 55, (Gil. 41;) 23 Minn. 156.
Ch. 41.
25 Minn. 411.
Ch. 44.
23 Minn. 425.
Ch. 46.
23 Minn. 522.
Ch. 50.
26 Minn. 296; 41 Minn. 453.
Ch. 56.
45 Minn. 105.
Ch. 61, § 4.
23 Minn. 426.
Ch. 75.
33 Minn. 28.
Ch. 83.
15 Minn. 201, 202, (Gil. 157.)
Ch. 110.
18 Minn. 61, (Gil. 40.)
Ch. 117, § 2.
23 Minn. 312 et seq.
Ch. 120, § 5.
17 Minn. 166, (Gil. 139.)
Ch. 136, § 2.
24 Minn. 351.
Ch. 32.
SESSION LAWS 1870, (General.)
23 Minn. 141.
Ch. 33.
34 Minn. 554, 556.
Ch. 53, § 1.
21 Minn. 338.
Ch. 56.
33 Minn. 27.
Ch. 57.
51 N. W. 614.
Ch. 58.
21 Minn. 103.
2251
2252
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 59.
23 Minn. 184; 25 Minn. 84.
Ch. 60.
17 Minn. 468, (Gil. 446;) 20 Minn. 266, 457,
(Gil. 238, 412;) 21 Minn. 524; 24 Minn.
361; 39 Minn. 42.
Ch. 63.
33 Minn. 221.
Ch. 64.
16 Minn. 511, (Gil. 461.)
Ch. 65.
34 Minn. 503.
Ch. 74.
18 Minn. 81, (Gil. 64;) 19 Minn. 408, 409,
(Gil. 353, 354.)
Ch. 76.
16 Minn. 473, (Gil. 424;) 21 Minn. 463.
Ch. 76, § 1.
19 Minn. 94, (Gil. 65;) 23 Minn. 29, 32, 367.
Ch. 76, § 2.
24 Minn. 175.
Ch. 79.
18 Minn. 313, (Gil. 283.)
Ch. 88, § 7.
22 Minn. 242.
Ch. 73, § 3.
19 Minn. 503, (Gil. 435;) 23 Minn. 127; 24
Minn. 312.
Ch. 75, § 6.
23 Minn. 428.
Ch. 100.
20 Minn. 75, (Gil. 61;) 22 Minn. 366, 369.
Ch. 142.
18 Minn. 63, (Gil. 42.)
Ch. 143.
16 Minn. 377, (Gil. 336.)
Ch. 17.
SESSION LAWS 1871, (General.)
22 Minn. 362.
Ch. 24.
19 Minn. 423, 439, (Gil. 367, 381.)
Ch. 26.
23 Minn. 25.
Ch. 28.
23 Minn. 478.
Ch. 30.
37 Minn. 535.
Ch. 34, § 1.
Ch. 1.
22 Minn. 271.
SESSION LAWS 1870, (Special.)
Ch. 52.
21 Minn. 524;
39 Minn. 41;
23 Minn. 330; 32 Minn. 462;
40 Minn. 480.
22 Minn. 219, 365.
Ch. 57.
Ch. 3, subch. 2, § 1.
38 Minn. 333.
Ch. 61.
24 Minn. 23.
21 Minn. 24.
Ch. 3, subch. 4, §§ 2, 6.
22 Minn. 118, 120.
Ch. 3, § 14.
21 Minn. 24.
Ch. 13, § 3.
21 Minn. 512.
Ch. 20, § 5.
16 Minn. 477, (Gil. 432;) 17 Minn. 75, (Gil.
53.)
Ch. 49.
23 Minn. 425.
Ch. 57.
32 Minn. 174.
Ch. 57, § 4.
28 Minn. 491; 29 Minn. 319.
Ch. 65, § 1.
32 Minn, 296; 39 Minn. 25.
Ch. 73.
23 Minn. 127; 24 Minn. 314.
Ch. 67.
25 Minn. 513.
Ch. 90.
20 Minn. 388, (Gil. 339;) 27 Minn. 25.
Ch. 32.
SESSION LAWS 1871, (Special.)
20 Minn. 515 et seq., (Gil. 461 et seq.;) 22
Minn. 506; 23 Minn. 134, 136.
Ch. 32, §§ 36--39.
25 Minn. 97.
Ch. 64.
18 Minn. 157, (Gil. 141.)
Ch. 71, § 1.
28 Minn. 444, 491, 492.
Ch. 92, §§ 1, 4--7.
18 Minn. 275, 276, (Gil. 251, 252.)
2253
2254
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITEI), ETC.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1872, (General.)
36 Minn. 436.
Ch. 1, tit. 3, 8 28.
Ch. 10, subch. 8, § 8.
33 Minn. 462.
Ch. 11, subch. 2, § 11.
20 Minn. 403, (Gil. 353.)
19 Minn. 268, 270, (Gil. 227, 229;) 21 Minn. Ch. 11, subch. 3, §§ 3, 4.
422.
Ch. 16.
24 Minn. 149.
Ch. 25.
22 Minn. 8; 25 Minn. 329.
Ch. 25, §§ 1, 2.
22 Minn. 13; 24 Minn. 403.
Ch. 25, § 4.
27 Minn. 113.
Ch. 39.
23 Minn. 88.
Ch. 53.
32 Minn. 203.
Ch. 54, § 1.
20 Minn. 137, 138, (Gil. 121.)
Ch. 57.
23 Minn. 449.
34 Minn. 255, 257.
Ch. 11, subch. 5, § 2.
23 Minn. 169.
Ch. 11, subch. 6, § 3.
20 Minn. 397, (Ğil. 348.)
Ch. 11, subch. 9, § 8.
20 Minn. 402, (Gil. 353.)
Ch. 16.
26 Minn. 301.
Ch. 36.
26 Minn. 177.
Ch. 93, § 2.
36 Minn. 265, 267.
Ch. 106.
32 Minn. 415; 33 Minn. 288; 34 Minn. 245;
35 Minn. 156.
Ch. 112.
37 Minn. 262.
Ch. 59.
24 Minn. 460.
Ch. 177.
43 Minn. 140.
Ch. 61.
23 Minn. 82, 549.
Ch. 197.
Ch. 62.
25 Minn. 85.
Ch. 66.
24 Minn. 96.
Ch. 72.
23 Minn. 300.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1872, (Special.)
21 Minn. 305.
Ch. 2.
22 Minn. 506.
Ch. 2, § 4.
23 Minn. 134.
Ch. 2, §§ 9, 16.
25 Minn. 97, 99.
Ch. 2, §§ 17, 18.
23 Minn. 136.
Ch. 4, § 3.
21 Minn. 205.
Ch. 10.
25 Minn. 344.
Ch. 209.
20 Minn. 388, 389, (Gil. 339, 340.)
Ch. 5.
SESSION LAWS 1873, (General.)
23 Minn. 372; 26 Minn. 78.
Ch. 5, §§ 9, 14, 20--23.
20 Minn. 400, 403, (Gil. 351, 353, 354.)
Ch. 5, § 41.
23 Minn. 536.
Ch. 5, § 47.
51 N. W. 607.
Ch. 5, §§ 55, 56.
22 Minn. 358, 359.
Ch. 5, § 59.
20 Minn. 393, (Gil. 344.)
Ch. 5, §§ 60-62.
20 Minn. 393, (Gil. 344, 345;) 23 Minn. 373.
Ch. 9, §§ 1, 2.
22 Minn. 238, 243.
20 Minn. 400, 473, 485, 491, (Gil. 351, 427, Ch. 10.
439, 445.)
22 Minn. 318, 326, 328.
2255
2256
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 11.
40 Minn. 218, 220, 344; 50 N. W. 1120.
Ch. 11, § 9.
40 Minn. 221.
Ch. 11, § 23.
41 Minn. 88; 51 N. W. 118.
Ch. 13.
40 Minn. 509.
Ch. 19.
37 Minn. 535.
Ch. 38.
22 Minn. 196; 25 Minn. 363.
Oh. 43.
25 Minn. 386.
Ch. 51.
23 Minn. 330; 45 Minn. 378.
Ch. 55, § 3.
22 Minn. 489, 542; 24 Minn. 375.
Ch. 56.
33 Minn. 222.
Ch. 66.
Ch. 67.
24 Minn. 96.
22 Minn. 540.
Ch. 68.
23 Minn. 255.
Ch. 99.
24 Minn. 310.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1873, (Special.)
45 Minn. 146.
Ch. 2.
37 Minn. 143.
Ch. 3.
38 Minn. 223.
Ch. 4, § 33.
21 Minn. 24.
Ch. 5.
29 Minn. 395.
Ch. 39, § 1.
23 Minn. 137.
Ch. 107.
23 Minn. 146.
Ch. 111.
33 Minn. 540.
Ch. 111, § 2.
35 Minn. 262.
J
Ch. 173.
22 Minn. 363.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1874, (General.)
26 Minn. 208, 212, 216; 36 Minn. 355.
Ch. 1, §§ 28-34.
23 Minn. 283 et seq.
Ch. 1, §§ 69, 76, 78, 79.
22 Minn. 359, 360, 362, 365.
Ch. 1, § 98.
24 Minn. 86.
Ch. 1. § 110.
23 Minn. 300; 25 Minn. 132; 39 Minn. 99; 44
Minn. 177.
Ch. 1, § 111.
25 Minn. 132; 40 Minn. 191; 44 Minn. 177;
45 Minn. 504.
Ch. 1, § 112.
22 Minn. 553; 25 Miun. 132; 30 Minn. 71; 36
Minn. 367; 44 Minn. 177; 45 Minn. 504.
Ch. 1, § 113.
22 Minn. 178; 25 Minn. 133; 38 Minn. 63; 39
Minn. 99, 100.
Ch. 1, § 116.
33 Minn. 396.
Ch. 1, § 117.
23 Minn. 300.
Ch. 1, § 119.
22 Minn. 357, 358, 364; 35 Minn. 6.
Ch. 1, § 120.
21 Minn. 315, 318; 23 Minn. 300; 24 Minn.
86; 25 Minn. 132; 29 Minn. 273.
Ch. 1, § 121.
33 Minn. 397.
Ch. 1, § 122.
29 Minn. 268; 31 Minn. 389; 33 Minn. 397,
398.
Ch. 1, § 123.
33 Minn. 398; 40 Minn. 543; 44 Minn. 179.
Ch. 1, § 124.
•
33 Minn. 398; 35 Minn. 186; 36 Minn. 356;
39 Minn. 410; 40 Minn. 188.
Ch. 1, § 125.
35 Minn. 7, 8, 186; 36 Minn. 339, 356, 368.
Ch. 1, § 128.
34 Minn. 477.
Ch. 1, § 129.
29 Minn. 266, 267, 273; 30 Minn. 102; 37
Minn. 416; 40 Minn. 100, 542.
Ch. 1, § 130.
33 Minn. 282, 284, 436; 34 Minn. 476.
2257
2258
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 1, §§ 131-135.
33 Minn. 282, 284.
Ch. 1, § 136.
33 Minn. 282, 284; 45 Minn. 504.
Ch. 1, § 137.
33 Minn. 282, 284.
Ch. 1, § 138.
38 Minn. 465; 40 Minn. 510.
Ch. 1, § 168.
24 Minn. 379; 25 Minn. 458; 31 Minn. 361.
Ch. 2.
23 Minn. 404; 26 Minn. 146, 216.
Ch. 2, § 14.
29 Minn. 273.
Ch. 2, § 15.
36 Minn. 339; 40 Minn. 510.
Ch. 2, § 19.
29 Minn. 273.
Ch. 52.
37 Minn. 55.
Ch. 54, § 1.
31 Minn. 453.
Ch. 60, § 1.
51 N. W. 664.
Ch. 66, § 1.
22 Minn. 348, 349,
Ch. 67.
27 Minn. 238.
Ch. 68.
21 Minn. 313; 31 Minn. 245.
Ch. 69.
32 Minn. 488; 51 N. W. 469, 470.
Ch. 71, § 2.
47 Minn. 452.
Ch. 78.
25 Minn. 13.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1874, (Special.)
21 Minn. 422; 22 Minn. 493, 530; 23 Minn.
234; 25 Minn. 107, 252, 374; 29 Minn. 63;
32 Minn. 109; 36 Minn. 88; 47 Minn. 408.
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 16.
28 Minn. 275; 29 Minn. 455.
Ch. 1, subch. 3, § 18.
46 Minn. 547.
Ch. 1, subch. 4.
32 Minn. 281, 282; 33 Minn. 292.
Ch. 1, subch. 4, § 2.
33 Minn. 537.
Ch. 1, subch. 4, § 3.
27 Minn. 365; 29 Minn. 455; 34 Minn. 250;
36 Minn 299; 37 Minn. 21.
Ch. 1, subch. 4, § 11.
37 Minn. 264.
Ch. 1, subch. 5.
44 Minn. 303.
Ch. 1, subch. 6.
32 Minn. 281, 282.
Ch. 1, subch. 7.
23 Minn. 396; 30 Minn. 295; 32 Minn. 281,
282.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 1.
44 Minn. 245; 45 Minn. 226.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 2.
33 Minn. 303; 44 Minn. 246.
Ch. 1, subch. 7,
tit. 1, § 3.
31 Minn. 355; 51 N. W. 818.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 5.
33 Minn. 169, 302; 39 Minn. 120; 44 Minn.
246; 47 Minn. 406, 408.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 6.
33 Minn. 169.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 7.
44 Minn. 246.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 8.
39 Minn. 121.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 14.
44 Minn. 246; 51 N. W. 818.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 15.
39 Minn. 121.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 16.
35 Minn. 331; 40 Minn. 228, 229.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 17.
46 Minn. 542.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 21.
29 Minn. 66; 33 Minn. 165.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 22.
44 Minn. 246.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 23.
29 Minn. 65; 33 Minn. 169; 44 Minn. 246; 51
N. W. 818.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 24.
31 Minn. 355, 357.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 25.
27 Minn. 444.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 26.
27 Minn. 445; 51 N. W. 818.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 27.
33 Minn. 169.
2259-
2260
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 28.
33 Minn. 169, 304; 44 Minn. 246.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 38.
31 Minn. 356.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 39.
27 Minn. 445; 31 Minn. 356: 33 Minn. 167,
172; 44 Minn. 244.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, §§ 40-45, 47, 50.
31 Minn. 356, 357.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 54.
27 Minn. 445; 33 Minn. 167, 302.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 60.
27 Minn. 79; 31 Minn. 357.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 66.
31 Minn. 357.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 68.
· 34 Minn. 449.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 69.
29 Minn. 65.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 71.
29 Minn. 65; 33 Minn. 304.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 73.
26 Minn. 524.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 3.
Ch. 141, § 1.
22 Minn. 248.
Ch. 141, § 5.
23 Minn. 486.
Ch. 141, § 12.
23 Minn. 486, 545.
Ch. 141, § 22.
38 Minn. 476.
f
SESSION LAWS 1875, (General.)
Ch. 5, § 25.
25 Minn. 132; 40 Minn. 191.
Ch. 5, § 26.
25 Minn. 132.
Ch. 5, § 28.
33 Minn. 398.
Ch. 5, § 29.
29 Minn. 273; 33 Minn. 398.
Ch. 5, § 30.
27 Minn. 450; 29 Minn. 137; 31 Minn. 309;
35 Minn. 7; 36 Minn. 368; 37 Minn. 417.
Ch. 5, § 33.
33 Minn. 436.
25 Minn. 130; 33 Minn. 183; 40 Minn. 229- Ch. 5, § 52.
231.
Ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 3. § 1.
44 Minn. 245, 246.
Ch. 1, subch. 10, § 1.
26 Minn. 110.
Ch. 1, subch. 11, § 5.
33 Minn. 292, 293.
Ch. 1, subch. 12, § 4.
29 Minn. 199.
Ch. 2, § 8.
35 Minn. 318.
Ch. 7.
27 Minn.. 77.
Ch. 7, tit. 1, §§ 1, 2, .28.
32 Minn. 182, 183.
Ch. 12, § 4.
29 Minn. 199.
Ch. 13.
25 Minn. 370.
Ch. 59.
27 Minn. 200.
Ch. 105.
25 Minn. 459; 31 Minn. 363.
Ch. 6.
23 Minn. 404.
Ch. 7.
26 Minn. 146; 44 Minn. 490.
Ch. 8.
23 Minn. 404.
Ch. 10.
22 Minn. 553, 554.
Ch. 37.
46 Minn. 320.
Ch. 40.
25 Minn. 521; 32 Minn. 348; 34 Minn. 163,
164; 35 Minn. 437; 39 Minn. 450; 46
Minn. 479; 51 N. W. 381.
Ch. 40, § 2.
29 Minn. 328; 31 Minn. 169, 171.
Ch. 40, § 3.
29 Minn. 328.
Ch. 41, § 1.
23 Minn. 544.
Ch. 49.
23 Minn. 144 et seq.
Ch. 141.
29 Minn. 220; 33 Minn. 36; 34 Minn. 240.
22 Minn. 244.
Ch. 50.
25 Minn. 84.
2261
2262
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 51.
40 Minn. 135.
Ch. 51, § 2.
33 Minn. 27.
Ch. 64.
22 Minn. 487.
Ch. 66.
39 Minn. 246.
Ch. 69.
22 Minn. 519.
Ch. 98.
Ch. 49.
29 Minn. 215.
Ch. 54.
45 Minn. 105.
Ch. 74.
29 Minn. 158; 33 Minn. 352.
Ch. 90.
32 Minn. 110.
Ch. 132.
27 Minn. 200, 201, 492.
Ch. 164.
22 Minn. 360.
46 Minn. 329.
Ch. 112.
23 Minn. 549.
Ch. 139.
24 Minn. 115; 35 Minn. 177; 37 Minn. 475;
38 Minn. 224.
Ch. 139, § 9.
37 Minn. 475.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1875, (Special.)
23 Minn. 396; 27 Minn. 444; 29 Minn. 63;
30 Minn. 295; 33 Minn. 302.
Ch. 1, § 7.
33 Minn. 169.
Ch. 1, § 9.
32 Minn. 183; 33 Minn. 169.
Ch. 1, §§ 12, 15.
33 Minn. 167.
Ch. 1, §§ 16, 17.
27 Minn. 80.
Ch. 2.
24 Minn. 189; 25 Minn. 375; 26 Minn. 265.
Ch. 2, § 8.
24 Minn. 190; 25 Minn. 146.
Ch. 2, § 10.
24 Minn. 190.
Ch. 2, §§ 25--30.
22 Minn. 47, 49.
Ch. 4.
33 Minn. 37.
Ch. 13, §§ 1, 2.
SESSION LAWS 1876, (General.)
Ch. 4.
38 Minn. 532.
Ch. 24.
40 Minn. 91.
Ch. 24, §§ 1-4.
29 Minn. 339; 46 Minn. 251.
Ch. 30.
36 Minn. 469; 37 Minn. 262.
Ch. 30, § 1.
38 Minn. 235.
Ch. 37.
35 Minn. 437; 39 Minn. 449; 50 N. W. 923;
51 N. W. 381.
Ch. 37, § 3.
25 Minn. 28; 37 Minn. 236.
Ch. 37, § 37.
37 Minn. 229.
Ch. 39.
44 Minn. 354.
Ch. 41.
38 Minn. 42.
Ch. 44.
23 Minn. 57; 24 Minn. 240, 296; 31 Minn.
246; 51 N. W. 223.
Ch. 44, § 1.
33 Minn. 414.
Ch. 44, §§ 2, 3, 6.
41 Minn. 305, 306.
Ch. 46.
24 Minn. 65.
Ch. 17, subch. 1, § 4.
26 Minn. 263.
Ch. 24, § 21.
37 Minn. 17.
Ch. 48, §§ 1--3.
43 Minn. 131.
25 Minn. 121.
Ch. 49.
47 Minn. 401.
Ch. 50.
25 Minn. 149, 151.
Ch. 51.
24 Minn. 40; 45 Minn. 173.
2263
2264
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 55.
25 Minn. 490.
Ch. 58.
28 Minn. 41; 40 Minn. 214.
Ch. 59.
35 Minn. 222.
Ch. 86.
33 Minn. 121; 34 Minn. 157.
Ch. 89.
25 Minn. 523.
Ch. 92.
23 Minn, 202.
SESSION LAWS 1876, (Special.)
Ch. 1.
35 Minn. 168.
Ch. 28, § 5.
35 Minn. 386.
Ch. 34, § 1.
24 Minn. 250.
Ch. 55.
25 Minn. 445.
Ch. 87.
25 Minn. 107.
Ch. 115, § 4.
36 Minn. 264, 265.
Ch. 132.
33 Minn. 378.
Ch. 207, § 1.
25 Minn. 345.
Ch. 207, § 3.
29 Minn. 198.
Ch. 208.
23 Minn. 40.
Ch. 211, § 1.
24 Minn. 189.
Ch. 211, §§ 7, 10.
25 Minn. 375.
Ch. 230, § 3.
32 Minn. 285.
Ch. 241.
45 Minn. 105.
SESSION LAWS 1877, (General.)
Ch. 6.
37 Minn. 417.
Ch. 6, § 22.
35 Minn. 7.
Ch. 6, §§ 23--25.
36 Minn. 457, 458.
Ch. 6, § 29.
38 Minn. 465.
Ch. 6, §§ 31, 32.
36 Minn. 459.
Ch. 6, § 37.
32 Minn. 480; 33 Minn. 280-283; 35 Minn.
258, 259, 411; 36 Minn. 379, 457--459; 37
Minn. 417; 41 Minn. 22; 43 Minn. 4.
Ch. 14.
43 Minn. 17.
Ch. 44.
47 Minn. 377.
Ch. 50, § 1.
51 N. W. 607.
Ch. 67.
41 Minn. 305.
Ch. 68.
30 Minn. 445.
Ch. 73.
40 Minn. 91.
Ch. 73, § 1.
46 Minn. 251.
Chs. 74, 75.
25 Minn. 1, 8.
Ch. 79.
25 Minn. 296; 33 Minn. 282.
Ch. 84.
33 Minn. 282.
Ch. 97.
25 Minn. 366.
Ch. 98, §§ 1-4.
40 Minn. 92.
Ch. 103.
30 Minn. 163.
Ch. 105.
35 Minn. 262.
Ch. 105, §§ 4, 5, 7.
36 Minn. 510.
Ch. 106.
25 Minn. 358.
Ch. 120, § 3.
25 Minn. 367.
Ch. 121.
f
27 Minn. 20; 36 Minn. 138; 44 Minn. 99; 45
Minn. 286.
Ch. 131.
24 Minn. 348; 40 Minn. 411.
2265
2266
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 142.
25 Minn. 474.
Ch. 7.
SESSION LAWS 1877, (Special.)
24 Minn. 115.
Ch. 18.
34 Minn. 133.
Ch. 23, § 9.
25 Minn. 129; 33 Minn. 183.
Ch. 51.
25 Minn. 429.
Ch. 173.
25 Minn. 375.
Ch. 175.
34 Minn. 82.
Ch. 185, § 2.
39 Minn. 376, 377.
Ch. 201.
27 Minn. 8; 29 Minn. 215; 36 Minn. 208.
Ch. 201, § 9.
42 Minn. 452, 453.
Ch. 1.
SESSION LAWS 1878, (Special.)
29 Minn. 159; 33 Minn. 352.
Ch. 2, § 2.
36 Minn. 177.
Ch. 5, § 16, subd. 25.
26 Minn. 267.
Ch. 19.
35 Minn. 177.
Ch. 25, subch. 10, §§ 9-11.
27 Minn. 511, 512, 515.
Ch. 26, § 2.
36 Minn. 88.
Ch. 26, § 4.
33 Minn. 284.
Ch. 27, §§ 3, 4.
34 Minn. 257.
Ch. 65.
33 Minn. 37.
Ch. 71.
29 Minn. 215.
:
Ch. 205.
47 Minn. 237, 240.
Ch. 218, § 4.
36 Minn. 265.
Ch. 244.
32 Minn. 516.
SESSION LAWS 1878, (General.)
Ch. 1, §§ 90, 96.
33 Minn. 281--284.
Ch. 1, § 120.
31 Minn. 363.
Ch. 3.
29 Minn. 23.
Ch. 3. § 2.
32 Minn. 489.
Chs. 6, 9.
44 Minn. 99.
Ch. 35.
38 Minn. 224.
Ch. 38.
30 Minn. 445.
Ch. 53.
44 Minn. 99; 45 Minn. 287.
Ch. 56.
41 Minn. 88; 50 N. W. 1113.
Ch. 126.
45 Minn. 550.
Ch. 150.
27 Minn. 14; 28 Minn. 327.
Ch. 155.
40 Minn. 14.
Ch. 191.
27 Minn. 121; 31 Minn. 494.
Ch. 193.
37 Minn. 450.
Ch. 215, §§ 4, 5, 13.
41 Minn. 137.
Ch. 216.
32 Minn. 109.
Ch. 234, § 4.
36 Minn. 265.
Ch. 246.
45 Minn. 105.
Ch. 5.
SESSION LAWS 1879, (General.)
42 Minn. 113.
Ch. 8, § 1.
31 Minn. 150.
Ch. 15.
28 Minn. 370.
Ch. 17, §§ 1, 2.
27 Minn. 434.
1
2267
2268
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 18.
37 Minn. 236.
Ch. 35.
37 Minn. 168, 169, 206.
Ch. 35, § 1.
37 Minn. 168; 43 Minn. 530.
Ch. 35, § 3.
35 Minn. 461, 463; 37 Minn. 166, 169; 39
Minn. 163.
Ch. 41.
31 Minn. 229.
Ch. 54.
43 Minn. 350.
Ch. 65.
43 Minn. 432.
Ch. 65, § 2.
27 Minn. 373; 40 Minn. 208; 42 Minn. 105.
Ch. 66.
28 Minn. 8, 214:
Ch. 66, § 3.
31 Minn. 305; 36 Minn. 307, 461, 465, 466.
Ch. 66, § 5.
45 Minn. 2.
Ch. 66, § 6.
36 Minn. 462, 463, 465, 466.
Ch. 67.
33 Minn. 281; 35 Minn. 258.
Ch. 69.
28 Minn. 382; 34 Minn. 504; 35 Minn. 439.
Ch. 80.
35 Minn. 462; 37 Minn. 168, 169.
Ch. 82.
38 Minn. 236.
Ch. 88.
SESSION LAWS 1879, (Special.)
33 Minn. 292.
Ch. 182, § 8.
32 Minn. 505.
Chs. 183, 184.
36 Minn. 488.
Ch. 185.
30 Minn. 542; 36 Minn. 488.
Ch. 185, §§ 1, 2.
39 Minn. 225, 226.
Ch. 185, § 4.
29 Minn. 319; 39 Minn. 226.
Ch. 226.
31 Minn. 494.
Ch. 236.
27 Minn. 40.
Ch. 248.
27 Minn. 90.
Ch. 305.
31 Minn. 467.
Ch. 316, § 6.
34 Minn. 84, 86.
Ch. 318.
42 Minn. 143.
Ch. 318, § 1.
30 Minn. 364.
Ch. 318, § 4.
47 Minn. 156, 157.
Ch. 324, § 6.
26 Minn. 354.
1
SESSION LAWS 1881, (General.)
Ch. 1. (Ex. Sess.)
29 Minn. 556; 32 Minn. 93; 38 Minn. 366.
Ch. 3.
35 Minn. 162.
Ch. 3. (Ex. Sess.)
40 Minn. 533; 41 Minn. 316.
Ch. 3, § 1.
38 Minn. 366, 367.
Ch. 5.
33 Minn. 539, 546; 40 Minn. 515.
Ch. 5, § 1.
39 Minn. 381.
Ch. 9. (Ex. Sess.)
29 Minn. 432; 45 Minn. 26.
Ch. 10.
35 Minn. 258, 419; 46 Minn. 525.
Ch. 10. (Ex. Sess.)
35 Minn. 463, 464.
Ch. 10, § 6.
43 Minn. 332.
Ch. 10, § 11.
47 Minn. 237, 242.
Ch. 10. § 12.
31 Minn. 380.
Ch. 10, § 19.
30 Minn. 275, 351, 354; 31 Minn. 259; 35
Minn. 4; 38 Minn. 463; 45 Minn. 175.
Ch. 10, § 21.
38 Minn. 92.
Ch. 10, § 22.
32 Minn. 480; 33 Minn. 281, 284; 47 Minn.
237.
2269
2270
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 23.
(Ex. Sess.)
42 Minu. 462.
Ch. 23, § 1.
33 Minn. 515; 35 Minn. 469.
Ch. 24. (Ex. Sess.)
45 Minn. 396.
42 Minn. 255.
Ch. 25, § 1.
Ch. 25, § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
45 Minn. 187; 46 Minn. 312.
Ch. 31.
36 Minn. 488.
Ch. 34, § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
Ch. 81, § 1. (Ex. Sess.)
46 Minn. 179.
Ch. 91.
46 Minn. 199.
Ch. 91, § 1.
51 N. W. 922.
Ch. 91, § 12.
51 N. W. 922; 52 N. W. 274, 275.
Ch. 91, § 14.
51 N. W. 922, 923.
Ch. 93.
34 Minn. 419.
35 Minn. 192.
Ch. 38.
32 Minn. 471.
Ch. 40.
28 Minn. 41, 50, 363: 38 Minn. 293.
Ch. 41, § 3.
35 Minn. 165, 166.
Ch. 43, § 2.
Ch. 43.
37 Minn. 238, 330.
46 Minn. 480.
Ch. 43, § 4.
37 Minn. 229.
Ch. 44, § 2.
33 Minn. 514.
Ch. 45, § 1.
32 Minn. 213.
Ch. 55.
38 Minn. 542.
Ch. 57.
32 Minn. 453, 454.
Ch. 57. (Ex. Sess.)
39 Minn. 161.
Ch. 59. (Ex. Sess.)
34 Minn. 256.
Ch. 62.
29 Minn. 217.
Ch. 62. (Ex. Sess.)
40 Minn. 510.
Ch. 65. (Ex. Sess.)
31 Minn. 175.
Ch. 74, § 1.
45 Minn. 282.
Ch. 77.
38 Minn. 87.
Ch. 81. (Ex. Sess.)
39 Minn. 37; 46 Minn. 175, 180.
Ch. 94.
36 Minn. 86. 487.
Ch. 102.
29 Minn. 522, 550, 554.
Ch. 132.
32 Minn. 186.
Ch. 132, § 1.
45 Minn. 187.
Ch. 133.
36 Minn. 70.
Ch. 134.
31 Minn. 207.
Ch. 135.
31 Minn. 377; 32 Minn. 10, 367, 368; 33
Minn. 367, 434--438: 34 Minn. 27, 305; 35
Minn. 5, 8; 36 Minn. 338; 37 Minn. 26,
133; 38 Minn. 30, 31, 336, 337; 39 Minn.
318; 44 Minn. 57, 490; 51 N. W. 656.
Ĉ
Ch. 135, § 1.
31 Minn. 379; 44 Minn. 57; 47 Minn. 326,
327, 330.
Ch. 135, § 2.
31 Minn. 380; 40 Minn. 385--387; 47 Minn.
330.
Ch. 135, § 4.
38 Minn. 337; 40 Minn. 385.
Ch. 135, § 5.
38 Minn. 484.
Ch. 135, § 7.
30 Minn. 434; 36 Minn. 339; 38 Minn. 484.
Ch. 135, §§ 8, 9.
40 Minn. 385-387.
Ch. 148.
30 Minn. 222, 226, 234; 31 Minn. 246, 457; 32
Minn. 61; 34 Minn. 268, 483; 35 Minn. 96,
195, 248, 352; 36 Minn. 67, 305, 365; 37
Minn. 83, 84, 244, 249; 39 Minn. 319, 401,
521; 40 Minn. 39, 42, 344, 496; 41 Minn. 4,
121, 400, 431; 42 Minn. 459, 461; 43 Minn.
39, 389; 45 Minn. 384; 46 Minn. 88; 47
Minn. 148, 149; 50 N. W. 1110, 1113; 51
N. W. 222, 223, 416.
2271
2272
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 148, § 1.
32 Minn. 62; 33 Minn. 31, 230, 405-407, 413-
416; 34 Minn. 49, 284; 35 Minn. 249; 36
Minn. 168, 169, 306; 39 Minn. 522; 40
Minn. 40, 41; 41 Minn. 4; 43 Minn. 506;
44 Minn. 2, 5; 45 Minn. 200; 46 Minn. 139,
335.
Ch. 148, § 2.
Ch. 44, §§ 10, 12.
37 Minn. 143.
Ch. 47.
32 Minn. 178, 180.
Ch. 73, subch. 8, § 8
38 Minn. 536.
Ch. 76.
29 Minn. 220; 30 Minn. 141, 146; 36 Minn.
407.
29 Minn. 270; 30 Minn. 476, 513, 554; 33
Minn. 405--407; 34 Minn. 283; 36 Minn.
168, 169; 38 Minn. 403, 432, 541; 40 Minn.
40;' 41 Minn. 117, 434; 44 Minn. 2, 5, 398; Ch. 76, subch. 3.
46 Minn. 88; 47 Minn. 178; 52 N. W. 44.
Ch. 148, § 3.
32 Minn. 62, 64; 40 Minn. 40.
Ch. 148, § 4.
31 Minn. 458; 35 Minn. 289, 347; 36 Minn.
168, 169; 40 Minn. 40--42; 41 Minn. 117,
120; 42 Minn. 459, 462; 44 Minn. 2, 3; 47
Minn. 179, 479, 481; 50 N. W. 1030, 1031;
51 N. W. 611, 612.
Ch. 148, § 5.
30 Minn. 554.
Ch. 148, § 6.
36 Minn. 169.
Ch. 148, § 7.
33 Minn. 413-416; 37 Minn. 84.
Ch. 148, § 8.
36 Minn. 169; 46 Minn. 91; 50 N. W. 1025,
1026, 1033.
Ch. 148, § 9.
32 Minn. 62; 46 Minn. 91.
Ch. 148, § 10.
41
32 Minn. 62, 64; 35 Minn. 475, 532, 533;
Minn. 5; 42 Minn. 20, 23, 97, 98; 43 Minn.
9-11, 390--392; 45 Minn. 47; 46 Minn. 88,
91, 140, 331, 333.
Ch. 148, § 11.
46 Minn. 91.
Ch. 148, § 12.
32 Minn. 62; 36 Minn. 169.
Ch. 11.
SESSION LAWS 1881, (Special.)
51 N. W. 913.
Ch. 11, subch. 7, § 29.
45 Minn. 211.
Ch. 15.
38 Minn. 188.
Ch. 33, § 8.
37 Minn. 475, 476.
Ch. 35.
42 Minn. 450.
Ch. 38, subch. 4, § 5.
42 Minn. 343, 344.
32 Minn. 145, 146.
Ch. 76, subch. 3, § 1.
31 Minn. 442.
Ch. 76, subch. 3, § 3.
31 Minn. 443; 38 Minn. 148.
Ch. 76, subch. 3, §§ 12, 14, 19.
38 Minn. 148.
Ch. 76, subch. 4.
32 Minn. 145, 146.
Ch. 76, subch. 4, § 2.
33 Minn. 75.
Ch. 76, subch. 4, § 5.
33 Minn. 77, 102; 36 Minn. 161; 40 Minn. 43;
43 Minn. 419; 52 N. W. 42.
Ch. 76, subch. 4, § 9.
31 Minn. 443; 43 Minn. 373.
Ch. 76, subch. 4, § 11.
31 Minn. 441, 443.
Ch. 76, subch. 5, §§ 22, 37.
31 Minn. 441, 443, 445.
Ch. 76, subch. 8, § 2.
32 Minn. 321.
Ch. 76, subch. 8, § 12.
37 Minn. 344.
Ch. 76, subch. 8, § 18.
31 Minn. 231; 33 Minn. 432.
Ch. 76, subch. 8, § 20.
30 Minn. 546; 40 Minn. 447.
Ch. 76, subch. 10.
52 N. W. 222.
Ch. 76, subch. 10, § 4.
33 Minn. 469.
Ch. 76, subch. 10, § 6.
30 Minn. 147.
Ch. 76, subch. 10, § 7.
40 Minn. 484.
Ch. 76, subch. 10, §§ 8, 10, 15.
37 Minn. 344.
Ch. 76, subch. 11, § 16.
31 Minn. 444.
2273
2274
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 92.
44 Minn. 381.
Ch. 92, subch. 8, § 13.
33 Minn. 199.
Ch. 93, § 9.
30 Minn. 459; 33 Minn. 523; 45 Minn. 439.
Ch. 93, § 15.
32 Minn. 330.
Ch. 93, § 16.
33 Minn. 234.
Ch. 101. (Ex. Sess.)
31 Minn. 303.
Ch. 104. (Ex. Sess.)
34 Minn. 112.
Ch. 113.
36 Minn. 487.
Ch. 120.
47 Minn. 317, 318
Ch. 134.
51 N. W. 815.
Ch. 188.
33 Minn. 522, 523.
Ch. 188, § 11.
36 Minn. 163.
Ch. 216.
32 Minn. 140.
Ch. 221.
36 Minn. 265, 268.
Ch. 222.
32 Minn. 375.
Ch. 224, §§ 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11.
33 Minn. 299, 300.
Ch. 228.
35 Minn. 223, 224.
Ch. 238.
30 Minn. 364.
Ch. 262.
38 Minn. 448.
Ch. 307.
31 Minn. 92.
Ch. 364.
33 Minn. 378.
Ch. 371.
39 Minn. 377.
Ch. 407.
40 Minn. 378.
Ch. 408, § 2.
40 Minn. 335.
v.2M.DIG.-72
Ch. 412.
36 Minn. 470.
Ch. 414.
36 Minn. 516.
SESSION LAWS 1883, (General.)
Chs. 1-3.
31 Minn. 461.
Ch. 28.
41 Minn. 284.
Ch. 37, § 2.
47 Minn. 474.
Ch. 38.
34 Minn. 419; 42 Minn. 38.
Ch. 38, § 1.
35 Minn. 400.
Ch. 38, § 2.
35 Minn. 535; 46 Minn. 241.
Ch. 43.
37 Minn. 456; 43 Minn. 444.
Ch. 49.
38 Minn. 224.
Ch. 57, § 1.
47 Minn. 226.
Ch. 58, § 1.
45 Minn. 324.
Ch. 73.
32 Minn. 541, 542; 37 Minn. 322; 38 Minn.
223; 40 Minn. 414.
Ch. 74.
34 Minn. 528.
Ch. 99.
45 Minn. 241.
Ch. 100.
37 Minn. 5; 39 Minn. 389; 47 Minn. 462, 463.
Ch. 100, § 1.
47 Minn. 292.
Ch. 101.
34 Minn. 237.
Ch. 107, § 9, subd. 4.
1.9%.
40 Minn. 8.
Ch. 108.
36 Minn. 430; 38 Minn. 131.
Ch. 112.
35 Minn. 410, 451; 37 Minn. 77; 38 Minn.
206; 41 Minn. 252; 45 Minn. 377, 379, 530;
46 Minn. 203.
Ch. 112, § 1.
47 Mirn. 221, 225.
•
>
2275
2276
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 125.
32 Minn. 325; 34 Minn. 388.
Ch. 125, § 9.
Ch. 2.
SESSION LAWS 1885, (General.)
44 Minn. 14. 384.
1
34 Minn. 391.
Ch. 138, § 2.
33 Minn. 472.
Ch. 2.
SESSION LAWS 1883, (Special.)
33 Minn. 308.
Ch. 2, § 7.
34 Minn. 449.
Ch. 2, § 18.
33 Minn. 292.
Ch. 3, § 8.
32 Minn. 276.
Ch. 3, § 10.
43 Minn. 419.
Ch. 10.
31 Minn. 192.
Ch. 48.
34 Minn. 240.
Ch. 48, § 2.
37 Minn. 175, 176.
Ch. 2, § 2.
43 Minn. 333.
Ch. 2, §§ 5, 6, 12.
44 Minn. 67, 68.
Ch. 2, §§ 15, 16.
42 Minn. 181.
Ch. 2, § 23.
40 Minn. 515.
Ch. 17, § 1.
47 Minn. 219.
Ch. 19.
35 Minn. 393.
Ch. 30, § 3.
46 Minn. 127.
Ch. 46.
37 Minn. 456; 43 Minn. 444; 47 Minn. 21.
Ch. 53.
43 Minn. 377.
Ch. 70.
35 Minn. 294.
Ch. 76, § 1.
46 Minn. 241.
Ch. 78.
Ch. 48, §§ 6, 8.
33 Minn. 37.
Ch. 57.
33 Minn. 299, 300.
Ch. 69.
Ch. 81.
45 Minn. 105.
Ch. 75, § 6.
Ch. 75.
33 Minn. 523.
36 Minn. 163.
Ch. 79, § 1.
45 Minn. 211.
45 Minn. 156.
36 Minn. 303; 43 Minn. 148.
Ch. 103.
40 Minn. 232; 44 Minn. 547; 46 Minn. 320.
Ch. 116.
37 Minn. 373.
Ch. 119.
Ch. 80, § 3.
45 Minn. 211; 51 N. W. 913.
Ch. 87, § 1.
32 Minn. 285.
Ch. 135, § 1.
42 Minn. 396.
Ch. 281.
33 Minn. 241, 527, 528.
Ch. 281, §§ 2, 8.
52 N. W. 213, 214.
Ch. 297.
37 Minn. 263.
43 Minn. 333.
45 Minn. 146.
Ch. 124.
Ch. 125.
41 Minn. 240.
Ch. 129.
38 Minn. 266; 45 Minn. 452.
Ch. 129, §§ 6, 7, 10.
38 Minn. 269, 271.
Ch. 144.
38 Minn. 96.
Ch. 145.
37 Minn. 324, 325; 38 Minn. 188, 189, 223,
224; 39 Minn. 246; 45 Minn. 5.
2277
2278
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 145, § 2.
35 Minn. 177; 37 Minn. 324, 325.
Ch. 145, § 12.
38 Minn. 190.
Ch. 145, § 16.
35 Minn. 177; 38 Minn. 225.
Ch. 145, § 17.
38 Minn. 225.
Ch. 145, § 18.
37 Minn. 325.
Ch. 145, §§ 21, 30, 31.
30.
45 Minn. 5-7, 9.
Ch. 145, § 43.
38 Minn. 188.
Ch. 145, § 48.
47 Minn. 523.
Ch. 145, § 51.
45 Minn. 8.
Ch. 47, §§ 1–13.
41 Minn. 76–78, 81.
Ch. 147, § 14.
40 Minn. 104; 41 Minn. 77.
Ch. 149, § 4.
Ch. 181, § 11.
37 Minn. 429.
Ch. 184, § 12.
51 N. W. 908, 909.
Ch. 184, § 17.
46 Minn. 71.
Ch. 188, § 15.
36 Minn. 402, 403.
Ch. 188, § 26.
41 Minn. 512.
Ch. 188, § 27.
36 Minn. 403.
Ch. 193.
38 Minn. 114; 44 Minn. 165; 47 Minn. 451,
457; 52 N. W. 277.
Ch. 196.
34 Minn. 419.
Ch. 199, §§ 1, 4, 5.
42 Minn. 131.
Ch. 205.
43 Minn. 420.
Ch. 231.
37 Minn. 323-325.
Ch. 261.
36 Minn. 70.
Ch. 156.
40 Minn. 510.
Ch. 169.
46 Miun. 536.
Ch. 171.
43 Minn. 432; 51 N. W. 220, 221.
Ch. 172.
38 Minn. 225.
Ch. 174, § 2.
36 Minn. 479.
Ch. 179.
41 Minn. 390.
35 Minn. 126.
Ch. 264.
39 Minn. 161.
Ch. 266.
38 Minn. 472.
Ch. 272.
35 Minn. 481; 37 Minn. 269; 43 Minn. 502.
Ch. 272, § 6.
37 Minn. 269.
SESSION LAWS 1885, (Special.)
Ch. 2, § 15.
43 Minn. 373.
Ch. 180.
51 N. W. 921, 923.
Ch. 2, § 27.
40 Minn. 484.
Ch. 181.
41 Minn. 283.
Ch. 7.
40 Minn. 228, 229.
Ch. 183.
36 Minn. 109.
Ch. 184.
37 Minn. 14, 429.
Ch. 184, § 5.
Ch. 7, § 1.
44 Minn. 307.
Ch. 7, §§ 3-6.
40 Minn. 229–231.
46 Minn. 69; 50 N. W. 1028, 1029; 51 N. W. Ch. 7, § 19.
909.
Ch. 184, § 6.
46 Minn. 69; 51 N. W. 909.
36 Minn. 88; 40 Minn. 407.
Ch. 7, § 20.
46 Minn. 545.
2279
2280
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
1
Ch. 7, § 21.
41 Minn. 123, 124.
Ch. 10, §§ 4, 5.
44 Minn. 380.
Ch. 74.
37 Minn. 175.
Ch. 74, § 1.
35 Minn. 173.
Ch. 74, § 3.
37 Minn. 176.
Ch. 74, § 14.
35 Minn. 173.
Ch. 87.
45 Minn. 105.
Ch. 110, §§ 7-14.
44 Minn. 458, 459.
Ch. 110, § 35.
41 Minn. 520; 44 Minn. 459.
Ch. 111.
42 Minn. 396.
Ch. 114, § 9.
37 Minn. 297.
Ch. 119.
36 Minn. 63.
Ch. 228.
36 Minn. 309, 310.
SESSION LAWS 1887, (General.)
Ch. 4, § 2.
37 Minn. 326.
Ch. 4, §§ 6, 12.
46 Minn. 275.
Ch. 5.
38 Minn. 146, 151; 41 Minn. 31.
Ch. 5, §§ 1, 3-5.
38 Minn. 146-149.
Ch. 6.
38 Minn. 146, 151; 41 Minn. 31; 44 Minn.
380; 47 Minn. 521, 523.
Ch. 6, § 1.
Ch. 7.
38 Minn. 151; 41 Minn. 31; 47 Minn. 271.
Ch. 8.
38 Minn. 151; 41 Minn. 31.
Ch. 9, § 3.
41 Minn. 69.
Ch. 10.
39 Minn. 233.
Ch. 10, § 3.
40 Minn. 354-360.
Ch. 10, § 8.
38 Minn. 291-296; 39 Minn. 234, 236.
Ch. 10, § 9.
39 Minn. 234; 40 Minn, 358.
Ch. 10, §§ 10, 11.
39 Minn. 234, 237; 44 Minn. 338--340.
Ch. 10, § 12.
40 Minn. 359.
Ch. 10, §§ 13--15.
39 Minn. 234--237; 44 Minn. 338, 339.
Ch. 13.
40 Minn. 250; 43 Minn. 223; 45 Minn. 355;
47 Minn. 9; 50 N. W. 930, 931; 51 N. W.
113, 125, 126, 373, 374, 610.
Ch. 13, § 1.
42 Minn. 71.
"
Ch. 14, §§ 1, 4-6.
40 Minn. 354--360.
Ch. 15.
39 Minn. 227; 43 Minn. 526.
Ch. 16.
52 N. W. 133.
Ch. 25.
41 Minn. 151.
Ch. 26, § 1.
Ch. 43.
52 N. W. 35, 36.
39 Minn. 68.
Ch. 47.
43 Minn. 517.
38 Minn. 147, 148, 152, 153.
Ch. 6, § 2.
38 Minn. 147; 40 Minn. 64.
Ch. 6, § 3.
38 Minn. 147.
Ch. 6, § 4.
Ch. 58.
43 Minn. 234.
Ch. 61.
40 Minn. 466; 44 Minn. 502.
Ch. 62.
37 Minn. 325.
38 Minn. 147, 151, 152: 40 Minn. 58; 41 Minn. Ch. 65.
32; 47 Minn. 270, 271
Ch. 6, § 5.
38 Minn. 147.
39 Minn. 110,
Ch. 69.
45 Minn. 168; 46 Minn. 423.
2281
2282
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 81.
38 Minn. 146, 151, 152; 41 Minn. 31.
Ch. 81, § 1.
38 Minn. 144, 153; 40 Minn. 64.
Ch. 81, § 4.
38 Minn. 147, 148, 153; 41 Minn. 211.
Ch. 97, § 8.
47 Minn. 313.
Ch. 97, § 9.
46 Minn. 238.
Ch. 199.
46 Minn. 159.
Ch. 206.
40 Minn. 494.
Ch. 207.
50 N. W. 1018, 1019.
Ch. 208.
43 Minn. 378.
Ch. 97, § 11.
46 Minn. 238, 239; 47 Minn. 315.
Ch. 118.
43 Minn. 329-331.
Ch. 119, §§ 1-3.
43 Minn. 329, 330, 332.
Ch. 127.
38 Minn. 29; 39 Minn. 89; 41 Minn. 493.
Ch. 132.
40 Minn. 224, 510; 51 N. W. 663, 664.
Ch. 158.
38 Minn. 366.
Ch. 167.
39 Minn. 161.
Ch. 170.
38 Minn. 274; 39 Minn. 299, 440; 40 Minn.
420.
Ch. 170, §§ 1, 2.
38 Minn. 265, 266, 274.
Ch. 170, § 3.
38 Minn. 265, 266; 39 Minn. 441.
Ch. 170, § 4.
38 Minn. 274.
Ch. 170, §§ 5, 8, 10.
39 Minn. 442-444
Ch. 170, § 12.
38 Minn. 274.
Ch. 174.
39 Minn. 9; 42 Minn. 78.
Ch. 174, § 2.
38 Minn. 492.
Ch. 176.
41 Minn. 222.
!
Ch. 179.
45 Minn. 31
Ch. 188.
40 Minn. 395.
Ch. 191, § 2.
40 Minn. 119, 125.
SESSION LAWS 1887, (Special.)
Ch. 1, § 2.
41 Minn. 518.
Ch. 2.
38 Minn. 219; 42 Minn. 450.
Ch. 2, subch. 4, § 3.
44 Minn. 189.
Ch. 2, subch. 5, § 5.
40 Minn. 146.
Ch. 2, subch. 5, § 10.
40 Minn. 23.
Ch. 5.
40 Minn. 14,
Ch. 6, §§ 37, 42.
44 Minn. 378, 380-382.
Ch. 7.
38 Minn. 376.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 1.
45 Minn. 226.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 5.
47 Minn. 406, 408.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 7.
44 Minn. 465.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 8.
44 Minn. 465; 45 Minn. 227.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 12.
45 Minn. 228.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 15.
44 Minn. 465.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 16.
42 Minn. 264, 265; 44 Minn. 466; 45 Minn.
228.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 17.
42 Minn. 264, 265; 45 Minn. 228.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 18.
42 Minn. 264, 265; 44 Minn. 307, 308.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 23.
47 Minn. 408.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 39.
40 Minn. 6; 44 Minn. 308.
2283
2284
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 54.
47 Minn. 410.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 1, § 60.
44 Minn. 308.
Ch. 7, subch. 7, tit. 3, § 1.
45 Minn. 227.
Ch. 9, §§ 6, 8.
51 N. W. 220.
Ch. 21, § 3.
40 Minn. 85.
Ch. 21, § 5.
42 Minn. 36.
Ch. 24, subch. 7, §§ 16, 18.
38 Minn. 488, 489.
Ch. 24, subch. 11, § 14.
38 Minn. 488, 489.
Ch. 45, subch. 3, § 15.
43 Minn. 439, 441
Ch. 48, §§ 8--11.
41 Minn. 26.
Ch. 48, § 21.
41 Minn. 123, 125.
Ch. 90.
41 Minn. 137.
Ch. 137, §§ 1, 4, 6.
37 Minn. 499-501.
Ch. 162.
38 Minn. 218.
Ch. 213.
39 Minn. 434.
Ch. 302.
37 Minn. 476.
Ch. 313, §§ 3-5, 7.
44 Minn. 300, 302, 303.
Ch. 321.
42 Minn. 230.
Ch. 328.
37 Minn. 27.
Ch. 333.
41 Minn. 125.
Ch. 343, §§ 25-27.
38 Minn. 94, 95.
:
SESSION LAWS 1889, (General.)
Ch. 7, §§ 1, 2.
44 Minn. 272.
Ch. 19, §§ 1-5, 7.
42 Minn. 131, 132, 134.
Ch. 19, § 63, et seq.
42 Minn. 192.
Ch. 22, §§ 1-5.
46 Minn. 496-498.
Ch. 30.
43 Minn. 506; 46 Minn. 335; 47 Minn. 149;
52 N. W. 44.
Ch. 30, § 1.
41 Minn. 403; 46 Minn. 27, 30; 50 N. W.
1025, 1110, 1113, 1114.
Ch. 30, § 2.
46 Minn. 82; 50 N. W. 1025, 1026.
Ch. 30, § 7.
46 Minn. 331, 333.
Ch. 30, § 8.
51 N. W. 909, 911.
Ch. 46.
47 Minn. 21, 256, 281, 383, 452, 575. 576.
Ch. 46, §§ 4, 25.
45 Minn. 244.
Ch. 46, §§ 28, 31.
45 Minn. 430.
Ch. 46, § 32.
45 Minn. 244.
Ch. 46, §§ 33, 34.
45 Minn. 30.
Ch. 46, §§ 102, 104.
46 Minn. 93, 94.
Ch. 46, §§ 111, 117.
45 Minn. 199, 203.
Ch. 46, § 181.
46 Minn. 480.
Ch. 46, § 204.
45 Minn. 383.
Ch. 46, § 253.
47 Minn. 256.
Ch. 46, § 322.
44 Minn. 492.
Ch. 47.
45 Minn. 28.
Ch. 343, § 46.
52 N. W. 25.
Ch. 370.
Ch. 72.
38 Minn. 176, 177.
44 Minn. 164.
Ch. 386, § 3.
Ch. 103.
38 Minn. 476.
46 Minn. 485.
LI
*
2285
2286
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES CITED, ETC.
1
Ch. 118.
45 Minn. 241.
Ch. 131.
45 Minn. 303; 46 Minn. 434.
Ch. 174.
43 Minn. 323, 411, 501: 46 Minn. 275.
Ch. 174, § 2.
43 Minn. 412.
Ch. 190.
46 Minn. 459; 47 Minn. 60.
Ch. 199.
47 Minn. 125.
Ch. 199, §§ 1, 2.
45 Minn. 222–224.
Ch. 200.
44 Minn. 68, 69; 45 Minn. 12; 46 Minn. 285;
47 Minn. 74, 81, 293--295.
Ch. 200, § 1.
Ch. 19.
SESSION LAWS 1889, (Special.)
42 Minn. 450.
Ch. 25, § 6.
43 Minn. 438, 439.
Ch. 32.
42 Minn. 265.
Ch. 34, §§ 7, 9, 13.
45 Minn. 57.
Ch. 50, §§ 1-3, 5.
44 Minn. 300, 303.
Ch. 174.
42 Minn. 284.
Ch. 351, § 1.
46 Minn. 352.
Ch. 351, § 3.
43 Minn. 159; 46 Minn. 352
50 N. W. 1018, 1020; 51 N. W. 224, 225; 52 Ch. 351, § 21.
N. W. 36.
Ch. 200, § 4.
50 N. W. 1016-1019; 52 N. W. 34.
Ch. 200, § 5.
47 Minn. 81-84; 50 N. W. 1016-1019; 52 N.
W. 33, 34, 36.
Ch. 200, § 7.
47 Minn. 593, 594.
Ch. 200, § 8.
45 Minn. 11; 47 Minn. 31, 32, 83.
Ch. 200, § 10.
47 Minn. 32, 33, 76.
Ch. 200, § 12.
45 Minn. 12.
Ch. 200, § 19.
43 Minn. 29; 44 Minn. 69; 45 Minn. 11.
Ch. 204.
45 Minn. 31.
Ch: 222.
43 Minn. 526.
Chs. 225, 235.
43 Minn. 17-20.
Ch. 236, § 4.
52 N. W. 138.
46 Minn. 352.
Ch. 351, § 28.
45 Minn. 51, 185.
Ch. 360.
47 Minn. 364, 365.
Ch. 367.
44 Minn. 304.
Ch. 375, §§ 1-3.
51 N. W. 112, 113.
Ch. 403.
42 Minn. 30.
Ch. 518.
52 N. W. 380.
Ch. 563, §§ 1-3.
47 Minn. 115, 116.
Ch. 12.
SESSION LAWS 1891, (General.)
52 N. W. 220.
Ch. 146, subchs. 2, 9, 88 4, 8.
47 Minn. 272, 273, 276, 278.
Ch. 57.
SESSION LAWS 1891, (Special.)
47 Minn. 106, 107.
¡
!
TABLE OF CASES
CONTAINING
THE CASES REPORTED IN THE MINNESOTA REPORTS, VOLS. 1-47, INCLUSIVE, and the
MINNESOTA CASES IN THE NORTHWESTERN REPORTER, VOLS. I-51,*
INCLUSIVE, DIGESTED IN THE PRESENT VOLUMES, TOGETHER
WITH THE MINNESOTA CASES CITED THEREIN.
THE SUBJECT REFERENCES AFTER THE TITLES OF CASES IN THIS TABLE ARE TO THE BODY OF THE
DIGEST; THE FIGURES INDICATING THE NUMBERS OF THE PARAGRAPH
UNDER THE SUBJECT REFERRED TO.
A.
ABBETT V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 30 Minn. | ABRAHAM V. HOLLOWAY, 41 Minn. 163, 42 N. W.870.
482, 16 N. W. 266.
Railroad Companies, 187.
Trial, 67.
Followed in Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 68. Ap-
proved in Bennett v. Syndicate Ins. Co., 39
Minn. 256. Applied in Rogstad v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 208, 210; Sweeney |
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 154;
Craver v. Christian, 34 Minn. 399. Cited in
Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 171, 172; Thompson v. Pioneer-Press
Co., 37 Minn. 293; Marty v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 110; Giermann v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 6; Stud-
ley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 116.
ABBOTT V. MORRISSETTE, 46 Minn. 10, 48 N. W. 416.
Principal and Surety, 6.
Trial, 147.
ABBOTT V. NASH, 35 Minn. 451, 29 N. W. 65.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 8.
Frauds, Statute of, 23.
Mechanics' Liens, 81, 126.
Criticised in St. Paul Labor Exchange Co. v.
Eden, 50 N. W. 921. Cited in Smith v. Gill, 37
Minn. 456.
ABBOTT V. PECK, 35 Minn. 499, 29 N. W. 194.
Mortgages, 258, 290.
Distinguished in Hull v. King, 38 Minn. 351.
Cited in Willard v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 477.
ABERLE, IN RE, (Barnard, In re,) 30 Minn. 512, 16
N. W. 403.
Insolvency, 28.
ABRAHAM V. HOLLOWAY, 41 Minn. 156, 42 N. W. 867.
Execution, 126-128.
Followed in Abraham v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 163,
164.
Execution, 129.
ABRAHAMS V. SHEEHAN, 27 Minn. 401, 7 N. W. 822. ·
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 15.
Cited in Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 230; Koethe v. O'Brien, 32 Minn. 78.
ACHESON V. CHASE, 28 Minn. 211, 9 N. W. 734.
Usury, 11, 13.
Followed in Strait v. Frary, 33 Minn. 195; Mac-
key v. Winkler, 35 Minn. 514. Distinguished
in Avery v. Creigh, 35 Minn. 457, 458. Cited
in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 499; Hass v.
Camp, 40 Minn. 331; Lewis v. Willoughby, 43
Minn. 310; Stein v. Swensen, 44 Minn. 222;
Stein v. Swensen, 46 Minn. 364, 365.
ACKERMAN, IN RE, 33 Minn. 54, 21 N. W. 852.
Constitutional Law, 164.
Executors and Administrators, 97.
Explained in Gates v. Shugrue, 35 Minn. 393.
ACKER POST No. 21, G. A. R., v. Carver, 23 Minn.
567.
Appeal and Error, 246.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 12, 17.
Cited in Re Post, 33 Minn. 479; Hill v. Gill, 40
Minn. 443; In re Lyons, 42 Minn. 20.
ADAMS V. ADAMS, 25 Minn. 72.
Contracts, 43.
Judgment, 106.
Negotiable Instruments, 41, 42, 178.
Cited in Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 58.
ADAMS V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286,
39 N. W. 629.
Eminent Domain, 285.
Words and Phrases, 731.
Followed in Carroll v. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 40
Minn. 169. Limited in Lamm v. Chicago, St.
*NOTE. The Minnesota decisions in vol. 51, N. W. Rep., are digested to and including page 923.
(2289)
(2290)
2291
2292
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ADAMS V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co.-Continued.
P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 73, 78-82. Cited
in Demueles v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 44
Minn, 437.
ETNA INS. Co. v. SWIFT, 12 Minn. 437, (Gil. 326.)
Appeal and Error, 25.
Pleading, 156.
Practice in Civil Cases, 43, 60.
ADAMS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 20 Minn. 484, AGIN V. HEYWARD, 6 Minn. 110, (Gil. 58.)
(Gil. 438.)
Municipal Corporations, 5, 317, 326.
ADAMS V. CORRISTON, 7 Minn. 456, (Gil. 365.)
Constitutional Law, 177.
Mortgages, 87.
Replevin, 30.
Cited in Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 344, 347,
(Gil. 223, 225;) Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn. 506,
(Gil. 465;) Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn.
241, (Gil. 223;) Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 44;
State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 233.
ADAMS V. EIDAM, 42 Minn. 53, 43 N. W. 690.
Insurance, 9.
Courts, 8.
Mechanics' Liens, 140.
Followed in Southern Minn. R. Co. v. Stoddard,
6 Minn. 157, (Gil. 95;) Fowler v. Atkinson, 6
Minn. 506, (Gil. 351;) Cressey v. Gierman, 7
Minn. 407, (Gil. 322;) Thayer v. Cole, 10 Minn.
215, (Gil. 173.) Cited in Barber v. Kennedy,
18 Minn. 228, (Gil. 208;) State v. Bach, 36
Minn. 235.
AGNEW V. MERRITT, 10 Minn. 308, (Gil. 242.)
Principal and Surety, 17.
Cited in Campion v. Whitney, 30 Minn. 178;
Benedict v. Olson, 37 Minn. 432.
ADAMS V. HASTINGS & D. R. Co., 18 Minn. 260, AHERN V. BAKER, 34 Minn. 98, 24 N. W. 341.
(Gil. 236.)
Appeal and Error, 464.
Eminent Domain, 264, 282.
Applied in Carli v. Stillwater St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 375. Cited in Matthew
v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 440, (Gil.
396;) Hartz v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn.
361; Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 45; Carli v. Union Depot, St. Rail-
way & Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 103; Lamm v.
Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 77.
ADAMS V. MILLE LACS LUMBER Co., 32 Minn. 216,
19 N. W. 735.
Evidence, 250.
ADAMSON V. CHENEY, 35 Minn. 474, 29 N. W. 71.
Insolvency, 91.
Words and Phrases, 168.
Explained in W. W. Kimball Co. v. Coon, 45
Minn. 47.
ADAMSON V. FAGAN, 44 Minn. 489, 47 N. W. 56.
Chattel Mortgages, 11.
Principal and Agent, 74.
AHERN V. FREEMAN, 46 Minn. 156, 48 N. W. 677.
Mortgages, 152.
Vendor and Purchaser, 153.
AHL V. JOHNSON, 1 Minn. 215, (Gil. 185.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
AHLBECK v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn.
424, 40 N. W. 364.
Carriers, 144, 146.
Cited in Dean v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 41
Minn. 361.
AIKEN V. FRANKLIN, 42 Minn. 91, 43 N. W. $39.
Covenants, 8.
ALBACHTEN V. CHICAGO, ST. P. & K. C. Ry. Co.,
40 Minn. 378, 42 N. W. 86.
Garnishment, 58.
Followed in Richter v. Trask, 40 Minn. 379.
ALBEE V. HAYDEN, 25 Minn. 267.
Appeal and Error, 257.
Attorney and Client, 9.
Waters and Water-Courses, 7.
ADAMSON V. HORTON, 42 Minn. 161, 43 N. W. 849. ALBITZ V. MINNEAPOLIS & P. RY. Co., 40 Minn.
Chattel Mortgages, 14.
Cited in Adamson v. Fagan, 44 Minn. 489.
ADAMSON V. PETERSEN, 35 Minn. 529, 29 N. W. 321.
Chattel Mortgages, 18, 56.
Cited in Northwestern Pavement Co. v. Norwe-
gian Seminary, 43 Minn. 452.
476, 42 N. W. 394.
Equity, 45, 46.
Cited in Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 495.
ALBRECHT V. ALBRECHT, 44 Minn. 70, 46 N. W.
145.
Equity, 62.
ADAMSON V. WIGGINS, 45 Minn. 448, 48 N. W. 185. ALBRECHT V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 47 Minn. 531, 50
Principal and Agent, 35.
Usury, 46.
Applied in Stein v. Swensen, 46 Minn. 364.
ADLER V. APT, 30 Minn. 45, 14 N. W. 63.
Evidence, 104.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 106.
Cited in Smith v. Crane, 33 Minn. 147.
ADLER V. APT, 31 Minn. 348, 17 N. W. 950.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 108.
ADOLPH V. MINNEAPOLIS & P. Rr. Co., 42 Minn.
170, 43 N. W. 848.
Eminent Domain, 242.
ETNA INS. Co. v. GRUBE, 6 Minn. 82, (Gil. 32.)
Insurance, 38, 42, 49.
New Trial, 26.
Words and Phrases, 274, 275, 652.
N. W. 608.
Municipal Corporations, 300, 301.
ALBRECHT V. LONG, 25 Minn. 163.
Execution, 41.
Sheriffs and Constables, 9, 10, 62.
Cited in Albrecht v. Long, 27 Minn. 82.
ALBRECHT V. LONG, 27 Minn. 81, 6 N. W. 420.
Execution, 42, 43.
ALDEN V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 24 Minn. 254.
Evidence, 371.
Municipal Corporations, 227.
Trial, 57.
Applied in Henderson v. City of Minneapolis, 32
Minn. 322, 324. Distinguished in O'Brien v.
City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333. Cited in Pye
v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 375; Rowe v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 386.
2293
2294
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ALDEN V. WRIGHT, 47 Minn. 225, 49 N. W. 767.
Deceit, 23, 43.
Cited in Stickney v. Jourdan, 47 Minn. 264.
ALDRICH V. PRESS PRINTING Co., 9 Minn. 133,
(Gil. 123.)
Libel and Slander, 31, 35.
ALEXANDER V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 41
Minn. 515, 43 N. W. 481.
Railroad Companies, 268.
ALEXANDER V. THOMPSON, 42 Minn. 498, 44 N. W.
534.
Due Bills, 2.
Evidence, 294.
Trial, 9, 30.
ALLEN, IN RE, 25 Minn. 39.
Appeal and Error, 19, 147.
Wills, 23, 24.
ALLEN V. ALLEN, 51 N. W. 473.
Covenants, 22.
Words and Phrases, 688.
ALLEN V. BALDWIN, 22 Minn. 397.
Witness, 16.
ALLEN V. CHATFIELD, 8 Minn. 435, (Gil. 386.)
Landlord and Tenant, 5:
Mortgages, 251, 252.
Cited in St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v.
Morrison, 12 Minn. 253, (Gil. 163;) Morrison v.
Bassett, 26 Minn. 237.
ALLEN V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 44 Minn.
165, 46 N. W. 306.
Appeal and Error, 489.
ALLEN V. COATES, 29 Minn. 46, 11 N. W. 132.
Appearance, 12.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 15.
Exemptions, 7.
Sheriffs and Constables, 45.
Venue in Civil Cases, 13.
Witness, 83.
Words and Phrases, 800.
Followed in Kimball v. Jones, 41 Minn. 319.
ALLEN V. DULUTH GAS & WATER Co., 46 Minn. 290,
48 N. W. 1128.
Water Companies, 2.
ALLEN V. FORTIER, 37 Minn. 218, 34 N. W. 21.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 109.
ALLEN V. HEGLUND, (Heglund v. Allen,) 30 Minn.
38, 14 N. W. 57.
Arbitration and Award, 1, 4, 14, 20.
ALLEN V. JONES, 8 Minn. 202, (Gil. 172.)
Costs, 43.
Principal and Surety, 7, 9.
Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 75, (Gil.
60;) Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 73, (Gil. 48.)
ALLEN V. MCCARTHY, 37 Minn. 349, 34 N. W. 416.
Trade-Marks, 2.
ALLEN V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 40 Minn. 117, 41 N.
W. 936.
Constitutional Law, 76, 175.
Libel and Slander, 49, 50.
Statutes, 30.
Words and Phrases, 336.
Cited in Holston v. Boyle, 46 Minn. 433.
ALLEN V. ROBINSON, 17 Minn. 113, (Gil. 90.)
Elections and Voters, 54, 55.
Distinguished in State v. Webber, 31 Minn. 212.
ALLEN V. WALSH, 25 Minn. 543.
Banks and Banking, 26-28.
Corporations, 133.
Followed in Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 176.
Applied in Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co., 40
Minn. 347; Paterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 87.
Explained in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Bailey
Manuf'g Co., 34 Minn. 326. Cited in State
Bank of Duluth v. Heney, 40 Minn. 148; Pat-
terson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 88, 91; Arthur v.
Willius, 44 Minn. 413; Willis v. St. Paul Sani-
tation Co., 50 N. W. 1111; McKusick v. Sey-
mour, Sabin & Co., 50 N. W. 1115.
ALLEN'S ESTATE, IN RE, 41 Minn. 430, 43 N. W.
382.
Insolvency, 20.
Partnership, 99.
Distinguished in Hanson v. Metcalf, 46 Minn. 29.
Cited in Thompson v. Winona Harvester
Works, 41 Minn. 437; Farwell v. St. Paul
Trust Co., 45 Minn. 496.
ALLIS V. DAVIDSON, 23 Minn. 442.
Judgment, 157.
Cited in Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 76.
ALLIS V. DAY, 13 Minn. 199, (Gil. 189.)
Attachment, 71.
Partnership, 82.
ALLIS V. DAY, 14 Minn. 516, (Gil. 388.)
Account Stated, 3.
Appeal and Error, 450, 624.
Attorney and Client, 42.
Damages, 95.
Followed in Lindholm v. City of St. Paul, 19
Minn. 250, (Gil. 210;) Wilson v. Minneapolis &
N. W. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 483. Cited in Bast v.
Leonard, 15 Minn. 312, (Gil. 242;) State v. Mc-
Cartey, 17 Minn. 81, (Gil. 59.)
ALLIS V. GOLDSMITH, 22 Minn. 123.
Powers, 18, 22.
Cited in Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 54.
ALLIS V. LASH, 23 Minn. 261.
Appeal and Error, 587.
Mortgages, 370.
ALLIS V. NININGER, 25 Minn. 525.
Covenants, 25, 26, 43.
Words and Phrases, 261.
Cited in Hersey v. Long, 30 Minn. 117.
ALLIS V. WARE, 28 Minn. 166, 9 N. W. 666.
Insurance, 11, 33, 34.
Distinguished in Richmond v. Johnson, 28 Minn.
448. Cited in Campion v. Whitney, 30 Minn.
178.
ALLISON V. ARMSTRONG, 28 Minn. 276, 9 N. W. S06.
Mortgages, 91.
Cited in Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 520; Wilson
v. Jamison, 36 Minn. 61; Probstfield v. Czizek,
37 Minn. 421; Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn.
405.
ALLISON V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co. See Wood v.
St. Paul City Ry. Co.
ALMICH V. DOWNEY, 45 Minn. 460, 48 N. W. 197.
Negotiable Instruments, 8, 208.
ALSIP V. SPRING, 21 Minn. 318.
Appeal and Error, 195. ·
2295
2296
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ALT V. BANHOLZER, 36 Minn. 57, 29 N. W. 674.
Mortgages, 119.
Cited in Alt v. Banholzer, 39 Minn. 511; Moul-
ton v. Haskell, 52 N. W. 961.
ALT V. BANHOLZER, 39 Minn. 511, 40 N. W. 830.
Homestead, 75–77.
Followed in Law v. Butler, 44 Minn. 485, 486.
ALTHEN V. KELLY, 32 Minn. 280, 20 N. W. 188.
Eminent Domain, 268.
Municipal Corporations, 213.
Cited in Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 37 Minn.
424; Viliski v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn.
307.
ALTHEN V. TARBOX, 50 N. W. 828.
Practice in Civil Cases, 10.
ALTHEN V. TARBOX, 50 N. W. 1018.
Abatement and Revival, 12.
Husband and Wife, 54.
Mechanics' Liens, 20, 157, 160.
Cited in Haupt Lumber Co. v. Westman, 52 N.
W. 34; Peterson v. Alden, 52 N. W. 39.
ALTMAN V. GRAHAM, 22 Minn. 531.
Appeal and Error, 510.
ALTMANN V. GABRIEL, 28 Minn. 132, 9 N. W. 633.
Judgment, 30.
ALTNOW V. TOWN OF SIBLEY, 30 Minn. 186, 14 N.
W. 877.
Towns, 10.
AMES V. CANNON RIVER MANUF'G Co., 27 Minn. 245,
6 N. W. 787.
Nuisance, 15.
Trial, 61.
Waters and Water-Courses, 8.
Words and Phrases, 522.
AMES V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 12
Minn. 412, (Gil. 295.)
Appeal and Error, 606.
Carriers, 32, 33, 37.
Evidence, 283, 360.
Pleading, 85.
Principal and Agent, 15.
AMES V. GATEY, 1 Minn. 387, (Gil. 288.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Distinguished in Cooper v. Stinson, 5 Minn. 208,
(Gil. 166.)
AMES V. LAKE SUPERIOR & M. R. Co., 21 Minn.
241.
Constitutional Law, 64, 143–145.
Words and Phrases, 790.
Followed in Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 128,
127; Green v. Knife Falls Boom Corp., 35 Minn.
155, 160-162. Cited in Curryer v. Merrill, 25
Minn. 4; City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30
Minn. 142; Wendell v. Lebon, 30 Minn. 238; In
re Howes, 38 Minn. 405; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 216, 217; City
of St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 264.
Distinguished in Peters v. Town of Fergus Falls, AMES v. LowRY, 30 Minn. 283, 15 N. W. 247.
35 Minn. 551.
ALWORTH V. SEYMOUR, 42 Minn. 526, 44 N. W. 1030.
Pleading, 140.
Specific Performance, 34.
Words and Phrases, 573.
Cited in Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462.
AMBS V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 44 Minn.
266, 46 N. W. 321.
Deed, 23.
Ejectment, 27.
Estoppel, 5.
AMBUEHL V. MATTHEWS, 41 Minn. 537, 43 N. W. 477.
Action, 14.
AMERICAN BUTTON-HOLE, OVERSEAMING & S. M.
Co. V. THORNTON, 28 Minn. 418, 10 N. W. 425.
Pleading, 104.
Cited in Memmer v. Carey, 30 Minn. 459.
AMERICAN GRAPHIC Co. v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. &
S. S. M. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 93, 46 N. W. 143.
Principal and Agent, 24.
AMERICAN INS. Co. v. SCHROEDER, 21 Minn. 331.
Appeal and Error, 162.
AMERICAN MANUF'G Co. v. KLARQUIST, 47 Minn. 344,
50 N. W. 243.
Damages, 43.
Evidence, 301.
AMERICAN STEAM-BOILER INS. Co. v. WILDER, 39
Minn. 350, 40 N. W. 252.
Insurance, 35.
AMES V. BOLAND, 1 Minn. 365, (Gil. 268.)
Appeal and Error, 13, 14.
Courts, 6.
AMES V. BROWN, 22 Minn. 257.
Alteration of Instruments, 7.
Equity, 36, 37.
Cited in Russell v. Reed, 36 Minn. 378.
Ejectment, 28.
Cited in Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 391; Stewart
v. Colter, 31 Minn. 388; Briggs v. Ripley, 37
Minn. 80; Sanborn v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 30;
Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322; Ambs v. Chi-
cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 268.
AMES V. MISSISSIPPI BOOм Co., 8 Minn. 467, (Gil
417.)
Appeal and Error, 34, 35.
Replevin, 42.
Modified in Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 466, (Gil.
418.) Followed in Von Glahn v. Sommer, 11
Minn. 204, (Gil. 133.) Cited in Cooper v. Breck-
enridge, 11 Minn. 346, (Gil. 246;) Berthold v.
Holman, 12 Minn. 347, (Gil. 225;) Hardin v.
Palmerlee, 28 Minn. 453.
AMES V. RICHARDSON, (Ames v. Western Manuf'rs
Mut. Ins. Co.,) 29 Minn. 330, 13 N. W. 137.
Insurance, 100, 106.
Cited in Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 333.
AMES V. SCHURMEIER, 9 Minn. 221, (Gil. 206.)
Summons, 11.
Overruled in Herrick v. Morrill, 37 Minn. 251,
252. Distinguished in Hotchkiss v. Cutting,
14 Minn. 540, (Gil. 411.)
AMES V. SLATER, 27 Minn. 70, 6 N. W. 418.
Executors and Administrators, 85.
Judgment, 97.
AMES V. WESTERN MANUF'RS MUT. Ins. Co., (Ames
v. Richardson,) 29 Minn. 330, 13 N. W. 137.
Insurance, 100, 106.
Cited in Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 333.
AMES V. WILKINSON, 47 Minn. 148, 49 N. W. 696.
Principal and Surety, 13.
ANDERSON v. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS MEEKER
COUNTY. See Anderson v. Meeker County.
2297
2298
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ANDERSON V. EGE, 44 Minn. 216, 46 N. W. 362.
Exemptions, 31.
ANDERSON V. HANSON, 28 Minn. 400, 10 N. W. 429.
Costs, 15.
Justices of the Peace, 10, 11.
Cited in Rheiner v. Union Depot, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 294; Seurer v. Horst, 31
Minn. 480.
ANDERSON V. H. C. AKELEY LUMBER CO., 47 Minn.
128, 49 N. W. 664.
Master and Servant, 121.
ANDERSON V. SOUTHERN MINNESOTA R. Co., 21
Minn. 30.
Appearance, 11.
Justice of the Peace, 58.
ANDERSON V. VOSBURG, 23 Minn. 354.
Contracts, 81.
ANDREAS V. HOLCOMBE, 22 Minn. 339.
Contracts, 22, 153.
Cited in Warner v. Fischbach, 29 Minn. 263;
Bolles v. Sachs, 37 Minn. 317; Stensgaard v.
Smith, 43 Minn. 13.
ANDERSON V. KITTELL, 37 Minn. 125, 33 N. W. 330. ANDREWS v. CRESSY, 2 Minn. 67, (Gil. 55.)
Appeal and Error, 164.
ANDERSON V. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 172, 22 N. W.
302.
Mechanics' Liens, 73.
Followed in Morrison v. Philippi, 35 Minn. 193.
Cited in Dye v. Forbes, 34 Minn. 17; Merri-
man v. Bartlett, 34 Minn. 525; American
Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. v. Wilder, 39 Minn. 351;
McGlauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411; Conter v.
Farrington, 46 Minn. 337.
ANDERSON V. L. T. SOWLE ELEVATOR Co., 37 Minn.
539, 35 N. W. 382.
Master and Servant, 47.
ANDERSON V. MALOY, 32 Minn. 76, 19 N. W. 887.
Logs and Logging, 12.
Words and Phrases, 346.
ANDERSON V. MEEKER COUNTY, 46 Minn. 237, 48 N.
W. 1022.
Appeal and Error, 145, 146, 155.
Cited in State v. St. John, 47 Minn. 316.
Costs, 21, 31, 37.
Cited in Kent v. Bown, 3 Minn. 351, (Gil. 248;)
Merriman v. Bowen, 35 Minn. 299.
ANDREWS V. FARNHAM, 29 Minn. 246, 13 N. W. 161.
Escrow, 1.
Cited in Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 342.
ANDREWS V. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 4, 35 Minn. 70, 27
N. W. 303.
Judgment, 100.
ANDREWS V. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 4, 37 Minn. 96, 33
N. W. 217.
Schools and School-Districts, 38-40.
ANDREWS V. STONE, 10 Minn. 72, (Gil. 52.)
Appeal and Error, 401.
Assault and Battery, 4, 7.
ANDREWS v. Town of MARION, 23 Minn. 372.
Highways, 38, 46.
Cited in State v. Severance, 29 Minn. 270.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N V. MASON, 44
Minn. 318, 46 N. W. 558.
Contracts, 40.
ANDERSON V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. Rr. Co., 42 Minn. ANKENY v. MOFFETT, 37 Minn. 109, 33 N. W. 320.
490, 44 N. W. 518.
Horse and Street Railroads, 4, 5.
Contribution, 1-4.
Followed in Weissner v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., ANKENY V. PALMER, 20 Minn. 477, (Gil. 431.)
47 Minn. 471.
ANDERSON V. MINNESOTA & N. W. R. Co., 39 Minn.
523, 41 N. W. 104.
Master and Servant, 43, 117, 128.
ANDERSON V. MORRISON, 22 Minn. 274.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Master and Servant, 62.
Applied in Craver v. Christian, 36 Minn. 414.
Cited in Wilson v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37
Minn. 328.
ANDERSON V. MUNCH, 29 Minn. 414, 13 N. W. 192.
Logs and Logging, 24.
Words and Phrases, 513, 701.
ANDERSON V. NORTHERN MILL Co., 42 Minn. 424,
44 N. W. 315.
Master and Servant, 61, 142.
ANDERSON V. PETERSON, 36 Minn. 547, 32 N. W. 861.
Public Lands, 8.
Words and Phrases, 473.
ANDERSON V. REARDON, 46 Minn. 185, 48 N. W. 777.
Assignment, 24.
Cited in Triggs v. Jones, 46 Minn. 282.
ANDERSON V. ST. CROIX LUMBER CO., 47 Minn. 24,
49 N. W. 407.
Appeal and Error, 263, 363, 576.
ANDERSON V. SCHULTZ, 37 Minn. 76, 33 N. W. 440.
Ejectment, 29.
Equity, 7.
Municipal Corporations, 269, 270.
Quieting Title, 9.
ANNAN V. FOLSOM, 6 Minn. 500, (Gil. 347.)
Deed, 49.
Husband and Wife, 39.
APPLETON MILL Co. v. WARDER, 42 Minn. 117, 43
N. W. 791.
Chattel Mortgages, 72.
Sheriffs and Constables, 21.
Trial, 33.
APPLICATION OF THE SENATE, IN RE, 10 Minn. 78,
(Gil. 56.)
Constitutional Law, 36.
Approved in State v. Dike, 20 Minn. 367, (Gil.
317.) Cited in Western Ry. Co. v. De Graff,
27 Minn. 5.
APPROPRIATION OF LANDS FOR STATE PARK, IN
RE, (Commissioners of State Park v. Henry,)
38 Minn. 266, 36 N. W 874.
Eminent Domain, 12.
ARBRUSH V. Town of OAKDALE, (Asbriesh v.
Town of Oakdale,) 28 Minn. 61, 9 N. W. 30.
Eminent Domain, 118.
Cited in State v. Shardlow, 43 Minn. 526.
ARCHAMBAU v. GREEN, 21 Minn. 520.
Constitutional Law, 98.
Mortgages, 7, 133.
2299
2300
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ARCHAMBAU V. GREEN-Continued.
Cited in Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn. 282; Buse
v. Page, 32 Minn. 115; Duncan v. Cobb, 32
Minn. 463; Banning v. Sabin, 45 Minn. 437.
ARCTANDER, IN RE, (Nordin v. Arctander, 26 Minn.
25, 1 N. W. 43.
Attorney and Client, 22.
ARCTANDER V. NILSON, 26 Minn. 505, 5 N. W. 680.
Judge, 9.
ARNOLD V. WAINWRIGHT, 6 Minn. 358, (Gil. 241.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 66.
Partnership, 19, 22.
Cited in Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 115, (Gil. 86;)
Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 490.
ARPER V. BAZE, 9 Minn. 108, (Gil. 98.)
Attachment, 12, 48.
Distinguished in Jorgenson v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 25 Minn. 208.
ARMOUR PACKING CO V. RICHTER, 42 Minn. 188, ARTHUR V. CLARKE, 46 Minn. 491, 49 N. W. 252.
43 N. W. 1114.
Sheriffs and Constables, 7.
ARMSTRONG V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS RAMSEY
COUNTY, 25 Minn. 344.
Clerk of Court, 6, 7.
Cited in Beaumont v. Ramsey County, 32 Minn.
111; Davenport v. Hennepin County, 40 Minn.
336.
ARMSTRONG v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 45
Minn. 85, 47 N. W. 459.
Carriers, 35.
Evidence, 141, 379.
ARMSTRONG V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 30 Minn. 299, 15
N. W. 174.
Municipal Corporations, 250, 256, 265.
Quieting Title, 10.
Distinguished in Henderson v. City of Minne-
apolis, 32 Minn. 322.
ARMSTRONG V. HINDS, 8 Minn. 254, (Gil. 221.)
Action, 23.
Ejectment, 14.
Words and Phrases, 183.
Followed in Miller v. Hoberg, 22 Minn. 250.
ARMSTRONG V. HINDS, 9 Minn. 356, (Gil. 341.)
Pleading, 114.
Trial, 138.
Cited in Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 Minn. 460;
Lane v. Lenfest, 40 Minn. 377.
ARMSTRONG V. LEWIS, 14 Minn. 406, (Gil. 308.)
Negotiable Instruments, 165, 168.
Cited in St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Cannon, 46 Minn.
97.
ARMSTRONG V. ST. PAUL & P. COAL Co., 50 N. W.
1029.
Sale, 143.
ARMSTRONG V. ST. PAUL & P. COAL & IRON Co.,
49 N. W. 233.
Sale, 174, 175.
Cited in Armstrong v. St. Paul & P. Coal Co.,
50 N. W. 1029.
ARMSTRONG V. SANFORD, 7 Minn. 49, (Gil. 34.)
Injunction, 18, 26.
Mortgages, 190, 381.
Explained in Conkey v. Dike, 17 Minn. 463, (Gil.
442.) Cited in Montgomery v. McEwen, 9
Minn. 107, (Gil. 97;) Hanson v. Johnson, 20
Minn. 195, (Gil. 174.)
ARMSTRONG V. VROMAN, 11 Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
Execution, 78, 80.
Cited in McCarthy v. Grace, 23 Minn. 186.
ARMSTRONG V. WANN, 29 Minn. 126, 12 N. W. 345.
Factors and Brokers, 37.
Cited in Hamlin v. Schulte, 34 Minn. 536; Put-
nam v. How, 89 Minn. 365; Crevier v. Stephen,
40 Minn. 290; Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 536;
Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 227.
Corporations, 168.
ARTHUR V. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 88 Minn. 95, 35
N. W. 718.
Carriers, 30, 31.
ARTHUR V. WILLIUS, 44 Minn. 409, 46 N. W. 85i.
Corporations, 137, 159, 160.
Followed in McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.,
50 N. W. 1114. Applied in Arthur v. Clarke,
46 Minn. 493. Cited in Densmore v. Shepard,
46 Minn. 58-60; Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation
Co., 50 N. W. 1111.
ASBRIESH V. TOWN OF OAKDALE, (Arbrush v. Town
of Oakdale,) 28 Minn. 61, 9 N. W. 30.
Eminent Domain, 118.
Cited in State v. Shardlow, 43 Minn. 526.
ASHTON V. SLATER, 19 Minn. 347, (Gil. 300.)
Judgment, 176.
Words and Phrases, 405.
Cited in Hanson v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 195, (Gil
174.)
ASHTON V. THOMPSON, 28 Minn. 330, 9 N. W. 876.
Appeal and Error, 58.
New Trial, 2.
Words and Phrases, 194.
ASHTON V. THOMPSON, 32 Minn. 25, 18 N. W. 918.
Equity, 59.
ASHWORTH V. FROST, 43 Minn. 259, 45 N. W. 431.
Work and Labor, 2.
ATKINS V. LITTLE, 17 Minn. 342, (Gil. 320.)
Conflict of Laws, 4.
Estoppel, 13.
Mechanics' Liens, 21, 46, 48, 83, 108, 161.
Specific Performance, 47.
Trial, 183.
Words and Phrases, 535, 649.
Cited in Benjamin v. Wilson, 34 Minn. 519;
Thompson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 45 Minn.
15, 16.
ATKINSON V. DUFFY, 16 Minn. 45, (Gil. 30.)
Mortgages, 154, 230, 233.
Statutes, 26.
Words and Phrases, 559.
Followed in Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 517, (Gil.
427.) Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn.
74, (Gil. 58;) State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 323;
Nash v. Tousley, 28 Minn. 6.
ATWATER V. MANCHESTER SAV. BANK, 45 Minn. 341,
48 N. W. 187.
Execution, 22.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 21.
Judgment, 9.
Mortgages, 388.
Words and Phrases, 172.
ATWATER V. RUSSELL, 51 N. W. 624.
Wills, 46, 54, 57.
Cited in Atwater v. Russell, 52 N. W. 26.
2301
2302
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ATWATER V. RUSSELL, 51 N. W. 629.
Trusts, 4-8.
Words and Phrases, 555.
Cited in Atwater v. Russell, 52 N. W. 26.
ATWOOD V. LANDIS, 22 Minn. 558.
Parties, 25, 26, 30.
Distinguished in Morse v. Barrows, 37 Minn. 240.
AUERBACH V. GIESEKE, (Auerbach v. Behnke,) 40
Minn. 258, 41 N. W. 946.
Execution, 99.
Judgment, 15, 16.
AUERBACH V. GLOYD, 34 Minn. 500, 27 N. W. 193.
Executors and Administrators, 68.
Applied in Riley v. Mitchell, 38 Minn. 11. Cited
in Re Charles, 35 Minn. 438, 439; Lake v. Al-
bert, 37 Minn. 454.
AUERBACH V. HITCHCOCK, 28 Minn. 73, 9 N. W. 79.
Attachment, 28.
Words and Phrases, 63, 220.
AUERBACH V. LE SUEUR MILL Co., 28 Minn. 291, 9
N. W. 799.
Corporations, 68.
Negotiable Instruments, 25.
AUSTIN V. ROBERTSON, 25 Minn. 431.
Trial, 8.
Applied in McAlpine v. Foley, 34 Minn. 253.
Cited in Follansbee v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 313;
Lucy v. Wilkins, 33 Minn. 443; Norris v. Clark,
33 Minn. 477; Scofield v. Walrath, 35 Minn.
356; Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 280.
AUSTIN V. WACKS, 30 Minn. 335, 15 N. W. 409.
Specific Performances, 14.
Vendor and Purchaser, 41-43.
Followed in Judd v. Skidmore, 33 Minn. 142.
Cited in Stone v. Harinon, 31 Minn. 515, 516;
O'Connor v. Hughes, 35 Minn. 449; Cummings
v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 319.
AUSTRIAN V. DAVIDSON, 21 Minn. 117.
Boundaries, 9.
Deed, 22, 34.
Cited in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 127, 128; Ambs v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 268; Cannon v. Emmans,
44 Minn. 298.
AUSTRIAN V. DEAN, 23 Minn. 62.
Covenants, 9.
Words and Phrases, 475.
AUERBACH V. MAYNARD, 26 Minn. 421, 4 N. W. 816. AVERY V. CREIGH, 35 Minn. 456, 29 N. W. 154.
Abatement and Revival, 15.
AULTMAN & Co. v. BROWN. See C. Aultman &
Co. v. Brown.
AULTMAN & Co. v. FALKUM. See C. Aultman &
Co. v. Falkum.
AULTMAN & Co. v. KENNEDY. See C. Aultman &
Co. v. Kennedy.
AULTMAN & Co. v. OLSON. See C. Aultman & Co.
v. Olson.
Usury, 16, 28.
Applied in Stein v. Swensen, 46 Minn. 364. Dis
tinguished in Mackey v. Winkler, 35 Minn. 514.
Cited in Lewis v. Willoughby, 43 Minn. 310;
Stein v. Swensen, 44 Minn. 222; Stein v. Swen-
sen, 46 Minn. 365.
AYER V. STEWART, 14 Minn. 97. (Gil. 68.)
Limitation of Actions, 16.
Cited in Brown v. Crookston Agricultural Ass'n,
34 Minn. 546.
AUSTIN V. NORTHERN PAO. R. Co., 34 Minn. 351, 25 AYER V. STEWART, 16 Minn. 89, (Gil. 77.)
N. W. 798.
New Trial, 73.
AUSTIN V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., (Austin v. Nor-
thern Pac., F. F. & B. H. R. Co.,) 34 Minn.
473, 26 N. W. 607.
Pleading, 172.
Affirmed in Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Austin, 10
Sup. Ct. 758, 135 U. S. 315.
Appeal and Error, 210, 211.
Cited in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 511.
AYER V. TERMATT, 8 Minn. 96, (Gil. 71.)
Appeal and Error, 136.
AYERS V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. Rr. Co.,
46 Minn. 134, 48 N. W. 683.
Appeal and Error, 527.
BABCOCK V. BANNING, 3 Minn. 191, (Gil. 123.)
Appeal and Error, 648.
BABCOCK V. CоBB, 11 Minn. 347, (Gil. 247.)
Executors and Administrators, 104, 122.
Words and Phrases, 657.
B.
Followed in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 33. Cit-
ed in Hartley v. Croze, 38 Minn. 334.
BABCOCK V. LATTERNER, 30 Minn. 417, 15 N. W. 689.
Deed, 89.
BABCOCK V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 36 Minn.
147, 30 N. W. 449.
Damages, 97.
BABCOCK V. SANBORN, 3 Minn. 141, (Gil. 86.)
Appeal and Error, 31, 157, 280, 398.
BABCOCK V. SANBORN-Continued.
Followed in Hawke v. Banning, 3 Minn. 71, (Gil.
73;) Willoughby v. Stanton, 3 Minn. 150, (Gil.
94;) Slaughter v. Nininger, 3 Minn. 150, (Gil
95;) Milwain v. Sanford, 3 Minn. 149, (Gil. 93;)
Kent v. Bown, 3 Minn. 350, (Gil. 247;) Daniels
v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 163, (Gil. 108;) Daniels v.
Harris, 4 Minn. 170, (Gil. 115;) Daniels v. Al-
len, 4 Minn. 171, (Gil. 115;) Daniels v. Wain-
wright, 4 Minn. 172, (Gil.116;) Nelson v. Thomp-
son, 23 Minn. 510. Overruled in Reynolds v.
La Crosse & M. Packet Co., 10 Minn. 186, (Gil.
150.) Cited in Cooper v. Breckenridge, 11
Minn. 345, (Gil. 245;) Washburn v. Winslow, 16
Minn. 37, (Gil. 23;) Lake Superior & M. R. Co.
v. Greve, 17 Minn. 335, (Gil. 310.)
2303
2304
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BABERICK V. MAGNER, 9 Minn. 232, (Gil. 217.)
Appeal and Error, 148.
Elections and Voters, 38.
Followed in Borer v. Kolars, 23 Minn. 446, 448;
State v. Klitzke, 46 Minn. 344.
BAKER V. BYERLY, 40 Minn. 489, 42 N. W. 395.
Appeal and Error, 181, 416.
Mortgages, 346.
Powers, 3.
Cited in Deiber v. Loehr, 44 Minn. 452.
BACKDAHL V. GRAND LODGE A. O. U. W., 46 Minn. BAKER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 8 Minn. 491, (Gil. 436.)
61, 48 N. W. 454.
Evidence, 61.
Insurance, 163, 168, 169, 179, 180.
Cited in Benedict v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W.,
51 N. W. 373.
BACKUS V. BURKE, 51 N. W. 284.
Mortgages, 178.
Dedication, 26.
Towns, 4.
Followed in City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn.
128, (Gil. 77.) Cited in Wilder v. City of St.
Paul, 12 Minn. 200, 202, (Gil. 118, 124;) Downer
v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 252; Bris-
bine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 131.
BACON V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD BRAKEMEN, BAKER V. KELLEY, 11 Minn. 480, (Gil. 358.)
46 Minn. 303, 48 N. W. 1127.
Insurance, 158.
BACON V. COTTRELL, 13 Minn. 194, (Gil. 183.)
Mortgages, 353, 415, 458.
BACON V. RUPERT, 39 Minn. 512, 40 N. W. 832.
Factors and Brokers, 54.
Principal and Agent, 87.
BAGLEY V. STERNBERG, 34 Minn. 470, 26 N. W. 602.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 20.
Landlord and Tenant, 88.
BAILEY V. AUSTRIAN, 19 Minn. 535, (Gil. 465.)
Contracts, 16, 17.
Followed in Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 141,
(Gil. 126.) Distinguished in Minneapolis Mill
Co. v. Goodnow, 40 Minn. 497, 498. Cited in
Stensgaard v. Smith, 43 Minn. 13; Beyerstedt v.
Winona Mill Co., 51 N. W. 621.
BAILEY V. CHANDLER, 27 Minn. 174, 6 N. W. 480.
Execution, 57.
Cited in Tyler v. Hanscom, 28 Minn. 3.
BAILEY V. GALPIN, 40 Minn. 319, 41 N. W. 1054
Adverse Claim, 35.
Deed, 29.
Vendor and Purchaser, 156.
Ejectment, 7.
Limitation of Actions, 1, 2.
Taxation, 68, 234, 241, 259, 260.
Words and Phrases, 239.
Followed in Beaupre v. Hoerr, 13 Minn. 368, (Gil.
341;) State v. Becht, 23 Minn. 413. Distin-
guished in Hill v. Lund, 13 Minn. 453, (Gil. 422;)
Burk v. Western Land Ass'n, 40 Minn. 507.
Cited in Wilson v. Red Wing School Dist., 22
Minn. 491; Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 362; San-
born v. Petter, 35 Minn. 451; Feller v. Clark,
36 Minn. 340; Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
45 Minn. 70; Russell v. H. C. Akeley Lumber
Co., 45 Minn. 380.
BAKER v. MARSHALL, 15 Minn. 177, (Gil. 136.)
Mandamus, 6, 7.
Cited in Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38
Minn. 90.
BAKER V. NORTHWESTERN GUARANTY LOAN Co., 36
Minn. 185, 30 N. W. 464.
Corporations, 22.
Mortgages, 143.
Cited in Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 37 Minn. 320;
St. Paul Land Co. v. Ďayton, 37 Minn. 366;
Merritt v. Byers, 46 Minn. 78; National Invest
ment Co. v. Nordin, 52 N. W. 900.
Cited in Northwestern Pavement Co. v. Norwe- BAKER V. POTTLE, 51 N. W. 383.
gian Seminary, 43 Minn. 452.
BAILEY V. MASON, 4 Minn. 546, (Gil. 430.)
Mechanics' Liens, 8-10.
Distinguished in Nelson v. Sykes, 44 Minn. 69.
Cited in Willim v. Bernheimer, 5 Minn. 293,
(Gil. 232;) Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 39,
(Gil. 22;)" Coleman v. Ballandi, 22 Minn. 146;
Morrison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 437.
BAILEY V. MERRETT, 8 Minn. 84, (Gil. 60.)
Mortgages, 299, 300.
BAILEY V. MERRITT, 7 Minn. 159, (Gil. 102.)
Mortgages, 299, 300.
Followed in Bailey v. Merrett, 8 Minn. 84, (Gil.
60.) Cited in Butterfield v. Farnham, 19 Minn.
92, (Gil. 64;) Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 308;
Perry v. Reynolds, 40 Minn. 500.
BAILLIF V. GERHARD, (Bailif's Estate, In re,) 40
Minn. 172, 41 N. W. 1059.
Homestead, 58.
Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 15.
BAILLY V. WELLER, 2 Minn. 384, (Gil. 338.)
Interest of Money, 9, 10.
Words and Phrases, 392.
BAKER V. BAKER, 22 Minn. 262.
Trusts, 19.
Chattel Mortgages, 45, 79.
BAKER V. SHEEHAN, 29 Minn. 235, 12 N. W. 704.
Exemptions, 18.
Judgment, 275.
Sheriffs and Constables, 19.
Cited in Prosser v. Hartley, 35 Minn. 343; Se-
curity Bank v. Beede, 37 Minn. 529.
BAKER V. TERRELL, S Minn. 195, (Gil. 165.)
Appeal and Error, 151.
Mortgages, 129.
Trusts, 16.
Cited in Baker v. Northwestern Guaranty Loan
Co., 36 Minn. 186, 187; Knoblauch v. Fogle-
song, 37 Minn. 320; National Investment Co.
v. Nordin, 52 N. W. 900.
BAKER V. THOMPSON, 36 Minn. 314, 31 N. W.
Adverse Claim, 10.
Judgment, 189.
51.
Cited in Berryhill v. Potter, 42 Minn. 280.
BAKER V. UNITED STATES, 1 Minn. 207, (Gil. 181.)
Criminal Law, 197.
Witness, 8.
Followed in State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 449, (Gil.
351.) Cited in Tierney v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 170,
Gil. 157.)
BAKER V. WYMAN, 47 Minn. 177, 49 N. W. 649.
Judgment, 112.
2305
2306
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BALCH V. HOOPER, 32 Minn. 158, 20 N. W. 124.
Executors and Administrators, 10, 25.
Infancy, 26.
Words and Phrases, 17, 393.
Cited in Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 166.
BALCH V. WILSON, 25 Minn. 299.
Banks and Banking, 41.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 30.
BALCOMBE V. NORTHRUP, 9 Minn. 172, (Gil. 159.)
Action, 3.
Indians, 6.
Office and Officers, 13.
BALDWIN V. ALLISON, 3 Minn. 83, (Gil. 41.)
Trial, 174.
Cited in Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 427, (Gil.
328.)
BALDWIN V. ALLISON, 4 Minn. 25, (Gil. 11.)
Executors and Administrators, 113.
Mortgages, 197.
Trusts, 37.
Applied in Tilleny v. Welverton, 46 Minn. 258.
Distinguished in Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W.
286. Cited in Ramsey v. Merriam, 6 Minn.
175, (Gil. 109;) Kern v. Chalfant, 7 Minn. 492,
(Gil. 399;) Blake v. McKusick, 8 Minn. 341,
(Gil. 301) Wilson v. Bell, 17 Minn. 65-67,
(Gil. 43-45;) King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 25;
In re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 910.
BALDWIN V. BLANCHARD, 15 Minn. 489, (Gil. 403.)
Appeal and Error, 329, 339.
Contracts, 170, 172.
Evidence, 64.
Followed in Judson v. Reardon, 16 Minn. 441,
(Gil. 397;) Simmons v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co.,
18 Minn. 192, (Gil. 176;) Ferson v. Wilcox, 19
Minn. 451, (Gil. 392.) Cited in Paine v. Sher-
wood, 19 Minn. 324, (Gil. 279.)
BALDWIN V. CANFIELD, 20 Minn. 43, 1 N. W. 261.
Banks and Banking, 33.
Corporations, 63, 108, 112.
Pleading, 278.
Quieting Title, 3, 4.
Applied in Joslyn v. St. Paul Distilling Co., 44
Minn. 187. Cited in Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29
Minn. 272; Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v.
Prince, 34 Minn. 86; Maloney v. Finnegan, 38
Minn. 71; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38
Minn. 89; Morrill v. Little Falls Manuf'g Co.,
46 Minn. 266; Lund v. Wheaton Roller Mill
Co., 52 N. W. 269.
BALDWIN V. CANFIELD, 26 Minn. 62, 1 N. W. 585.
See Baldwin v. Canfield, supra.
BALDWIN V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 35 Minn.
354, 29 N. W. 5.
Damages, 63.
Eminent Domain, 279.
BALDWIN V. ROGERS, (Baldwin v. O'Laughlin,) 28
Minn. 68, 9 N. W. 79.
Appeal and Error, 655.
BALDWIN V. ROGERS, (Baldwin v. O'Laughlin,) 28
Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 2.
Homestead, 81.
Cited in Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 195.
BALDWIN V. WINSLOW, 2 Minn. 213, (Gil. 174.)
Estoppel, 30.
Specific Performance, 16, 93.
Vendor and Purchaser, 11, 13.
Words and Phrases, 341.
Cited in Case v. Young, 3 Minn. 215, (Gil. 143;)
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul Union
Depot Co., 44 Minn. 332.
BALME V. WAMBAUGH, 16 Minn. 116, (Gil. 106.)
Mortgages, 172.
Negotiable Instruments, 123, 152.
Tender, 10.
Distinguished in Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 430.
BANDY V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 380, 23 N. W. 547.
Affidavit, 4.
BANGS
V. FRIEZEN, 36 Minn. 423, 32 N. W. 173.
Chattel Mortgages, 94.
Sale, 1.
BANK V. BRAINERD SCHOOL-DIST., 51 N. W. 814.
Schools and School-Districts, 51, 52.
BANKER V. BRENT, 4 Minn. 521, (Gil. 408.)
Mortgages, 248, 304.
Distinguished in Bennett v. Healey, 6 Minn. 248,
(Gil. 165;) Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 308.
BANKER V. CALDWELL, 3 Minn. 94, (Gil. 46.)
Abstracts, of Title, 2.
Copyright, 1, 2.
Execution, 47, 48.
Literary Property.
Words and Phrases, 3.
BANK OF BENSON V. HOVE, 45 Minn. 40, 47 N. W.
449.
Chattel Mortgages, 76, 92, 102.
BANK OF COMMERCE V. SELDEN, 1 Minn. 340, (Gil.
251.)
Evidence, 129.
Pleading, 249.
BANK OF COMMERCE V. SELDEN, 3 Minn. 155, (Gia.
99.
Partnership, 29, 37, 41.
Cited in Davis v. Smith, 27 Minn. 392; Farwell
v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 501; Van Dyke
v. Seelye, 52 N. W. 216.
BALDWIN V. O'LAUGHLIN, (Baldwin v. Rogers,) 28 BANK OF FARMINGTON V. ELLIS, 30 Minn. 270, 15
Minn. 68, 9 N. W. 79.
Appeal and Error, 655.
BALDWIN V. O'LAUGHLIN, (Baldwin v. Rogers,) 23
Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 2.
Homestead, 81.
Cited in Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 195.
BALDWIN V. ROBINSON, 39 Minn. 241, 39 N. W. 321.
Homestead, 21.
Distinguished in Mintzer v. St. Paul Trust Co.,
45 Minn. 325, 326.
V.2M.DIG. 73
N. W. 243.
Chattel Mortgages, 42, S4.
Cited in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 497; Tol-
bert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 521; McNeil v. Finne-
gan, 33 Minn. 376; Dyer v. Thorstad, 35 Minn.
536; Mullen v. Noonan, 44 Minn. 5+3.
BANK OF HALLOWELL V. BAKER, 1 Minn. 261, (Gil
205.)
Evidence, 256.
Cited in Russell v. Schurmeier, 9 Minn. 33, (Gil
22.)
2307
2308
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BANNING V. ARMSTRONG, 7 Minn. 40, (Gil. 24.)
Creditors' Suit, 2.
Pleading, 18.
Distinguished in Bennett v. Hotchkiss, 17 Minn.
92, (Gil. 69.)
BANNING V. ARMSTRONG, 7 Minn. 46, (Gil. 31.)
Mortgages, 244, 245.
BANNING V. BRADFORD, 21 Minn. 308.
Mortgages, 336.
Quieting Title, 12.
Distinguished in Churchill v. Proctor, 31 Minn.
132; Walton v. Perkins, 33 Minn. 358; Cheever
v. Converse, 35 Minn. 181; Wilson v. Jamison,
36 Minn. 60, 61.
BANNING V. EDES, 6 Minn. 402, (Gil. 270.)
Deed, 58.
Execution, 82.
Mortgages, 46.
Followed in Barker v. Kelderhouse, 8 Minn. 210,
(Gil. 180.)
BANNING V. SABIN, 41 Minn. 477, 43 N. W. 329.
Judgment, 115.
Cited in Banning v. Sabin, 45 Minn. 432.
BANNING V. SABIN, 45 Minn. 431, 48 N. W. 8.
Execution, 121.
Judgment, 117.
Mortgages, 102.
BANNING V. SIBLEY, 3 Minn. 389, (Gil. 282.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 2,
14, 91.
Garnishment, 2, 43.
Words and Phrases, 64, 604, 605.
Cited in Pioneer Printing Co. v. Sanborn, 3
Minn. 418, (Gil. 306;) Chase v. North, 4 Minn.
383, (Gil. 290;) Cole v. Sater, 5 Minn. 472, (Gil.
381;) Gere v. Murray, 6 Minn. 316, (Gil. 221;)
May v. Walker, 35 Minn. 197; Vanderhoof v.
Holloway, 41 Minn. 499.
BANNON V. BOWLER, 34 Minn. 416, 26 N. W. 237.
Chattel Mortgages, 34, 35, 69.
Words and Phrases, 791.
Distinguished in Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 481.
Cited in State v. Fitzgerald, 37 Minn. 27; Well-
come v. Town of Monticello, 41 Minn. 138; Gal-
lagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 510.
BARBER, IN RE, (Olmsted County v. Barber,) 31
Minn. 256, 17 N. W. 473.
Estoppel, 7.
Taxation, 64, 95, 156, 273, 301.
Cited in Coles v. Washington County, 35 Minn.
128, 129; Hartman v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 224;
Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,
40 Minn. 517, 519; Bloom v. Moy, 43 Minn. 397;
Schoonover v. Galarnault, 45 Minn. 176.
BARBER V. BOWEN, 47 Minn. 118, 49 N. W. 684.
Executors and Administrators, 66.
Trusts, 39.
BARBER V. EVANS, 27 Minn. 92, 6 N. W. 445.
Taxation, 283.
Explained in Olmsted County v. Barber, 31 Minn.
260. Cited in Knight v. Alexander, 38 Minn.
386; Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 320; Welch v.
Ketcham, 51 N. W. 115; Stuart v. Lowry, 51
N. W. 663.
BARBER V. KENNEDY, 18 Minn. 216, (Gil. 196.)
Appeal and Error, 168, 236, 713-715, 734–736.
Justices of the Peace, 13-15, 71.
BARBER V. KENNEDY-Continued.
Words and Phrases, 29.
Applied in State v. McGinuis, 30 Minn. 51. Ex-
plained in Palmer v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 38
Minn. 415. Cited in Wagner v. Nagel, 33 Minn.
351.
t
BARBER V. MORRIS, 37 Minn. 194, 33 N. W. 559.
Attachment, 70.
Judgment, 198.
Summons, 38.
Followed in Brown v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 508. Distinguished in Nye v. Swan,
42 Minn. 244. Cited in Godfrey v. Valentine,
39 Minn. 337; Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 99;
Cousins v. Alworth, 44 Minn. 507, 510; Hemp-
sted v. Cargill, 46 Minn. 143.
BARBO V. BASSETT, 35 Minn. 485, 29 N. W. 198.
Appeal and Error, 598.
Master and Servant, 163.
Applied in Craver v. Christian, 36 Minn. 413, 415.
BARDWELL V. AMERICAN EXP. Co., 35 Minn. 344,
28 N. W. 925.
Carriers, 44.
Payment, 3.
BARDWELL V. ANDERSON. See O'Neil v. St. Olaf's
School.
BARDWELL V. COLLINS, (Bardwell v. Anderson,) 44
Minn. 97, 46 N. W. 315.
Constitutional Law, 156.
Mechanics' Liens, 5.
Words and Phrases, 241, 557.
Distinguished in Shepherd v. Ware, 46 Minn.
177, 178. Explained in Smith v. Hurd, 52 N.
W. 922. Cited in Irwin v. Pierro, 44 Minn. 491.
BARDWELL V. MANN, 46 Minn. 285, 48 N. W. 1120.
Mechanics' Liens, 3, 59.
Cited in McKeen v. Haseltine, 46 Minn. 431;
Hill v. Lovell, 47 Minn. 295; Glass v. Freeberg,
52 N. W. 900.
BARDWELL V. ST. OLAF's SCHOOL. See O'Neil v.
St. Olaf's School.
BARDWELL V. WITT, 42 Minn. 468, 44 N. W. 983.
Principal and Surety, 27.
BARGE V. KLAUSMAN, 42 Minn. 281, 44 N. W. 69.
Mortgages, 131.
BARKER V. FOSTER, 29 Minn. 166, 12 N. W. 460.
Pleading, 199, 205.
Cited in Wright v. Jewell, 33 Minn. 506; Van
Loon v. Griffin, 34 Minn. 446.
BARKER V. KEITH, 11 Minn. 65, (Gil. 37.)
Appeal and Error, 475.
Judgment, 263, 264.
Words and Phrases, 774.
Cited in Chisago County v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 27 Minn. 110; Everett v. Boyington, 29
Minn. 269.
BARKER V. KELDERHOUSE, S Minn. 207, (Gil 178.)
Exemptions, 25.
Statutes, 49.
BARKER V. TODD, 37 Minn. 370, 34 N. W. 895.
Appeal and Error, 348.
Trial, 117.
BARKER V. WALBRIDGE, 14 Minn. 469, (Gil. 351)
Landlord and Tenant, 86, 94.
Pleading, 176.
2309
2310
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BARKER V. WALBRIDGE—Continued.
Tender, 5.
Words and Phrases, 259, 757.
Followed in Birdsall v. Fischer, 17 Minn. 102, 103,
(Gil. 80.) Distinguished in Wallrich v. Hall,
19 Minn. 389, (Gil. 335.) Cited in Williams v.
Murphy, 21 Minn. 537; Banning v. Bradford,
21 Minn. 313; Cummings v. Taylor, 21 Minn.
368; Matthews v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 136; Becker
v. Northway, 44 Minn. 62.
BARMAN V. MILLER, 23 Minn. 458.
Appeal and Error, 484.
Costs, 34, 41.
Sheriffs and Constables, 48, 55.
BARNARD, IN RE, (Aberle, In re,) 30 Minn. 512,
16 N. W. 403.
Insolvency, 28.
BARNARD V. GASLIN, 23 Minn. 192.
Evidence, 274.
Cited in Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn. 106; Farwell
v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 497.
BARNES V. HOLTON, 14 Minn. 357, (Gil. 275.)
Justices of the Peace, 16.
Cited in Rahilly v. Lane, 15 Minn. 450, (Gil. 362;)
McGinty v. Warner, 17 Minn. 43, (Gil. 25;)
Burt v. Bailey, 21 Minn. 405.
BARNES V. KERLINGER, 7 Minn. 82, (Gil. 55.)
Execution, 76.
BARNETT V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER
Co., 33 Minn. 265, 22 N. W. 535.
Appeal and Error, 554.
Damages, 62.
Evidence, 174.
Followed in Wyckoff v. Horan, 39 Minn. 430.
BARNEY V. FLOWER, 27 Minn. 403, 7 N. W. 823.
Arbitration and Award, 19.
Applied in Heglund v. Allen, 30 Minn. 39. Cited
in Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 361.
BARNSBACK V. REINER, 8 Minn. 59, (Gil. 37.)
Appeal and Error, 421.
Limitation of Actions, 31.
Followed in Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 93, (Gil.
83.) Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 455.
BARNUM, IN RE, (Barnum v. Gilman,) 27 Minn.
466, 8 N. W. 375.
Elections and Voters, 24.
Quo Warranto, 9.
Words and Phrases, 745.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn.
311. Cited in State v. Minnesota Thresher
Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 214.
BARNUM V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 30 Minn.
461, 16 N. W. 364.
Death by Wrongful Act, 10.
Followed in Johnson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 31
Minn. 284.
BARNUM V. GILMAN, (Barnum, In re,) 27 Minn. 466,
8 N. W. 375.
Elections and Voters, 24.
Quo Warranto, 9.
Words and Phrases, 745.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn.
311. Cited in State v. Minnesota Thresher
Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 214.
BARNUM V. MINNESOTA TRANSFER RY. Co., 33
Minn. 365, 23 N. W. 538.
Eminent Domain, 270.
Cited in Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 424; Thelan
v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 227; Adams v. Chicago,
B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 288; Swanson v.
Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42 Minn. 535;
Lakkie v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 44
Minn. 440.
BARRETT V. MCKENZIE, 24 Minn. 20.
Execution, 68.
24 Minn. 168;
Approved in
Cited in Wal-
Partnership, 73, 75, 84.
Followed in Wickham v. Davis,
Spencer v. Haug, 45 Minn. 233.
Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 496.
ter v. Greenwood, 29 Minn. 89; Churchill v.
Proctor, 31 Minn. 135; Lane v. Lenfest, 40
Minn. 378; Duford v. Lewis, 43 Minn. 28.
BARRINGER V. STOLTZ, 39 Minn. 63, 38 N. W. 808.
Appeal and Error, 352.
Factors and Brokers, 47.
BARRON V. MULLIN, 21 Minn. 374.
Action, 38.
Damages, 44.
Partnership, 76.
Receivers, 6, 7.
Cited in Dye v. Forbes, 34 Minn. 16; Jackson v.
Holbrook, 36 Minn. 502; Hersey v. Walsh, 38
Minn. 522; American Manuf'g Co. v. Klarquist,
47 Minn. 346.
BARRON V. PAULSON, 22 Minn. 36.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Applied in Campbell v. Landberg, 27 Minn. 455.
BARROWS V. Fox, 39 Minn. 61, 38 N. W. 777.
Damages, 106.
New Trial, 44.
BARROWS V. THOMAS, 43 Minn. 270, 45 N. W. 443.
Usury, 27.
BARRY V. MCGRADE, 14 Minn. 163, (Gil. 126.)
Constitutional Law, 118.
Execution, 56, 59, 62.
Followed in Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 122;
Tyler v. Hanscom, 28 Minn. 3. Cited in Liv-
ingstone v. Brown, 18 Minn. 311, (Gil. 280;)
Butler v. White, 25 Minn. 437; Flower v. Grace,
23 Minn. 33; Jones v. Town, 26 Minn. 174;
Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 370; Perkins v.
Zarracher, 32 Minn. 75; Johnson v. Bray, 35
Minn. 250; Granning v. Swenson, 52 N. W. 81.
BARRY V. MCGRADE, 14 Minn. 286, (Gil. 214.)
Appeal and Error, 403.
Costs, 2, 3, 30, 40.
Witness, 113.
Cited in Jensen v. Crevier, 33 Minn. 373.
BARTEAU V. BARTEAU, 45 Minn. 132, 47 N. W. 645.
Divorce, 27.
Fraud, 2.
BARTH V. HOREJS, 45 Minn. 184, 47 N. W. 717.
Appeal and Error, 740.
BARTIESON V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 33 Minn. 468,
23 N. W. 839.
Eminent Domain, 158.
BARTLESON V. THOMPSON, 30 Minn. 161, 14 N. W.
795.
Execution, 79.
Mortgages, 390.
Explained in Lowry v. Akers, 52 N. W. 923.
+
· 2311
2312
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BARTLETT V. HAWLEY, 38 Minn. 308, 37 N. W. 580. | BAUSMAN V. FAUE, 45 Minn. 412, 48 N. W. 13.
Malicious Prosecution, 34, 47.
Trial, 110.
BARTLETT V. SIMAN, 24 Minn. 448.
Nuisance, 6, 7.
BARTON V. DRAKE, 21 Minn. 299.
Homestead, 3, 16, 64, 66, 67.
Specific Performance, 5.
Statutes, 33.
Followed in Conway v. Elgin, 38 Minn. 471. Ap-
plied in Law v. Butler, 44 Minn. 485. Cited in
Wilson v. Proctor, 28 Minn. 16; Gilman v. Van
Brunt, 29 Minn. 272; Gaston v. Merriam, 33
Minn. 283; Alt v. Banholzer, 39 Minn. 512;
Jelinek v. Stepan, 41 Minn. 413.
BARTON V. MOORE, 45 Minn. 98, 47 N. W. 460.
Subscription, 6.
BASS V. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, 27 Minn. 250, 4 N. W.
619, 6 N. W. 776.
Municipal Corporations, 332.
Estoppel, 23.
Followed in Bausman v. Eads, 46 Minn. 154.
BAUSMAN V. KELLEY, 38 Minn. 197, 36 N. W. 333.
Limitation of Actions, 37.
Mortgages, 110, 161, 236.
Quieting Title, 19.
Followed in Sanborn v. Eads, 38 Minn. 211;
Welsh v. Cooley, 44 Minn. 447. Applied in
Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 414. Cited in
Nauer v. Benham, 45 Minn. 254.
BAUSMAN V. TILLEY, 46 Minn. 66, 48 N. W. 459.
Appeal and Error, 521.
Summons, 21.
BAUSMAN v. WOODMAN, 33 Minn. 512, 24 N. W. 198.
Pleading, 148–150.
BAYARD V. KLINGE, 16 Minn. 249, (Gil. 221.)
Counties, 11, 19.
Words and Phrases, 114, 454, 455.
Followed in Everett v. Smith, 22 Minn. 55.
Cited in Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom BAZE v. ARPER, 6 Minn. 220, (Gil. 142.)
Co., 30 Minn. 479, 480.
BASS V. RANDALL, 1 Minn. 404, (Gil. 292.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
BASS v. Upton, 1 Minn. 408, (Gil. 292.)
Carriers, 64.
Pleading, 113.
Warehousemen, 5.
Approved in Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 162,
(Gil. 107.) Cited in Knoblauch v. Foglesong,
38 Minn. 460.
BASS V. VELTUM, 28 Minn. 512, 11 N. W. 65.
Sale, 17.
BASSETT V. FORTIN, 30 Minn. 27. 14 N. W. 56.
Courts, 24.
BASSHOR V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 26 Minn. 110, 1 N.
W. 810.
Municipal Corporations, 99.
Bast v. LEONARD, 15 Minn. 304, (Gil. 235.)
Damages, 95.
Negligence, 23, 85, 86.
Followed in Lindholm v. City of St. Paul, 19
Minn. 250, (Gil. 210.) Approved in Woodson
v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 65.
BATES V. CLIFFORD, 22 Minn. 52.
Action, 11.
Contracts, 46.
BATTELLE V. NORTHWESTERN CEMENT & CONCRETE
PAVEMENT Co., 37 Minn. 89, 33 N. W. 327.
Corporations, 58, 59.
Words and Phrases, 599.
Deed, 40-42, 47, 80.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 102.
New Trial, 66, 107.
Trial, 19.
Vendor and Purchaser, 130.
Followed in Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 295,
(Gil. 202.) Cited in Arper v. Baze, 9 Minn. 111,
(Gil. 101;) Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18
Minn. 307, (Gil. 278;) Davis v. Hudson, 29
Minn. 36; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 278.
BAZILLE V. MURRAY, 40 Minn. 48, 41 N. W. 238.
Adverse Possession, 11.
Judgment, 114, 149.
BAZILLE V. ULLMAN, 2 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
Appeal and Error, 172.
Reference, 8, 17.
Cited in Baldwin v. Allison, 3 Minn. 86, (Gil. 42;)
Califf v. Hillhouse, 3 Minn. 315, (Gil. 220;) Mor-
rison v. March, 4 Minn. 426, (Gil. 327;) Conklin
v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 462, (Gil. 415;) Taylor v.
Parker, 18 Minn. 81, (Gil. 65;) Stone v. John-
son, 30 Minn. 18; Butler v. Bohn, 31 Minn. 328;
Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn. 449; D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Williams, 39 Minn. 355; Warner
v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177; Williams v. Schembri,
44 Minn. 254.
BEACH V. GAYLORD, 43 Minn. 476, 45 N. W. 1095.
Surface Water, 9.
BEAL V. WHITE, 28 Minn. 6, 8 N. W. 829.
Statutes, 65.
Usury, 37.
Words and Phrases, 303.
Cited in Duncan v. Cobb, 32 Minn. 464.
Cited in McArthur v. Times Printing Co., 51 BEALS v. WAGENER, 47 Minn. 489, 50 N. W. 535.
N. W. 216.
BAUMAN V. CUNNINGHAM, 51 N. W. 611.
Insolvency, 53.
BAUSMAN V. CREDIT GUARANTEE Co., 47 Minn. 377,
50 N. W. 496.
Contracts, 162.
Corporations, 81.
Indemnity, 2.
Payment, 11.
BAUSMAN V. EADS, 46 Minn. 148, 48 N. W. 769.
Estoppel, 70.
Judgment, 18.
Mortgages, 151.
Account Stated, 15.
Attorney and Client, 28.
BEAN V. COCHRAN, 24 Minn. 60.
Mortgages, 94.
BEAN V. SCHMIDT, 43 Minn. 505, 46 N. W. 72.
Estoppel, 21.
Insolvency, 88.
BEANSTROM V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 46 Minn.
193, 48 N. W. 778.
Railroad Companies, 181, 192.
Cited in Tuthill v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 N.
W. 384; Dupee v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 N.
W. 958.
2313
2314
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BEARD V. CLARKE, 35 Minn. 324, 29 N. W. 142.
Logs and Loging, 9-11.
Cited in Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Minn. 341.
BEARD V. CLARKE, 38 Minn. 547, 39 N. W. 63.
Trial, 63.
BEARD V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 39 Minn. 546, 40 N. W.
842.
Witness, 27.
Cited in Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 154.
BEARD V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 41 Minn. 153, 43 N. W.
7, 8.
Appeal and Error, 573.
Evidence, 96.
Pleading, 253.
Trial, 7.
BEARDSLEE V. BEAUPRE, 44 Minn. 1, 46 N. W. 137.
Insolvency, 71.
BEATTY V. AMBS, 11 Minn. 331, (Gill. 234.)
Deposition, 13.
Evidence, 86.
Partnership, 91, 92.
Words and Phrases, 376.
BECKER V. SANDUSKY CITY BANK, 1 Minn. 311, (Gil.
243.)
Negotiable Instruments, 89.
Pleading, 158.
BECKER V. SWEETZER, 15 Minn. 427, (Gil. 346.)
Contracts, 150, 158.
Indians, 4, 5.
Pleading, 72.
BEDAL V. SPURR, 33 Minn. 207, 22 N. W. 390.
Appeal and Error, 346.
Trial, 123.
BEDFORD V. SMALL, 31 Minn. 1, 16 N. W. 452.
Contracts, 33.
Cited in Bemis v. Bridgman, 42 Minn. 497.
BEEBE V. FRIDLEY, 16 Minn. 518, (Gil. 467.)
Execution, 148.
Words and Phrases, 26, 411.
BEEBE V. WILKINSON, 30 Minn. 548, 16 N. W. 450.
Appeal and Error, 614.
Conversion of Personal Property, 41, 46.
Evidence, 244.
Cited in Stevens v. Ludlum, 46 Minn. 161; Howe
v. Cochran, 47 Minn. 404.
Beatty v. SibleY COUNTY, 32 Minn. 470, 21 N. W. BEECHER V. STEPHENS, 25 Minn. 146.
548.
Counties, 56.
BEAULIEU V. PARSONS, 2 Minn. 37, (Gil. 26.)
Appeal and Error, 455, 456.
New Trial, 34.
Witness, 108.
Cited in Mackubin v. Clarkson, 5 Minn. 251,
(Gil. 196;) City of St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 Minn.
171, (Gil. 143;) Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 8
Minn. 294, (Gil. 258.)
Newspapers, 1.
Words and Phrases, 489, 490.
Applied in Hull v. King, 38 Minn. 350, 351.
BEEDE V. PROEHL, 34 Minn. 497, 27 N. W. 191.
Payment, 1.
Cited in Hillestad v. Hostetter, 46 Minn. 395.
BFER v. AULTMAN-TAYLOR Co., 32 Minn. 90, 19 N.
W. 388.
Sale, 24.
BEAUMONT V. RAMSEY COUNTY, 32 Minn. 108, 19 BELDEN V. MUNGER, 5 Minn. 211, (Gil. 169.)
N. W. 727.
Counties, 63.
Words and Phrases, 677.
BEAUPRE V. DWYER, (Beaupre v. Holland & Thomp-
son Manuf'g Co.,) 43 Minn. 485, 45 N. W. 1094.
Chattel Mortgages, 15.
Distinguished in Bretto v. Levine, 52 N. W. 526.
BEAUFRE V. HOERR, 13 Minn. 366, (Gil. 339.)
Constitutional Law, 88.
Words and Phrases, 239.
Cited in Wieland v. Shillock, 24 Minn. 349.
BEAUPRE V. HOLLAND & THOMPSON MANUF'G Co.,
(Beaupre v. Dwyer,) 43 Minn. 485, 45 N. W.
1094.
Chattel Mortgages, 15.
Distinguished in Bretto v. Levine, 52 N. W. 526.
BEAUPRE V. PACIFIC & A. TELEGRAPH CO., 21 Minn.
155.
Telegraph Companies, 1.
Cited in Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince,
34 Minn. 76.
BECHT V. HARRIS, 4 Minn. 504, (Gil. 394.)
Corporations, 173-175.
BECKER V. DUNHAM, 27 Minn. 32, 6 N. W. 406.
Chattel Mortgages, 53.
Cited in Jellett v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 268.
BECKER V. NORTHWAY, 44 Minn. 61, 46 N. W. 210.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 36, 37.
Contracts, 41, 42.
Cited in Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 79.
BELL V. BAKER, 43 Minn. 86, 44 N. W. 676.
Landlord and Tenant, 69.
BELL V. DANGERFIELD, 26 Minn. 307, 3 N. W. 698.
Partition, 9.
BELOTE V. MORRISON, 8 Minn. 87, (Gil. 62.)
Mortgages, 16, 24.
Vendor and Purchaser, 72.
Disapproved in Holton v. Meighen, 15 Minn. 80,
(Gil. 57.) Cited in Jones v. Rahilly, 16 Minn.
323, (Gil. 286;) Buse v. Page, 32 Minn. 115.
BELT V. STETSON, 26 Minn. 411, 4 N. W. 779.
Sale, 45.
BEMIS V. BRIDGMAN, 42 Minn. 496, 44 N. W. 793.
Vendor and Purchaser, 95.
Cited in Miller v. Miller, 47 Minn. 551.
BEMIS V. COMMISSIONERS RICE COUNTY, 23 Minn.
73.
Sheriffs and Constables, 1.
BENEDICT V. Grand LODGE A. O. U. W., 51 N. W.
371.
Insurance, 161, 162.
BENEDICT V. OLSON, (Benedict v. Thoe,) 37 Minn.
431, 35 N. W. 10.
Negotiable Instruments, 112.
Principal and Surety, 18.
BENEDICT V. WILLIAMS, 39 Minn. 77, 38 N. W. 707.
Vendor and Purchaser, 28.
2315
2316
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BENGTSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 47 | BENNETT V. MINNEAPOLIS & P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn.
Minn. 486, 50 N. W. 531.
Master and Servant, 135, 137.
BENJAMIN V. LAROCHE, 39 Minn. 334, 40 N. W. 156.
Executors and Administrators, 124.
BENJAMIN V. LEVY, 39 Minn. 11, 38 N. W. 702.
Appeal and Error, 513.
Carriers, 9.
Cited in Dunn v. Barton, 40 Minn. 416.
BENJAMIN V. SMITH, 43 Minn. 146, 44 N. W. 1083.
Replevin, 23.
BENJAMIN V. WILSON, 34 Minn. 517, 26 N. W. 725.
Mechanics' Liens, 22, 23, 89.
Words and Phrases, 536.
BENNET FEMALE SEMINARY OF MINNEAPOLIS V.
WHITNEY, 46 Minn. 353, 49 N. W. 58.
Trusts, 24.
BENNETT V. BLATZ, 44 Minn. 56, 46 N. W. 319.
Taxation, 99, 220.
BENNETT V BRUNDAGE, 8 Minn. 432, (Gil. 385.)
Mortgages, 245.
BENNETT V. CROWELL, 7 Minn. 385, (Gil. 306.)
Pleading, 69.
Cited in Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 123.
BENNETT V. DENNY, 33 Minn. 530, 24 N. W. 193.
Insolvency, 5, 13, 77.
Affirmed in Denney v. Bennett, 9 Sup. Ct. 184,
128 U. S. 489. Applied and explained in Mac-
Donald v. First Nat. Bank, 47 Minn. 68. Cited
in Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 485; Johnson v.
Bray, 35 Minn. 249; In re Van Norman, 41
Minn. 495.
BENNETT V. ELLISON, 23 Minn. 242.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 29.
Explained in Lesher v. Getman, 28 Minn. 96,
97. Cited in Mann v. Flower, 25 Minn. 507;
May v. Walker, 35 Minn. 196.
BENNETT V. GILLETTE, 3 Minn. 423, (Gil. 309.)
Parent and Child, 3, 4.
BENNETT V. HEALY, 6 Minn. 240, (Gil. 158.)
Mortgages, 203.
Payment, 24.
Approved in Misener v. Gould, 11 Minn. 173, (Gil.
109.) Cited in Butterfield v. Farnham, 19 Minn.
92, (Gil. 64;) Merchant v. Woods, 27 Minn. 401;
Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 308.
BENNETT V. HOTCHKISS, 17 Minn. 89, (Gil. 66.)
Quieting Title, 22.
BENNETT V. HOTCHKISS, 20 Minn. 165, (Gil. 148.)
Lis Pendens, 1, 3.
Cited in Johnson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 171, (Gil.
155.)
BENNETT V. KNISS, 27 Minn. 49, 6 N. W. 401.
Evidence, 399.
Cited in Turnbull v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 31
Minn. 197; Barnett v. St. Anthony Falls Water-
Power Co., 33 Minn. 271.
BENNETT V. MCGRADE, 15 Minn. 132, (Gil. 99.)
Appeal and Error, 764, 770.
Execution, 136.
Cited in First Nat. Bank of Hastings v. Rogers,
15 Minn. 386, 388, 389, (Gil. 309, 311, 312;)
Slosson v. Ferguson, 31 Minn. 451; Schlieman
v. Bowlin, 36 Minn. 199.
245, 44 N. W. 10.
Eminent Domain, 124.
Trial, 46.
BENNETT V. MORTON, 46 Minn. 113, 48 N. W. 678.
Master and Servant, 3, 8.
BENNETT V. MURTAUGH, 20 Minn. 151, (Gil. 135.)
Waters and Water-Courses, 27, 28.
Distinguished in Schaefer v. Marthaler, 34 Minn.
488.
BENNETT V. PHELPS, 12 Minn. 326, (Gil. 216.)
Appeal and Error, 722.
Damages, 26.
Money Received, 1.
Pleading, 286.
Specific Performance, 45.
Vendor and Purchaser, 106, 107.
Applied in Warner v. Lockerby, 28 Minn. 30.
Cited in Taylor v. Read, 19 Minn. 375, 376,
(Gil. 322;) Rollins v. St. Paul Lumber Co., 21
Minn. 8; Hedderly v. Downs, 31 Minn. 186;
Wyvell v. Jones, 37 Minn. 69; Reynolds v.
Franklin, 41 Minn. 282; Pressnell v. Lundin,
44 Minn. 552; Herrick v. Newell, 51 N. W. 820.
BENNETT V. SCHUSTER, 24 Minn. 383.
Executors and Administrators, 126.
Replevin, 57.
Cited in Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 106.
BENNETT V. SYNDICATE INS. Co., 39 Minn. 254, 39
N. W. 488.
Negligence, 33.
Followed in Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 68.
Cited in Bennett v. Syndicate Ins. Co., 43
Minn. 46.
BENNETT V. SYNDICATE INS. Co., 43 Minn. 45, 44 N.
W. 794.
Appeal and Error, 328.
Witness, 100.
BENNETT V. WHITCOMB, 25 Minn. 148.
Appeal and Error, 76.
Parties, 32, 33, 38.
Applied in Becker v. Northway, 44 Minn. 64.
Cited in Lewis v. Harwood, 28 Minn. 433, 434;
Hunter v. Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co.,
31 Minn. 511; Wohlwend v. J. I. Case Thresh-
ing-Mach. Co., 42 Minn. 502.
BENNISON V. WALBANK, 38 Minn. 313, 37 N. W. 447.
Malpractice, 5, 6.
BENSON V. DEAN, 40 Minn. 445, 42 N. W. 207.
Pleading, 270.
Cited in Dennis v. Spencer, 45 Minn. 252.
BENSON V. MARKOE, 37 Minn. 30, 33 N. W. 38.
Equity, 31, 32, 34.
Cited in Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 252;
Spurr v. Home Ins. Co., 40 Minn. 427; Benson
v. Markoe, 41 Minn. 113; Gerdine v. Menage,
41 Minn. 421.
BENSON V. MARKOE, 41 Minn. 112, 42 N. W. 787.
Mortgage, 184.
Distinguished in Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn.
306. Cited in Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
BENSON V. STATE, 5 Minn. 19, (Gil. 6.)
Criminal Law, 1.
Forgery, 9.
Cited in State v. Pulle, 12 Minn. 173, (Gil. 102.)
2317
2318
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BENTLEY V. COMMISSIONERS CHISAGO COUNTY, 25 | BERGSMA V. DEWEY, 46 Minn. 357, 49 N. W. 57.
Minn. 259.
Homestead, 40, 41.
Mechanics' Liens, 36.
Poor and Poor-Laws, 6.
Cited in Currie v. School Dist. No. 26, 85 Minn. BERKEY V. JUDD, 12 Minn. 52, (Gil. 23.)
166.
BENTON V. NICOLL, 24 Minn. 221.
Appeal and Error, 565.
Mortgages, 8, 67, 70, 84, 138.
Register of Deeds, 1.
Applied in Marston v. Williams, 45 Minn. 119.
Cited in Buse v. Page, 32 Minn. 115; Banning
v. Sabin, 45 Minn. 437.
BENTON V. SCHULTE, 31 Minn. 312, 17 N. W. 621.
Specific Performance, 84.
Cited in Pullen v. Wright, 34 Minn. 316.
BENTON V. SNYDER, 22 Minn. 247.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 9.
Courts, 27.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 1.
BENTZ V. NORTHWESTERN AID ASS'N, 40 Minn. 202,
41 N. W. 1037.
Insurance, 176, 183, 185.
BENZ V. GEISSELL, 24 Minn. 169.
Appeal and Error, 489.
Execution, 24.
Cited in Churchill v. Proctor, 31 Minn. 135.
BERG V. BALDWIN, 31 Minn. 541, 18 N. W. 821.
Conversion of Personal Property, 47.
Exemptions, 9.
Words and Phrases, 527.
Applied in State v. McCrum, 38 Minn. 156.
BERG V. JOHNSON, 37 Minn. 134, 33 N. W. 441.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
BERG V. SPINK, 24 Minn. 138.
Evidence, 157.
Partnership, 68.
BERKEY V. JUDD, 14 Minn. 394, (Gil. 300.)
Trial, 162, 167.
Distinguished in Cummings v. Taylor, 24 Minn.
432. Cited in Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 364,
(Gil. 323;) Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 17
Minn. 108, (Gil. S6;) St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v.
Gardner, 19 Minn. 137, (Gil. 102;) Cummings v.
v. Taylor, 21 Minn. 369; Fair v. Stickney Farm
Co., 35 Minn. 382.
BERKEY V. JUDD, 22 Minn. 287.
Appeal and Error, 487, 501, 504.
Evidence, 131, 382, 383.
Fraud, 6.
Limitation of Actions, 36.
Partnership, 69.
Powers, 13, 20.
Followed in Garrett v. Mannheimer, 24 Minn.
194; Keith v. Briggs, 32 Minn. 187. Applied
in Seigneuret v. Fahey, 27 Minn. 63; Ganser
v. Fireman's Fund Ins, Co., 38 Minn. 78; Men-
age v. Jones, 40 Minn. 257. Cited in Moreland
v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 88; Deakin v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 304; Berkey v.
Judd, 31 Minn. 273; Newell v. Randall, 32 Minn.
173; Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 34
Minn. 54; Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn. 102;
Fontaine v. Bush, 40 Minn. 144; Gilbert v.
How, 45 Minn. 123.
BERKEY V. JUDD, 27 Minn. 475, 8 N. W. 383.
Executors and Administrators, 84.
Cited in Berkey v. Judd, 31 Minn. 273, 274; Fow-
ler v. Mickley, 39 Minn. 29; Fern v. Leuthhold,
39 Minn. 216.
BERG V. STANHOPE, (Berg v. Stanwood,) 48 Minn. BERKEY V. JUDD, 31 Minn. 271, 17 N. W. 618.
176, 45 N. W. 15.
Action, 33.
BERGER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 39 Minn. 78,
38 N. W. 814.
Master and Servant, 120.
Distinguished in Kaillen v. Northwestern Bed-
ding Co., 46 Minn. 189.
BERGH V. WARNER, 47 Minn. 250, 50 N. W. 77.
Appeal and Error, 517.
Husband and Wife, 9-11.
Words and Phrases, 480.
BERGLOFF V. MILLE LACS LUMBER CO., 47 Minn. 564,
50 N. W. S29.
Appeal and Error, 489.
BERGMAN V. ST. PAUL MUT. BUILDING Ass'n, 29
Minn. 275, 13 N. W. 120.
Building and Loan Associations, 1, 2.
Cited in Kolff v. St. Paul Fuel Exchange, 50 N.
W. 1036.
BERGMAN V. ST. PAUL MUT. BUILDING Ass'N, 29
Minu. 282, 13 N. W. 122.
Building and Loan Associations, 1.
BERGMAN V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 21 Minn.
533.
Eminent Domain, 170.
BERGQUIST V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 42 Minn. 471,
44 N. W. 530.
Master and Servant, 79.
Executors and Administrators, 22.
Explained in Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 165.
Cited in Graham v. Burch, 47 Minn. 177.
BERKEY V. JUDD, 34 Minn. 393, 26 N. W. 5.
Executors and Administrators, 14.
Cited in Farrell v. Fabel, 47 Minn. 11, 13.
BERNHEIMER V. MARSHALL, 2 Minn. 78, (Gil. 61.)
Negotiable Instruments, 121.
Pleading, 108.
Approved in Scott v. Edes, 3 Minn. 386, (Gil.
279.) Cited in Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11 Minn.
116, (Gil. 73.)
BERRY V. O'CONNOR, 33 Minn. 29, 21 N. W. 840.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 17, 18, 25.
Distinguished in Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 481:
Cited in Bannon v. Bowler, 34 Minn. 419;
Smith v. Brainerd, 37 Minn. 483; Nazro v.
Ware, 38 Minn. 447.
BERRYHILL V. POTTER, 42 Minn. 279, 44 N. W. 251.
Judgment, 190.
BERTHOLD V. Fox, 13 Minn. 501, (Gil. 462.)
Constitutional Law, 95.
Evidence, 259, 305.
Replevin, 62.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 1.
Applied in McLeod v. Capehart, 52 N. W. 381.
Cited in Sherman v. Clark, 24 Minn. 42;
Lowry v. Tilleny, 31 Minn. 502; Carli v. Union
Depot, St. Ry. & Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 104.
2319
2320
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BERTHOLD V. Fox, 21 Minn. 51.
Attorney and Client, 6.
Judgment, 228, 229.
Replevin, 84, 85, 92.
Followed in State v. MacDonald, 24 Minn. 58.
Cited in Kronschnable v. Knoblauch, 21 Minn.
58; Sheldon v. Risedorph, 23 Minn. 519; Sher-
man v. Clark, 24 Minn. 43; Knox v. Randall, 24
Minn. 495; Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 370;
West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 192.
BERTHOLD V. HOLMAN, 12 Minn. 335, (Gil. 221.)
Constitutional Law, 95.
Logs and Logging, 35.
Mortgages, 83, 88, 246, 313, 314.
Overruled in Hillebert v. Porter, 28 Minn. 498.
Cited in Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn. 506, 507;
(Gil. 465, 466;) Humphrey v. Buisson, 19
Mina. 224, (Gil. 184;) Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21
Minn. 137; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 44.
BESONDY, IN RE, 32 Minn. 385, 20 N. W. 366.
Appeal and Error, 194.
Guardian and Ward, 19.
Parent and Child, 1, 2.
Cited in Huntsman v. Fish, 36 Minn. 150.
BETTIS V. SCHREIBER, 31 Minn. 329, 17 N. W. 863.
Negotiable Instruments, 137, 138.
Practice in Civil Cases, 6.
Words and Phrases, 80.
BEYERSDORF V. SUMP, 39 Minn. 495, 41 N. W. 101.
Abatement and Revival, 1.
Attachment, 108, 109.
Trespass, 21.
BEYERSTEDT V. WINONA MILL Co., 51 N. W. 619.
Evidence, 315.
BIBEAU V. LEMAY, (Lemay v. Bibeau,) 2 Minn. 291,
(Gil. 251.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 64.
Followed in Richards v. White, 7 Minn. 349,
(Gil. 275;) Scott v. Edes, 3 Minn. 3 S, (Gil.
281.) Cited in Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 410,
(Gil. 313;) Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 67,
(Gil. 33;) Hathaway v. Brown, 22 Minn. 217.
BICKFORD V. JOHNSON, 36 Minn. 123, 30 N. W. 439.
Chattel Mortgages, 97.
BIDWELL V. COLEMAN, 11 Minn. 78, (Gil. 45.)
Execution, 39, 77.
Judgment, 185.
Parties, 24.
Taxation, 55, 161.
Words and Phrases, 412.
Applied in Goener v. Woll, 26 Minn. 156.
Cited
in Hutchins v. Commissioners Carver County,
16 Minn. 17, (Gil. 5;) Goenen v. Schroeder, 18
Minn. 72, 78, (Gil. 57, 63;) Groff v. Ramsey, 19
Minn. 58, (Gil. 36;) Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn.
496; Duford v. Lewis, 43 Minn. 28; Spencer v.
Haug, 45 Minn. 234.
BIDWELL V. MADISON, 10 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Master and Servant, 9, 10.
Partnership, 2.
Bidwell V. WEBB, 10 Minn. 59, (Gil. 41.)
Adverse Claim, 14.
Taxation, 160.
Followed in Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 13.
Distinguished in Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn.
245. Cited in Brackett v. Gilmore, 15 Minn.
251, (Gil. 191.)
BIDWELL V. WHITNEY, 4 Minn. 76, (Gil. 45.)
Mortgages, 247, 248, 304.
Usury, 43.
Followed in Banker v. Brent, 4 Minn. 524, (Gil.
409;) Potter v. Marvin, 4 Minn. 527, (Gil. 412.)
Approved in Culbertson v. Lennon, 4 Minn. 57,
(Gil. 29;) Ramsey v. Merriam, 6 Minn. 174,
(Gil. 108.) Applied in Dickerson v. Hayes, 26
Minn. 102. Distinguished in Bennett v. Hea-
ley, 6 Minn. 248, (Gil. 166;) Bailey v. Merritt, 7
Minn. 165, (Gil. 108;) Montgomery v. McEwen,
9 Minn. 108, (Gil. 97;) Misener v. Gould, 11
Minn. 171, (Gil. 107, 109;) Taylor v. Burgess,
26 Minn. 552; Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 307,
308. Cited in Nutting v. McCutcheon, 5 Minn.
391, (Gil. 316;) Toledo Novelty Works v. Bern-
heimer, 8 Minn. 122, (Gil. 95;) Griswold v. Tay-
lor, 8 Minn. 345; (Gil. 304;) Conkey v. Dike, 17
Minn. 461, (Gil. 440;) Martin v. Lennon, 19
Minn. 73, (Gil. 47, 48;) O'Brien v. Oswald, 45
Minn. 60.
BIGELOW V. AMES, 18 Minn. 527, (Gil. 471.)
Conflict of Laws, S.
Witness, 30.
Words and Phrases, 639.
Cited in Griswold v. Edson, 32 Minn. 437.
BIGELOW V. LIVINGSTON, (Williams v. Livingston,)
28 Minn. 57, 9 N. W. 31.
Deed, 6, 46.
Powers, 14.
Applied in Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 257.
BILANSKY V. STATE, 3 Minn. 427, (Gil. 313.)
Criminal Law, 115, 126.
Homicide, 30, 92.
Followed in State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 378, (Gil.
350;) State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 519.
Cited in State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 443, (Gil.
345;) State v. Eno, 8 Minn. 223, 224, (Gil. 192,
194;) State v. Thomas, 19 Minn. 485, (Gil. 419;)
State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 34; Berthold v.
Fox, 21 Minn. 55; State v. Framness, 43 Minn.
492.
BINGHAM V. BERNARD, 36 Minn. 114, 30 N. W. 404.
Evidence, 275a, 355a.
Trial, 104.
BINGHAM V. BOARD OF SUP'RS WINONA COUNTY, 6
Minn. 136, (Gil. S2.)
Appeal and Error, 52.
Attorney and Client, 8.
Counties, 82.
Practice in Civil Cases, 52.
Cited in Shaw v. Henderson, 7 Minn. 487, (Gil.
393;) Bingham v. Supervisors Winona County,
8 Minn. 444, (Gil. 393;) Rogers v. Greenwood,
14 Minn. 38, (Gil. 258;) Brisbin v. American
Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 47, (Gil. 27;) Bray v. Do-
heny, 39 Minn. 356, 357; Eidam v. Finnegan, 50
N. W. 933.
BINGHAM V. BOARD OF SUP'RS WINONA COUNTY, 8
Minn. 441, (Gil. 390.)
Counties, 57.
Practice in Civil Cases, 48.
Words and Phrases, 118.
Followed in Murphy v. Commissioners Steele
County, 14 Minn. 71, (Gil. 54.) Cited in Guil-
der v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 80, (Gil. 80.)
BINGHAM V. STEWART, 13 Minn. 106, (Gil. 96.)
Negotiable Instruments, 5.
2321
2322
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BINGIIAM V. STEWART-Continued.
Schools and School-Districts, 30.
Statutes, 51.
Questioned in Souhegan Nat. Bank v. Boardman,
46 Minn. 296. Cited in Holton v. Parker, 13
Minn. 384, (Gil. 356;) Bingham v. Stewart, 14
Minn. 219, (Gil. 157;) Morrison v. Mendenhall,
18 Minn. 238, (Gil. 221;) Deering v. Thom, 29
Minn. 121.
BINGHAM V. STEWART, 14 Minn. 214, (Gil. 153.)
Appeal and Error, 737.
Schools and School-Districts, 31.
Followed in Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 121. Ap-
proved in Souhegan Nat. Bank v. Boardman,
46 Minn. 296. Explained in Rowell v. Oleson,
32 Minn. 290. Cited in Barber v. Kennedy, 18
Minn. 220, (Gil. 201;) Welter v. Nokken, 38
Minn. 377; McOmber v. Balow, 40 Minn. 388;
Peterson v. Homan, 44 Minn. 167; Brunswick-
Balke Collender Co. v. Boutell, 45 Minn. 22.
BIRD, IN RE, 39 Minn, 520, 40 N. W. 827.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 100.
Cited in McConnell v. Rakness, 41 Minn. 6;
Thompson v. Winona Harvester Works, 41
Minn. 438; In re Fuller, 42 Minn. 23.
BIRD V. NORQUIST, 46 Minn. 318, 48 N. W. 1132.
Summons, 49.
BIRDSALL V. FISCHER, 17 Minn. 100, (Gil. 76.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 24, 29.
Equity, 2.
Negotiable Instruments, 175.
Words and Phrases, 259.
Disapproved in Overmire v. Haworth, 51 N. W.
121, 122. Cited in Balch v. Wilson, 25 Minn.
304; Becker v. Northway, 44 Minn. 62.
BIRON V. BOARD of Water Com'rs of ST. PAUL,
41 Minn. 519, 43 N. W. 482.
Pleading, 45.
BISBEE V. MCALLEN, 39 Minn. 143, 39 N. W. 299.
Weights and Measures.
Disapproved in Lehigh Coal & Iron Co. v. Cape-
hart, 52 N. W. 142.
BISBEE V. TORINUS, 22 Minn. 555.
Taxation, 253.
BLACK V. BRISBIN, 3 Minn. 360, (Gil. 253.).
Garnishment, 26, 66.
BLACKMAN V. WHEATON, 13 Minn. 326, (Gil. 299.)
Appeal and Error, 419, 605.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 27,
28, 96.
Attachment, 68, 75.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 1.
Pleading, 274.
Replevin, 43.
Trial, 101.
Followed in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 440, (Gil.
404.) Cited in Washburn v. Winslow, 16 Minn.
37, (Gil. 23:) Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 425,
427, (Gil. 382, 385;) Mathews v. Torinus, 22
Minn. 136; Benton v. Snyder, 22 Minn. 248;
Dutcher v. Culver, 24 Minn. 588; Hines v.
Chambers, 29 Minn. 9; Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn.
46; Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn. 349;
Tancre v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 477; Lowell v.
Doe, 44 Minn. 147.
BLAIR V. HILGEDICK, 45 Minn. 23, 47 N. W. 310.
Equity, 10.
Followed in Harvey v. Great Northern Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 905, 906. Cited in Barth v. Horejs,
45 Minn. 186.
BLAIS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 34 Minn.
57, 24 N. W. 558.
Railroad Companies, 249.
Applied in Stacey v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42
Minn. 158, 159.
BLAISE V. ANDERSON, 35 Minn. 306, 28 N. W. 922.
Sale, 164, 169.
BLAKE V. LEE, 38 Minn. 478, 38 N. W. 487.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 13.
Cited in Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf'g & Car
Co., 41 Minn. 261.
BLAKE V. MCKUSICK, 8 Minn. 338, (Gil. 298.)
Mortgages, 293.
Cited in Blake v. McKusick, 10 Minn. 254, (Gil.
196.
BLAKE V. MCKUSICK, 10 Minn. 251, (Gil. 195.)
Mortgages, 292.
Distinguished in Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber BLAKE V. SHERMAN, 12 Minn. 420, (Gil. 305.)
Co., 44 Minn. 352.
BISBEE V. TORINUS, 26 Minn. 165, 2 N. W. 168.
Negotiable Instruments, 217.
Explained in Torinus v. Buckham, 29 Minn. 131.
BISHOP V. CORBITT, 40 Minn. 200, 41 N. W. 1030.
Usury, 38.
BISHOP V. ST. PAUL CITY Rr. Co., 50 N. W. 927.
Carriers, 100.
Damages, 86.
Negligence, 46, 47.
Trial, 119, 137.
BITZER V. BOBO, 39 Minn. 18, 38 N. W. 609.
Trusts, 23.
Cited in Ambuehl v. Matthews. 41 Minn. 539.
BITZER V. CAMPBELL, 47 Minn. 221, 49 N. W. 691.
Mortgages, 210, 211.
BIXBY V. WILKINSON, 25 Minn. 481.
Contracts, 109.
BIXBY V. WILKINSON, 27 Minn. 262, 6 N. W. 801.
Appeal and Error, 621.
Cited in McNally v. Weid, 30 Minn. 214.
Appeal and Error, 410.
Attachment, 11, 19, 29, 90.
Practice in Civil Cases, 27.
Followed in State v. Fitch, 30 Minn. 533. Cited
in Riley v. Mitchell, 38 Minn. 12; Gale v. Sei-
fert, 39 Minn. 172.
BLAKE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418,
(Gil. 362.)
Constitutional Law, 105-107.
Railroad Companies, 1, 14.
Words and Phrases, 308.
Followed in State v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 19
Minn. 439, (Gil. 381.)
BLAKELEY V. LE DUC, 19 Minn. 187, (Gil. 152.)
Ferry, 5-7, 9, 10.
Negligence, 99.
BLAKELY V. Le Duc, 22 Minn. 476.
Assignment, 3.
Ferry, 11.
Limitation of Actions, 20.
Partnership, 79, 80.
Pleading, 278.
Cited in Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 59.
2323
2324
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BLAKELY V. LE Duc, 25 Minn. 448.
Mortgages, 9.
BLAKEMAN V. BLAKEMAN, 31 Minn. 396, 18 N. W.
103.
Libel and Slander, 53, 79, 80, 93.
Witness, 34, 37.
Distinguished in Gribble v. Pioneer-Press Co.,
37 Minn. 278. Cited in Glatz v. Thein, 47 Minn.
280.
BLANDY V. RAGUET, 14 Minn. 243, (Gil. 179.)
Appeal and Error, 518.
Cited in Nelson v. Gibbs, 18 Minn. 543, (Gil. 487.)
BLANDY V. RAGUET, 14 Minn. 491, (Gil. 368.)
Contracts, 169.
Estoppel, 45.
Replevin, 22.
BOARD COM'RS WASHINGTON COUNTY v. McCoy.
See Commissioners Washington County v. Mc-
Coy.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS v. BUTLER. See Commis-
Com'rs
sioners Meeker County v. Butler.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. CITIZENS' NAT. BANK.
See Commissioners Rice County v. Citizens'
Nat. Bank.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. FITCH, (State v. Fitch,)
30 Minn. 532, 16 N. W. 411.
Highways, 40, 47.
Words and Phrases, 720.
Cited in State v. Austin, 35 Minn. 51; Schwede
v. Town of Burnstown, 35 Minn. 469; Riley v.
Mitchell, 38 Minn. 12, 13.
Cited in Williams v. McGrade, 18 Minn. 87, (Gil. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. ST. CLOUD, M. & A. R.
70:) Page v. Mitchell, 37 Minn. 369.
BLETHEN V. STEWART, 41 Minn. 205, 42 N. W. 932.
Libel and Slander, 60.
Cited in Oelson v. Journal Printing Co., 47 Minn.
300.
BLINN V. CHESSMAN, 51 N. W. 666.
Parties, 29.
Summons, 53.
BLISS V. DOTY, 36 Minn. 168, 30 N. W. 465,
Insolvency, 65.
Distinguished in Beardslee v. Beaupre, 44 Minn.
2, 5. Cited in Parsons v. George, 44 Minn. 152;
Hyde v. Weitzner, 45 Minn. 36.
BLONDEL V. LE VESCONTE, 41 Minn. 35, 42 N. W.
514.
Master and Servant, 2.
Cited in Cable v. Foley, 45 Minn. 422.
BLOOM V. MOY, 43 Minn. 397, 45 N. W. 715.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 99.
Cited in Fullington v. Northwestern Breeders'
Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475.
•
Co., (Stearns County v.. St. Cloud, M. & A. R.
Co.,) 36 Minn. 425, 32 N. W. 91.
Highways, 62, 70.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. YOUNG, 21 Minn. 335.
Appeal, 80.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. SHEEHAN, (Waseca
County v. Sheehan,) 42 Minn. 57, 43 N. W. 690.
Counties, 41, 44.
BOARD COUNTY COM'RS V. SMITH. See Commis-
sioners Mower County v. Smith.
BOARDMAN V. WARD, 40 Minn. 399, 42 N. W. 202.
Guardian and Ward, 20.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SAUK CENTRE V. MOORE,
17 Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)
Constitutional Law, 59.
Contracts, 143.
Evidence, 30, 32, 47, 48, 211, 212.
Schools and School-Districts, 13, 23-25.
Words and Phrases, 155, 799.
Cited in Bank v. Brainerd School-Dist., 51 N. W.
815,
BLOOR V. MYERSCAUGH, 45 Minn. 29, 47 N. W. 311. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE OF PINE
Executors and Administrators, 144.
BLUE EARTH COUNTY V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co.,
28 Minn. 503, 11 N. W. 73.
Eminent Domain, 70, 104, 205.
Public Lands, 48, 49.
Cited in Morin v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 102; Dowlan v. Sibley County, 36 Minn.
431; Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. Ry. Co. v.
Raymond, 37 Minn. 208; Adams v. Chicago, B.
& N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 289.
Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 29 Minn. 177, 12 N. W. 517.
Negotiable Instruments, 23.
Approved in Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 247.
Cited in Scott v. Austin, 36 Minn. 461.
BOARD COM'RS ST. LOUIS COUNTY V. NETTLETON,
22 Minn. 356.
Municipal Corporations, 315, 316.
Railroad Companies, 89.
Taxation, 43, 44, 56, 139.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 14; Red-
wood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40
Minn. 519.
BOARD COM'RS ST. LOUIS COUNTY V. SMITH. See
Board Com'rs St. Louis County v. Nettleton.
BOARD COM'RS STEARNS COUNTY V. SMITH. See
Commissioners Stearns County v. Smith.
ISLAND V. JEWELL, 44 Minn. 427, 46 N. W. 914.
Schools and School-Districts, 21, 22.
BOARD SUP'RS RAMSEY COUNTY Vv. HEENAN. See
Supervisors Ramsey County v. Heenan.
BOEHL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 44 Minn.
191, 46 N. W. 333.
Carriers, 41, 47.
BOEING V. MCKINLEY, 44 Minn. 392, 46 N. W. 766.
Judgment, 35, 36.
Cited in Waite v. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 161.
BOENIG V. HORNBERG, 24 Minn. 307.
Fences, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 358.
Cited in McClay v. Clark, 42 Minn. 365.
BOETCHER V. STAPLES, 27 Minn. 308, 7 N. W. 263.
Damages, 17.
Cited in Carli v. Union Depot, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 104.
BOHEN v. CITY OF WASECA, 32 Minn. 176, 19 N. W.
730.
Municipal Corporations, 149.
Cited in Young v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn.
196.
BOHLES V. BOLAND, 44 Minn. 481, 47 N. W. 155.
Reference, 4.
2325
2326
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BOHN V. MCCARTHY, 29 Minn. 23, 11 N. W. 127.
Mechanics' Liens, 1, 180.
Followed in Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 360.
Cited in Kraus v. Murphy, 38 Minn. 423.
BOHN MANUF'G Co. v. JAMESON. See Meyer v.
Berlandi.
BONHAM V. WEYMOUTH, 39 Minn. 92, 38 N. W. 805.
Partition, 5.
Taxation, 136, 250, 251.
Cited in West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 40
Minn. 191; Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 176,
177.
BOHN MANUF'G Co. v. LEWIS, 45 Minn. 164, 47 N. BOOM V. ST. PAUL FOUNDRY & MAnuf'g Co., 33
W. 652.
Subscription, 2, 4, 5.
BOHRER V. DRAKE, 33 Minn. 408, 23 N. W. 840.
Partnership, 3, 52, 54.
BOHRER V. LANGE, (Borer v. Lange,) 44 Minn.
281, 46 N. W. 358.
Boundaries, 13.
Deed, 20.
BOICE V. BOICE, 27 Minn. 371, 7 N. W. 687.
Constitutional Law, 97.
Cited in Kellogg v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 208.
BOLINGER V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 36 Minn. 418,
31 N. W. 856.
Death by Wrongful Act, 19.
Railroad Companies, 171, 180.
Applied in Hutchins v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 44 Minn. 10. Distinguished in Gunderson
v. Northwestern Elevator Co., 47 Minn. 164.
BOLLES V. CARLI, 12 Minn. 113, (Gil. 62.)
Contracts, 56.
Equity, 5.
Cited in Jacoby v. Crowe, 36 Minn. 96.
BOLLES V. SACHS, 37 Minn. 315, 33 N. W. 862.
Contracts, 21, 122.
Evidence, 334.
Master and Servant, 5.
Cited in Donlon v. Evans, 40 Minn. 504.
BOLMGREN V. FINNEGAN. See Cummings v. Fin-
negan.
BOMASH V. SUPREME SITTING OF THE ORDER OF
THE IRON HALL, 42 Minn. 241, 44 N. W. 12.
Contracts, $2.
Executors and Administrators, 128.
BOMSTA V. JOHNSON, 38 Minn. 230, 36 N. W. 341.
Divorce, 23-25.
BOND V. CORBETT, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209.)
Appeal and Error, 297, 340, 536.
Contracts, 2.
Executors and Administrators, 125.
Money Lent, 5, 6.
Pleading, 91, 246.
Trial, 22, 80.
Work and Labor, 3.
Cited in Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4 Minn. 276,
(Gil. 195;) Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn. 517,
(Gil. 426;) Tupper v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 387;
Webb v. Michener, 32 Minn. 49; Johnson v.
Oswald, 38 Minn. 551; King v. Lacrosse, 42
Minn. 489.
BONFANTI V. STATE, 2 Minn. 123, (Gil. 99.)
Criminal Law, 143, 144.
Homicide, 28, 29.
Insanity, 7.
Words and Phrases, 477, 577.
Followed in State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 543, (Gil.
456;) State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 362, (Gil. 334;)
State v. Grear, 29 Minn. 225; State v. Hanley,
34 Minn. 433. Applied in State v. Holong, 38
Minn. 370.
Minn. 253, 22 N. W. 538.
Judgment, 108.
Replevin, 95.
Words and Phrases, 610.
Cited in Craver v. Christian, 34 Minn. 398; An-
drews v. School District No. 4, 35 Minn. 72;
Thomas v. Joslin, 36 Minn. 3.
BOON V. STATE Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 426, 34 N. W. 902.
Evidence, 24.
Insurance, 131.
BOOTH V. SHERWOOD, 12 Minn, 426, (Gil. 310.)
Costs, 4, 5.
Pleading, 90, 92, 93.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 8.
Trespass, 15.
Cited in Conway v. Wharton, 13 Minn. 160, (Gil.
148.)
BORER v. KOLARS, 23 Minn. 445.
Elections and Voters, 39.
BORER V. LANGE, (Bohrer v. Lange,) 44 Minn. 281,
46 N. W. 358.
Boundaries, 13.
Deed, 20.
BORIGHT V. SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INS. Co.,
34 Minn. 352, 25 N. W. 796.
Appeal and Error, 258.
Evidence, 376.
Insurance, 23.
Cited in De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 503.
BORLAND V. MORRISON, 22 Minn. 40.
Corporations, 84.
BOROUGH OF HENDERSON V. BOARD OF COUNTY
COM'RS SIBLEY COUNTY, 28 Minn. 515, 11 N.
W. 91.
Counties, 22.
Money Received, 8.
Followed in Sibley v. Pine County, 31 Minn. 203.
Applied and explained in Village of Glencoe
v. McLeod County, 40 Minn. 45. Cited in Val-
entine v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn. 448.
BOROUGH OF ST. PETER V. BAUER, 19 Minn. 327,
(Gil. 282.)
Municipal Corporations, 59, 70.
BORUP V. NININGER, 5 Minn. 523, (Gil. 417.)
Assignment, 13.
Banks and Banking, 12-17.
Mortgages, 372.
Negotiable Instruments, 75.
Distinguished in Nininger v. Banning, 7 Minn.
283, (Gil. 212.) Cited in Kern v. Von Phul, 7
Minn. 430, (Gil. 346;) Nininger v. Knox, 8
Minn. 144, (Gil. 114.)
BOSTON BLOCK Co. v. BUFFINGTON, 39 Minn. 385,
40 N. W. 361.
Alteration of Instruments, 8a.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 21.
Landlord and Tenant, 24.
Applied in Universalist General Convention v.
Bottineau, 42 Minn. 36.
2327
2328
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BOTT V. PRATT, 33 Minn. 323, 23 N. W. 237.
Municipal Corporations, 71.
Cited in Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 104;
Dugan v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 40 Minn. 545;
Buckley v. Humason, 52 N. W. 386.
BOTTINEAU V. ÆTNA LIFE Ins. Co., 31 Minn. 125, 16
N. W. 849.
Mortgages, 221, 260, 325.
Applied in Carpenter v. Artisans' Savings Bank,
44 Minn. 523. Cited in Lowry v. Tilleny, 31
Minn. 502; Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn. 226;
Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 481; Bausman v. Faue,
45 Minn. 419.
BOYNTON FURNACE Co. v. CLARK, 42 Minn. 335, 44
N. W. 121.
Evidence, 293.
Principal and Agent, 29.
Cited in McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v.
Thompson, 46 Minn. 16; Beyerstedt v. Winona
Mill Co., 51 N. W. 621.
BRACKETT V. CUNNINGHAM, 44 Minn. 498, 47 N. W.
157.
Appeal and Error, 259.
Evidence, 236.
BRACKETT V. DAYTON, 34 Minn. 219, 25 N. W. 348.
Bankruptcy, 1.
BOUTILLER V. THE MILWAUKEE, 8 Minn. 97, (Gil. BRACKETT V. EDGERTON, 14 Minn. 174, (Gil. 134.)
72.)
Death by Wrongful Act, 2, 5.
Words and Phrases, 453, 560, 561.
Cited in Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49, (Gil.
36.)
BOVEY DE LAITTRE LUMBER Co. v. TUCKER, 50
N. W. 1038.
Mechanics' Liens, 167.
Mortgages, 398, 407, 413, 423, 444.
Words and Phrases, 59, 642, 669.
BOWE V. HYLAND, 44 Minn. 88, 46 N. W. 142.
Custom and Usage, 17.
Trial, 76.
Contracts, 70.
Damages, 34, 41.
Evidence, 158, 364.
Sale, 148.
Sunday, 7.
Cited in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Bon-
nallie, 29 Minn. 375; Hoxsie v. Empire Lum-
ber Co., 41 Minn. 551.
BRACKETT V. GILMORE, 15 Minn. 245, (Gil. 190.)
Adverse Claim, 15, 16.
Followed in Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 13.
Distinguished in Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn.
245.
Cited in Lovejoy v. Itasca Lumber Co., 46 Minn. BRACKETT V. OSBORNE, 31 Minn. 454, 18 N. W. 153.
220.
Bonds, 8.
BOWE V. MINNESOTA MILK Co., 44 Minn. 460, 47 BRACKETT V. RICH, 23 Minn. 485.
N. W. 151.
Judgment, 143, 152.
Pleading, 292.
Words and Phrases, 485.
BOWEN V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 47 Minn. 115, 49
N. W. 683.
Statutes, 53.
BOWEN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 36 Minn.
522, 32 N. W. 751.
Railroad Companies, 297, 311.
BOWER V. O'DONNALL, 29 Minn. 135, 12 N. W. 852.
Taxation, 149, 264.
Distinguished in Russell v. Gilson, 36 Minn. 368.
BOWERS V. HECHTMAN, 45 Minn. 238, 47 N. W. 792.
Corporations, 64.
Mortgages, 212.
Words and Phrases, 233.
BOWERS V. MAYO, 32 Minn. 241, 20 N. W. 186.
Principal and Agent, 79.
Cited in Homberger v. Brandenberg, 35 Minn.
404; Riddell v. Munro, 52 N. W. 142.
BOWLIN V. HEKLA FIRE Ins. Co., 36 Minn. 433, 31
N. W. 859.
Insurance, 115.
BOYD V. BLAKE, 42 Minn. 1, 43 N. W. 485.
Mechanics' Liens, 28, 165.
Cited in King v. Smith, 42 Minn. 289; St. Paul
Labor Exchange Co. v. Eden, 50 N. Ŵ. 922.
BOYD V. STATE, 4 Minn. 321, (Gil. 237.)
Homicide, 96.
Followed in State v. Gummell, 22 Minn. 51.
BOYLE V. VANDERHOOF, 45 Minn. 31, 47 N. W. 396.
Statutes, 25.
Words and Phrases, 425.
Courts, 30.
Guaranty, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 382.
Cited in D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Thompson, 36
Minn. 528.
BRADBURY V. BEDBURY, (Bradford v. Bedbury,) 31
Minn. 163, 16 N. W. 854.
Appeal and Error, 394.
Cited in Hewitt v. Blumenkranz, 33 Minn. 417;
Schulte v. First Nat. Bank, 34 Minn. 51; Leon-
ard v. Green, 34 Minn. 141; Hurley v. Missis-
sippi & R. R. Boom Co., 34 Minn. 146; Cum-
mings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 317.
BRADFORD V. MENARD, 35 Minn. 197, 28 N. W. 248.
Factors and Brokers, 29.
BRADFORD V. NEILL, 46 Minn. 847, 49 N. W. 193.
Deceit, 25.
Sale, 61.
BRADISH V. LUCKEN, 38 Minn. 186, 36 N. W. 454.
Highways, 60.
Municipal Corporations, 307.
Taxation, 76.
Cited in Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, 41
Minn. 138.
BRADLEY V. GAMELLE, 7 Minn. 331, (Gil. 260.)
Appeal and Error, 210, 677.
Replevin, 9, 61.
Cited in Ames v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.,
8 Minn. 474, (Gil. 424;) Hardin v. Palmerlee, 28
Minn. 452; Drake v. Auerbach, 37 Minn. 507.
BRADLEY V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 38 Minn. 234,
36 N. W. 345.
Eminent Domain, 126, 160.
BRADLEY V. VILLAGE OF WEST DULUTH, 45 Minn. 4,
47 N. W. 166.
Municipal Corporations, 132.
2329
2330
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BRADT V. ROMMEL, 26 Minn. 505, 5 N. W. 680.
BRANCH V. DAWSON, 33 Minn. 399, 23 N. W. 552.
Banks and Banking, 6.
Trial, 160, 161.
Cited in State v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
BRADY V. BRENNAN, 25 Minn. 210.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 21.
Money Received, 6.
Trial, 39.
BRAGDON V. PENNEY, 35 Minn, 204, 28 N. W. 241.
Replevin, 45.
BRAINARD V. HASTINGS, 3 Minn. 45, (Gil. 17.)
Appeal and Error, 499.
Reference, 9, 10.
Applied in Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 438.
Cited in Huntsman v. Fish, 36 Minn. 150.
BRAKKEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 29
Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124.
Dedication, 25.
Eminent Domain, 272, 283.
Highways, 65, 72.
Trial, 3.
Followed in Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 31 Minn. 47; Hayes v. Chicago, St. P., M.
& O. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 350. Applied in Carli
v. Union Depot, St. Railway & Transfer Co.,
32 Minn. 103. Distinguished in Baldwin v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 355.
Cited in Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 426; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn.
36-38; Thelan v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 227; Byrne
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 213;
Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 217; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 258; Lamm v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 77.
BRAKKEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 31
Minn. 45, 16 N. W. 459.
Eminent Domain, 283, 284.
Applied in Carli v. Union Depot, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 103. Distinguished in
Baldwin v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 355; Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 38 Minn. 213. Cited in Brakken v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 426.
BRAKKEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. Co., 32 Minn.
425, 21 N. W. 414.
Eminent Domain, 283.
Judgment, 151.
Distinguished in Baldwin v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 355.
BRALEY V. BYRNES, 20 Minn. 435, (Gil. 389.)
Attachment, 80.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 16.
Cited in Hines v. Chambers, 29 Minn. 9; Howard
v. Manderfield, 31 Minn. 339; Homberger v.
Brandenberg, 35 Minn. 403; Bloom v. Moy, 43
Minn. 397.
BRALEY V. BYRNES, 21 Minn. 482.
Appeal and Error, 616.
Chattel Mortgages, 47.
Cited in Fletcher v. Neudeck, 30 Minn. 126;
North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ladd, 32 Minn.
383.
BRALEY V. BYRNES, 25 Minn. 297.
Chattel Mortgages, 33.
Cited in Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 520, 522;
North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ladd, 32 Minn.
383.
Explained in Mitchell v. Easton, 37 Minn. 336.
BRANCH V. DAWSON, 36 Minn. 193, 30 N. W. 545.
Banks and Banking, 1, 2.
Evidence, 389.
Jury, 49, 51.
Cited in Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 47.
BRAND V. WILLIAMS, 29 Minn. 238, 13 N. W. 42.
Money Received, 9.
Followed in Sibley v. Pine County, 31 Minn. 203.
Cited in Valentine v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn.
448.
BRANDT V. SHEPARD, 39 Minn. 454, 40 N. W. 521.
Pleading, 75, 242.
BRANDUP V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE Ins. Co., 27
Minn. 393, 7 N. W. 735.
Insurance, 69.
Cited in Kausal v. Minnesota Farmers' Mut. Fire
Ins. Ass'n, 31 Minn. 21.
BRANHAM Vv. BEZANSON, 33 Minn. 49, 21 N. W. 861.
Adverse Claim, 29.
Taxation, 208.
Cited in Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 Minn. 392;
Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 404.
BRAY V. CHURCH OF ST. BRANDON, 39 Minn. 390,
40 N. W. 518.
Judgment, 42.
BRAY V. DOHENY, 39 Minn. 355, 40 N. W. 262.
New Trial, 106.
Cited in Eidam v. Finnegan, 50 N. W. 933.
BRAYLEY V. KELLY, 25 Minn. 160.
Evidence, 228.
Principal and Agent, 103.
BRAZIL V. MORAN, 8 Minn. 236, (Gil. 205.)
Appeal and Error, 274, 443.
Husband and Wife, 12, 13.
Trial, 5.
BRAZIL V. PETERSON, 44 Minn. 212, 46 N. W. 331.
Master and Servant, 23.
BREEN V. DEWEY, 16 Minn. 136, (Gil. 123.)
Tender, 2, 3.
BREEN V. KELLY, 45 Minn. 352, 47 N. W. 1067.
Counties, 64.
Cited in Village of St. James v. Hingtgen, 47
Minn. 524.
BREEN V. WATSON, 34 Minn. 479, 26 N. W. 605.
Appeal and Error, 531.
BRENNAN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 44 Minn. 464, 47 N.
W. 55.
Municipal Corporations, 275.
BRENNAN V. LAMMERS, (Lammers v. Brennan,) 46
Minn. 209, 48 N. W. 766.
Navigable Waters, 8.
BRENNAN'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Gibson v. Brennan,)
46 Minn. 92, 48 N. W. 460.
Appeal and Error, 485.
Cited in St. Croix Boom Corp. v. Brown, 47 Minn.
284.
BREUER V. ELDER, 33 Minn. 147, 22 N. W. 622.
Sheriffs and Constables, 5, 6.
BREWSTER V. LEITH, 1 Minn. 56, (Gil. 40.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 99.
Sale, 36.
2331
2332
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
+
BREWSTER V. WAKEFIELD, 1 Minn. 352, (Gil. 260.)
Interest of Money, S.
Words and Phrases, 391.
Cited in Mason v. Callender, 2 Minn. 374, (Gil.
328;) Hollinshead v. Von Glahn, 4 Minn. 191,
(Gil. 133.)
Bridgman V. DAMBLY, 41 Minn. 526, 43 N. W. 482.
Appeal and Error, 479.
BRIGGS V. RIPLEY, 37 Minn. 78, 33 N. W. 120.
Vendor and Purchaser, 155.
BRIGGS V. SHEA, 50 N. W. 1037.
Appeal and Error, 161, 636.
BRIGHAM V. WOOD, 51 N. W. 228.
Pleading, 262.
BRIMHALL V. VAN CAMPEN, 8 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Evidence, 5.
Subscription, 3.
Sunday, 1.
Followed in Finney v. Callendar, 8 Minn. 43,
(Gil. 25;) Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 199, (Gil.
185.) Cited in Capehart v. Van Campen, 10
Minn. 161, (Gil. 129;) Webb v. Kennedy, 20
Minn. 420, (Gil. 376;) State v. Ludwig, 21
Minn. 206.
BRISBIN V. AMERICAN EXP. Co., 15 Minn. 43, (Gil.
25.)
Appeal and Error, 77.
Pleading, 196, 198.
Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 455.
BRISBIN V. CLEARY, 26 Minn. 107, 1 N. W. 825.
Elections and Voters, 4.
Words and Phrases, 798.
BRISBIN V. FARMER, 16 Minn. 215, (Gil. 187.)
Evidence, 71.
Judgment, 215.
Limitation of Actions, 68-70.
Followed in Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 29.
Applied in Denny v. Marrett, 29 Minn. 362.
Explained in Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 174.
Cited in Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 66; Er-
pelding v. Ludwig, 39 Minn. 519.
BRISBIN V. NEWHALL, 5 Minn. 273, (Gil. 217.)
Judgment, 280, 231.
Cited in Irvine v. Meyer, 6 Minn. 563, (Gil. 399.)
BRISBINE V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114.
Eminent Domain, 62, 145.
Riparian Rights, 1.
Followed in Carli v. Stillwater St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 375, 380. Applied in
Wilder v. De Cou, 26 Minn. 16. Distinguished
in Re Robbins, 34 Minn. 102; Hanford v. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 110, 112; Wait v.
May, 51 N. W. 472. Explained in Greve v.
First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 68.
Cited in Morril v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 26 Minn. 226; Union Depot St. Rail-
way & Transfer Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn.
301; Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38
Minn. 407; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 288; Village of Wayzata v. Great
Northern Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 914.
BRISBOIS V. ROBERT, 1 Minn. 230, (Gil. 190.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
BRISTOL, IN RE, (Wilder v. Peabody,) 37 Minn. 248,
33 N. W. 852.
Insolvency, 79.
BRISTOL, IN RE-Continued.
Applied in Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 121.
Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 911.
50 N. W.231.
BRITTON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 47 Minn. 340,
Master and Servant, 103, 141.
BROADWATER V. LION FIRE INS. Co., 34 Minn. 465,
26 N. W. 455.
Insurance, 18, 44, 111.
Words and Phrases, 214.
BROAT V. MOOR, 44 Minn. 468, 47 N. W. 55.
New Trial, 63.
BROCKWAY V. FROST, 40 Minn. 155, 41 N. W. 411.
Frauds, Statute of, 61.
Distinguished in Burgon v. Cabanne, 42 Minn.
269.
BRODERICK V. BEAUPRE, 40 Minn. 379, 42 N. W. 83.
Partnership, 58, 59.
BROMBERG V. MINNESOTA FIRE ASS'N, 45 Minn.
318, 47 N. W. 975.
Insurance, 87, 137, 145.
BRONSON V. ST. CROIX LUMBER Co., 44 Minn. 348,
46 N. W. 570.
Conflict of Laws, 1.
Taxation, 254.
BROOKS V. HAMILTON, 15 Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
Deceit, 11.
Equity, 40, 52, 53.
Vendor and Purchaser, 76.
Cited in Cobb v. Wright, 43 Minn. 85.
Broome v. GALENA, D., D. & M. PACKET Co., 9
Minn. 239, (Gil. 225.)
Garnishment, 33.
Summons, 29, 36, 37.
Words and Phrases, 125.
Cited in Sullivan v. La Crosse & M. Packet Co.,
10 Minn. 388, (Gil. 311.)
BROUGHTON V. SHERMAN, 21 Minn. 431.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 40.
Taxation, 244.
Words and Phrases, 704.
Distinguished in Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn.
379. Cited in Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 262;
Stevens v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 174; Townsend
v. Minneapolis Cold-Storage and Freezer Co.,
46 Minn. 123.
BROWN, IN RE, 35 Minn. 307, 29 N. W. 131.
Appeal and Error, 684.
Words and Phrases, 88, 89.
BROWN, IN RE, 38 Minn. 112, 35 N. W. 728.
Wills, 8.
Witness, 50.
BROWN V. ATWATER, 25 Minn. 520.
Judgment, 199.
Wills, 20.
BROWN V. BALFOUR, 46 Minn. 68, 48 N. W. 604.
Exemptions, 17.
BROWN V. BRACKETT, 26 Minn. 292, 3 N. W. 705.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 7.
Cited in Suchaneck v. Smith, 45 Minn. 27.
Brown v. BROWN, 28 Minn. 501, 11 N. W. 64.
Appeal and Error, 217.
Limitation of Actions, 42.
Cited in Branch v. Dawson, 33 Minn. 400; Mitch-
ell v. Easton, 37 Minn. 337.
2333
2334
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BROWN V. MATTHAUS, 14 Minn. 205, (Gil. 149.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 58, 59.
BROWN V. BROWN, 35 Minn. 191, 28 N. W. 238.
Abatement and Revival, 22.
Words and Phrases, 18.
BROWN V. BROWN, 37 Minn. 128, 33 N. W. 546.
Judgment, 54.
Applied in Baxter v. Chute, 52 N. W. 380.
BROWN V. BROWN, 42 Minn. 270, 44 N. W. 250.
Wills, 61.
BROWN V. CORBIN, 40 Minn. 508, 42 N. W. 481.
Corporations, 1.
Taxation, 106, 272, 297.
Words and Phrases, 528.
Cited in Welch v. Ketcham, 51 N. W. 115.
BROWN V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. RY. Co., 22 Minn.
165.
Negligence, 52, 58.
Railroad Companies, 173, 184, 185, 195.
Applied in Smith v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 26 Minn. 419. Distinguished in Clark v.
Cicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 73. Cited
in Kelly v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29 Minn.
4: Abbett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 486; Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 171, 172.
BROWN V. CROOKSTON AGRICULTURAL Ass'N, 34 BROWN V. MINNEAPOLIS LUMBER Co., 25 Minn. 461.
Minn. 545, 26 N. W. 907.
Mortgages, 297.
Words and Phrases, 55, 56, 65.
Distinguished in Cuilerier v. Brunelle, 37 Minn.
74. Cited in Fuller v. Langum, 37 Minn. 74,
75; Ness v. Davidson, 52 N. Ŵ. 47.
BROWN V. DELANY, 22 Minn. 349.
Mortgages, 109, 115.
Cited in Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn. 226.
BROWN V. EATON, 21 Minn. 409.
Evidence, 193.
Frauds, Statute of, 54.
Pleading, 250.
Specific Performance, 70, 89.
Followed in Dickerman v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 538.
Cited in Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 473; Liv-
ingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 58; Slingerland v.
Slingerland, 46 Minn. 103; Rothschild v. Bur-
ritt, 47 Minn. 30.
BROWN V. FARNHAM, 51 N. W. 377.
Composition with Creditors, 5.
BROWN V. GRANT, 39 Minn. 404, 40 N. W. 268.
Partnership, 12, 15.
BROWN V. GURNEY, 20 Minn. 527, (Gil. 473.)
Appeal and Error, 421.
Interest of Money, 2.
Followed in Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 88.
BROWN V. HATHAWAY, 10 Minn. 303, (Gil. 238.)
Judgment, 77.
Distinguished in Jorgensen v. Griffin, 14 Minn.
466, (Gil, 348.) Cited in Williams v. McGrade,
13 Minn. 49, (Gil. 45;) Rockwood v. Daven-
port, 37 Minn. 534.
BROWN V. HOAG, 35 Minn. 373, 29 N. W. 135.
Specific Performances, 51, 52.
Words and Phrases, 543.
Applied in Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn.
200, 202.
BROWN V. HUNTSMAN, 32 Minn. 466, 21 N. W. 555.
Guardian and Ward, 5, 6, 17.
BROWN V. JORDHAL, 32 Minn. 135, 19 N. W. 650.
Negotiable Instruments, 26.
Words and Phrases, 385, 681, 682.
BROWN V. LAWLER, 21 Minn. 327.
Judgment, 235.
Trial, 164, 165.
BROWN V. MANNING, 3 Minn. 35, (Gil. 13.)
Vendor and Purchaser, 82-84, 105.
Words and Phrases, 309, 310.
Distinguished in Lowry v. Hurd, 7 Minn. 366,
(Gil. 288.) Cited in Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn.
242, (Gil. 180.)
Appeal and Error, 306, 519.
Attachment, 27.
Cited in First Nat. Bank of Winona v. Randall,
38 Minn. 384.
BROWN v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 31 Minn.
553, 18 N. W. 834.
Master and Servant, 90.
Applied in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 216. Cit-
ed in Fraker v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 56; Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 219; Tierney v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 322; Keyes v. Minneap-
olis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 292; Olson v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 118; Fraser v.
Red River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 237; Corneil-
son v. Eastern Ry. Co, 52 N. W. 225.
BROWN v. MINNESOTA THRESHER MANUF'G Co., 44
Minn. 322, 46 N. W. 560.
Appeal and Error, 60.
Insolvency, 89.
Cited in Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73.
BROWN V. MORGAN, 44 Minn. 432, 46 N. W. 913.
Adverse Possession, 10.
BROWN V. MORRILL, 45 Minn. 483, 48 N. W. 328.
Executors and Administrators, 38, 39.
Mortgages, 55.
Trial, 45.
BROWN V. MUNGER, 42 Minn. 482, 44 N. W. 519.
Specific Performance, 21.
Vendor and Purchaser, 16, 17.
Distinguished in Scanlon v. Oliver, 42 Minn. 540.
BROWN v. NAGEL, 21 Minn. 415.
Appeal and Error, 605.
Trial, 165.
Usury, 22.
BROWN V. O'BRIEN, 39 Minn. 13, 38 N. W. 637.
Vendor and Purchaser, 120.
BROWN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 236,
31 N. W. 941.
Work and Labor, 8.
BROWN V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 506,
38 N. W. 698.
Summons, 39.
Cited in Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337.
BROWN V. SANBORN, 21 Minn. 402.
Evidence, 271.
Frauds, Statute of, 38.
Cited in Stub v. Grimes, 38 Minn. 321; Russell
v. Wisconsin, M. & P. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 148;
Heisley v. Swanstrom, 40 Minn. 200.
BROWN V. SETZER, 39 Minn. 317, 40 N. W. 70.
Taxation, 217.
2335
2336
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BRUGGERMAN V. TRUE-Continued..
BROWN V. STILLMAN, 43 Minn. 126, 45 N. W. 2.
Mortgages, 124.
Followed in Nelson v. Rogers, 47 Minn. 103, 106.
BROWN V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 162,
€ N. W. 484.
Master and Servant, S3.
Affirmed in Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 379. Followed in Gonsior v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 386. Applied
in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 215. Distin-
guished in Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 317. Cited in Walsh v. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 370; Brown v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 556;
Fraker v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn.
56; Connelly v. Minneapolis Eastern Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 82; Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 38 Minn. 118; Corneilson v. Eastern Ry.
Co., 52 N. W. 225.
BROWN COUNTY V. WINONA & ST. P. LAND Co.,
(State v. Webber,) 38 Minn. 397, 37 N. W. 949.
Certiorari, 19, 25.
Mandamus, 11.
Railroad Companies, 132.
Taxation, 93, 97.
Followed in Brown County v. Winona & St. P.
Land Co., 39 Minn. 381. Applied in State v.
Leftwich, 41 Minn. 43. Explained in Redwood
County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn.
515, 525. Cited in Redwood County v. Winona
& St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 515, 525; Redwood
County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 42 Minn.
181.
BROWN COUNTY V. WINONA & ST. P. Land Co.,
(State v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,) 39 Minn.
380, 40 N. W. 166.
Taxation, 70.
Followed in Redwood County v. Winona & St.
P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 514, 515, 523. Cited in
Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,
42 Minn. 181.
BROWNING V. HINKLE, 51 N. W. 605.
Evidence, 81.
BROWN'S WILL, IN RE, 32 Minn. 443, 21 N. W. 474.
Wills, 37, 38.
Words and Phrases, 515.
BRUCE V. COMMISSIONERS DODGE COUNTY, 20 Minn.
888, (Gil. 339.)
Constitutional Law, 71.
Counties, 53.
Words and Phrases, 676.
Applied in Merritt v. Knife Falls Boom Corp.,
34 Minn. 246. Cited in Beaumont v. Ramsey
County, 32 Minn. 111; State v. Sheriff of Ram-
sey County, 51 N. W. 112.
BRUGGERMAN v. HOERR, 7 Minn. 337, (Gil. 264.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 51, 98.
Public Lands, 130.
Words and Phrases, 428.
Cited in Ferguson v. Kumler, 11 Minn. 109, 110,
(Gil. 66, 67;) Bloom v. Moy, 43 Minn. 397;
Welch v. Bradley, 45 Minn. 542; Fullington v.
Northwestern Breeders' Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475.
BRUGGERMAN V. TRUE, 25 Minn. 123.
Constitutional Law, 146.
Eminent Domain, 43, 44.
Highways, 27.
Cited in State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 123; In re
Howes, 38 Minn. 406; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 217; City of St.
Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 264.
BRUNS V. SCHREIBER, 43 Minn. 468, 45 N. W. 861.
Evidence, 299.
Cited in Sayre v. Burdick, 47 Minn. 368.
V. SCHREIBER, 51 N. W. 120.
Covenants, 32.
BRUNS
Limitation of Actions, 82.
Pleading, 178.
BRUNSWICK V. UNION DEPOT ST. RAILWAY &
TRANSFER CO. See Union Depot St. Railway
& Transfer Co., In re.
BRUNSWICK-BALKE-COLLENDER Co. v. BOUTELL, 45
Minn. 21, 47 N. W. 261.
Negotiable Instruments, 6, 7.
Cited in Souhegan Nat. Bank v. Boardman, 46
Minn. 296.
BRUNSWICK-BALKE-COLLENDER Co. v. Brackett,
37 Minn. 58, 33 N. W. 214.
Deed, 44, 45.
BRYAN
Pleading, 30, 53.
V. FARNSWORTH, 19 Minn. 239, (Gil. 198.)
Evidence, 222, 223.
Pleading, 188.
Cited in Washburn v. Van Steen wyk, 32 Minn.
355.
BRYANT V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 33 Minn. 289, 23 N.
W. 220.
Municipal Corporations, 95.
Applied in Grube v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn.
403.
BRYANT v. COLBY, 2 Minn. 180, (Gil. 148.)
Elections and Voters, 27.
Distinguished in Clark v. Buchanan, 2 Minn.
348, (Gil. 301.)
BRYANT V. LIVERMORE, 20 Minn. 313, (Gil. 271.)
Descent and Distribution, 13-15.
Executors and Administrators, 49–51.
Judge, 10.
Applied in Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 383.
BRYANT V. LORD, 19 Minn. 396, (Gil. 342.)
Appeal and Error, 501.
Contracts, 134, 135.
Negotiable Instruments, 136, 143.
Partnership, 51.
Reference, 19.
BUCHANAN V. CITY OF DULUTH, 40 Minn. 402, 43
N. W. 204.
Municipal Corporations, 198.
BUCHANAN V. REID, 43 Minn. 172, 45 N. W. 11.
Mortgages, 395, 396.
Words and Phrases, 57, 58, 171.
BUCK V. COLBATH, 7 Minn. 310, (Gil. 238.)
Courts, 32.
Sheriffs and Constables, 29.
Trespass, 11.
Followed in Colbath v. Buck, 8 Minn. 85, (Gil.
61.) Cited in Marsh v. Armstrong, 20 Minn.
85, (Gil. 72.)
BUCK V. HUTCHINS, 45 Minn. 270, 47 N. W. 808.
Negotiable Instruments, 62.
2337
2338
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BUCK V. Lewis, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 298.)
Replevin, 96.
Words and Phrases, 748.
Cited in Sawyer v. Wallace, 47 Minn. 397; State
v. Grimes, 52 N. W. 276.
BUCKHOLZ V. GRANT, 15 Minn. 406, (Gil. 329.)
Pleading, 4.
Followed in Buckholz v. Grant, 16 Minn. 158,
(Gil. 141.) Cited in Curtiss v. Livingston, 36
Minn. 381.
BUCKHOLZ V. GRANT, 16 Minn. 158, (Gil. 141.)
Pleading, 4.
BURKE V. BEVERIDGE, 15 Minn. 205, (Gil. 160.)
Covenant, 13, 23, 41.
Evidence, 173.
Vendor and Purchaser, 150.
BURKE V. COGSWELL, 39 Minn. 344, 40 N W. 251.
Factors and Brokers, 38.
BURKE V. LACOCK, 41 Minn. 250, 42 N. W. 1016.
Mortgages, 278–230.
Words and Phrases, 696.
Cited in Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 225.
BURKE V. MAYALL, 10 Minn. 287, (Gil. 226.)
Venue in Civil Cases, 11, 16.
BUCKLEY V. PATTERSON, 39 Minn. 250, 39 N. W. BURKE V. RAY, 40 Minn. 34, 41 N. W. 240.
490.
Specific Performance, 102.
Distinguished in Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lum
ber Co., 40 Minn. 186, 187.
BUENEMANN v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn.
390, 20 N. W. 379.
Appeal and Error, 496.
Carriers, 91, 117.
BUERFENING v. BUERFENING, 23 Minn. 563.
Divorce, 13.
Cited in Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 133.
BUETTEL V. HARMOUNT, 46 Minn. 481, 49 N. W.
250.
Mortgages, 196, 384, 3S5, 436.
BUFFHAM V. PERKINS, 43 Minn. 158, 44 N. W. 1150.
Judgment, 246.
BULLIS V. CHEADLE, 36 Minn. 164, 30 N. W. 549.
New Trial, 84.
BULLITT V. FARRAR, 42 Minn. 8, 43 N. W. 566.
Deceit, 14, 41.
Cited in Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 495;
Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1054.
BUNDAY V. DUNBAR, 5 Minn. 444, (Gil. 362.)
Appeal and Error, 537.
Certiorari, 26, £3.
Evidence, 339.
Specific Performance, 97.
BURKE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 35 Minn. 172,
28 N. W. 190.
Constitutional Law, 44.
Cited in Higgins v. Beveridge, 35 Minn. 285.
BURKLEO V. COUNTY COM'RS WASHINGTON COUNTY,
38 Minn. 441, 38 N. W. 108.
Highways, 19.
BURNS V. JORDAN, 43 Minn. 25, 44 N. W. 523.
Negotiable Instruments, 206.
BURNS V. MALTBY, 43 Minn. 161, 45 N. W. 3.
Evidence, 191.
Mechanics' Liens, 137, 138.
BURNS V. SEWELL, 51 N. W. 224.
Mechanics' Liens, 47.
Statutes, S.
Words and Phrases, 321.
BURPE V. VAN EMAN, 11 Minn. 327, (Gil. 231.)
Appeal and Error, 391.
Principal and Agent, 63.
BURR V. SEYMOUR, 43 Minn. 401, 45 N. W. 715.
Summons, 41.
Followed in Crombie v. Little, 47 Minn. 58S.
Cited in Cunningham v. La Crosse & St. P. BURR V. WILLSON, 22 Minn. 206.
Packet Co., 10 Minn. 302, (Gil. 237.)
BUNNELL V. Post, 25 Minn. 376.
Executors and Administrators, 86.
BUNNELL V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
305, 13 N. W. 129.
Evidence, 138, 179.
Master and Servant, 183.
BURBANK V. WRIGHT, 44 Minn. 544, 47 N. W. 162.
Mechanics' Liens, 168.
BURDICK V. BINGHAM, 38 Minn. 482, 38 N. W. 489.
Taxation, 168, 267, 296.
BURFENNING V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co.,
46 Minn. 20, 48 N. W. 444.
Evidence, 3.
Public Lands, 5.
BURGER V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 22 Minn. 343.
Evidence, 171.
Cited in Berg v. Spink, 24 Minn. 139; Deane v.
Hodge, 35 Minn. 154.
BURGON V. CABANNE, 42 Minn. 267, 44 N. W. 118.
Vendor and Purchaser, 18.
Cited in Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 485; Scan-
lon v. Oliver, 42 Minn. 540.
BURK V. WESTERN LAND Ass'n, 40 Minn. 506, 42
N. W. 479.
Limitation of Actions, 5.
V.2M.DIG.-74
Deceit, 7, 16, 21, 32, 35.
Cited in Thoreson v. Northwestern National
Ins. Co., 29 Minn. 108; Griffin v. Farrier, 32
Minn. 475; Redding v. Wright, 51 N. W. 1056.
BURRELL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 43 Minn.
363, 45 N. W. 849.
Guardian and Ward, 43, 45.
BURT V. BAILEY, 21 Minn. 403.
Appeal and Error, 744.
Justices of the Peace, 53, 66, 78.
Cited in Johnson v. Hagberg, 50 N. W. 1038.
BURT V. MCKINSTRY, 4 Minn. 204, (Gil. 146.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 17,
18.
Evidence, 88, 89.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 115.
Pleading, 76.
Explained and limited in Guerin v. Hunt, 8 Minn.
489, (Gil. 433.) Cited in Chophard v. Bayard, 4
Minn. 539, (Gil. 423;) Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn.
134, (Gil. 97;) Gere v. Murray, 6 Minn. 316, (Gil.
221;) Zimmerman v. Lamb, 7 Minn. 423, (Gil.
338;) Scott v. King, 7 Minn. 498, (Gil. 405;)
Howland v. Fuller, 8 Minn. 56, (Gil. 34
34;) Black-
man v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 334, (Gil. 306;)
Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 427, (Gil. 385;)
Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn. 46; May v. Walker, 35
Minn. 197.
2339
2340
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
BURT V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18, BUTLER V. PAINE, 8 Minn. 324, (Gil. 284.)
N. W. 285, 289.
Courts, 1.
Evidence, 1, 250.
Statutes, 12.
Words and Phrases, 198-200.
Appeal and Error, 443.
Evidence, 272.
Negotiable Instruments, 17.
Words and Phrases, 180.
Cited in White v. Culver, 10 Minn. 198, (Gil. 159.)
Followed in Adams v. Mille Laos Lumber Co., 32 BUTLER V. WHITE, 25 Minn. 432.
Minn. 217.
BURTON V. ROHRBECK, 30 Minn. 393, 15 N. W. 678.
Landlord and Tenant, 81.
BURTON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 33 Minn.
189, 22 N. W. 300.
Malicious Prosecution, 3, 38, 42.
Words and Phrases, 590, 591.
Cited in Moore v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 37 Minn.
148; Gilbertson v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 415; Mc-
Pherson v. Runyon, 41 Minn. 525.
BURTON V. SCHENCK, 40 Minn. 52, 41 N. W. 244.
Summons, 56.
BURWELL V. TULLIS, 12 Minn. 572, (Gil. 486.)
Constitutional Law, 85.
Words and Phrases, 405.
Followed in Wetherill v. Stone, 12 Minn. 579,
(Gil. 503;) Grace v. Donovan, 12 Minn. 581,
(Gil. 503;) Dana v. Porter, 14 Minn. 480, (Gil.
357;) Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 234, (Gil.
203;) Lamprey v. Davidson, 16 Minn. 484, (Gil.
438;) Ashton v. Slater, 19 Minn. 351, 352, (Gil.
301, 305.) Cited in Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn.
156, 157, (Gil. 142, 144;) Cook v. Kendall, 13
Minn. 326, (Gil. 298;) Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14
Minn. 528, (Gil. 399;) Brisbin v. Farmer, 16
Minn. 220, (Gil. 193;) Archambau v. Green, 21
Minn. 526; Giles v. Giles, 22 Minn. 349: Gaston
v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 283: Sherburne v. Rippe,
35 Minn. 541; Spencer v. Haug, 45 Minn. 235.
BUSE V. PAGE, 32 Minn. 111, 19 N. W. 736, 20 N. W.
95.
Sale, 197.
Witness, 82.
Explained in Butman v. James, 34 Minn. 550, 551,
553. Cited in Marston v. Williams, 45 Minn.
120; Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 205.
Attachment, 85.
Execution, 56, 57.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 36, 63.
Sheriffs and Constables, 47.
Followed in Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 122;
Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 392. Cited in
Jones v. Town, 26 Minn. 174; Kelly v. Bron-
son, 26 Minu: 361: Bailey v. Chandler, 27 Minn.
174; Johnson v. Bray, 35 Minn. 250.
BUTLER V. WINONA MILL Co., 28 Minn. 205, 9 N.
W. 697.
Appeal and Error, 425.
Master and Servant, 12.
BUTMAN V. JAMES, 34 Minn. 547, 27 N. W. 66.
Injunction, 1.
Mortgages, 72, 82.
Quieting Title, 5.
Words and Phrases, 205.
Cited in Jackson v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 502;
Marston v. Williams, 45 Minn. 120.
BUTTERFIELD V. FARNHAM, 19 Minn. 85, (Gil. 5S.)
Mortgages, 156, 207.
Approved in Menard v. Crowe, 20 Minn. 451, 452,
(Gil. 405, 406.) Cited in Bowers v. Hechtman,
45 Minn. 241.
BUTTERFIELD V. HOME INS. Co., 14 Minn. 410, (Gil.
310.
Removal of Causes, 1.
Cited in Dunn v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co.,
35 Minn. 53.
BUTTS v. MOORHEAD MANUF'G Co., 43 Minn. 296, 45
N. W. 444.
Costs, 16.
Pleading, 52.
BUTTS v. NORTHWESTERN PRINT. & PUB. Co., 43
Minn. 56, 44 N. W. 879.
Chattel Mortgages, 19.
BUSTERUD V. FARRINGTON, 36 Minn. 320, 31 N. W. BUXTON V. BEAL, 51 N. W. 918.
.360.
Deceit, 1, 4, 29.
Approved in Alden v. Wright, 47 Minn. 227.
Cited in Clark v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 121.
BUTLER V. ALLARDT.
See Folds v. Allardt.
BUTLER V. BOHN, 31 Minn. 325, 17 N. W. 862.
Contracts, 128.
Payment, 18.
Trial, 182.
Witness, 49.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 282.
BUTLER V. CHAMBERS, 36 Minn. 69, 30 N. W. 308.
Constitutional Law, 179.
Statutes, 20.
Applied in Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 273.
Distinguished in State v. Aslesen, 52 N. W.
220.
BUTLER V. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 27 Minn.
355, 7 N. W. 363.
Wills, 48.
BUTLER V. FITZPATRICK, 21 Minn. 59.
Appeal and Error, 252, 421, 489.
Factors and Brokers, 33.
BYERS V. ORENSSTEIN, 42 Minn. 386, 44 N. W. 129.
Deposition, 27.
Vendor and Purchaser, 160.
BYRANE V. ROGERS, 8 Minn. 281, (Gil. 247.)
Landlord and Tenant, 82.
BYRNE V. HINDS, 16 Minn. 521, (Gil. 469.)
Adverse Claim, 7.
Words and Phrases, 317.
Cited in Jellison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 488.
BYRNE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 29 Minn.
200, 12 N. W. 698.
Appeal and Error, 352.
Evidence, 172.
Cited in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 496;
Barker v. Todd, 37 Minn. 371; Barringer v.
Stoltz, 39 Minn. 63.
BYRNE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 38 Minn.
212, 36 N. W. 339.
Damages, 73.
Judgment, 140.
Nuisance, 21.
Waters and Water-Courses, 5.
2341
2342
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CABBOTT V. RADFORD, 17 Minn. 320, (Gil. 296.)
Internal Revenue, 9.
C.
Negotiable Instruments, 177, 187.
Cited in Owsley v. Greenwood, 18 Minn. 430,
Gil. 389;) Sanborn v. Nocken, 20 Minn. 186,
(Gil. 163.)
CABLE V. BYRNE, 38 Minn. 534, 38 N. W. 620.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Execution, 91.
CABLE V. FOLEY, 45 Minn. 421, 47 N. W. 1135.
Contracts, 130.
Duress, 6.
Cited in Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W. 218.
CABLE V. MINNEAPOLIS STOCK-YARDS & PACKING
Co., 47 Minu. 417, 50 N. W. 528.
Mortgage, 270, 273.
Vendor and Purchaser, 154.
CAHILL V. EASTMAN, 18 Minn. 324, (Gil. 292.)
Judgment, 105.
Landlord and Tenant, 31.
Trespass, 7.
Followed in Knapheide v. Eastman, 20 Minn.
480, 481, (Gil. 432, 433.) Approved in Hannem
v. Pence, 40 Minn. 129, 131. Cited in McCarthy
v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 531.
CAIN V. LIBBY, 32 Minn. 491, 21 N. W. 739.
Judge, 8.
CAIN V. MCGEENTY, 41 Minn. 194, 42 N. W. 933.
Executors and Administrators, 114.
CAIN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 39 Minn.
297, 39 N. W. 635.
Carriers, 128.
CAIRNCROSS v. MCGRANN, 37 Minn. 130, 33 N. W.
548.
Specific Performance, 86, 99.
CALDWELL V. ARNOLD, S Minn. 265, (Gil. 231.)
Reference, 11.
Sheriffs and Constables, 17, 18.
CALDWELL V. AUGER, 4 Minn. 217, (Gil. 156.)
Estoppel, 24, 49, 75.
Execution, 34.
Followed in Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 126.
Cited in Schalck v. Harmon, 6 Minn. 270, (Gil.
179;) Whitacre v. Culver, 6 Minn. 300, (Gil.
208;) Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn. 24.
CALDWELL V. KENNISON, 4 Minn. 47, (Gil. 23.)
Trial, 59.
Followed in State v. Kobe, 26 Minn. 150. Over-
ruled in Ames v. Cannon River Manuf'g Co.,
27 Minn. 248.
CALDWELL V. SIBLEY, 3 Minn. 406, (Gil. 300.)
Attachment, 43, 53, 54.
Cited in Banning v. Sibley, 3 Minn. 400, (Gil.
294;) Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 411, (Gil. 314.)
CALIFF V. HILLHOUSE, 3 Minn. 311, (Gil. 217.)
Appeal and Error, 343.
Estoppel, 25.
Reference, 18.
Cited in Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 266, (Gil. 209;)
Mathews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn.
446, (Gil. 401;) Englebrecht v. Rickert, 14 Minn.
141, (Gil. 109;) Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 462,
(Gil. 415;) McMurphy v. Walker, 20 Minn. 386,
(Gil. 337;) Tousley v. Board of Education of
the Borough of Le Sueur, 39 Minn. 420; Wil-
liams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 254; Bennett v.
Morton, 46 Minn. 113.
CALKINS V. COPLEY, 29 Minn. 471, 13 N. W. 904.
Estoppel, 15.
Cited in Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 420; Mer-
ritt v. Byers, 46 Minn. 76; O'Brien v. Findeisen,
50 N. W. 1035.
CAMERON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 42
Minn. 75, 43 N. W. 785.
Eminent Domain, 93.
CAMP_V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 33 Minn. 461, 23 N.
W. 845.
Q
Municipal Corporations, 56.
CAMP V. SMITH, 2 Minn. 155, (Gil. 131.)
Public Lands, 127, 128, 136, 137.
Words and Phrases, 667.
Followed in State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 234,
(Gil. 180;) Foster v. Commissioners Blue Earth
County, 7 Minn. 148, (Gil. 92.) Distinguished
in Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 455, (Gil. 364.)
Cited in Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 231, (Gil. 150;)
Gray v. Stockton, 8 Minn. 535, (Gil. 478
Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 340, (Gil. 273;)
Sharon v. Wooldrick, 18 Minn. 360, (Gil. 330.)
CAMP V. THOMPSON, 25 Minn. 175.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 6, 36, 37.
Words and Phrases, 383.
Followed in Butler v. White, 25 Minn. 432.
Cited
in Kelly v. Bronson, 26 Minn. 361; Lathrop v.
Clayton, 45 Minn. 127.
CALDWELL V. BRUGGERMAN, 4 Minn. 270, (Gil. 190.) CAMPBELL V. CITY OF STILLWATER, 32 Minn. 308,
Pleading, 248, 273.
Replevin, 69, 76.
Cited in Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn. 517, (Gil.
426;) Tupper v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 387; John-
son v. Oswald, 38 Minn. 551; King v. Lacrosse,
42 Minn. 489.
CALDWELL V. Bruggerman, 8 Minn. 286, (Gil. 252.)
Appeal and Error, 214, 276, 489, 672, 673.
Pleading, 167, 179.
Replevin, 53.
CALDWELL V. DEPEW, 40 Minn. 528, 42 N. W. 479.
Specific Performance, 31.
20 N. W. 320.
Municipal Corporations, 143.
Negligence, 34, 37.
Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
32 Minn. 333; Dugan v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
40 Minn. 545.
CAMPBELL V. JONES, 25 Minn. 155.
Adverse Claim, 33, 34.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 60, 84.
Pleading, 96, 145.
Cited in Leonard v. Green, 34 Minn. 140; Jack-
son v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 498, 501-503; Lace v.
Fixen, 39 Minn. 48.
i
2343
2344
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CAMPBELL V. LANDBERG, 27 Minn. 454, & N. W. 168. | CARLI V. JACKMAN, 9 Minn. 249, (Gil. 235.)
Appeal and Error, 530.
Appeal and Error, 141.
CAMPBELL V. ROTERING, 42 Minn. 115, 43 N. W. 795. | CARLI V. RHENER, 27 Minn. 292, 7 N. W. 139.
Bonds, la, 7.
CAMPION V. WHITNEY, 30 Minn. 177, 14 N. W. 806.
Judgment, 175.
CANNADY V. LYNCH, 27 Minn. 435, 8 N. W. 164.
Evidence, 155.
Trial, 29.
Witness, 1, 2.
Cited in Nelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 171.
CANNEY V. BROWN, 40 Minn. 461, 42 N. W. 354.
Sale, 172.
CANNON V. EMMANS, 44 Minn. 294, 46 N. W. 356.
Boundaries, 7.
CANNON RIVER MANUF'RS' ASS'N V. FIRST Nat.
BANK, 37 Minn. 394, 34 N. W. 741.
Bailment, 3.
CANNON RIVER MANUF'RS' ASS'N V. RICE COUNTY,
32 Minn. 516, 21 N. W. 738.
Taxation, 28.
CANNON RIVER MANUF'RS' ASS'N V. ROGERS, 42
Minn. 123, 43 N. W. 792.
Contracts, 101.
Judgment, 121.
Cited in Cannon River Manuf'rs' Ass'n v. Rog-
ers, 46 Minn. 377.
CANNON RIVER MANUF'RS' ASS'N V. ROGERS, 46
Minn. 376, 49 N. W. 128.
Accord and Satisfaction, 7.
CANTLON V. EASTERN RY. Co. OF MINNESOTA, 45
Minn. 481, 48 N. W. 22.
Railroad Companies, 159, 294, 310.
CANTY V. LATTERNER, 31 Minn. 239, 17 N. W. 385.
Assignment, 7, 10.
Champerty and Maintenance.
Homestead, 78.
Pleading, 137.
Cited in Bohrer v. Drake, 33 Minn. 410; Alworth
v. Seymour, 42 Minn. 529.
CAPEHART V. LOGAN, 20 Minn. 442, (Gil. 395.)
Appeal and Error, 690.
Executors and Administrators, 67.
Cited in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207.
Capehart v. VAN CAMPEN, 10 Minu. 158, (Gil. 127.)
Abatement and Revival, 11.
Cited in Washburn v. Van Steen wyk, 32 Minn.
356.
CAREY V. CITY OF DULUTH. See Carey v. St. Louis
County.
CAREY V. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, 38 Minn. 218, 36 N.
W. 459.
Municipal Corporation, 2.
CARGILL V. MILLERS' & MANUF'RS' MUT. Ins. Co.,
33 Minn. 90, 22 N. W. 6.
Insurance, 19, 98.
Words and Phrases, 600.
Cited in Olson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
35 Minn. 433; De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38
Minn. 503.
CARLETON COLLEGE V. MCNAUGHTON, (Carleton
College v. Curren,) 26 Minn 194, 2 N. W. 688.
Mortgages, 821.
Explained in McNaughton v. Carleton College,
28 Minu, 290.
Judge, 7.
Words and Phrases, 201.
Distinguished in Cain v. Libby, 32 Minn. 492.
CARLI V. SEYMOUR, SABIN & Co., 26 Minn. 276, 3
N. W. 348.
Damages, 36.
CARLI V. STILLWATER ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER
Co., 28 Minn. 373, 10 N. W. 205.
Eminent Domain, 267.
Riparian Rights, 5.
Words and Phrases, 250, 345, 712.
Distinguished in Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M.
Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 121. Cited in Union Depot,
St. Railway & Transfer Co. v. Brunswick, 31
Minn. 303; Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 116; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N.
R. Co., 39 Minn. 295; Hanford v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., 43 Minn. 112, 114; Village of Wayzata
v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 914.
CARLI V. STILLWATER & ST. P. R. Co., 16 Minn.
260, (Gil. 234.)
Eminent Domain, 61, 71, 197.
Followed in Schermeely v. Stillwater & St. P.
R. Co., 16 Minn. 507, (Gil. 458.) Distinguished
in Conter v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn.
314. Cited in Proetz v. St. Paul Water Co., 17
Minn. 168, (Gil. 141;) Lake Superior & M. R.
Co. v. Greve, 17 Minn. 333, (Gil. 309;) Hursh
v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 17 Minn.
445, (Gil. 423;) Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Co., 18 Minn. 170, (Gil. 153;) Warren v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 397, (Gil.
358;) Mathews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18
Minn. 440, (Gil. 396;) Colvill v. St. Paul & C.
R. Co., 19 Minn. 287, (Gil. 243;) St. Paul & S.
C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 511, (Gil. 442
Trogden v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 22 Minn.
200, 201.
CARLI V. TAYLOR, 15 Minn. 171, (Gil. 131.)
Mortgages, 175.
Followed in Russell v. H. C. Akeley Lumber Co.,
45 Minn. 378.
CARLI V. UNION DEPOT, ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER
Co., 32 Minn. 101, 20 N. W. 89.
Damages, 20.
Eminent Domain, 290.
Words and Phrases, S04.
Cited in Hoffman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45
Minn. 55.
v.
CARLIN V. BRACKETT, 38 Minn. 307, 37 N. W. 342.
Judgment, 110.
CARLSON V. Dow, 47 Minn. 335, 50 N. W. 232.
Trial, 118.
CARLSON V. DULUTH SHORT-LINE RY. Co., 38 Minn.
305, 37 N. W. 341.
Deed, 90.
Distinguished in Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn.
446. Cited in Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn.
401.
CARLSON V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE CO., 47 Minn. 337,
50 N. W. 229.
Libel and Slander, 65.
Carlson v. SMALL, 32 Minn. 439, 21 N. W. 480.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Applied in Jacobson v. Williams, 34 Minn. 23;
Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414.
2345
2346
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
Carlson v. SMALL, 32 Minn. 492, 21 N. W. 737.
Appeal and Error, 585.
Replevin, 17, 31.
CARLTON V. CHOUTEAU, 1 Minn. 102, (Gil. 81.)
Judgment, 65.
CARROLL V. ROSSITER, 10 Minn. 174, (Gil. 141.)
Mortgages, 379, 409.
Applied in Hillebert v. Porter, 28 Minn. 497.
Cited in Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 346,
(Gil. 225;) Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 149;
O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 138.
CARNER V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 43 CARROLL V. WILLISTON, 44 Minn. 287, 46 N. W. 352.
Minn. 375, 45 N. W. 713.
Damages, 70.
Public Lands, 11, 12.
Cited in Hayes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
45 Minn. 20; Hoye v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 46 Minn. 272.
CARNEY V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 46
Minn. 220, 48 N. W. 912.
Railroad Companies, 193.
Cited in Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N.
W. 116.
CARPENTER V. ARTISANS' SAV. BANK, 44 Minn. 521,
47 N. W. 150.
Chattel Mortgages, 96.
Cited in Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 419.
CARPENTER V. BODKIN, 36 Minn. 183, 30 N. W. 453.
Attachment, 81-83.
CARPENTER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 23 Minn. 232.
Municipal Corporations, 105, 246, 257, 289,
293.
Applied in City of St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn.
263. Distinguished in Mayall v. City of St.
Paul, 30 Minn. 298. Explained in State v. Dis-
trict Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 65.
Cited in Cook v. Slocum, 27 Minn. 511; State
v. District Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn.'
168, 309.
Carpenter v. COMFORT, 22 Minn. 539.
Appeal and Error, 85.
Cited in Hinds v. Backus, 45 Minn. 172.
CARPENTER V. LEONARD, 5 Minn. 155, (Gil. 119.)
Husband and Wife, 28, 29, 91.
Mechanics' Liens, 18, 19, 37.
Words and Phrases, 39.
Followed in Carpenter v. Wilverschied, 5 Minn.
170, (Gil. 134.) Explained in Tuttle v. Howe,
14 Minn. 147, (Gil. 115.) Cited in Pond v. Car-
penter, 12 Minn. 432, (Gil. 318;) Kingsley v.
Gilman, 15 Minn. 61, (Gil. 42;) Benjamin v.
Wilson, 34 Minn. 519; Bergsma v. Dewey, 46
Minn. 359; Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer,
51 N. W. 350.
CARPENTER V. WILVERSCHIED, 5 Minn. 170, (Gil.
133.)
Husband and Wife, 91.
Mechanics' Liens, 19, 37.
Master and Servant, 35, 140.
Trial, 115.
Cited in State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 522; Rosquist
v. D. M. Gilmore Furniture Co., 52 N. W. 385.
CARROLL V. WISCONSIN CENT. R. Co., 40 Minn. 168,
41 N. W. 661.
Eminent Domain, 250.
CARSON V. GETCHELL,
GETCHELL, 23 Minn. 571.
Appeal and Error, 451.
Attachment, 92.
Distinguished in Rand v. Getchell, 24 Minn. 320.
CARSON V. SMITH, 5 Minn. 78. (Gil. 58.)
Constitutional Law, 10, 46.
Powers, 6, 7.
Words and Phrases, 742.
Followed in Carson v. Smith, 12 Minn. 557, 563,
(Gil. 472, 477;) Wood v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 398,
(Gil. 369;) Morris v. Watson, 15 Minn. 215,
(Gil. 167;) Thayer v. Barney, 12 Minn. 506,
(Gil. 416;) St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Gardner,
19 Minn. 138, (Gil. 103.) Cited in Village of
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 275, (Gil. 251.)
CARSON V. SMITH, 12 Minn. 546, (Gil, 458.)
Powers, 9-11.
Public Lands, 16, 17.
Words and Phrases, 504.
CARSTEN V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 44 Minn. 454,
47 N. W. 49.
Carriers, 66, 127.
Damages, 8.
Followed in Hoffman v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
45 Minn. 53, 54. Cited in Serwe v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 50 N. W. 1022.
CARTER V. STROM, 41 Minn. 522, 43 N. W. 394.
Damages, 13.
CASE v. FAVIER, 12 Minn. 89, (Gil. 48.)
Dedication, 7, 27.
Cited in Village of Mankato v. Meagher, 17
Minn. 270, (Gil. 247;) Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn.
36, 37.
CASE v. YOUNG, 3 Minn. 209, (Gil. 140.)
Evidence, 280.
Wills, 43, 47.
Words and Phrases, 632.
CASEY V. MCINTYRE, 45 Minn. 526, 48 N. W. 402.
Mortgages, 227–229.
CARROLL V. MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co., 13 Minn. CASEY V. SEVATSON, 30 Minn. 516, 16 N. W. 407.
30, (Gil. 18.)
Master and Servant, 82.
Negligence, 51.
Railroad Companies, 218.
Cited in Carroll v. Minnesota Valley R. Co., 14
Minn. 55, (Gil. 43;) Donaldson v. Milwaukee
& St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 297; Johnson v.
Truesdale, 46 Minn. 346.
Malicious Prosecution, 11, 24.
Words and Phrases, 590.
Applied in Burton v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 191. Cited in Gilbertson v. Fuller,
40 Minn. 415.
CASSAN v. MAXWELL, 39 Minn. 391, 40 N. W. 357.
Mechanics' Liens, 134.
Words and Phrases, 723.
CARROLL V. MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co., 14 Minn. CASS COUNTY V. MORRISON, (Cass County v. Cer-
57, (Gil. 42.)
Negligence, 53.
Railroad Companies, 225.
tain Lands,) 28 Minn. 257, 9 N. W. 761.
Constitutional Law, 120.
Taxation, 22.
2347
2348
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CASS COUNTY V. MORRISON-Continued.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 18; Polk
County v. Hunter, 42 Minn. 314.
CASSIDY V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 30 Minn. 86, 14 N.
W. 363.
Banks and Banking, 7.
CATLIN V. FLETCHER, 9 Minn. 85, (Gil. 75.)
Equity, 38, 41.
Distinguished in Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 35.
Cited in Jagger v. Winslow, 30 Minn. 264.
CAULSTROM V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co.,
(Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,)
31 Minn. 367, 18 N. W. 94.
Followed in Mitchell v. Easton, 37 Minn. 336.
Cited in Conger v. Nesbit, 30 Minn. 437; Mer-
chants' Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. Hanson, 33 C.
Minn. 43.
CASSIDY V. SMITH, 18 Minn. 129, (Gil. 122.)
Highways, 29, 31.
Cited in Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 127.
CASTLE V. THOMAS, 16 Minn. 490, (Gil. 443.)
Pleading, 166.
Replevin, 19–21.
Pleading, 127.
AULTMAN & Co. v. BROWN, 39 Minn. 323, 40 N.
W. 159.
Evidence, 307.
C. AULTMAN & Co. v. FALKUM, 47 Minn. 414, 50 N.
W. 471.
Sale, 118.
Trial, 49, 65.
Cited in Hicks v. Mendenhall, 17 Minn. 477, C. AULTMAN & Co. v. KENNEDY, 33 Minn. 339, 23
(Gil. 454.)
CASTNER V. AUSTIN, 2 Minn. 44, (Gil. 32.)
Assignment, 23.
Cited in Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn: 186.
CASTNER V. CHANDLER, 2 Minn. 86, (Gil. 68.)
Courts, 7.
Words and Phrases, 524.
Distinguished in Agin v. Heyward, 6 Minn. 115,
(Gil. 59;) Southern Minn. R. Co. v. Stoddard,
6 Minn. 157, (Gil. 95.) Cited in Barber v. Ken-
nedy, 18 Minn. 227, (Gil. 208.)
CASTNER V. ECHARD, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil. 92.)
Public Lands, 26, 34–36.
CASTNER V. GUNTHER, 6 Minn. 119, (Gil. 63.)
Public Lands, 26, 34–36.
Witness, 90.
Followed in Castner v. Echard, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil.
92; Castner v. Lowry, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil. 92;)
Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 53, (Gil. 28;) Car-
son v. Smith, 12 Minn. 562, (Gil. 477;) Coy v.
Coy, 15 Minn. 123, 126, (Gil. 92, 94;) Harring-
ton v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 223,
(Gil. 200;) Village of Mankato v. Meagher, 17
Minn, 272, 276, 280, (Gil. 249, 252, 256.), Cited
in Weisberger v. Tenny, 8 Minn. 458, (Gil. 407.)
CASTNER V. LOWRY, 6 Minn. 149, (Gil. 92.)
Public Lands, 26, 34-36.
CASTNER V. SYMONDS, 1 Minn. 427, (Gil. 310.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Distinguished in Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 285,
(Gil. 195;) Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 410, (Gil.
313;) Crosby v. Farmer, 39 Minn. 306.
CASTNER V. THE DR. FRANKLIN, 1 Minn. 73, (Gil.
51.)
Appeal and Error, 366.
Navigable Waters, 1, 4.
Trial, 80.
Followed in Foster v. Berkey, 8 Minn. 363, (Gil.
323.)
CATER, IN RE, (Gile v. Cater,) 33 Minn. 529, 24 N.
W. 197.
Contracts, 38.
CATHCART V. BACON, 47 Minn. 34, 49 N. W. 331.
Factors and Brokers, 40.
CATHCART V. PECK, 11 Minn. 45, (Gil. 24.)
Appeal and Error, 446.
Judgment, 81.
Pleading, 95, 187, 190, 195, 300.
Public Lands, 51-53.
Cited in Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 66, (Gil. 32.)
N. W. 528.
Sale, 57.
Trial, 43.
C. AULTMAN & Co. v. OLSON, 34 Minn. 450, 26 N.
W. 451.
Negotiable Instruments, 30, 31.
Cited in Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 151.
C. AULTMAN & Co. v. OLSON, 43 Minn. 409, 45 N.
W. 852.
Sale, 198.
CAVENAUGH V. MCLAUGHLIN, 38 Minn. 83, 35 N. W.
576.
Vendor and Purchaser, 31.
CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. Rr. Co. v. KELLY.
See Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. Ry Co. v.
Ryan.
CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. RY. Co. v. RAYMOND,
37 Minn. 204, 33 N. W. 704.
Eminent Domain, 107, 108, 110.
CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. RYAN, 36
Minn. 546, 33 N. W. 35.
Eminent Domain, 91, 203.
CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. Rr. Co. v. RYAN, 37
Minn. 38, 33 N. W. 6.
Appeal and Error, 560.
Eminent Domain, 79, 90.
CHADBOURN V. RAHILLY, 23 Minn. 394, 10 N. W. 420.
Chattel Mortgages, 83.
Cited in Minor v. Sheehan, 30 Minn. 421.
CHADBOURN V. RAHILLY, 34 Minn. 346, 25 N. W.
633.
Landlord and Tenant, 35.
Replevin, 88.
CHADBOURN V. WILLIAMS, 45 Minn. 294, 47 N. W.
812.
Estoppel, 67.
Husband and Wife, 26, 72.
CHADBOURNE V. ZILSDORF, 34 Minn. 43, 24 N. W.
308.
Injunction, 11.
Jury, 41.
Cited in Butman v. James, 34 Minn. 552.
CHADWICK V. CORNISH, 26 Minn. 28, 1 N. W. 55.
Limitation of Actions, 63.
Witness, 24.
Words and Phrases, 143.
Followed in Harrington v. Samples, 36 Minn.
202. Applied in Beard v. First Nat. Bank of
Minneapolis, 39 Minn. 548; Newton v. Newton,
2349
2350
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CHADWICK V. CORNISH-Continued.
46 Minn. 37. Cited in Young v. Perkins, 29
Minn. 174; Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 62;
Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 66; In re Brown,
38 Minn. 113; Erpelding v. Ludwig, 39 Minn.
519 Clague v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 376; Hall
v. Northwestern Endowment & Legacy Ass'n,
47 Minn. 85, 88.
CHALMERS V. WHITTEMORE, 22 Minn. 305.
Appeal and Error, 557.
New Trial, 20, 21.
Followed in Oswald v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 6.
CHAMBERLAIN v. O'BRIEN, 46 Minn. 80, 48 N. W.
447.
Insolvency, 66, 68.
Cited in Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 511.
CHAMBERLAIN V. PORTER, 9 Minn. 260, (Gil, 244.)
Appeal and Error, 334.
Damages, 1.
Malpractice, 7-9.
New Trial, 34.
Cited in Chapman v. Dodd, 10 Minn. 366, (Gil. |
292:) Du Laurans v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 15 Minn. 59, (Gil. 39;) Baldwin v.
Blanchard, 15 Minn. 500, (Gil. 412;) Judson v.
Reardon, 16 Minn. 444, (Gil. 401.)
CHAMBERLAIN V. SIBLEY, 4 Minn. 309, (Gil. 228.)
Constitutional Law, 20, 21.
Approved in State v. Braden, 40 Minn. 175.
Criticised in Treasurer Mille Lacs County v.
Dike, 20 Minn. 365, (Gil. 316.)
CHAMBERLAIN V. TINER, 31 Minn. 371, 18 N. W.
97.
Executors and Administrators, 137.
Pleading, 24.
Cited in Perkins v. Merrill, 37 Minn. 40.
CHAMBERLAIN v. WEST, 37 Minn. 54, 33 N. W. 114.
Bailment, 7.
Innkeepers, 7.
Cited in Benjamin v. Levy, 39 Minn. 12; Laing
v. Nelson, 41 Miun. 521.
CHAMBERLIN V. SLAYTON, 37 Minn. 119, 35 N. W.
754.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
CHAMBLIN V. SCHLICHTER, 12 Minn. 276, (Gil. 181.)
Equity, 71.
Mortgages, 434.
Cited in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 287.
CHAN V. BRANDT, 45 Minn. 93, 47 N. W. 461.
Boundaries, 5.
CHANDLER V. De Graff, 22 Minn. 471.
Sales, 7.
Cited in Chandler v. De Graff, 25 Minn. 91;
Chandler v. De Graff, 27 Minn. 211.
CHANDLER V. DE GRAFF, 25 Minn. 88.
Appeal and Error, 597.
Confusion of Goods, 1, 2.
Trial, 58, 86.
CHANDLER V. ST. PAUL F. & M. INS. Co., 21 Minn.
85.
Insurance, 27, 54, 128.
Cited in Cargill v. Millers' & Manuf'rs' Mut. Ins.
Co., 33 Minn. 92, 93; Olson v. St. Paul Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 35 Minn: 433; De Graff v.
Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 503.
CHAPIN V. MURPHY, 5 Minn. 474, (Gil. 383.)
Negotiable Instruments, 11.
CHAPMAN V. DODD, 10 Minn. 350, (Gil. 277.)
Appeal and Error, 579.
Evidence, 31, 195, 196.
Malicious Prosecution, 4, 9, 20-22, 25-27, 41.
New Trial, 34.
Followed in Cole v. Curtis, 16 Minn. 188, 200, 201,
(Gil. 166, 176, 177.) Cited in Du Laurans v.
First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 59,
(Gil. 39.)
CHARLES, IN RE, (Charles v. Charles,) 35 Minn. 438,
29 N. W. 170.
Executors and Administrators, 69.
CHARLES V. CHARLES, 41 Minn. 201, 42 N. W. 935.
Marriage, 4.
Words and Phrases, 162.
CHASE V. BLAISDELL, 4 Minn. 90, (Gil. 60.)
Conversion of Personal Property, 3, 45.
CHASE V. NEW YORK MORTGAGE LOAN Co., 51 N.
W. 816.
Usury, 21.
CHASE V. NORTH, 4 Minn. 381, (Gil. 288.)
Garnishment, 43.
Cited in Cole v. Sater, 5 Minn. 472, (Gil. 381;)
Vanderhoof v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 499.
CHASKA Co. v. BOARD SUP'RS CARVER COUNTY, 6
Minn. 204, (Gil. 130.)
Counties, 24.
Estoppel, 24, 31.
Followed in Nininger v. Commissioners Carver
County, 10 Minn. 136, (Gil. 108;) Cushman v.
Commissioners Carver County, 19 Minn. 296,
(Gil. 254.) Applied in Auerbach v. Le Sueur
Mill Co., 28 Minn. 295.
CHAUNCEY V. WASS, 35 Minn. 1, 25 N. W. 457, 30 N.
W. S26.
Taxation, 90, 91.
Words and Phrases, 209.
Cited in Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 510; Red-
wood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40
Minn. 519; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 41 Minn.
297.
CHEEVER V. CONVERSE, 35 Minn. 179, 28 N. W. 217.
Trusts, 42.
CHEMEDLIN V. PRINCE, 15 Minn. 331, (Gil. 263.)
Vendor and Purchaser, 51, 60.
Cited in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 354, (Gil. 328;)
Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 205; Smith v.
Glover, 52 N. W. 913.
CHANDLER V. DE GRAFF, 27 Minn. 208, 6 N. W. CHENEY V. DRY WOOD LUMBER Co., 34 Minn. 440,
611.
Conversion of Personal Property, 34.
Sale, 39.
CHANDLER v. KENT, 8 Minn. 524, (Gil. 467.)
Landlord and Tenant, 12, 91.
CHANDLER V. KENT, 8 Minn. 536, (Gil. 479.)
Landlord and Tenant, 92.
26 N. W. 236.
Continuance, 2.
New Trial, 41.
CHESLEY V. De GRAFF, 35 Minn. 415, 29 N. W. 167.
Logs and Logging, 7, 17.
Cited in St. Louis Dalles Improvement Co. v. C.
N. Nelson Lumber Co., 43 Minn. 134.
2351
2352
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CHESLEY V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 39 CHOPHARD V. BAYARD, 4 Minn. 533, (Gil. 418.)
Minn. 83, 38 N. W. 769.
Appeal and Error, 187, 397, 424.
Logs and Logging, 33.
Overruling Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378. Cited
in Mead v. Billings, 40 Minn. 506.
CHESTER V. PIERCE, 33 Minn. 370, 23 N. W. 539.
Husband and Wife, 32.
CHESTERSON v. MUNSON, 26 Minn. 303, 3 N. W. 695.
Appeal and Error, 41.
Applied in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 318.
CHESTERSON V. MUNSON, 27 Minn. 498, 8 N. W. 593.
Appeal and Error, 700, 720.
CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co. v. L. T. SOWLE ELEVATOR
Co. See National Bank of Commerce v. Chi-
cago, B. & N. R. Co.
CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co. v. PORTER, 43 Minn. 527,
46 N. W. 75.
Eminent Domain, 18, 137.
Words and Phrases, 622.
Applied in Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins.
Co., 45 Minn. 444, 145.
CHICAGO, M. & St. P. RY. Co. v. DURANT, 44 Minn.
361, 46 N. W. 676.
Specific Performance, 3.
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co. v. HOUSTON COUNTY,
38 Minn. 531, 38 N. W. 619.
Railroad Companies, 121.
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co. v. PFAENDER, 23
Minn. 217.
Railroad Companies, 104, 106.
Applied in State v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 32
Minn. 295. Cited in State v. Northern Pac. R.
Co., 36 Minn. 209, 210; Stevens County v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 470.
CHICKERING & SONS V. WHITE, 42 Minn. 457, 44 N.
W. 988.
Trial, 179.
Words and Phrases, 104.
Cited in Williams v. Clark, 47 Minn. 55.
CHIPPEWA COUNTY V. ST. FAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co.,
(St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., In re,) 42 Minn. 295,
44 N. W. 70.
Railroad Companies, 136.
Followed in Chippewa County v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn. 301.
CHISAGO COUNTY V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., (St.
Paul & D. R. Co., In re,) 27 Minn. 109, 6 Ń. W.
454.
Appeal and Error, 95.
Taxation, 89.
Cited in Pugh v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 29
Minn. 392; Wagner v. Wagner, 34 Minn. 443;
Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 3, 6, 8, 28; Her-
rick v. Churchill, 35 Minn. 318; Redwood
County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn.
519; People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 52 N. W.
219.
Chattel Mortgages, 25.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 42.
Distinguished in Bannon v. Bowler, 34 Minn.
418. Cited in Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn.
190; Mann v. Flower, 25 Minn. 507; Gallagher
v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 509.
CHOUTEAU V. HUNT, 44 Minn. 173, 46 N. W. 341.
Taxation, 117, 119, 137, 142, 150.
Cited in Sperry v. Goodwin, 44 Minn. 211; God-
frey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 503; McQuade v.
Jaffray, 47 Minn. 329.
CHOUTEAU V. PARKER, 2 Minn. 118, (Gil. 95.)
Appeal and Error, 74, 92.
Deposition, 28.
Words and Phrases, 470.
Cited in Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 65, (Gil. 31;)
Holmes v. Campbell, 13 Minn. 68, (Gil. 64;)
Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 335, (Gil. 257.)
CHOUTEAU V. RICE, 1 Minn. 24, (Gil. 8.)
Appeal and Error, 50.
Words and Phrases, 289, 395.
Cited in Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 125, (Gil. 100.)
CHOUTEAU V. RICE, 1 Minn. 106, (Gil. 83.)
Equity, 82.
Partnership, 65, 66.
Words and Phrases, 132, 212.
CHOUTEAU V. RICE, 1 Minn. 121, (Gil. 97.)
Appeal and Error, 121.
CHOUTEAU V. RICE, 1 Minn. 192, (Gil. 166.)
Appearance, 7.
Courts, 2.
CHRISTENSON V. AMERICAN EXP. Co., 15 Minn. 270,
Equity, 83.
(Gil. 208.)
Carriers, 1, 17, 42, 43, 48-50.
Words and Phrases, 122, 553, 554.
Followed in Shriver v. Sioux City & St. P. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 510. Applied in Moulton v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 88, 89. Cited
in Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 399; Hull v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 512.
CHRISTIAN V. BOWMAN, 51 N. W. 663.
Appeal and Error, 204.
Constitutional Law, 124.
Pleading, 278.
CHRISTIAN V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 20
Minn. 21, (Gil. 12.)
Carriers, 2, 13, 14.
CHRISTLIEB V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS HENNEPIN
COUNTY, 41 Minn. 142, 42 N. W. 930.
Certiorari, 4.
Cited in Moede v. Stearns County, 43 Minn. 313.
CHRISTMAN V. COLBERT, 33 Minn. 509, 24 N. W. 301.
Equity, 26.
Husband and Wife, 89.
CHISHOLM V. CLITHERALL, 12 Minn. 375, (Gil. 251.) CHUBBUCK V. CLEVELAND, 37 Minn. 466, 35 N. W.
Abatement and Revival, 30.
Assignment, 32.
164.)
Cited in Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 226, (Gil.
|
362.
Appearance, 14.
Deceit, 27.
Summons, 22.
CHITTENDEN V. GERMAN-AMERICAN BANK, 27 Minn. CHURCH V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 410,
143, 6 N. W. 773.
Appeal and Error, 100.
Partnership, 25.
23 N. W. 860.
Clerk of Court, 8.
Words and Phrases, 683.
2353
2354
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CHURCHILL V. HOLTON, 38 Minn. 519, 38 N. W. 611. | CITY OF FARIBAULT V. WILSON, 34 Minn. 254, 25 N
Sale, 146.
W. 449.
CHURCHILL V. PROCTOR, 31 Minn. 129, 16 N. W. 694.
Mortgages, 50, 330.
Applied in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 287. Cited
in Wilson v. Jamison, 36 Minn. 61; Foster v.
Johnson, 44 Minn. 292.
CHURCH & GRAVES MANUf'g Co., In rE, 40 Minn.
39, 41 N. W. 241.
Insolvency, 43, 60, S7.
Cited in Wright v. Fergus Falls Nat. Bank, 50
N. W. 1031.
CHUTE V. STATE, 19 Minn. 271, (Gil. 230.)
Criminal Law, 47.
Indictment, 27.
Mortgages, 93.
Nuisance, 32-36.
Witness, 57, 59.
Followed in Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 43.
CHUTE V. WASHBURN, 44 Mirn. 312, 46 N. W. 555.
Contracts, 71, 111.
Deed, 94, 95.
CIGAR MAKERS' PROTECTIVE UNION v. CONHAIM,
40 Minn. 243, 41 N. W. 943.
Trade-Marks, 1.
Municipal Corporations, 20, 45, 60, 64, 65.
CITY OF MANKATO V. ARNOLD, 36 Minn. 62, 30 N.
W. 305.
Constitutional Law, 151.
Intoxicating Liquors, 55.
Words and Phrases, 177, 179.
Followed in State v. Harris, 52 N. W. 387, 388.
Distinguished in State v. West, 42 Minn. 150,
151. Applied in State v. Brown, 52 N. W. 936.
Cited in Re Howes, 38 Minn. 406.
CITY OF MANKATO V. FOWLER, 32 Minn. 364, 20 N.
W. 361.
Municipal Corporations, 51.
Applied in Re White, 43 Minn. 252. Cited in City
of St. Paul v. Stoltz, 33 Minn. 235; Moore v.
City of Minneapolis, 43 Minn. 422; City of Du-
luth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 437; Willis v. Standard
Oil Co., 52 Ñ. W. 654.
CITY OF MANKATO V. WARREN, 20 Minn. 144, (Gil.
128.)
Dedication, 4, 6.
Words and Phrases, 744.
Cited in Hanson v. Eastman, 21 Minn. 511; Brak-
ken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn.
42; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 36, 37.
CIRKEL V. CROSWELL, (Cirkel v. Ellis,) 36 Minn. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY.
323, 31 N. W. 513.
New Trial, 57.
Partnership, 13.
CITIZENS' FIRE INS. Co. v. AMES. See Hanover
Fire Ins. Co. v. Ames.
CITY BANK v. DOLL, 33 Minn. 507, 24 N. W. 300.
Pleading, 208.
Distinguished in Van Loon v. Griffin, 34 Minn.
445.
CITY OF DULUTH V. DULUTH GAS & WATER Co.,
45 Minn. 210, 47 N. W. 781.
Water Companies, 1.
CITY OF DULUTH V. DUNN, 40 Minn. 301, 41 N. W.
1049.
Sale, 8.
CITY OF DULUTHI V. HENEY, 43 Minn. 155, 45 N. W. 7.
Principal and Surety, 12.
CITY OF DULUтa v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435, 49 N. W.
235.
Hawkers and Peddlers, 1, 2.
Municipal Corporations, 18, 52, 55.
Words and Phrases, 551.
Cited in Reimer v. Newell, 47 Minn. 242; Willis
v. Standard Oil Co., 52 N. W. 654.
CITY OF DULUTH V. MALLETT, 43 Minn. 204, 45 N.
W. 154.
Municipal Corporations, 29, 49, 62.
Words and Phrases, 97.
CITY OF FARIBAULT V. MISENER, 20 Minn. 396, (Gil.
347.)
Action, 15.
Municipal Corporations, 314.
Taxation, 13, 72.
Applied in Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 129.
Cited in Ames v. Lake Superior & M. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 289; Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 556;
State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 458; State Bank of Du-
luth v. Heney, 40 Minn. 148.
Co., (State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 35
Minn. 131, 28 N. W. 3.
Railroad Companies, 32.
Followed in State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 225, 227, 229.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS V. WILKIN, 30 Minn. 140, 14
N. W. 581.
Eminent Domain, 46, 138.
Cited in Wendell v. Lebon, 30 Minn. 238; State
Park Com'rs v. Henry, 38 Minn. 269; City of
St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 266; McKusick v.
City of Stillwater, 44 Minn. 381.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS V. WILKIN, 30 Minn. 145, 15
N. W. 668.
Eminent Domain, 151.
Words and Phrases, 733.
CITY OF ROCHESTER V. UPMAN, 19 Minn. 108, (Gil.
78.)
Criminal Law, 168.
Intoxicating Liquors, 1, 3, 16.
Followed in State v. Reckerds, 21 Minn. 49.
Cited in Steinhart v. Pitcher, 20 Minn. 104,
(Gil. 90;) State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 321;
Knobloch v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 404; Egan v. Menard, 32 Minn. 275.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. BUTLER, 30 Minn. 459, 16 N.
W. 362.
Municipal Corporations, 118, 120.
Applied in Morton v. Power, 33 Minn. 524. Dis-
tinguished in State Bank of Duluth v. Heney,
40 Minn. 148. Cited in Breen v. Kelly, 45
Minn. 353; Freeman v. Berkey, 45 Minn. 439.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. BYRNES, 38 Minn. 176, 36 N.
W. 449.
Municipal Corporations, 27.
CITY OF ST. PAUL v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co.,
45 Minn. 387, 48 N. W. 17.
Adverse Possession, 26, 27, 29.
Limitation of Actions, 23, 55.
Cited in Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 406.
2355
2356
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., | CITY OF ST. PAUL V. NICKL, (State v. District
51 N. W. 662.
Court,) 42 Minn. 262, 44 N. W. 59.
Municipal Corporations, 282.
New Trial, 98.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. COLTER, 12 Minn. 41, (Gil. 16.) CITY OF ST. PAUL V. PATRIDGE. See City of St.
Municipal Corporations, 12, 19, 43.
Statutes, 42.
Distinguished in Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.
v. Prince, 34 Minn. 85, 56. Cited in City of
Rochester v. Upman, 19 Minn. 112, (Gil. 81;)
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 320, 321; State v.
Lee, 29 Minn. 454; Knobloch v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 404; City of Mankato
v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 366; State v. Cantieny, 34
Minn. 7; St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Robinson,
40 Minn. 368; State v. Starkey, 52 N. W. 25.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. Dow, 37 Minn. 20, 32 N. W.
860.
License, 6.
CITY OF ST PAUL V. GILFILLAN, 36 Minn. 298, 31 N.
W. 49.
Municipal Corporations, 9, 24.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. HENNESSY, (State v. Municipal
Court of St. Paul,) 38 Minn. 94, 35 N. W. 576.
Nuisance, 30, 31.
CITY of ST. PAUL V. JOHNSON. See City of St. Paul
v. Umstetter.
Paul v. Byrnes.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. ROGERS, 22 Minn. 492.
Municipal Corporations, 299.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
(St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City of St. Paul,)
39 Minn. 112, 38 N. W. 925.
Railroad Companies, 122.
Cited in St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 511.
CITY OF ST. PAUL v. St. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 23
Minn. 469.
Municipal Corporations, 263.
Railroad Companies, 102.
Taxation, 11.
Cited in Hennepin County v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 535; Stevens County v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 470, 472; Todd
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn.
165.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. SEITZ, 3 Minn. 297, (Gil. 205.)
Municipal Corporations, 139, 152–154.·
Cited in Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn.
200; Morton v. Power, 33 Minn. 523.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. KUBY, 8 Minn. 154, (Gil. 125.) CITY OF ST. PAUL V. SMITH, 25 Minn. 372.
Appeal and Error, 288, 309, 316.
Damages, 87.
Municipal Corporations, 164, 186.
Negligence, 68, 84.
New Trial, 34.
Followed in Messerschmidt v. Baker, 22 Minn.
81.
Municipal Corporations, 25, 26.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. SMITH, 27 Minn. 364, 7 N. W.
734.
634.
Municipal Corporations, 50.
Municipal Corporations, 36.
Municipal Corporations, 31, 32.
Words and Phrases, 529.
Cited in Chamberlain v. Porter, 9 Minn. CITY OF ST. PAUL V. STOLTZ, 33 Minn. 233, 22 N. W.
265, (Gil. 250, 254;) Johnson v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co., 11 Minn. 307, (Gil. 213;) Burpe v.
Van Eman, 11 Minn. 331, (Gil. 232;) Griggs v. CITY OF ST. PAUL V. TRAEGER, 25 Minn. 248.
Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 96, (Gil. 67;) Du Laur-
ans v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 15
Minn. 59, (Gil. 39;) Spencer v. Tozer, 15 Minn.
147, 148, (Gil. 113, 114;) First Nat. Bank v. Par-
sons, 19 Minn. 291, (Gil. 248;) Tabor v. City of
St. Paul, 36 Minn. 188; Ray v. City of St. Paul,
40 Minn. 459.
CITY OF ST. Paul v. LaidLER, 2 Minn. 190, (Gil.
159.)
Municipal Corporations, 30, 67.
Cited in City of St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 252.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. LOTS 6, 7, ETC., (City of St.
Paul v. Mullen,) 27 Minn. 78, 6 N. W. 424.
Municipal Corporations, 271, 294.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. LULEY. See City of St. Paul
v. Byrnes.
CITY OF ST. Paul v. Marvin, 16 Minn. 102, (Gil.
91.)
Certiorari, 31.
Criminal Law, 195.
Municipal Corporations, 63.
Cited in Sherwood v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn. 23.
CITY OF ST. PAUL v. MERRITT, 7 Minn. 258, (Gil.
198.)
Taxation, 32, 33, 84.
Distinguished in Re Jefferson, 35 Minn. 218.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. MULLEN, (City of St. Paul v.
Lots 6, 7, etc.,) 27 Minn. 78, 6 N. W. 424.
Municipal Corporations, 274, 294.
Cited in State v. Municipal Court of City of St.
Paul, 32 Minn. 330; City of Mankato v. Fowler,
32 Minn. 365; City of St. Paul v. Stoltz, 33
Minn. 234, 235.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. TROYER, 3 Minn. 291, (Gil.
200.)
Intoxicating Liquors, 15.
Municipal Corporations, 10, 11.
Applied in State v. Örth, 38 Minn. 154. Cited in
State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 205.
CITY OF ST. PAUL V. UMSTETTER, 37 Minn. 15, 33 N.
W. 115.
Constitutional Law, 51.
Cited in Jordan v. Bailey, 37 Minn. 175.
CITY OF WINONA V. BURKE, 23 Minn. 254.
Evidence, 4.
Municipal Corporations, 66.
Cited in State v. Oleson, 26 Minn. 513.
CITY OF WINONA V. HUFF, 11 Minn. 119, (Gil. 75.)
Appeal and Error, 459.
Dedication, 16, 17, 23, 41, 46.
Evidence, 33, 203, 239.
Public Lands, 41.
Statutes, 61.
Applied in Wilder v. De Cou, 26 Minn. 16. Dis-
tinguished in Village of Mankato v. Meagher,
17 Minn. 278, 281, (Gil. 254, 257.) Cited in Vil-
lage of Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 28, (Gil.
2357
2358
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CITY OF WINONA V. HUFF-Continued.
15;) Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17
Minn. 224, (Gil. 200;) Hanson v. Eastman, 21
Minn. 511; Wait v. May, 51 N. W. 473.
CITY OF WINONA V. MINNESOTA RY. CONST. Co., 25
Minn. 328.
Appeal and Error, 79.
Explained in City of Winona v. Minnesota Ry.
Const. Co., 27 Minn. 423. Cited in City of Wi-
nona v. Minnesota Ry. Const. Co., 29 Minn.
68, 71.
CITY OF WINONA V. MINNESOTA RY. CONST. Co.,
(City of Winona v. Thompson,) 27 Minn. 415,
6 N. W. 795, 8 N. W. 148.
Appeal and Error, 220.
Evidence, 178.
Distinguished in Wyvell v. Jones, 37 Minn. 70.
Cited in City of Winona v. Minnesota Ry.
Const. Co., 29 Minn. 68, 73; Livingston v. Ives,
35 Minn. 58; Mahoney v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 362; Farnham v. Murch, 36 Minn.
330; Payette v. Day, 37 Minn. 367; Phelps v.
Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 490; Warner
v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177.
CITY OF WINONA V. MINNESOTA RY. Const. Co.,
29 Minn. 68, 11 N. W. 228.
Appeal and Error, 221, 671.
Damages, 75.
Cited in Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 124.
CITY OF WINONA V. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 82, 40 Minn.
13, 41 N. W. 539.
Schools and School-Districts, 6, 7.
Statutes, 44.
Followed in State v. Gallagher, 42 Minn. 451.
Distinguished in Wellcome v. Town of Monti-
cello, 41 Minn. 139. Cited in Willis v. St. Paul
Sanitation Co., 50 N. W. 1114.
CITY OF WINONA V. THOMPSON, 24 Minn. 199.
Evidence, 302.
Railroad Companies, 83.
Followed in City of Winona v. Minnesota Ry.
Const. Co., 27 Minn. 424. Approved in St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul Union Depot
Co., 44 Minn. 331. Cited in City of Winona v.
Minnesota Ry. Const. Co., 29 Minn. 68-70; Aus-
tin v. Wacks, 30 Minn. 342; Stone v. Harmon,
31 Minn. 515.
CITY OF WINONA_V. THOMPSON, (City of Winona
v. Minnesota Ry. Const. Co.,) 27 Minn. 415, 6
N. W. 795, 8 N. W. 148.
Appeal and Error, 220.
Evidence, 178.
Distinguished in Wyvell v. Jones, 37 Minn. 70.
Cited in City of Winona v. Minnesota Ry.
Const. Co., 29 Minn. 68, 73; Livingston v. Ives,
35 Minn. 58; Mahoney v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 362; Farnham v. Murch, 36
Minn. 330; Payette v. Day, 37 Minn. 367;
Phelps v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn.
490; Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177.
CITY OF WINONA V. WHIPPLE, 24 Minn. 61.
Intoxicating Liquors, 8, 37-39.
Statutes, 15.
Cited in State v. Small, 29 Minn. 218.
CLAFLIN V. LAWLER, 1 Minn. 297, (Gil. 231.)
Appeal and Error, 171.
Deposition, 1.
CLAGUE V. CLAGUE, 46 Minn. 461, 49 N. W. 198.
Divorce, 12.
CLAGUE V. HODGSON, 16 Minn. 329, (Gil. 291.)
Appeal and Error, 726.
Costs, 22, 32, 39.
Evidence, 163.
Justices of the Peace, 74, 84.
Trespass, 12.
Trial, 26.
CLAGUE V. WASHBURN, 42 Minn. 371, 44 N. W. 130.
Deed, 77.
Husband and Wife, 44, 45.
CLAMPET V. BELLS, 39 Minn. 272, 39 N. W. 495.
Frauds, Statute of, 58.
Words and Phrases, 138.
Cited in Morton v. Stone, 39 Minn. 277.
CLAPP V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 33 Minn.
22, 21 N. W. 844.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Followed in Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34
Minn. 414.
CLAPP V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 36 Minn.
6, 29 N. W. 340.
Appeal, 383.
Death by Wrongful Act, 14.
Master and Servant, 127.
Negligence, 94.
CLARK V. BUCHANAN, 2 Minn. 346, (Gil. 298.)
Elections and Voters, 25, 26.
Mandamus, 32.
CLARK V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 28 Minn.
69, 9 N. W. 75.
Negligence, 83.
Pleading, 10.
Cited in Keating v. Brown, 30 Minn. 10; John-
son v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 31 Minn. 284; Ek-
man v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 24;
Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 34 Minn.
478; Rolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 17; Stevens, In
re, 38 Minn. 433.
CLARK v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 38 Minn.
455, 38 N. W. 356. See Pratt v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co.
CLARK V. CITY OF AUSTIN, 38 Minn. 487, 38 N. W. 615.
Appeal and Error, 415.
Municipal Corporations, 188, 189, 325.
CLARK V. C. N. NELSON LUMBER CO., 34 Minn. 249,
25 N. W. 405.
Appeal and Error, 527.
CLARK V. C. N. NELSON LUMBER CO., 34 Minn. 289,
25 N. W. 628.
Appeal and Error, 268.
Conversion of Personal Property, 9.
Logs and Logging, 42.
Cited in Libby v. Johnson, 37 Minn. 222.
CLARK V. LINDEKE, (Lindeke v. Clark,) 43 Minn.
463, 45 N. W. 863.
Insolvency, 80, 81.
Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 912.
CLARK V. LINDEKE, 44 Minn. 112, 46 N. W. 326.
Partnership, 32.
Cited in Clark v. Lindeke, 44 Minn. 180, 181; In
re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 912.
CLARK V. LIN KE, 44 Minn. 179, 46 N. W. 339
Insolvency, 83, 84.
Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 912.
2359
2360
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CLARK V. LOVERING, 37 Minn. 120, 33 N. W.776.
Pleading, 116.
Principal and Agent, 95.
Cited in Petsch v. Dispatch Printing Co., 40
Minn. 295.
CLARK V. NORTHERN PAO. R. Co., 47 Minn. 380, 50
N. W. 365.
Railroad Companies, 194.
Cited in Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N.
W. 116.
CLARK V. NORTON, 6 Minn. 412, (Gil. 277.)
Attachment, 56, 57.
Replevin, 98.
Distinguished in Boom v. St. Paul Foundry &
Manuf'g Co., 33 Minn. 255.
CLARK V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 28 Minn. 128, 9
N. W. 581.
Master and Servant, 123.
Cited in Greene v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
31 Minn. 249: Russell v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 234; Robel v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 86, 88; Smith v.
Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 89.
CLARK V. SCHATZ, 24 Minn. 300.
Mechanics' Liens, 72.
Words and Phrases, 467.
Followed in Morrison v. Philippi, 35 Minn. 193.
Applied in Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 174.
Cited in Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 128;
Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 488; Smith v.
Headley, 33 Minn. 388; Dye v. Forbes, 34 Minn.
17; Gilfillan v. Hobart, 35 Minn. 186; Mc-
Glauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411; Conter v.
Farrington, 46 Minn. 337: Fleming v. St. Paul
C. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 126; Hurlburt v. New Ulm
Basket Works, 47 Minn. 83.
CLARK V. SMITH, 21 Minn. 539.
Negotiable Instruments, 44.
CLARK V. STANTON, 24 Minn. 232.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 52-55,
70, 83-85.
Words and Phrases, 403.
Cited in Kingman v. Barton, 24 Minn. 297; Swart
v. Thomas, 26 Minn. 143; State v. Severance,
29 Minn. 270; Strong v. Brown, 41 Minn. 306;
Second Nat. Bank v. Schranck, 43 Minn. 40.
CLARKE V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS OF STEARNS
COUNTY, 47 Minn. 552, 50 N. W. 615.
Taxation, 82.
CLARKE V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 359, 23 N. W. 536.
Railroad Companies, 296.
CLARKE V. GANZ, 21 Minn. 387.
Taxation, 76, 77.
Followed in Weibeler v. Sullivan, 34 Minn. 317.
CLARKE V. HALL & DUCEY LUMBER Co., 41 Minn.
105, 42 N. W. 785.
Logs and Logging, 34.
CLELAND V. TAVERNIER, 11 Minn. 194, (Gil. 126.)
Attachment, 73.
Summons, 2, 48.
Distinguished in Kenney v. Goergen, 36 Minn.
192. Cited in Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 197;
Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 280.
CLEMENTSON V. GLEASON, 36 Minn. 102, 30 N. W.
400.
Landlord and Tenant, 19.
CLEMENTSON V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 45 Minn.
303, 47 N. W. 781.
Libel and Slander, 51.
Words and Phrases, 14, 326.
CLEVELAND v. BоoтH, 43 Minn. 16, 44 N. W. 670.
Mortgages, 164.
CLEVELAND v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 18 Minn. 279,
(Gil. 255.)
Municipal Corporations, 136, 175.
Cited in Lindholm v. City of St. Paul, 19 Minn.
249, 250, (Gil. 209, 210;) Moore v. City of Min-
neapolis, 19 Minn. 302, (Gil. 260;) Furnell v.
City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 118, 124, (Gil. 103,
108;) O'Leary v. City of Mankato, 21 Minn. 68;
Estelle v. Village of Lake Crystal, 27 Minn.
244.
CLEVELAND V. DE SOTO BOILER WORKS, (Hitch-
cock v. Turnbull,) 44 Minn. 475, 47 N. W. 153.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 52.
Sale, 160.
CLEVELAND CO-OPERATIVE STOVE Co. v. DOUGLAS,
27 Minn. 177, 6 N. W. 628.
Judgment, 7.
Cited in Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank,
45 Minn. 351.
CLONAN V. THORNTON, 21 Minn. 380.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 45.
Pleading, 227, 263.
CLOSE V. CROSSLAND, 47 Minn. 500, 50 N. W. 694.
Sale, 64, 82, 98–101, 125.
CLOSE
V. HODGES, 44 Minn. 204, 46 N. W. 335.
Chattel Mortgages, 9, 23.
Conversion of Personal Property, 10, 11.
Principal and Agent, 102.
CLOSEN V. ALLEN, 29 Minn. 86, 12 N. W. 146.
Appeal and Error, 67.
Cited in Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 463.
CLOSSEN V. WHITNEY, (Clawsen v. Whitney,) 39
Minn. 50, 38 N. W. 759.
Execution, 72, 96, 97, 113.
CLYDE, THE. See Stapp v. The Clyde.
C. N. NELSON LUMBER CO. v. PELAN, (C. N. Nelson
Lumber Co. v. Carney,) 34 Minn. 243, 25 N. W.
406.
Pleading, 144.
Cited in Andrews v. School District No. 4, 35
Minn. 71.
CLARK INVESTMENT Co. v. MCNAUGHTON. See C. N. NELSON LUMBER Co. v. RICHARDSON, 31
W. B. Clark Invest. Co. v. McNaughton.
CLAWSEN V. WHITNEY, (Clossen v. Whitney,) 39
Minn. 50, 38 N. W. 759.
Execution, 72, 96, 97, 113.
CLELAND V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 29
Minn. 170, 12 N. W. 461.
Appeal and Error, 525.
Minn. 267, 17 N. W. 388.
Pleading, 206,
Overruling Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil.
180.) Approved in Stevens v. McMillin, 37
Minn. 512. Cited in Wright v. Jewell, 33 Miun.
506; Wheaton v. Briggs, 35 Minn. 471.
COATES V. CAMPBELL, 37 Minn. 498, 35 N. W. 366.
Taxation, 3.
2361
2362
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
COATS V. DULUTH, ETC., R. Co., 34 Minn. 301, 25 N. | Coffin v. Reynolds, 21 Minn. 456.
W. 642.
Principal and Agent, 33.
COBB V. BORD, 40 Minn. 479, 42 N. W. 396.
Constitutional Law, 78.
COBB V. COLE, 44 Minn. 278, 46 N. W. 364.
Partnership, 70.
Trial, 166, 170.
COBB V. WRIGHT, 43 Minn. 83, 44 N. W. 662.
Deceit, 19.
COCHRAN V. STEWART, 21 Minn. 435.
Assignment, 19.
Sale, 191-193.
Distinguished in Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapo-
lis Elevator Co., 44 Minn. 155. Cited in Mac-
Laren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 258; Newton v.
Newton, 46 Minn. 37.
COCHRAN V. TOHER, 14 Minn. 385, (Gil. 293.)
False Imprisonment, 1, 6, 7, 9.
Applied in Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Co., 30 Minn.
416. Cited in Du Laurans v. First Division St.
P. & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 57, (Gil. 37;) Derosia
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 143, (Gil.
127;) Pinney v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 19 Minn. 253, (Gil. 213;) Stearns v. John-
son, 19 Minn. 548, (Gil. 477;) Christian v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 20 Minn. 25, (Gil.
15;) Porter v. Montgomery, 26 Minn. 119;
Warder v. Bowen, 31 Minn. 336; Goodnow v.
Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 472.
COCHRANE V. HALSEY, 25 Minn. 52.
Deceit, 3.
Fraud, 7.
Judgment, 231, 243.
New Trial, 31.
Reference, 22.
Applied in Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 303.
Chattel Mortgages, 89-91.
Cited in Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 430.
COGAN V. Cook, 22 Minn. 137.
Appeal and Error, 290.
Deed, 35.
Mortgages, 71.
Vendor and Purchaser, 35, 36.
Words and Phrases, 147, 327, 342.
Cited in Miller v. Irish Catholic Colonization
Ass'n, 36 Minn. 360; McManus v. Blackmarr,
47 Minn. 335.
COGEL V. MICKOW, 11 Minn. 475, (Gil. 354.)
Homestead, 2, 36.
Mechanics' Liens, 108, 142.
Followed in Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 303; Cole-
man v. Ballandi, 22 Minn. 146, 147; Smith v.
Lackor, 23 Minn. 457. Distinguished in Tuttle
v. Howe, 14 Minn. 147, (Gil. 115;) Rogers v.
Brackett, 34 Minn. 280. Cited in Atkins v.
Little, 17 Minn. 358, 359, (Gil. 332, 333;) Meyer
v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 441.
COGEL
V. RAPH, 24 Minn. 194.
Infancy, 1.
Taxation, 235, 236.
Vendor and Purchaser, 163.
Cited in Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 261; Gilfillan
v. Chatterton, 38 Minn. 3:6; Bonham v. Wer-
mouth, 39 Minn. 98; Taylor' v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co., 45 Minn. 70.
COGLEY V. CUSHMAN, 16 Minn. 397, (Gil. 354.)
Appeal and Error, 435.
Evidence, 121.
Infancy, 2-4, 12-15.
Distinguished in Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 250.
COHEN V. KROELL, (Cohen v. Krowell,) 26 Minn.
308, 3 N. W. 978.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
COCHRANE V. QUACKENBUSH, 29 Minn. 376, 13 N. W. Corr v. WAPLES, 1 Minn. 134, (Gil. 110.)
154.
Appeal and Error, 317.
Attachment, 107.
Malicious Prosecution, 43.
Followed in Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 206.
Cited in Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 498;
McPherson v. Runyon, 41 Minn. 525.
COCK V. VAN ETTEN, 12 Minn. 522, (Gil. 431.)
Limitation of Actions, 21.
Principal and Agent, 68.
Words and Phrases, 311.
Cited in Commissioners Mower County v. Smith,
22 Minn. 115; P. P. Mast & Co. v. Easton, 33
Minn. 163.
Appeal and Error, 64, 535, 564, 626.
Estoppel, 46.
Liens, 10.
Pleading, 157.
Replevin, 33, 36, 73, 90.
Trial, 82, 112, 131.
Followed in Becker v. Sandusky Bank, 1 Minn.
316, (Gil. 246;) Wakefield v. Spencer, 8 Minn.
Cited in Sanborn v. Sturte-
379, (Gil. 336.)
vant, 17 Minn. 206, (Gil. 180.)
COLBATH V. BUCK, 8 Minn. 85, (Gil, 60.)
Courts, 32.
Sheriffs and Constables, 29.
Trespass, 11.
COE V. CALEDONIA & M. RY. Co., (Coe v. Buell,) 27 COLE V. AUNE, 40 Minn. 80, 41 N. W. 934.
Minn. 197, 6 N. W. 621.
Railroad Companies, 63, 72, 73.
Words and Phrases, 584.
Applied in Hoyt v. Braden, 27 Minn. 492. Cited
in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 427; Spencer v.
Haug, 45 Minn. 233.
COE V. WARE, 40 Minn. 404, 42 N. W. 205.
Factors and Brokers, 19.
COFFIN V. ESTES, 32 Minn. 367, 20 N. W. 357.
Taxation, 87, 108, 164.
Cited in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 330.
COFFIN V. LINXWEILER, 34 Minn. 320, 25 N. W. 636.
Factors and Brokers, 23.
Attachment, 3.
Words and Phrases, 188-190.
COLE V. AUNE, 46 Minn. 378, 49 N. W. 195.
Partnership, 60.
COLE V. CURTIS, 16 Minn. 182, (Gil. 161.)
Appeal and Error, 368, 486.
Evidence, 197, 269.
Malicious Prosecution, 10, 13, 14, 19, 28, 35,
36, 39, 45.
Words and Phrases, 590.
Followed in Casey v. Sevatson, 30 Minn. 518;
State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 525. Applied in Burton
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 191, 192.
Cited in Cochrane v. Quackenbush, 29 Minn.
2363
2364
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
COLE V. CURTIS-Continued.
378; Moore v. Northern P: c. Ry. Co., 37 Minn.
150; Bartlett v. Hawley, 3d Minn. 310; Gilbert-
son v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 415; State v. Tall, 43
Minn. 278; Doyscher v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 428.
COLE V. HUTCHINSON, 34 Minn. 410, 26 N. W. 319.
Frauds, Statute of, 11, 20.
Cited in Maurin v. Fogelberg, 37 Minn. 24.
COLE V. MAXFIELD, 13 Minn. 235, (Gil. 220.)
Appeal and Error, 545.
Landlord and Tenant, 6.
Public Lands, 138.
Approved in Clague v. Hodgson, 16 Minn. 338.
(Gil. 299.) Cited in Baldwin v. Blanchard, 15
Minn. 497, (Gil. 409.)
COLE V. SATER, 5 Minn. 468, (Gil. 378.)
Garnishment, 8, 43, 48.
Cited in Vanderhoof v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 499.
COLE V. WESTERN UNION TEL. Co., 33 Minn. 227,
22 N. W. 385.
Telegraph Companies, 2.
COLEMAN V. BALLANDI, 22 Minn. 144.
Exemptions, 1.
Homestead, 37.
Followed in Keller v. Struck, 31 Minn. 446. Dis-
tinguished in Rogers v. Brackett, 34 Minn. 280.
Cited in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 441.
COLEMAN V. MCCORMICK, 37 Minn. 179, 33 N. W.
556.
Estoppel, 16.
Public Lands, 9.
COLES V. SHEPARD, 30 Minn. 446, 16 N. W. 153.
Appeal and Error, 338.
Vendor and Purchaser, 44.
Cited in Quinn v. Olson, 34 Minn. 425; O'Connor
v. Hughes, 35 Minn. 448.
COLES V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 35 Minn. 124, 27 N.
W. 497.
Constitutional Law, 83.
Taxation, 295.
Followed in Easton v. Hayes, 35 Minn. 419.
Cited in Fuller v. Morrison County, 36 Minn.
310; Goldschmidt v. Nobles County, 37 Minn.
50; Easton v. Hayes, 38 Minn. 465; Schoonover
v. Galarnault, 45 Minn. 176.
COLES V. YORKS, 28 Minn. 464, 10 N. W. 775.
Alteration of Instruments, 2.
Mortgages, 225.
Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 31 Minn. 214; Coles v.
Washington County, 35 Minn. 125; Williams
v. Moody, 35 Minn. 281.
COLES V. YORKS, 31 Minn. 213, 17 N. W. 341.
Homestead, 35.
Mortgages, 326.
Cited in Talbot v. Barager, 37 Minn. 210; Math-
ews v. Hennepin County Savings Bank, 44
Minn. 443.
COLES V. YORKS, 36 Minn. 388, 31 N. W. 353.
Boundaries, 11.
Mortgages, 365.
Cited in Talbot v. Barager, 37 Minn. 210.
COLLINS V. BOWEN, 45 Minn. 186, 47 N. W. 719.
Venue in Civil Cases, 6.
COLEMAN V. NORTHERN PAC. RY. Co., 36 Minn. 525, COLLINS V. BRACKETT, 34 Minn. 339, 25 N. W. 708.
32 N. W. 859.
Adverse Possession, 14.
Distinguished in Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 264.
COLLINS V. DODGE, 37 Minn. 503, 35 N. W. 368.
Criminal Law, 21.
Damages, 98, 99.
Negligence, 64.
COLEMAN V. PEARCE, (Coleman v. O'Neil,) 26 Minn. COLLINS V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co., 44
123, 1 N. W. 846.
Adverse Possession, 14.
Conversion of Personal Property, 6.
Estoppel, 48, 75.
Partnership, 46.
Pleading, 77.
Overruled in German American Bank v. White,
38 Minn. 471. Cited in Sutton v. Wood, 27
Minn. 363; Jellett v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 269; Beebe v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn.
551; Steele v. Thayer, 36 Minn. 175; Stevens
v. Ludlum, 46 Minn. 161.
COLEMAN V. REIERSON, (Colman v. Reierson,) 36
Minn. 222, 30 N. W. 811.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 76.
Cited in Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 500.
COLEMAN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 38 Minn.
260, 36 N. W. 638.
Public Lands, 67.
Trial, 143.
Followed in Radke v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 263, 264. Cited in Radke v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 62.
COLES V. BERRYHILL, 37 Minn. 56, 33 N. W. 213.
Appeal and Error, 403.
Deed, 70, 83.
Cited in Oldenberg v. Devine, 40 Minn. 410; Wil-
kins v. Bevier, 43 Minn. 218.
Minn. 440, 46 N. W. 906.
Insurance, 21, 59.
Cited in McFarland v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 46 Minn. 522.
COLLINS V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 31,
14 N. W. 60.
Master and Servant, 88.
Applied in Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 219. Cited in Fraser v. Red
River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 237.
COLLINS V. WELCH, 38 Minn. 62, 35 N. W. 566.
Taxation, 134, 135.
Applied in Bonham v. Weymouth, 39 Minn. 99.
Cited in Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 177.
COLLOM V. BIXBY, (Collom v. Matthews,) 33 Minn.
50, 21 N. W. 855.
Negotiable Instruments, 63, 201.
COLMAN V. GOODNOW, 36 Minn. 9, 29 N. W. 338.
Mechanics' Liens, 14, 92.
Followed in Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 103.
Distinguished in Rachac v. Spencer, 51 N. W.
921. Cited in Hickey v. Collom, 47 Minn. 569.
COLMAN V. REIERSON, (Coleman v. Reierson,) 36
Minn. 222, 30 N. W. 811.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 16.
Cited in Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 500
2365
2360
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
COLSTRUM V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., | COMER V. FOLSOM, 13 Minn. 219, (Gil. 205.)
(Caulstrom v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,)
31 Minn. 367, 18 N. W. 94.
Pleading, 127.
COLSTRUM V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 33
Minn. 516, 24 N. W. 255.
Nuisance, 29.
COLT V. VEDDER, 19 Minn. 539, (Gil. 469.)
Practice in Civil Cases, 21.
Words and Phrases, 741.
COLTER V. GREENHAGEN, 3 Minn. 126, (Gil. 74.)
Negotiable Instruments, 50, 203.
Pleading, 191.
Words and Phrases, 2.
Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 455.
COLTER V. MANN, 18 Minn. 96, (Gil. 79.)
Appeal and Error, 617.
Deed, 33.
Cited in Gaslin v. Bridgman, 26 Minn. 445; Hurt
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 487.
COLUMBIA ELECTRIC CO. v. DIXON, 46 Minn. 463,
49 N. W. 244.
Corporations, 100, 102.
Fraud, 3.
Followed in Marson v. Deither, 52 N. W. 38.
Bounties, 1, 3.
Taxation, 6.
Cited in Wilson v. Buckman, 13 Minn. 442, (Gil.
406;) City of Faribault v. Misener, 20 Minn.
398, (Gil. 349.)
COMFORT V. SPRAGUE, 31 Minn. 405, 18 N. W. 108.
Husband and Wife, 90.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF KENTUCKY V. SLATER, 21
Minn. 172.
Abatement and Revival, 16.
Executors and Administrators, 55.
Distinguished in Re Kittson, 45 Minn. 200. Cited
in Bunnell v. Post, 25 Minn. 380; Ames v.
Slater, 27 Minn. 74.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF KENTUCKY V. SLATER, 21
Minn. 174.
Executors and Administrators, 55, 133.
Cited in Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 168.
COMMISSIONERS OF AITKIN COUNTY V. MORRISON,
25 Minn. 295.
Appeal and Error, 125.
Taxation, 145.
Cited in Chisago County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
27 Minn. 110; Washington County v. German-
American Bank, 28 Minn. 361; Chauncey v.
Wass, 35 Minn. 28.
COLUMBUS' ESTATE V. MONTI, 6 Minn. 568, (Gil. 403.) COMMISSIONERS OF DAKota County v. Parker, 7
Action, 1.
COLVILL V. LANGDON, 22 Minn. 565.
Appeal and Error, 226, 601.
Assault and Battery, 10.
Husband and Wife, 76.
Followed in Johnson v. Howard, 25 Minn. 558,
562; Wiesner v. Young, 52 N. W. 390.
COLVILL V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 19 Minn. 283,
(Gil. 240.)
Eminent Domain, 82, 101, 196, 203, 213, 226.
Words and Phrases, 785.
Applied in Greve v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 26 Minn. 69. Cited in Lehmicke v. St.
Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 481, 43, (Gil.
415, 417;) Curtis v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,
20 Minn. 31, 39, (Gil. 25, 32;) Sherwood v. St.
Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 129; Scott v. St.
Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 324; Blue Earth
County v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 28 Minn.
509; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 229; Stillman v. Northern Pac. F. & B.
H. R. Co., 34 Minn. 422; Cedar Rapids, I. F. &
N. W. Ry Co. v. Raymond, 37 Minn. 207; Adams
v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 289.
COMBINATION STEEL & IRON Co. v. ST. PAUL CITY
RY. Co., 47 Minn. 207, 49 N. W. 744.
Payment, S.
Words and Phrases, 692.
COMBS V. COOPER, 5 Minn. 254, (Gil. 200.)
Estoppel, 26, 53.
Cited in Whitacre v. Culver, 6 Minn. 300, (Gil.
208;) Whitacre v. Culver, 8 Minn. 138, (Gil.
109;) Wilder v. City of St. Paul, 12 Minn. 201,
(Gil. 125;) Sutton v. Wood, 27 Minn. 363.
COMBS V. TUCHELT, 24 Minn. 423.
Internal Revenue, 1.
Pledge, 1-3.
COMER V. BALDWIN, 16 Minn. 172, (Gil. i51.)
Deed, 56, 64.
Frauds, Statute of, 56.
Cited in Holcombe v. Richards, 38 Minn. 44.
Minn. 267, (Gil. 207.)
Payment, 28.
Taxation, 54, 80.
Trial, 139.
Cited in State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 27; Joannin v.
Ogilvie, 52 N. W. 218.
COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY V. DAYTON,
17 Minn. 260, (Gil. 237.)
Dedication, 12, 13.
Words and Phrases, 160.
Followed in Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 46 Minn. 324. Cited in Hanson v. East-
man, 21 Minn. 511.
COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY V. JONES,
18 Minn. 199, (Gil. 182.)
Appeal and Error, 273.
Civil Rights, 2.
Counties, 34.
Office and Officer, 10.
Words and Phrases, 670.
Followed in Redwood County v. Tower, 28 Minn.
46. Applied in Merritt v. Knife Fails Boom
Corp., 34 Minn. 246. Distinguished in Com-
missioners of McLeod County v. Gilbert, 19
Minn. 216, (Gil. 178.) Cited in Bruce v. Com-
missioners of Dodge County, 20 Minn. 391,
(Gil. 342;) State v. Frizzell, 31 Minn. 467;
Oldenberg v. Devine, 40 Minn. 410; Board of
Education v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 429; State v.
Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 N. W. 112.
COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY V. ROBIN-
SON, 16 Minn. 381, (Gil. 340.)
Counties, 52.
Estoppel, 29, 32.
Intoxicating Liquors, 17, 18.
Cited in State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 328; Jones v.
Wilder, 25 Minn. 312; Minneapolis Gas-Light
Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 161.
COMMISSIONERS OF HOUSTON COUNTY V. Jessup, 22
Minn. 552.
Taxation, 113, 140.
2367
2368
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
COMMISSIONERS OF HOUSTON COUNTY V. JESSUP
Continued.
Cited in Commissioners of Stearns County v.
Smith, 25 Minn. 134; Redwood County v. Wi-
nona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 519.
COMMISSIONERS OF MCLEOD COUNTY V. GILBERT, 19
Minn. 214, (Gil. 176.)
Counties, 35, 38.
Followed in Redwood County v. Tower, 28 Minn.
46. Cited in Commissioners of Mower County
v. Smith, 22 Minn. 109; Board of Education V.
Jewell, 44 Minn. 429.
COMMISSIONERS OF MEEKER COUNTY V. Butler, 25
Minn. 363.
Bonds, 9.
Counties, 49, 50.
COMMONWEALTH INS. Co. v. Pierro, 6 Minn. 569,
(Gil. 404.)
Appeal and Eiror, 18, 206, 654.
Words and Phrases, 567.
Followed in Reynolds v. The Favorite, 9 Minn.
148, (Gil. 138.)
CONE V. HOOPER, 18 Minn. 531, (Gil. 476.)
Judgment, 201, 204, 205, 258–290.
Cited in Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn.
357.
CONEHAN V. CROSBY, 15 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Contracts, 96.
Trial, 89.
CONGDON V. BAILEY, 39 Minn. 22, 38 N. W. 629.
Appeal and Error, 527.
COMMISSIONERS OF MILLE LACS COUNTY V. MORRI-CONGER V. NESBITT, 30 Minn. 436, 15 N. W. 875.
SON, 22 Minn. 178.
427.
Constitutional Law, 147.
Taxation, 86, 121.
Approved in State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn.
Cited in Weston v. Loyhed, 30 Minn. 223;
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 65; In re
Howes, 38 Minn. 406; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 217; Burr v.
Seymour, 43 Minn. 402; Bennett v. Blatz, 44
Minn. 57, 59; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn.
454.
COMMISSIONERS OF MOWER COUNTY V. SMITH, 22
Minn. 97.
Account Stated, 7
Counties, 39, 40.
Estoppel, 42.
Evidence, 213.
Judge, 11.
Limitation of Actions, 35.
Pleading, 219.
Words and Phrases, 811.
Cited in Village of St. James v. Hingtgen, 47
Minn. 524.
Courts, 26.
Husband and Wife, 74, 83, 84.
Words and Phrases, 31.
CONGER V. ST. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 45 Minn.
v.
207, 47 N. W. 788.
Carriers, 110.
CONKEY V. DIKE, 17 Minn. 457, (Gil. 434.)
Mortgages, 146, 189.
Cited in Hanson v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 195, (Gil.
174;) Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20
Minn. 474, (Gil. 428;) Sewall v. City of St.
Paul, 20 Minn. 527, (Gil. 472;) Bennett v. Hotch-
kiss, 20 Minn. 168, (Gil. 152;) Barton v. Drake,
21 Minn. 307; Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn.
272; Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 71; Fasler
v. Beard, 39 Minn. 34.
CONKLIN V. COUNTY COM'RS FILLMORE COUNTY,
13 Minn. 454, (Gil. 423.)
Highways, 55.
Distinguished in Hodgman v. Chicago & St. P.
Ry. Co., 20 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40.) Cited in State
v. Village of Lamberton, 37 Minn. 363.
COMMISSIONERS OF NOBLES COUNTY V. SUTTON, 23 CONKLIN V. HINDS, 16 Minn. 457, (Gil. 411.)
Minn. 299.
Taxation, 155.
COMMISSIONERS OF RAMSEY COUNTY V. Brisbin, 17
Minn. 451, (Gil. 429.)
Sheriffs and Constables, 58–60.
COMMISSIONERS OF RICE COUNTY V. CITIZENS' NAT.
BANK, 23 Minn. 280.
Banks and Banking, 37.
Taxation, 12.
Words and Phrases, 74.
Applied in State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 509. Cited in
Hennepin County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 536; State v. St. Paul Union Depot.
Co., 42 Minn. 146.
COMMISSIONERS OF STATE PARK V. HENRY, (Appro-
priation of Lands for State Park, In re,) 38
Minn. 266. 36 N. W. 874.
Eminent Domain, 12.
Adverse Claims, 11, 12.
Appeal and Error, 396.
New Trial, 4.
Trial, 194.
Followed in Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97.
Applied in Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 303.
Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 71,
(Gil. 56;) Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 402, (Gil.
345) Cochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 61; Warner
v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177; Jellison v. Halloran, 40
Minn. 488; Williams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 254.
CONLAN V. GRACE, 36 Minn. 276, 30 N. W. 880.
Deed, 2, 7, 13, 53.
Evidence, 102.
Trial, 181, 189.
Cited in Nazro v. Ware, 38 Minn. 445; Dobbin v.
Cordiner, 41 Minn. 168; Lee v. Fletcher, 46
Minn. 52; Wolford v. Farnham, 47 Minn. 98.
COMMISSIONERS OF STEARNS COUNTY V. SMITH, 25 CONNELLY V. DAKOTA COUNTY, 35 Minn. 365, 29 N.
Minn. 131.
Appearance, 16.
Taxation, 115, 138.
W. 1.
Sheriffs and Constables, 52, 56.
35 N. W. 582.
Master and Servant, 64, 89.
Applied in West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 40 CONNELLY V. MINNEAPOLIS E. RY. Co., 38 Minn. 80,
Minn. 191.
:
COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY V. Mc-
Coy, 1 Minn. 100, (Gil. 78.)
Continuance, 3, 5.
CONNELLY V. SHERIDAN, 41 Minn. 18, 42 N. W. 595.
Trusts, 21.
2369
2370
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CONNER V. Howe, 35 Minn. 518, 29 N. W. 314.
Mortgages, 127.
Subrogation, 14, 15.
Cited in Probstfield v. Czizek, 37 Minn. 421; Mer-
ritt v. Byers, 46 Minn. 78.
CONNOLLY V. CONNOLLY, 26 Minn. 350, 4 N. W. 233.
Executors and Administrators, 127.
Judgment, 116.
CONNOLLY V. DAVIDSON, 15 Minn. 519, (Gil. 428.)
Appeal and Error, 354.
Master and Servant, 76.
Negligence, 18, 19, 24.
Words and Phrases, 258, 598.
CONNOR V. BOARD OF EDUCATION CITY OF ST. AN-
THONY, 10 Minn. 439, (Gil. 352.)
Pleading, 55.
Schools and School-Districts, 3, 5.
Distinguished in City of Winona v. School-Dis-
trict No. 82, 40 Minn. 15, 20. Cited in Metzner
v. Baldwin, 11 Minn., 153, (Gil. 95;) First Di-
vision St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Rice, 25 Minn. 291;
Canty v. Latterner, 31 Minn. 241; Leuthold v.
Young, 32 Minn. 125.
CONOVER V. WOOD, 51 N. W. 227.
Warehousemen, S.
Cited in Brigham v. Wood, 51 N. W. 228.
COOK V. FINCH, 19 Minn. 407, (Gil. 350.)
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 5.
Contracts, 75, 78, 159.
Evidence, 297.
Distinguished in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 391.
Cited in Stone v. Harmon, 31 Minn. 515, 516.
COOK V. KENDALL, 13 Minn. 324, (Gil. 297.)
Limitation of Actions, 4, 12.
Cited in Thornton v. Webb, 13 Minn. 499, (Gil.
460;) Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 220, (Gil.
193;) Mueller v. Fruen, 36 Minn. 274.
Cook v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 45,
24 N. W. 311.
Master and Servant, 74, 118.
Distinguished in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn.
217; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn.
364. Cited in Robel v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 85; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lum-
ber Co., 37 Minn. 155; Olson v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 118; Bennett v. Syndi-
cate Ins. Co., 39 Minn. 256; Smith v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 90.
COOK V. SLOCUM, 27 Minu. 509, 8 N. W. 755.
Municipal Corporations, 248, 252, 253.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 33 Minn. 244; McKusick v. City of
Stillwater, 44 Minn. 378.
CONRAD V. BAULDWIN, 44 Minn. 406, 46 N. W. 850. COOK V. WEBB, 19 Minn. 167, (Gil. 129.)
Costs, 19.
CONRAD V. LANE, 26 Minn. 389, 4 N. W. 695.
Infancy, 8.
Followed in Folds v. Allardt, 35 Minn. 489.
Cited in Alt v. Banholzer, 39 Minn. 512; Clague
v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 376.
CONRAD V. MARCOTTE, 23 Minn. 55.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 3, 4.
Evidence, 257.
CONTER V. FARRINGTON, 46 Minn. 336, 48 N. W.
1134.
Mechanics' Liens, 70.
CONTER V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 342.
Eminent Domain, 193.
Cited in Leber v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 260.
CONTER V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 313.
Appeal and Error, 112.
Overruled in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 405.
CONVERSE V. BURROWS, 2 Minn. 229, (Gil. 191.)
Appeal and Error, 2.
Damages, 49.
Sale, 119.
Cited in McNamara v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co.,
12 Minn. 359, (Gil. 274;) Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 76.
CONWAY V. ELGIN, 38 Minn. 469, 38 N. W. 370.
Homestead, 74.
Pleading, 100.
CONWAY V. WHARTON, 13 Minn. 158, (Gil. 145.)
Limitation of Actions, 87.
Pleading, 92, 202, 204.
Approved in C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Rich-
ardson, 31 Minn. 265. Cited in Hayward v.
Grant, 13 Minn. 169, (Gil. 160;) Brisbin v. Far-
mer, 16 Minn. 225, (Gil. 198;) Cook v. Finch,
19 Minn. 411, (Gil. 36;) Roblee v. Secrest, 28
Minn. 44; Barker v. Foster, 29 Minn. 167.
v.2M.DIG.-75
Partition, 3, 4, 14.
Cited in Smalley v. Isaacson, 40 Minn. 451.
Cook v. Webb, 21 Minn. 428.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
14-16.
COOLBAUGH V. ROEMER, 30 Minn. 424, 15 N. W. S69.
Appeal and Error, 667.
Ejectment, 32.
Judgment, 13, 171, 172.
Pleading, 33.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 223.
COOLBAUGH V. ROEMER, 32 Minn. 445, 21 N. W. 472.
Appeal and Error, 177.
Ejectment, 33.
Execution, 75.
Distinguished in Scott v. Austin, 36 Minn. 452.
Cited in Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 333;
Lewis v. Prendergast, 39 Minn. 302; D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Williams, 39 Minn. 355; Knap-
pen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 494; Nye v. Swan,
52 N. W. 41; Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055.
COON V. PRUDEN, 25 Minn. 105.
Negotiable Instruments, 75, 79, 126.
COOPER V. BRECKENRIDGE, 11 Minn. 341, (Gil. 241.)
Appeal and Error, 355, 569.
Evidence, 25.
Principal and Agent, 18.
Cited in Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 466, (Gil.
418) Davis v. Mendenhall, 19 Minn. 155, 157,
(Gil. 118, 120.)
COOPER V. BREWSTER, 1 Minn. 94, (Gil, 73.)
Contracts, 45.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 28.
Justices of the Peace, 38.
Negotiable Instruments, 19.
Cited in Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 303,
(Gil. 267;) Bates v. Clifford, 22 Minn. 52.
COOPER V. FINKE, 38 Minn. 2, 35 N. W. 469.
Evidence, 346, 34S.
Powers, 16.
2371
2372
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
•
COOPER V. REANEY, 4 Minn. 528, (Gil. 413.)
Contracts, 163.
Courts, 12.
Interest of Money, 22, 26.
Followed in Desnoyer v. Macdonald, 4 Minn. 520,
(Gil. 408;) Brimball v. Van Campen, 8 Minn.
21, (Gil. 5.)
COOPER V. SIMPSON, 41 Minu. 46, 42 N. W. 601.
Pledge, 7, 10, 15.
Followed in Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co. v.
Betcher, 42 Minn. 211. Distinguished in Town-
send v. Minneapolis Cold-Storage and Freezer
Co., 46 Minn. 125.
COOPER. V. STINSON, 5 Minn. 201, (Gil. 160.)
Attorney and Client, 39, 40.
Deposition, 15, 16.
Reference, 6, 7.
'COOPER V. STINSON, 5 Minn. 522, (Gil. 416.)
Costs, 50.
Words and Phrases, 362.
'COPLEY V. HYLAND, 46 Minn. 205, 48 N. W. 777.
Accord and Satisfaction, 11.
CORBETT V. Woon, 32 Minn. 509, 21 N. W. 734.
Public Lands, 122, 123.
Cited in Michaelis v. Michaelis, 43 Minn. 124.
"CORBIN V. MORROW, 46 Minn. 522, 49 N. W. 201.
Taxation, 291–293.
COREY V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 32 Minn. 457, 21
N. W. 479.
Railroad Companies, 156.
CORLISS V. JEWETT, 36 Minn. 364, 31 N. W. 362.
Insolvency, 47, 54.
CORNELL V. SMITH, 27 Minn. 132, 6 N. W. 460.
Usury, 35.
COTTON V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co.-Cont'd.
sissippi & R. R. Boom Co., 30 Minn. 479; Os-
borne v. Knife Falls Boom Corp., 32 Minn. 422;
Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46
Minn. 326.
COUNTY COM'RS HENNEPIN COUNTY V. JONES. See
Commissioners Hennepin County v. Jones.
COURTERNIER V. SECOMBE, S Minn. 299, (Gil. 264.)
Negligence, 16, 87.
Cited in Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 325.
COUSINS V. ALWORTH, 44 Minn. 505, 47 N. W. 169.
Attachment, 50, 72.
Cited in Crosson v. Olson, 47 Minn. 27.
COUSINS V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 43 Minn.
219, 45 N. W. 429.
Limitation of Actions, 27.
COVER V. Town of Baytown, 12 Minn. 124, (Gil.
71.)
Parties, 20.
Towns, 12.
Approved in Johnson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 172,
(Gil. 155.)
COVERT V. CLARK, 23 Minn. 539.
Appearance, 15.
Judgment, 262.
Cited in Heffner v. Gunz, 29 Minn. 110; Chaun-
cey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 35.
COWEL V. ANDERSON, 33 Minn. 374, 23 N. W. 542.
Bonds, 5.
COWING V. PETERSON, 36 Minn. 130, 30 N. W. 461.
Pleading, 161.
Followed in Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co., 47
Minn. 373.
CORNWELL V. MEGINS, 39 Minn. 407, 40 N. W. 610. CoWLES V. WARNER, 22 Minn. 449.
Novation, 2.
Words and Phrases, 497.
CORSER V. KINDRED, 40 Minn. 467, 42 N. W. 297.
Judgment, 125.
·COSGROVE V. BENNETT, 32 Minn. 371, 20 N. W 359.
Sale, 53, (6, 70, 84.
Cited in Thompson v. Libby, 35 Minn. 446;
Goulds v. Brophy, 42 Minn. 112; Felsenthal v.
Hawks, 52 N. W. 529.
'COSGROVE V. KOULER, 45 Minn. 148, 47 N. W. 539.
Replevin, 50.
COSTELLO V. EDSON, 44 Minn. 135, 46 N. W, 299.
Adverse Possession, 12, 24.
Applied in Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 549. Dis-
tinguished in Lambert v. Stees, 47 Minn. 142.
Cited in Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 548.
COTTERELL V. DILL, 29 Minn. 114, 12 N. W. 355.
Appeal and Error, 270.,
COTTON V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co., 19 Minn.
497, (Gil. 429.)
Injunction, 13.
COTTON V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 22 Minn.
372.
Constitutional Law, 65.
Corporations, 7.
Eminent Domain, 11, 13, 24, 54.
Cited in Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom
Co., 25 Minn. 588; St. Paul Union Depot Co. v.
City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 365; Weaver v. Mis-
Frauds, Statute of, 5.
Pleading, 268.
COWLEY V. DAVIDSON, 10 Minn. 392, (Gil. 314.)
Contracts, 155.
Cited in First Division St. P. & P. R. Co.
v. Rice, 25 Minn. 291; Burns v. Jordan, 43
Minn. 26.
COWLEY V. DAVIDSON, 13 Minn. 92, (Gil. S6.)
Appeal and Error, 421.
Carriers, 15, 16.
Contracts, 98, 99, 120, 123, 144.
Evidence, 25.
Trial, 83.
Applied in Anderson v. May, 52 N. W. 531. Cited
in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Bonnallie,
29 Minn 375.
Cox v. MINNEAPOLIS, S. S. M. & A. Rr. Co., 41
Minn. 101, 42 N. W. 924.
Railroad Companies, 237.
Cited in La Paul v. Truesdale, 44 Minn. 277.
Cor v. Coy, 15 Minn. 119, (Gil. 90.)
Public Lands, 31, 32.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Winoua & St. P. R.
Co., 45 Miun. 69. Cited in Harrington v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 223, (Gil. 200;)
Village of Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 280,
(Gil. 256;) City of Mankato v. Warren, 20
Minn. 148, (Gil. 132.)
COYKENDALL V. LADD, 32 Minn. 529, 21 N. W. 7383.
Garnishment, 65.
2373
2374
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
COYKENDALL v. WAY, 29 Minn. 162, 12 N. W. 452, | CREVIER V. STEPHEN, 40 Minn. 288, 41 N. W. 1039.
453.
Appeal and Error, 131.
Sheriffs and Constables, 13.
CRAIG V. COOK, 28 Minn. 232, 9 N. W. 712.
Damages, 18, 116.
Pleading, 99, 228.
Trial, 28, 34.
Words and Phrases, 484.
Followed in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 35 Minn.
251. Cited in Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 35; Nel-
son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn.
171; Olson v. Tvete, 46 Minn. 227; Hall v. Chi-
cago, B. & N. R. Co., 46 Minn. 451.
CRAIG V. DUNN, 47 Minn. 59, 49 N. W. 396.
Ejectment, 49.
CRAIG V. SUMMERS, 47 Minn. 189, 49 N. W. 742.
Constitutional Law, 122.
Landlord and Tenant, 26, 36.
Words and Phrases, 67, 432.
CRAIGHEAD V. MARTIN, 25 Minn. 41.
Appeal and Error, 723, 724.
Justices of the Peace, 37.
Cited in Seurer v. Horst, 31 Minn. 480; Welter
v. Nokken, 38 Minn. 377.
CRAMER V. ALLARDT. See Folds v. Allardt.
CRANDALL V. MCILRATH, 24 Minn. 127.
Appeal and Error, 456, 489.
Master and Servant, 94, 95.
Trial, 11.
CRANDALL V. RICKLEY, 25 Minn. 119.
Attachment, 31-33.
CRANE V. WHEELER, 50 N. W. 1033.
Frauds, Statute of, 26.
Guaranty, 8.
Insolvency, 90.
CRAVER V. CHRISTIAN, 32 Minn. 525, 21 N. W. 716.
Appeal and Error, 248.
Followed in Boright v. Springfield Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co., 34 Minn. 355.
CRAVER V. CHRISTIAN, 34 Minn. 397, 26 N. W. 8.
Judgment, 99.
Master and Servant, 177.
Applied in Craver v. Christian, 36 Minn. 413.
Cited in Andrews v. School District No. 4, 35
Minn. 71; Barbo v. Bassett, 35 Minn. 486;
Rolfe v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 39
Minn. 399.
CRAVER V. CHRISTIAN, 36 Minn. 413, 31 N. W. 457.
Master and Servant, 169.
Cited in Wilson v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37
Minn. 328; Carroll v. Williston, 44 Minn. 289.
CREMER V. HARTMANN, 34 Minn. 97, 24 N. W. 341.
Appeal and Error, 706.
Cited in Stolt v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51
N. W. 1103.
CREMER V. WIMMER, 40 Minn. 511, 42 N. W. 467.
Principal and Agent, 101.
Words and Phrases, 764.
Cited in Lundberg v. Northwestern Elevator Co.,
42 Minn. 40: Close v. Hodges, 44 Minn. 207;
Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530.
CRESSEY V. GIERMAN, 7 Minn. 398, (Gil. 316.)
Courts, 9.
Justices of the Peace, 34.
Pleading, 54.
Followed in Thayer v. Cole, 10 Minn. 215, (Gil.
173.)
Factors and Brokers, 62.
Cited in Grosse v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188.
CRICH V. WILLIAMSBURG CITY FIRE INS. Co., 45
Minn. 441, 48 N. W. 198.
Evidence, 188.
Insurance, 148.
Trial, 143, 145, 146.
CRITTENDEN V. WHITE, 23 Minn. 24.
Patents for Inventions, 3.
CROCKETT V. PHINNEY, 33 Minn. 157, 22 N. W. 292.
Attachment, 106.
CROFT V. MILLER, 26 Minn. 317, 4 N. W. 45.
Garnishment, 55.
Distinguished in McConnell v. Rakness, 41 Minn.
3. Cited in United States Sav., Loan & Bldg.
Co. v. Ahrens, 52 N. W. 898.
CROLLEY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
541, 16 N. W. 422.
Eminent Domain, 60.
CROMBIE V. LITTLE, 47 Minn. 581, 50 N. W. 823.
Mortgages, 283.
Summons, 1, 33, 42-45.
Words and Phrases, 705.
CRONE V. BRAUN, 23 Minn. 239.
Assignment, 8.
Garnishment, 62.
Words and Phrases, 608.
Cited in Canty v. Lattener, 31 Minn. 242.
CROOKS V. NIPPOLT, 44 Minn. 239, 46 N. W. 349.
Equity, 72.
CROONQUIST V. FLATNER, 41 Minn. 291, 43 N. W. 9.
Appeal and Error, 729.
CROSBY V. FARMER, 39 Minn. 305, 40 N. W. 71.
Judgment, 245.
Summons, 56.
Overruling Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288,
(Gil. 219;) Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277,
(Gil. 191.) Followed in Burton v. Schenck,
40 Minn. 52. Applied in Buffham v. Perkins,
43 Minn. 159. Cited in Farmer v. Crosby, 43
Minn. 460.
CROSBY V. HORNE & DANZ Co., 45 Minn. 249, 47 N.
W. 717.
Landlord and Tenant, 3.
CROSBY V. MERRIAM, 31 Minn. 342, 17 N. W. 950.
Guardian and Ward, 21.
CROSBY V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 34 Minn. 413, 26
N. W. 225.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Cited in Cable v. Byrne, 38 Minn. 535; Congdon
v. Bailey, 39 Minn. 22.
CROSSON V. OLSON, 47 Minn. 27, 49 N. W. 406.
Sheriffs and Constables, 8.
CROWELL V. LAMBERT, 9 Minn. 283, (Gil. 267.)
Constitutional Law, 7.
Judge, 3.
Mandamus, 2.
Cited in Crowell v. Lambert, 10 Minn. 374, (Gil.
299;) State v. Black, 22 Minn. 338.
CROWELL V. LAMBERT, 10 Minn. 369, (Gil. 295.)
Elections and Voters, 34.
Mandamus, 15.
Office and Officer, 7.
Words and Phrases, 525.
2375
2376
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CROWELL V. LAMBERT-Continued.
Followed in State v. Sherwood, 15 Minn. 223, 225,
(Gil. 173, 175;) State v. Churchill, 15 Minn.
460, (Gil. 375.) Distinguished in State v. Wil-
liams, 25 Minn. 342. Cited in State v.
Cited in State v. Burr, 28
Minn. 41.
CROWLEY V. LE DUC, 21 Minn. 412.
Attorney and Client, 34-36.
CROWLEY V. UNDERLEAK, 33 Minn. 197, 22 N. W.
443.
Appeal and Error, 525.
CRUMP V. INGERSOLL, 44 Minn. 84, 46 N. W. 141.
Parties, 2.
Principal and Agent, 62.
Cited in Crump v. Ingersoll, 47 Minn. 180.
CRUMP V. INGERSOLL, 47 Minn. 179, 49 N. W. 739.
Equity, 50.
CUILERIER V. BRUNELLE, 37 Minn. 71, 33 N. W. 123.
Mortgages, 394.
Words and Phrases, 57.
Applied in Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 174.
CULBERTSON V. Cox, 29 Minn. 309, 13 N. W. 177.
Homestead, 42.
Insurance, 99.
CULBERTSON V. LENNON, 4 Minn. 51, (Gil. 26.)
Mortgages, 248, 304.
Distinguished in Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 307.
Cited in Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 73,
(Gil. 48.)
CULLEN V. BELL, 43 Minn. 226, 45 N. W. 428.
Factors and Brokers, 36.
CULLEN V. DAWSON, 24 Minn. 66.
Bankruptcy, 5.
Interpleader, 1-4.
CULVER V. BANNING, 19 Minn. 303, (Gil. 260.)
Subscription, 1.
CULVER V. HARDENBERGH, 37 Minn. 225, 33 N.
W. 792.
Executors and Administrators, 8, 11, 98,
108, 115, 123.
Words and Phrases, 464.
Cited in State, v. Probate Court of Ramsey
County, 40 Minn. 298, 300; Barber v. Bowen,
47 Minn. 121; Rice v. Dickerman, 47 Minn. 529.
CUMMINGS V. BAARS, 36 Minn. 350, 31 N. W. 449.
Appeal and Error, 646.
Release and Discharge, 3.
CUMMINGS V. FINNEGAN, 42 Minn. 524, 44 N. W. 796.
Vendor and Purchaser, 134.
CUMMINGS V. HALSTED, 26 Minn. 151, 1 N. W. 1052.
Executors and Administrators, 134, 135.
Words and Phrases, 438.
CUMMINGS V. HEARD, 2 Minn. 34, (Gil. 25.)
Appeal and Error, 44.
Overruled in St. Paul Division No. 1, S. of T., v.
Brown, 9 Minn. 152, 153, (Gil. 142, 143.)
CUMMINGS v. LONG, 25 Minn. 337.
Money Lent, 2, 3.
CUMMINGS V. PETSCH, 41 Minn. 115, 42 N. W. 789.
Pleading, 295.
CUMMINGS V. ROGERS, 36 Minn. 317, 30 N. W. 892.
Appeal, 393.
Vendor and Purchaser, 64.
CUMMINGS V. TAYLOR, 21 Minn. 366.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 51.
Trial, 149.
Words and Phrases, 706.
CUMMINGS V. TAYLOR, 24 Minn. 429.
Trial, 168.
Witness, 48.
CUMMINGS V. THOMPSON, 18 Minn. 246, (Gil. 228.)
Negotiable Instruments, 91, 215, 216, 220.
Followed in Merchants' Exchange Bank v.
Luckow, 37 Minn. 543. Cited in Coe v. Ware,
40 Minn. 405; MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn.
256.
CUNNINGHAM, IN RE, 38 Minn. 169, 36 N. W. 269.
Wills, 30, 31.
CUNNINGHAM V. LA CROSSE & ST. P. PACKET Co.,
10 Minn. 299, (Gil. 235.)
Certiorari, 23.
CURRAN V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF SIBLEY
COUNTY, 47 Minn. 313, 50 N. W. 237.
Drainage, 2.
CURRAN V. KUBY, 37 Minn. 330, 33 N. W. 907.
Executors and Administrators, 121.
CURRIE V. PAULSON, 43 Minn. 411, 45 N. W. 854.
Counties, 13.
CURRIE V. SCHOOL-DISTRICT No. 26, 35 Minn. 163,
27 N. W. 922.
Schools and School-Districts, 36, 37.
Applied in Andrews v. School-District No. 4, 37
Minn. 96.
CURRYER V. MERRILL, 25 Minn. 1.
Constitutional Law, 60, 171, 172.
Schools and School-Districts, 41.
Statutes, 11.
Words and Phrases, 665.
CURTICE V. HOKANSON, 38 Minn. 510, 38 N. W. 694.
Negotiable Instruments, 13.
CURTIS, EX PARTE, 3 Minn. 374, (Gil. 188.)
Contempt, 3.
Cited in Burke v. Mayall, 10 Minn. 289, (Gil. 227.)
CURTIS V. HART, 34 Minn. 329, 25 N. W. 636.
Contracts, 73.
CURTIS V. JACKSON, 23 Minn. 268.
Appearance, 5.
Followed in Papke v. Papke, 30 Minn. 262. Dis-
tinguished in Klein v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 452; Doubted in Kanne v. Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 421. Quali-
fied in Godfrey v. Valentinę, 39 Minn. 337, 338.
Cited in Commissioners Stearns County v.
Smith, 25 Minn. 134.
CURTIS V. MOORE, 3 Minn. 29, (Gil. 7.)
Appeal and Error, 298, 748.
Attachment, 16, 64.
Justices of the Peace, 39.
Words and Phrases, 100.
Cited in Mackubin v. Smith, 5 Minn. 370, (Gil.
298;) Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 186, (Gil.
119;) Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 49;) Hinds v.
Fagebank, 9 Minn. 71, (Gil. 61;) Keigher v.
McCormick, 11 Minn. 547, (Gil. 422;) Murphy
v. Purdy, 13 Minn. 424, (Gil. 391.)
2377
2378
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
CURTIS V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn. | CURTISS V. LIVINGSTON, 36 Minn. 380, 31 N. W.
28, (Gil. 19.)
Appeal and Error, 229.
Eminent Domain, 14, 102, 171, 203, 232.
Venue in Civil Cases, 10.
Followed in Wilson v. Richards, 28 Minn. 339;
Blue Earth County v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
28 Minn. 509. Cited in Sherwood v. St. Paul
& C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 129; Whitacre v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 312; Stillman v.
Northern Pac., F. & B. H. R. Co., 34 Minn.
422; Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. R. Co. v.
Raymond, 37 Minn. 207, 208; Adams v. Chicago,
B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 259.
357.
Pleading, 9.
Waste, 1.
CUSHING V. CABLE, 50 N. W. 891.
Guaranty, 7.
CUSHING V. SEYMOUR, SABIN & Co., 20 Minn. 301,
15 N. W. 249.
Chattel Mortgages, 105, 108.
Damages, 7, 100.
Cited in Webb v. Michener, 32 Minn. 49; Torp
v. Gulseth, 37 Minn. 136; Deal v. D. M. Osborne
& Co., 42 Minn. 106; King v. Lacrosse, 42 Minn.
489.
CURTIS V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 21 Minn. CUSHMAN V. COMMISSIONERS OF CARVER COUNTY, 19
497.
Eminent Domain, 221.
Cited in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn, 407.
Minn. 295, (Gil. 252.)
Bonds, 10.
Counties, 27.
Limitations of Actions, 29.
CURTISS V. LIVINGSTON, 36 Minn. 312, 30 N. W. 814. CUTLER V. WHITCHER, 21 Minn. 373.
Ejectment, 25.
Landlord and Tenant, 37.
D.
シ
​DAHL V. PROss, 6 Minn. 89, (Gil. 38.)
Vendor and Purchaser, 1, 76.
Followed in Yoss v. De Freudenrich, 6 Minn. 102,
(Gil. 45;) Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 307, (Gil.
235.) Distinguished in Belote v. Morrison, 8
Minn. 92, (Gil. 66.) Cited in Toledo Novelty
Works v. Bernheimer, 8 Minn. 122, (Gil. 95;)
Schumann v. Marks, 35 Minn. 380.
DAHLBERG V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. Co., 32 Minn.
404, 21 N. W. 545.
Carriers, 97, 121.
Damages, 51.
DAILEY V. LINNEHAN, 39 Minn. 346, 40 N. W. 250.
Trial, 69.
Cited in Dailey v. Linnehan, 42 Minn. 277.
DAILEY V. LINNEHAN, 42 Minn. 277, 44 N. W. 59.
Insolvency, 74.
DALEY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 7 Minn. 390, (Gil. 311.)
Eminent Domain, 161, 162.
Municipal Corporations, 73.
Cited in Nash v. City of St. Paul, 8 Minn. 186,
(Gil. 158.)
DALEY V. MEAD, 40 Minn. 382, 42 N. W. 85.
Appeal and Error, 759.
Replevin, 89.
DALEY V. MINNESOTA LOAN & INVESTMENT Co.,
43 Minn. 517, 45 N. W. 1100.
Husband and Wife, 56.
Usury, 6, 18.
Words and Phrases, 197.
DALPAY, IN RE, 41 Minn. 532, 43 N. W. 564.
Conflict of Laws, 3.
Insolvency, 75.
Cited in Re Harrison, 46 Minn. 335.
:
DALY V. BRADBURY, 46 Minn. 396, 49 N. W. 190.
Partnership, 94.
DALY V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 43 Minn.
319, 45 N. W. 611.
Railroad Companies, 285.
Cited in Cantion v. Eastern Ry. Co., 45 Minn.
483.
DALY V. PROETZ, 20 Minn. 411, (Gil. 363.)
Appeal and Error, 421.
Chattel Mortgages, 88.
Negotiable Instruments, 150.
Pleading, 257.
Cited in Pratt v. Tinkcom, 21 Minn. 145.
DAMPIER V. ST. PAUL TRUST Co., 46 Minn. 526, 49
N. W. 256.
Executors and Administrators, 44, 89, 90.
DANA V. BANK OF ST. PAUL, 4 Minn. 385, (Gil.
291.)
Banks and Banking, 22.
DANA V. FARRINGTON, 4 Minn. 433, (Gil. 335.)``
Judicial Sale, 2.
Mortgages, 243.
Trial, 155.
Followed in Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 490, (Gil.
380;) Heath v. Hall, 7 Minn. 321, (Gil. 250.)
Distinguished in Banning v. Armstrong, 7
Minn. 48, (Gil. 33.)
DANA V. PORTER, 14 Minn. 478, (Gil. 355.)
Constitutional Law, 85.
Trial, 180.
Cited in Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 294, (Gil.
225.)
DANA V. ST. PAUL INVESTMENT CO., 42 Minn. 194, 44
N. W. 55.
Vendor and Purchaser, 79.
DANA V. TURLAY, 38 Minn. 106, 35 N. W. 860.
Principal and Agent, 50.
DANIELS V. ALLEN, 4 Minn. 170, (Gil. 115.)
Appeal and Error, 398.
2379
2380
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DANIELS V. BANK OF ZUMBROTA, 35 Minn. 351, 29 | DARLING V. HARMON, 47 Minn. 166, 49 N. W. 686.
N. W. 165.
Insolvency, 45, 50.
Words and Phrases, 381, 636.
Cited in Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 168; Hastings
Malting Co. v. Heller, 47 Minn. 74.
DANIELS V. BRADLEY, 4 Minn. 158, (Gil. 105.)
Appeal and Error, 3›9.
Interest of Money, 11.
Negotiable Instruments, 182.
Pleading, 114, 151, 154.
Mortgages, 95, 96.
Trusts, 36.
DARTNELL V. DAVIDSON, 16 Minn. 530, (Gil. 477.)
Appeal and Error, 244.
Cited in Gill v. Russell, 23 Minn. 333; Stone v.
Johnson, 30 Minn. 18; Coolbaugh v. Roemer,
32 Minn. 449.
DARWIN V. KEIGHER, 45 Minn. 64, 47 N. W. 314.
Witness, 21.
Cited in Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38 Minn. 460. DAUGHADAY V. PAINE, 6 Minn. 443, (Gil. 304.)
DANIELS V. HARRIS, 4 Minn. 169, (Gil. 114.)
Appeal and Error, 393.
DANIELS V. PALMER, 35 Minn. 347, 29 N. W. 162.
Insolvency, 45, 46, 48, 49.
Words and Phrases, 380, 381, 636, 755.
Cited in Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 168; Corliss v.
Jewett, 36 Minn. 365; In re Howes, 38 Minn.
404; Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 117; Hast-
ings Malting Co. v. Heller, 47 Minn. 73.
DANIELS V. PALMER, 41 Minn. 116, 42 N. W. 855.
Insolvency, 46.
Warehousemen, 21.
Words and Phrases, 191.
DANIELS V. SMITH, 4 Minn. 172, (Gil. 117.)
Mortgages, 182.
Followed in Donnelly v. Simonton, 7 Minn. 174,
(Gil. 118.) Cited in Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn.
292, 293, (Gil. 219, 220;) Goenen v. Schroeder,
18 Minn. 72, (Gil. 57;) Standish v. Vosberg, 27
Minn. 176; Parke v. Hush, 29 Minn. 435; Lind-
ley v. Crombie, 31 Minn. 233; Buchanan v.
Reid, 43 Minn. 175.
DANIELS V. WAINWRIGHT, 4 Minn. 171, (Gil. 116.)
Appeal and Error, 398.
DANIELS V. WARD, 4 Minn. 168, (Gil. 113.)
Interest of Money, 11.
DANIELS V. WILLIS, 7 Minn. 374, (Gil. 295.)
Arbitration and Award, 3, 9.
Applied in Goddard v. King, 40 Minn. 167. Cited
in Lovell v. Wheatou, 11 Minn. 99, (Gil. 58.)
DANIELS V. WILLIS, 7 Minn. 383, (Gil. 304.)
Arbitration and Award, 22.
DANIELS V. WILSON, 21 Minn. 530.
Interest of Money, 1.
Negotiable Instruments, 92.
Cited in Simpson v. Evans, 44 Minn. 421.
DANIELS V. WINSLOW, 2 Minn. 113, (Gil. 93.)
Appeal and Error, 183, 331, 413.
Pleading, 297.
Cited in Mayall v. Burke, 10 Minn. 286, (Gil. 225;)
Taylor v. Parker, 17 Minn. 471, (Gil. 449.)
DANIELS V. WINSLOW, 4 Minn. 318, (Gil. 235.)
Followed in Messerschmidt v. Baker, 22 Minn.
83, 84.
Appeal and Error, 678.
DANNER V. CAPEHART, 41 Minn. 294, 42 N. W. 1062.
Judgment, 72.
DARLING V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 19 Minn. 389, (Gil.
336.)
Municipal Corporations, 13, 34, 35.
Distinguished in Re White, 43 Minn. 252. Cited
in Minneapolis Gas-Light Co. v. City of Minne-
apolis, 36 Minn. 161.
Mortgages, 111.
Vendor and Purchaser, 126, 132, 133.
Cited in Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 296, (Gil.
203;) Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 335, (Gil.
269;) Hammond v. Peyton, 34 Minn. 530.
DAVENPORT V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, (Davenport v.
Board County Com'rs,) 40 Minu. 335, 42 N. W.
20.
Clerk of Court, 10.
DAVENPORT V. LADD, 38 Minn. 545, 38 N. W. 622.
Money Received, 14.
Pleading, 74.
Principal and Agent, 99.
Cited in Greenwood v. Hoyt, 41 Minn. 383; Jen-
sen v. Weide, 42 Minn. 1; Guthrie v. Ólson,
44 Minn. 406.
DAVENPORT V. SHORT, 17 Minn. 24, (Gil. 8.)
Limitation of Actions, 84, 85.
Cited in Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 509.
DAVIDSON V. BARNES, 17 Minn. 69, (Gil. 47.)
Execution, 6.
Judgments, 179, 180, 183.
DAVIDSON V. COMMISSIONERS OF RAMSEY COUNTY,
18 Minn. 482, (Gil. 432.)
Railroad Companies, 62.
Words and Phrases, 447, 736.
Cited in Blake v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 19
Minn. 426, (Gil. 360;) State v. Town of Lime,
23 Minn. 526; State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 357; St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Robinson, 40 Minn. 367.
DAVIDSON V. DAMON. See Davidson v. Barnes.
DAVIDSON V. DAVIDSON, 46 Minn. 117, 48 N. W. 560.
Master and Servant, 39.
DAVIDSON V. FARRELL, 8 Minn. 258, (Gil. 225.)
Appeal and Error, 414.
Constitutional Law, 160.
Words and Phrases, 237, 238, 399.
Followed in Libby v. Husby, 28 Minn. 40. Ap-
plied in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 512.
DAVIDSON V. FISHER, 41 Minn. 363, 43 N. W. 79.
Bankruptcy, 2.
DAVIDSON V. GASTON, 16 Minn. 230, (Gil. 202.)
Execution, 6, 7, 117, 139.
Judgment, 179-181.
Statutes, 59.
Followed in Lamprey v. Davidson, 16 Minn. 484,
456, (Gil. 438, 440;) Davidson v. Barnes, 17
Minn. 72, (Gil. 49.) Distinguished in Spencer
v. Haug, 45 Minn. 232; Hanson v. Johnson, 20
Minn. 195, (Gil. 174.) Cited in Ashton v. Slater,
19 Minn. 349, (Gil. 302;) Erickson v. Johnson,
22 Minn. 384; Giles v. Giles, 22 Minn. 349;
Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 279; Sherburne
v. Rippe, 35 Minn. 541.
2381
2382
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DAVIDSON V. LAMPREY, 16 Minn. 445, (Gil. 402.)
New Trial, 59, 99, 100, 102, 103.
Tender, 13.
Cited in Dawson v. Shillock, 29 Minn. 191.
DAVIDSON V. LAMPREY, 17 Minn. 32, (Gil. 16.)
Costs, 25, 26, 36, 40.
DAVIS V. PIERCE, 10 Minn. 376, (Gil. 302.)
Estates, 2.
Mortgages, 128.
Cited in First Division St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Par-
cher, 14 Minn. 304, (Gil. 230;) McArthur v.
Martin, 23 Minn. 80; Baker v. Northwestern
Guaranty Loan Co., 36 Minn. 186, 187.
DAVIDSON V. OLD PEOPLE'S MUT. BEN. Soc., 39 DAVIS V. PIERSE, 7 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Minn. 303, 39 N. W 803.
Insurance, 155, 170.
Applied in Hesinger v. Home Ben. Ass'n, 41
Minn. 517.
DAVIDSON V. OWENS, 5 Minn. 69, (Gil. 50.)
Appeal and Error, 72.
Attachment, 1, 2, 94, 95.
Distinguished in Richards v. White, 7 Minn.
350, (Gil. 276.) Cited in Morrison v. Lovejoy,
6 Minn. 185, (Gil. 118.)
DAVIDSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 34 Minn.
51, 24 N. W. 324.
Appeal and Error, 598.
Evidence, 168, 391.
Railroad Companies, 307, 308.
DAVIES V. LYON, 36 Minn. 427, 31 N. W. 688.
Principal and Agent, 77.
Cited in Clark v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 121.
DAVIS V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS, (Davis v. Le
Sueur County,) 37 Minn. 491, 35 N. W. 364.
Sheriffs and Constables, 49.
DAVIS V. CHOUTEAU, 32 Minn. 548, 21 N. W. 748.
Pleading, 62, 279.
Followed in Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Herriott,
37 Minn. 215.
DAVIS V. HUDSON, 29 Minn. 27, 11 N. W. 136.
Courts, 16.
Evidence, 194.
Guardian and Ward, 1, 3, 49.
Words and Phrases, 417.
Applied in Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 255; Stahl
v. Mitchell, 41 Minn. 332. Distinguished in
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 231. Cited
in Re Mousseau's Will, 30 Minn. 204; Culver
v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 230; Curran v.
Kuby, 37 Minn. 331; Hartley v. Croze, 38
Minn. 334; Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v.
Beebe, 40 Minn. 11; West Duluth Land Co. v.
Kurtz, 45 Minn. 382; Kurtz v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., 51 N. W. 222.
DAVIS V. KOBE, 36 Minn. 214, 30 N. W. 662.
Factors and Brokers, 13, 14, 18.
DAVIS V. LE SUEUR COUNTY, (Davis v. Board
County Com'rs,) 37 Minn. 491, 35 N. W. 364.
Sheriffs and Constables, 49.
DAVIS V. MENDENHALL, 19 Minn. 149, (Gil. 113.)
Appeal and Error, 571.
Contracts, 37.
Garnishment, 20, 41, 50.
Trial, 42.
DAVIS V. MURPHY, 3 Minn. 119, (Gil. 69.)
Public Lands, 39.
Words and Phrases, 609.
Cited in Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 89, (Gil. 64;)
Coy v. Coy, 15 Minn. 123, (Gil. 92;) Harring-
ton v. St. Paul & S. C. K. Co., 17 Minn. 223,
(Gil. 200.)
Civil Rights, 1.
Words and Phrases, 113, 260.
Followed in McFarland v. Butler, 8 Minn. 117,
(Gil. 91;) Jackson v. Butler, 8 Minn. 117, (Gil.
92;) Wilcox v. Davis, 7 Minn. 23, (Gil. 14:)
Keough v. McNitt, 7 Minn. 31, (Gil. 17.)
DAVIS V. SEYMOUR, 16 Minn. 210, (Gil. 184.)
Execution, 30.
Cited in Gesner v. Burdell, 18 Minn. 503, (Gil.
452;) Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 142; Schroe-
der v. Lahrman, 28 Minn. 76.
DAVIS V. SMITH, 7 Minn. 414, (Gil. 328.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
Sale, 63.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408.
Cited in Spencer v. Tozer, 15 Minn. 147, (Gil.
113;) Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 307,
(Gil. 198.)
DAVIS V. SMITH, 27 Minn. 390, 7 N. W. 731.
Appeal and Error, 287.
Partnership, 44.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn.
501.
DAVIS V. SMITH, 29 Minn. 201, 12 N. W. 536.
Banks and Banking, 4.
DAVIS V. SUTTON, 23 Minn. 307.
Assignment, 27.
DAVIS V. TOWNSEND, 45 Minn. 523, 48 N. W. 405.
Executors and Administrators, 28.
DAVIS V. WOODWARD, 19 Minn. 174, (Gil. 137.)
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 3, 4, 6, 13.
Cited in Bagley v. Sternberg, 34 Minn. 472.
DAWSON V. GIRARD LIFE INS., ETC., Co., 27 Minn.
411, 8 N. W. 142.
Adverse Claim, 48.
Vendor and Purchaser, 164.
DAWSON V. HELMES, 30 Minn. 107, 14 N. W. 462.
Guardian and Ward, 40-42, 46.
Infancy, 19.
Trial, 70.
Followed in Burrell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 35. Applied in Culver v. Hard-
enbergh, 37 Minn. 229. Cited in Sanborn v.
Cooper, 31 Minn. 310.
DAWSON V. MAYALL, 45 Minn. 408, 48 N. W. 12.
Estoppel, 69.
Evidence, 60.
Executors and Administrators, 27.
Public Lands, 121.
DAWSON V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co., 15.
Minn. 136, (Gil. 103.)
Easements, 3.
Estoppel, 54.
Highways, 66.
Distinguished in Hodgman v. Chicago & St. P.
Ry. Co., 20 Minn. 53, (Gil. 40;) Wilder v. De
Cou, 26 Minn. 20. Cited in Shaubout v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 506; State v.
Cotton, 29 Minn. 187.
2383
2384
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DEAN V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 39 Minn.
413, 40 N. W. 270.
DAWSON V. SHILLOCK, 29 Minn. 189, 12 N. W. 526.
New Trial, 105.
DAY V. MCQUILLAN, 13 Minn. 205, (Gil. 192.)
Attachment, 13, 52.
Cited in Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn. 24; Lane
v. Lenfest, 40 Minn. 378.
DAY V. MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co., 23 Minn. 334.
Landlord and Tenant, 13.
DAY V. PUTNAM INS. Co., 16 Minn. 408, (Gil. 365.)
Reward, 3.
DAY V. RAGUET, 14 Minn. 273, (Gil. 203.)
Appeal and Error, 262, 264.
Contracts, 52.
Deposition, 17, 29.
Evidence, 844.
Pleading, 264.
Sale, 13, 14, 155.
Cited in State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 214,
(Gil. 193.)
DAYTON V. BUFORD, 18 Minn 126, (Gil. 111.)
Principal and Agent, 21, 25, 28.
Cited in Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 53; Mc-
Lachlan v. Branch, 39 Minn. 101; Segel-
baum v. Segelbaum, 39 Minn. 260.
DAYTON V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 22 Minn. 400.
Constitutional Law, 3.
Words and Phrases, 456.
DAYTON V. CRAIK, 26 Minn. 133, 1 N. W. 813.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 18.
Landlord and Tenant, 33.
Words and Phrases, 725.
Cited in Peterson v. Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 117; Hun-
ter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 2.
DAYTON V. MINTZER, 22 Minn. 393.
Evidence, 189, 190.
Executors and Administrators, 103, 109.
Internal Revenue, 7.
Distinguished in Hunter v. Cleveland Co-oper-
ative Stove Co., 31 Minn. 510. Cited in Green
wood v. Murray, 28 Minn. 123; Davis v. Hud-
son, 29 Minn. 34.
DAYTON V. NELL, 43 Minn. 246, 45 N. W. 231.
Powers, 19.
Words and Phrases, 575.
DAYTON V. PAINE, 13 Minn. 493, (Gil. 454.)
Prohibition, Writ of, 2, 3, 5, 16.
DAYTON V. WARREN, 10 Minn. 233, (Gil. 185.)
Covenants, 34.
Jury, 20.
Distinguished in Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn.
334, (Gil. 219.) Cited in Bolles v. Sachs, 37
Minn. 318; Donlon v. Evans, 40 Minn. 504.
DEAKIN V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 27 Minn.
303, 7 N. W. 268.
Appeal and Error, 590.
Followed in Keith v. Briggs, 32 Minn. 187. Cited
in Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry Co., 34
Minn. 54.
DEAKIN V. UNDERWOOD, 37 Minn. 98, 33 N. W. 318.
Principal and Agent, 27, 38.
Vendor and Purchaser, 77.
DEAL V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 42 Minn. 102, 43 N.
W. 835.
Chattel Mortgages, 48, 107.
Replevin, 83.
Railroad Companies, 291, 300.
DEAN V. HITCHINGS, 40 Minn. 31, 41 N. W. 210.
Trial, 178.
Vendor and Purchaser, 68.
DEAN V. LEONARD, 9 Minn. 190, (Gil. 176.)
Pleading, 49, 76.
Applied in Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 121;
Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 132. Distin-
guished in Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn. 518,
520, (Gil. 427, 429.) Overruled in German-
American Bank v. White, 38 Minn. 474. Dis-
approved in Stone v. Quaal, 36 Minn. 49. Cited
in Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 294, (Gil. 225;)
Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 52, (Gil. 39;) Pott-
gieser v. Dorn, 16 Minn. 209, (Gil. 183;) Hew-
itt v. Brown, 21 Minn. 165; Steele v. Thayer,
36 Minn. 175.
DEAN V. ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co., 41 Minn. 360,
43 N. W. 54.
Carriers, £0.
DEANE V. HODGE, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917.
Patents for Inventions, 1, 5. 7.
Words and Phrases, 356, 546.
Cited in Mackellar v. Anchor Manuf'g Co., 51 N.
W. 617.
DEARING V. MERRILL, 41 Minn. 1, 42 N. W. 695.
Trusts 11.
DEARING V. MERRILL. See Merrill v. Dearing.
DEERING V. JOHNSON, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174.
New Trial, 5.
Cited in Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 464.
DEERING V. MCCARTHY, 36 Minn. 302, 30 N. W. S13.
Jury, 44.
DEERING V. THOм, 29 Minn. 120, 12 N. W. 350.
Principal and Agent, 30, 40.
Explained in Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 290.
Cited in Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
101; Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 34 Minn.
456; Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 247; Boynton
Furnace Co. v. Clark, 42 Minn. 339; Peterson
v. Homan, 44 Minn. 167; Brunswick-Balke
Collender Co. v. Boutell, 45 Minn. 22; Souhe-
gan Nat. Bank v. Boardman, 46 Minn. 296.
De Graff v. QUEEN INS. Co., 38 Minn. 501, 38 N.
W. 696.
Insurance, 24.
DE GRAFF V. RAMSEY COUNTY COM'RS, 46 Minn.
319, 48 N. W. 1135.
Payment, 27.
Explained in Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W.
902. Cited in Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W, 217.
DE GRAFF V. ST. PAUL & P. R. Co., 23 Minn. 144.
Constitutional Law, 111.
Public Lands, 57.
Words and Phrases, 130.
DE GRAFF V. THOMPSON, 24 Minn. 452.
Garnishment, 9.
Railroad Companies, 145.
DE GRAW V. KING, 28 Minn. 118, 9 N. W. 636.
Notary Public, 1.
Followed in Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 103.
Distinguished in Osgood v. Sutherland, 36
Minn. 245; Rachec v. Spencer, 51 N. W. 921.
Cited in Colman v. Goodnow, 36 Minn. 11.
2385
2386
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
1
DEIBER V. LOEHR, 44 Minn. 451, 47 N. W. 50.
Appeal and Error, 427.
DEISEN V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., (Dei-
sen v. Chicago, St. P., M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 43
Minn. 454, 45 N. W. 864.
Death by Wrongful Act, 13, 21.
DE KAY V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41 Minn.
178, 43 N. W. 182.
Carriers, 118.
DE LAITTRE v. JONES, 36 Minn. 519, 32 N. W. 709.
Appeal and Error, 563.
DELANEY V. DUTCHER, 23 Minn. 373.
Estoppel, 56.
Partnership, 8.
Cited in Delaney v. Timberlake, 23 Minn. 383.
DELANEY V. TIMBERLAKE, 23 Minn. 383.
Partnership, 9.
DEMARS V. MUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, LOGGING &
Manur'g Co., 37 Minn. 418, 35 N. W. 1.
Compromise, 1.
DE MERS V. DANIELS, 39 Minn. 155, 39 N. W. 9S.
Dedication, 53.
DEMPSEY V. COGSWELI, 29 Miun. 100, 12 N. W. 148.
Appeal and Error, 439.
Replevin, 97.
DEMUELES V. ST. PAUL. & N. P. Rr. Co., 44 Minn.
436, 46 N. W. 912.
Appeal and Error, 469.
Eminent Domain, 113.
DENMAN V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 26 Minn. 357, 4
N. W. 605.
Railroad Companies, 220.
DENNIS V. JOHNSON, 42 Minn. 301, 44 N. W. 68.
Libel and Slander, 19, 54.
Cited in Dennis v. Johnson, 47 Minn. 56.
DENNIS V. JOHNSON, 47 Minn. 56, 49 N. W. 383.
Libel and Slander, 72, 84.
Disapproved in Lotto v. Davenport, 52 N. W.
130.
DENNIS V. KNIGHT, 39 Minn. 149, 39 N. W. 304.
Principal and Agent, 3.
DENNIS V. SMITH, 38 Minn. 494, 38 N. W. 695.
Mechanics' Liens, 88, 124, 125.
DENNIS V. SPENCER, 45 Minn. 250, 47 N. W. 795.
Pleading, 271.
DENNY V. MARRETT, 29 Minn. 361, 13 N. W. 148.
Limitation of Actions, 64.
Cited in Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 66.
DENSMORE V. SHEPARD, (Densmore v. Red Wing
Lime & Stone Co.,) 46 Minn. 54, 48 N. W. 528,
681.
Appeal and Error, 249.
Corporations, 138, 158.
Pleading, 278, 283.
Cited in Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co., 50 N.
W. 1111; McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.,
50 N. W. 1116.
DENTON V. Scully, 26 Minn. 325, 4 N. W. 41.
Vendor and Purchaser, 99.
DERBY V. GALLUP, 5 Minn. 119, (Gil. 85.)
Appeal and Error, 210, 491, 608.
Conversion of Personal Property, 27-29,
38, 43.
Evidence, 88, 90, 149.
DERBY V. GALLUP-Continued.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 41, 97, 101.
Pleading, 73.
Witness, 85.
To`lowed in Weller v. City of St. Paul, 5 Minn.
107, (Gil. 83;) Bradley v. Gamelle, 7 Minn. 335,
336, (Gil. 263;) Scott v. King, 7 Minn. 498, (Gil.
405;) Howland v. Fuller, 8 Minn. 56, (Gil. 34;)
Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 342, (Gil. 274.)
Applied in Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 426.
Cited in Zimmerman v. Lamb, 7 Minn. 425, (Gil.
340;) Scott v. King, 7 Minn. 495, (Gil. 402:)
Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 8 Minn. 293, (Gil.
257;) Conway v. Wharton, 13 Minn. 160, (Gil.
148;) Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 427, (Gil.
385;) Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 528; Per-
kins v. Morse, 30 Minn. 16: Varco v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 22; Adler v.
Apt, 30 Minn. 46; Gaffney v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 112; Lathrop v. Clayton, 45
Minn. 127; Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire
Ins. Co., 45 Minn. 443; Densmore v. Shepard,
46 Minn. 60.
DE ROCHBRUNE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 11 Minn. 313,
(Gil. 218.)
Municipal Corporations, 288.
DE ROCHEBRUNE V. SOUTHEIMER, 12 Minn. 78, (Gil.
42.)
Certiorari, 28, 36.
Cited in State v. Herrick, 12 Minn. 136, (Gil. 75.)
DEROSIA V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 133,
(Gil. 119.)
Carriers, 22, 23, 25-29.
Evidence, 122.
Trial, 52.
Words and Phrases, 777, 778.
Applied in Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Co., 30 Minn.
416. Cited in Pinney v. First Division St. P.
& P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 253, 257, (Gil. 213, 217;)
Stearns v. Johnson, 19 Minn. 548, (Gil. 477;)
Christian v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co.,
20 Minn. 25, (Gil. 15;) Beaupre v. Pacific & A.
Tel. Co., 21 Minn. 162; Goodnow v. Empire
Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 472.
DESNOYER V. JORDAN, 27 Minn. 295, 7 N. W. 140.
Husband and Wife, 61, 62.
Cited in Desnoyer v. Jordan, 30 Minn. 81; Hos-
ford v. Rowe, 41 Minn. 250.
DESNOYER V. JORDAN, 30 Minn. 80, 14 N. W. 259.
Husband and Wife, 63, 64.
DESNOYER V. L'HEREUX, 1 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
Appeal and Error, 433, 732.
Words and Phrases, 564.
Cited in Barth v. Horejs, 45 Minn. 186.
DESNOYER V. MCDONALD, 4 Minn. 515, (Gil. 402.)
Evidence, 21, 50, 51.
Interest of Money, 22.
New Trial, 40.
Trial, 132.
Cited in Thayer v. Barney, 12 Minn. 512, (Gil.
422.)
DESSAINT V. ELLING, 31 Minn. 287, 17 N. W. 480.
Negotiable Instruments, 221.
DEUEL V. HAWKE, 2 Minn. 50, (Gil. 37.)
Appeal and Error, 6.
Pleading, 153.
Practice in Civil Cases, 17.
Words and Phrases, 290.
2387
2388
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DEUEL V. HAWKE—Continued.
Followed and explained in Sherrerd v. Frazer,
6 Minn. 574, 576, (Gil. 403, 411.) Cited in Hawke
v. Deuel, 2 Minn. 60, (Gil. 47.)
DEVINE V. LEWIS, 38 Minn. 24, 35 N. W. 711.
Covenants, 42.
DEVINE V. St. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 8.
Railroad Companies, 230.
Followed in Winger v. First Division St. P. &
P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 13. Distinguished in Flem-1
ing v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 113;
Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 92. Cited in Gillam v. Sioux City & St.
P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 269.
DEVLIN V. CHAMBLIN,
Payment, 7.
Minn. 468, (Gil. 325.)
DEVLIN V. QUIGG, 44 Minn. 534, 47 N. W. 258.
Mortgage, 193.
DEWEY V. LEONARD, 14 Minn. 153, (Gil. 120.)
Arbitration and Award, 10.
Negligence, 20.
Pleading, 119.
DEWEY V. W. B. CLARK INv. Co., 50 N. W. 1032.
Guaranty, 5.
Words and Phrases, 235.
DEXTER V. MOODEY, 36 Minn. 205, 30 N. W. 667.
Pleading, 241.
DICK V. MOOx, 26 Minn. 309, 4 N. W. 39.
Mortgages, 322.
Followed in Hanson v. Dunton, 35 Minn. 190.
DICKERMAN v. ASHTON, 21 Minn. 538.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Factors and Brokers, 1.
Frauds, Statute of, 54.
Principal and Agent, 41.
Cited in Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 369;
Thomas v. Joslin, 30 Minn. 388; Goss v. Ste-
DIKE V. STATE, 38 Minn. 366, 38 N. W. 95.
Constitutional Law, 77.
Words and Phrases, 308, 355, 585.
Cited in State v. Beck, 52 N. W. 380.
DILLON V. PORTER, 36 Minn. 341, 31 N. W.56.
Judgment, 24, 27, 43, 71.
Cited in Hersey v. Walsh, 38 Minn. 522; Lane v.
Innes, 43 Minn. 142.
DINGMAN V. RAYMOND, 27 Minn. 507, 8. N. W. 597.
Exemptions, 6.
Words and Phrases, 800.
Overruled in Allen v. Coates, 29 Minn. 48.
DIXON V. MERRITT, 6 Minn. 160, (Gil. 98.)
Appeal and Error, 329, 507.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 405.
DIXON V. MERRITT, 21 Minn. 196.
Husband and Wife, 55.
Infancy, 16, 18.
Judgment, 133.
Cited in Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 11;
Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 77; Dawson v.
Helmes, 20 Minn. 113; Guilford v. Western
Union Tel. Co., 43 Minn. 436.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. BAKER, 34 Minn. 307, 25
N. W. 606.
Frauds, Statute of, 31.
Words and Phrases, 788.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. CARPENTER, 37 Minn. 331,
34 N. W. 163.
Sale, 57, 112, 113, 124.
Cited in Wyckoff v. Horan, 39 Minn. 430; Juer-
gens v. Thom, 39 Minn. 461.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. CARR, (D. M. Osborne &
Co. v. Stone,) 30 Minn. 25, 13 N. W. 922.
Partnership, 35.
Cited in Van Dyke v. Seelye, 52 N. W. 216;
Slipp v. Hartley, 52 N. W. 387.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. DONERTY, 38 Minn. 430, 38
N. W. 111.
Husband and Wife, 33.
vens, 33 Minn. 473; St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. Gray, 32-Minn. 53, 19 N.
37 Minn. 366.
DICKERMAN V. ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co., 44 Minn.
433, 46 N. W. 907.
Carriers, 76, 77.
DICKERSON V. HAYES, (Dickinson v. Hayes,) 26
Minn. 100, 1 N. W. 834.
Mortgages, 414, 455.
Distinguished in Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 308,
309. Cited in Beal v. White,.28 Minn. 8; Cuil-
erier v. Brunelle, 37 Minn. 72; O'Brien v. Os-
wald, 45 Minn. 60.
DICKINSON V. KINNEY, 5 Minn. 409, (Gil. 332.)
Execution, 84.
Pleading, 155.
Followed in James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 312; Cur-
riden v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 52 Ń. W.
966. Applied in Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn.
438. Disapproved in Parke v. Hush, 29 Minn.
435. Distinguished in Brackett v. Gilmore, 15
Minn. 255, (Gil. 195.) Cited in Messerschmidt
v. Baker, 22 Minn. 86; Lebanon Sav. Bank v.
Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 325; Oliver v. Davy, 34
Minn. 294; Coles v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 57.
DIKE V. POOL, 15 Minn. 315, (Gil. 245.)
Appeal and Error, 594, 599.
Custom and Usage, 13.
W. S1.
Costs, 24.
Cited in Merriman v. Bowen, 35 Minn. 299.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. HUNTINGTON, 37 Minn.
275, 33 N. W. 789.
Sale, 171.
Cited in Wyckoff v. Horan, 39 Minn. 430.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. JOHNSON, 35 Minn. 300, 28
N. W. 510.
Appeal and Error, 622.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. MARKS, 33 Minn. 56, 22 N.
W. 1.
D.
Evidence, 170.
Sale, 85, 86, 107, 116.
Distinguished in Wilson v. Reedy, 33 Minn. 504.
Cited in Melby v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
495; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Huntington, 37
Minn. 276; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter,
37 Minn. 333.
M. OSBORNE & Co. v. PAULSON, 37 Minn. 46, 33
N. W. 12.
Costs, 47.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. POKET, 33 Minn. 10, 21 N.
W. 752.
Damages, 5.
Cited in Merrick v. Wiltse, 37 Minn. 42.
2389
2390
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. STONE, (D. M. Osborne & | DODGE V. DAVIDSON, (Dodge v. Allis,) 27 Minn.
Co. v. Carr,) 30 Minn. 25, 13 N. W. 922.
Partnership, 35.
Cited in Van Dyke v. Seelye, 52 N. W. 216; Slipp
v. Hartley, 52 N. W. 387.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. THOMPSOм, 35 Minn. 229,
28 N. W. 260.
Partnership, 36.
Cited in Van Dyke v. Seelye, 52 N. W. 216.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. THOMPSON, 36 Minn. 528,
33 N. W. 1.
Negotiable Instrument, 111.
376, 7 N. W. 732.
Mortgages, 368, 369.
Words and Phrases, 292.
Distinguished in Dobberstein v. Murphy, 44
Minn. 529. Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 36 Minn.
389.
DODGE V. HOLLINSHEAD, 6 Minn. 25, (Gil. 1.)
Deed, 49.
Husband and Wife, 39.
Followed in Annan v. Folsom, 6 Minn. 503, (Gil.
350;) Edgerton v. Jones, 10 Minn. 429, (Gil.
342.)
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. WILLIAMS, 37 Minn. 507, DODGE V. MINNESOTA PLASTIC SLATE R. Co., 14
35 N. W. 371.
Appeal and Error, 284, 445.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. WILLIAMS, 39 Minn. 353,
40 N. W. 165.
Appeal and Error, 177.
Judgment, 166.
D. M. OSBORNE & Co. v. WILSON, 37 Minn. 8, 32 N.
W. 786.
Execution, 115.
DOBBERSTEIN v. MURPHY, 44 Minn. 526, 47 N. W.
171.
Dower, 4.
Judgment, 96.
Partition, 11.
DOBBIN V. CORDINER, 41 Minn. 165, 42 N. W. S70.
Deed, 13.
Husband and Wife, 58.
Cited in Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 279.
DR. FRANKLIN, THE. See Castner v. The Dr.
Franklin.
DR. FRANKLIN, THE. See Town of St. Paul v. The
Dr. Franklin.
DODD V. BROTT, 1 Minn. 270, (Gil. 205.)
Attorney and Client, 29, 30.
Judgment, 279.
DODD V. CADY, 1 Minn. 289, (Gil. 223.)
Appeal and Error, 691-693.
Cited in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207.
DODGE V. ALLIS, (Dodge v. Davidson,) 27 Minn.
376, 7 N. W. 732.
Mortgages, 368, 369.
Words and Phrases, 292.
Minn. 49, (Gil. 39.)
Contracts, 108.
Corporations, 71.
Cited in State v. Loomis, 27 Minn. 527.
DODGE V. MINNESOTA PLASTIC SLATE R. Co., 16
Minn. 368, (Gil. 327.)
Corporations, 152, 153.
Applied in Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 87;
Nolan v. Hazen, 44 Minn. 480. Explained in
Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 175; Merchants'
Nat. Bank v. Bailey Manuf'g Co., 34 Minn. 325.
Cited in Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co., 50
N. W. 1111.
DODGE V. NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET Co., 13
Minn. 458, (Gil. 427.)
Removal of Causes, 5.
DODGE V. ROGERS, 9 Minn. 223, (Gil. 209.)
Contracts, 107, 174.
Sale, 22.
Trial, 99, 100.
Cited in Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 334,
(Gil. 306;) Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn. 192.
DOE V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 30 Minn. 392, 15 N.
W. 679.
Counties, 55.
DOLE V. SHERWOOD, 41 Minn. 535, 43 N. W. 569.
Factors and Brokers, 34, 35.
DOLE V. WILSON, 16 Minn. 525, (Gil. 472.)
Contracts, 149.
Evidence, 9.
Cited in Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn. 358, (Gil. 309.)
DOLE V. WILSON, 20 Minn. 356, (Gil. 30S.)
Public Lands, 99, 103–103.
Distinguished in Dobberstein v. Murphy, 44 DOLE V. WILSON, 39 Miun. 330, 40 N. W. 161.
Minn. 529. Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 36 Minn.
389.
DODGE V. BELL, 37 Minn. 382, 34 N. W. 739.
Appeal and Error, 101.
Words and Phrases, 493.
DODGE V. CHANDLER, 9 Minn. 97, (Gil. 87.)
Appeal and Error, 374.
Execution, 16, 52, 53.
Cited in Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 117, (Gil.
109;) Barry v. McGrade, 14 Minn. 167, (Gil.
128;) Livingstone v. Brown, 18 Minn. 311, (Gil.
280.)
DODGE V. CHANDLER, 13 Minn. 114, (Gil. 105.)
Appeal and Error, 549, 551, 586, 665.
Pleading, 20, 66.
Replevin, 63.
Witness, 39.
Cited in Jellett v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 267.
Contracts, 165.
Equity, 78.
DOLL, IN RE, 47 Minn. 518, 50 N. W. 607.
Habeas Corpus, 4.
Words and Phrases, 509, 682..
DOLS V. BAUMHOEFER, (Dols v. Baumhager,) 28
Minn. 387, 10 N. W. 420.
Appeal and Error, 59.
Cited in Thompson v. Haselton, 34 Minn. 13;
Bruns v. Schreiber, 51 N. W. 121.
DOMESTIC S. M. Co. v. ANDERSON, 23 Minn. 57.
Evidence, 279.
Sale, 202.
Cited in Beyerstedt v. Winona Mill Co., 51 N.
W. 621.
DONALDSON V. LAMPREY, 29 Minn. 18, 11 N. W. 119.
Homestead, 55, 56.
Words and Phrases, 349.
2391
2392
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DONALDSON V. LAMPREY-Continued.
Applied in Russell v. Speedy, 38 Minn. 304;
Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 15. Distinguished
in Robertson v. Sullivan, 31 Minn. 200. Cited
in Williams v. Moody, 35 Minn. 281, 282;
Stewart v. Rhoades, 39 Minn. 194.
DONALDSON V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. Rr. Co., 21
Minn. 293.
Negligence, 52.
DORMAN V. AMES-Continued.
Waters and Water-Courses, 6, 10, 14.
Words and Phrases, 13, 479.
Applied in Ames v. Cannon River Manuf'g Co.,
27 Minn. 247; Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn.
182, 183. Cited in Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn.
164, (Gil. 147.)
DORMAN V. BAYLEY, 10 Minn. 383, (Gil. 306.)
Internal Revenue, 5.
Railroad Companies, 219.
Approved in Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry.
Co., 22 Minn. 166. Applied in Smith v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 26 Minn. 419. Dis-
tinguished in Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P.
Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 415. Cited in Rogstad v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 209; DORR V. MICKLEY, 16 Minn. 20, (Gil. 8.)
Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 171; Marty v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 110; Heffinger v. Minne-
apolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 504; Johnson
v. Truesdale, 46 Minn. 346.
Words and Phrases, 596.
Distinguished in Hanna v. Russell, 12 Minn. 86,
(Gil. 46.)
DORR v. MCDONALD, 43 Minn. 458, 45 N. W. 864.
Appeal and Error, 319.
DONLAN V. EVANS, 40 Minn. 501, 42 N. W. 472.
Vendor and Purchaser, 115, 116.
Cited in Murphin v. Scovell, 41 Minn. 265; Rey-
nolds v. Franklin, 41 Minn. 251.
DONNELLY V. O'CONNOR, 22 Minn. 309.
Garnishment, 44, 69, 73.
Applied in North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ladd,
32 Minn. 382. Distinguished in Mansfield v.
Stevens, 31 Minn. 42.
DONNELLY V. SIMONTON, 7 Minn. 167, (Gil. 110.)
Mortgages, 265, 454.
Quieting Title, 2, 16.
Applied in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 286. Ex-
plained in Hamilton v. Batlin, 8 Minn. 405,
(Gil. 361.) Cited in Berthold v. Holman, 12
Minn. 346, (Gil. 225;) Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn.
506, (Gil. 465;) Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 292,
(Gil. 219;) Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 73,
(Gil. 57;) Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn.
319; Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 176;
Parke v. Hush, 29 Minn. 435; Lindley v.
Crombie, 31 Minn. 233; Bausman v. Kelley, 38
Minn. 206; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 44;
Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175.
DONNELLY V. SIMONTON, 13 Minn. 301, (Gil. 278.)
Evidence, 287.
Mortgages, 136.
Cited in Geib v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 335.
Donohue v. LadD, (Donohue v. Stearns,) 31 Minn.
DONOHUE
244, 17 N. W. 381.
Adverse Claim, 19, 45.
Insolvency, 72.
Words and Phrases, 390.
Cited in Simon v. Mann, 32 Minn. 65; Lord v.
Meachem, 32 Minn. 67; Morrill v. Little Falls
Manuf'g Co., 46 Minn. 262.
DORAN V. EATON, 40 Minn. 35, 41 N. W. 244.
Damages, 76, 107.
Deceit, 5, 37, 40.
Cited in Alden v. Wright, 47 Minn. 228.
DORMAN V. AMES, 9 Minn. 180, (Gil. 164.)
Pleading, 120.
DORMAN V. AMES, 12 Minn. 451, (Gil. 347.)
Appeal and Error, 421.
Damages, 61.
Evidence, 205, 373.
Nuisance, 1, 9, 10, 17.
New Trial, 85.
Sheriffs and Constables, 64.
Followed in Webb v. Kennedy, 20 Minn. 420,
(Gil. 376.) Cited in Lewis v. St. Paul & S. C.
R. Co., 20 Minn. 234, (Gil. 237;) Hurt v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 487.
DORR V. STEICHEN, 18 Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
Costs, 14.
Equity, 20.
Negotiable Instruments, 94.
Practice in Civil Cases, 49.
DOSDALL V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS OLMSTED
COUNTY, 30 Minn. 96, 14 N. W. 458.
Counties, 73.
Applied in Altnow v. Town of Sibley, 30 Minn.
190, 191. Cited in Kellogg v. Janesville, 34
Minn. 133. Bank v. Brainerd School Dist., 51
N. W. 815.
DOUGLAS v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF HASTINGS, 17
Minn. 35, (Gil. 18.)
Appeal and Error, 506.
Banks and Banking, 5.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 46.
DOUSMAN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 22 Minn. 387.
Certiorari, 15.
Cited in Dousman v. City of St. Paul, 23 Minn.
400; Albrecht v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 532.
DOUSMAN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 23 Minn. 394.
Municipal Corporations, 296–298.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 33 Minn. 248; Chauncey v. Wass, 35
Minn. 21, 26.
Dow v. SUTPHIN, 47 Minn. 479, 50 N. W. 604.
Insolvency, 52, 69.
DOWLAN V. SIBLEY COUNTY, (Dowlan, In re,) 36
Minn. 430, 31 N. W. 517.
Counties, 2.
Drainage, 1, 3.
Words and Phrases, 476.
Downer v. FOULHUBER, 19 Minn. 179, (Gil. 142.)
Appeal and Error, 254.
DOWNER V. READ, 17 Minn. 493, (Gil. 470.)
Estoppel, 59.
Limitation of Actions, 88.
Negotiable Instruments, 56.
Pleading, 5, 67.
Cited in Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 174.
DOWNER V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 22 Minn. 251.
Dedication, 11, 15.
Cited in De Mers v. Daniels, 39 Minn. 160; Vil-
lage of Buffalo v. Harling, 52 N. W. 932.
2393
2394
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DOWNER V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 23 Minn. 271.
Dedication, 36, 45.
Cited in Hurley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom
Co., 34 Minn. 147; Gilfillan v. Hobart, 35 Minn.
188; Village of White Bear v. Stewart, 40
Minn. 286.
Downs v. NOURSE, 30 Minn. 552, 16 N. W. 412.
Appeal and Error, 267.
DOYLE V. HALLAM, 21 Minn. 515.
Judgment, 134.
Cited in Bazille v. Murray, 40 Minn. 50.
| DUFORD V. LEWIS, 43 Minn. 26, 44 N. W. 522.
Adverse Claim, 42.
DUGAN V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 40 Minn. 544, 42 N.
W. 53S.
Negligence, 81.
DUGAN V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 414, 45
N. W. 851.
Railroad Companies, 208.
DUKE V. BALME, 16 Minn. 306, (Gil. 270.)
Vendor and Purchaser, 119, 124.
Cited in Hammond v. Peyton, 34 Minn. 530.
DOYLE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 42 Minn. 79, DU LAURANS V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. l. Co.,
43 N. W. 787.
Evidence, 80.
Master and Servant, 57, 65, 67, 69.
Cited in O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
43 Minn. 292; Armstrong v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 87.
DOTSCHER V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 43
Minn. 427, 45 N. W. 719.
Appeal and Error, 489.
DRAKE V. AUERBACH, 37 Minn. 505, 35 N. W. 367.
Replevin, 11, 56.
DRAKE V. BARTON, 18 Minn. 462, (Gil. 414.)
Appeal and Error, 411.
Specific Performance, 83, 98.
Vendor and Purchaser, 20, 23.
Words and Phrases, 779.
Followed in Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 206.
Cited in Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn. 187, (Gil.
166;) Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 302, 305, 306,
308; Donlon v. Evans, 40 Minn. 502; Murphin
v. Scovell, 41 Minn. 265; Bromberg v. Minne-
sota Fire Ass'n, 45 Minn. 321; McManus v.
Blackmarr, 47 Minn. 333.
DRAKE V. SIGAFOOS, 39 Minn. 367, 40 N. W. 257.
Executors and Administrators, 139.
Limitation of Actions, 67.
DREA V. CARIVEAU, 28 Minn. 280, 9 N. W. 802.
Judgment, 138.
Cited in Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 498.
DREW V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 44 Minn. 501, 47 N. W.
15S.
Constitutional Law, 127.
DREW V. SMITH, 7 Minn. 301, (Gil. 231.)
Mortgages, 352.
Vendor and Purchaser, 69, 73-75.
Cited in Wilder v. Haughey, 21 Minn. 104.
DROUGHT V. COLLINS, 20 Minn. 374, (Gil. 325.)
Attachment, 91.
DRYMALA V. THOMPSON, (Thompson v. Drymala,)
26 Minn. 40, 1 N. W. 255.
Master and Servant, 86.
Followed in Fay v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 233. Distinguished in Hughes v. Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 141; Clark v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 28 Minn. 129; Brown
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 555,
556; Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 315, 317, 322. Cited in Gates v. South-
ern Minn. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 112; Collins v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 33; Ransier v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 335.
DUFOLT V. GORMAN, 1 Minn. 301, (Gil. 234.)
Appeal and Error, 329, 380, 463.
Frauds, Statute of, 12.
United States.
15 Minn. 49, (Gil. 29.)
Carriers, 69-71, 73, 74, 129, 137.
Damages, 89.
New Trial, 34.
Followed in Cain v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 298. Distinguished in Wardwell
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 516,
517. Cited in Christian v. First Division St.
P. & P. R. Co., 20 Minn. 24, 25, (Gil. 15;) Frede-
ricksen v. Singer Manuf'g Co., 38 Minn. 359:
State v. Hungerford, 39 Minn. 7; Hoffman v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Minn. 55.
DULUTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. KNOWLTON, 42
Minn. 229, 44 N. W. 2.
Accord and Satisfaction, 2.
Trial, 72.
Distinguished in Chickering & Sons v. White,
42 Minn. 459, 460. Cited in Bowen v. City of
Minneapolis, 47 Minn. 118.
DUNCAN V. COBB, (Duncan v. Menard,) 32 Minn.
460, 21 N. W. 714.
Mortgage, 186.
Words and Phrases, 302.
Cited in Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Minn.
294, 296; Whiteman v. Severance, 46 Minn. 497.
DUNCAN V. KOHLER, 37 Minn. 379, 34 N. W. 594.
Appeal and Error, 198, 580.
Words and Phrases, 92.
Followed in Fredericksen v. Singer Manuf'g
Co., 38 Minn. 356. Cited in Heartz v. Klink-
haminer, 39 Minn. 489; Stewart v. Duncan, 40
Minn. 411; In re Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
DUNCAN V. MENARD, (Duncan v. Cobb,) 32 Minn.
460, 21 N. W. 714.
Mortgages, 186.
Words and Phrases, 302.
Cited in Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Minn.
294, 296.
DUNHAM V. BYRNES, 36 Minn. 106, 30 N. W. 402.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 81, 87.
Practice in Civil Cases, 19.
Cited in McAllister v. Welker, 39 Minn. 536.
DUNLAP V. MAY, 42 Minn. 309, 44 N. W. 119.
Trial, 54.
DUNLAP v. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 35 Minn. 203,
28 N. W. 240.
Carriers, 75.
DUNN V. BARTON, 40 Minn. 415, 42 N. W. 289.
Contracts, 179.
DUNN V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. Co., 35 Minn.
73, 27 N. W. 448.
Removal of Causes, 3.
Words and Phrases, 673.
Reversed in Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v..
Dunn, 7 Sup. Ct. 1262, 122 U. S. 513.
2395
2396
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
DUNNING V. POND, 5 Minn. 296, (Gil. 234.)
Negotiable Instruments, 200.
DUNNING V. POND, 5 Minn. 302, (Gil. 238.)
Negotiable Instruments, 36, 37, 207.
DUNWELL V. BIDWELL, 8 Minn. 34, (Gil. 18.)
Mechanics' Liens, 12.
Statutes, 60.
Words and Phrases, 431.
Distinguished in Nelson v. Sykes, 44 Minn. 69.
Cited in Morrison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 437.
DUNWELL V. WARDEN, 6 Minn. 287, (Gil. 194.)
Judgment, 238.
Practice in Civil Cases, 34.
Cited in Barker v. Keith, 11 Minn. 69, (Gil. 40;)
Shaw v. Henderson, 7 Minn. 487, (Gil. 393.)
DUPRIES V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. RY. Co., 20 Minn.
156, (Gil. 139.)
Judgment, 265.
DURANT V. RHENER, 26 Minn. 362, 4 N. W. 610.
Sunday, 3.
DURFEE V. PAVITT, 14 Minn. 424, (Gil. 319.)
Pleading, 237.
Principal and Agent, 73.
Trusts, 20.
Cited in Johnson v. Johnson, 16 Minn. 514, (Gil.
464;) Johnson v. Krassin, 25 Minn. 118.
DURLING V. PECK, 41 Minn. 317, 43 N. W. 65.
Garnishment, 22.
DUTCHER V. CULVER, 23 Minn. 415.
Appeal and Error, 688, 689.
Executors and Adininistrators, 3.
Words and Phrases, 33.
DUTCHER V. CULVER, 24 Minn. 584.
Appeal and Error, 212.
Landlord and Tenant, 73-76.
Receivers, 5.
Statutes, 70.
DUTTON V. McREYNOLDS, 31 Minn. 66, 16 N. W. 463.
Equity, 77.
Judgment, 173.
Vendor and Purchaser, 145.
Cited in Wilcox v. Leominster Nat. Bank, 43
Minn. 542.
DYAR V. SLINGERLAND, 24 Minn. 267.
Interest of Money, 18.
DYCKMAN V. SEVATSON, 39 Minn. 132, 39 N. W. 73
Chattel Mortgages, 95.
DYE V. FORBES, 34 Minn. 13, 24 N. W. 309.
Mechanics' Liens, 74.
Mortgages, 53.
Pleading, 141.
Cited in McGlauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411.
DYER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 27 Minn. 457, 8 N. W.
272.
Municipal Corporations, 234.
Distinguished in Henderson v. City of Minneap-
olis, 32 Minn. 322. Cited in Armstrong v. City
of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 300; Pye v. City of Man-
kato, 36 Minn. 374; Nichols v. City of Duluth,
40 Minn. 390.
DYER V. THORSTAD, 35 Minn. 534, 29 N. W. 345.
Sale, 200.
Cited in Thomas Manuf'g Co. v. Foote, 46 Minn.
241.
+
EARL V. GODLEY, 42 Minn. 361, 44 N. W. 254.
Marriage, 3.
EASTMAN V. LAMPREY, 12 Minn. 153, (Gil. 89.)
Adverse Claim, 4.
EASTMAN V. LINN, 20 Minn. 433, (Gil. 387.)
Adverse Claim, 32.
New Trial, 91.
E.
Cited in Griffin v. Jorgenson, 22 Minn. 95; Camp-
bell v. Jones, 25 Minn. 158; McMillan v. Chee-
ney, 30 Minn. 520; Knight v. Valentine, 35
Minn. 368; Mueller v. Jackson, 39 Minn. 432;
Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 206; Townsend
v. Minneapolis Cold-Storage & Freezer Co., 46
Minn. 124.
EASTMAN V. LINN, 26 Minn. 215, 2 N. W. 693.
Taxation, 100, 101.
Applied in Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn. 339; Merri-
man v. Knight, 43 Minn. 493. Cited in Hall v.
Ramsey County, 30 Minn. 70, 73; Chauncey v.
Wass, 35 Minn. 8, 31, 35, 38, 40; Russell v. Gil-
son, 36 Minn. 367; Bonham v. Weymouth, 39
Minn. 100; Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 510.
EASTMAN v. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co., 12 Minn. 137, (Gil. 77.)
Limitation of Actions, 12, 80.
Nuisance, 23.
EASTMAN V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co.-Continued.
Followed in Thornton v. Webb, 13 Minn. 499,
(Gil. 459.) Cited in Cook v. Kendall, 13 Minn.
325, (Gil. 298;) Davenport v. Short, 17 Minn.
25, (Gil. 9;) Mueller v. Fruen, 36 Minn. 274,
275; Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 509; Hum-
phrey v. Carpenter, 39 Minn. 117.
EASTMAN V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co., 17 Minn. 48, (Gil. 31.)
Pleading, 184.
Practice in Civil Cases, 1..
EASTMAN V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS Water Power
Co., 24 Minn. 437.
Equity, 70.
EASTMAN V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co., 43 Minn. 60, 44 N. W. 882.
Deed, 32.
Taxation, 256.
Words and Phrases, 671.
Cited in Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Eastman, 47
Minn. 302, 307.
EAST NORWAY LAKE N. E. LUTHERAN CHURCH V.
FROISLIE, 37 Minn. 447, 35 N. W. 260.
Corporations, 30.
2397
2393
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
EAST NORWAY LAKE N. E. LUTHERAN CHURCH V. | EDSON V. CHILD, 18 Minn. 351, (Gil. 323.)
FROISLIE-Continued.
Landlord and Tenant, 2.
Religious Societies, 2.
Cited in Jewell v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 41
Minn. 406; Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46
Minn. 465.
EASTON V. GOODWIN, 22 Minn. 426.
Attachment, 45.
Cited in Mason v. Aldrich, 36 Minn. 285; Hol-
comb v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 39 Minn.
343.
EASTON V. HAYES, 35 Minn. 418, 29 N. W. 59.
Constitutional Law, 84.
Taxation, 287.
Cited in Easton v. Hayes, 38 Minn. 465; Schoon-
over v. Galarnault, 45 Minn. 175, 176.
EASTON V. HAYES, 38 Minn. 463, 38 N. W. 361.
Taxation, 286.
EASTON V. HYDE, 13 Minn. 90, (Gil. S3.)
Negotiable Instruments, 3.
Words and Phrases, 549.
EATON V. AMERICAN BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N, 47
Minn. 236, 49 N. W. 865.
Building and Loan Associations, 4.
EATON V. CALDWELL, 3 Minn. 1Ɛ4, (Gil. 80.)
Judgment, 230.
New Trial, 3.
Replevin, 68, 74, 75.
Trial, 156.
Applied in Scott v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S.
M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 180. Cited in Berthold v.
Fox, 21 Minn. 55; Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn.
65, (Gil. 31;) Oldenberg v. Devine, 40 Minn.
410.
EATON V. ROBBINS, 29 Minn. 327, 13 N. W. 143.
Homestead, 44, 45.
Modified in Holbrook v. Wightman, 31 Minn. 169–
171, 173.
EATON V. WELLS, 18 Minn. 410, (Gil. 369.)
Attachment, 10.
EBERT V. LONG, 43 Minn. 235, 45 N. W. 226.
Judgment, 141.
ECKART V. ROEHM, 43 Minn. 271, 45 N. W. 443.
Principal and Agent, î2.
EDDY V. CALDWELL, 7 Minn. 225, (Gil. 166.)
Chattel Mortgages, 16, 75.
New Trial, 51, 76.
Cited in Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 367, (Gil. 326;)
Adamson v. Horton, 42 Minn. 162; Beaupre v.
Dwyer, 43 Minn. 487; Adamson v. Fagan, 44
Minn. 489.
EDER V. REILLY, 51 N. W. 226.
Witness, 58.
EDGERTON V. JONES, 10 Minn. 427, (Gil. 341.)
Appeal and Error, 158.
Deed, 49.
Evidence, 267.
Husband and Wife, 42.
Cited in New v. Wheaton, 24 Minn. 409; Jordan
v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 496.
EDSON V. CHILD, 18 Minn. 64, (Gil. 43.)
Elections and Voters, 18.
Cited in Soper v. Sibley County, 46 Minn. 275.
Elections and Voters, 18.
EDSON V. NEWELL, 14 Minn. 228, (Gil. 167.)
Chattel Mortgages, 81.
Execution, 54, 55.
Cited in Braley v. Byrnes, 25 Minn. 298; Wohl-
wend v. J. I. Case Threshing-Mach. Co., 42
Minn. 502.
EDWARDS V. RAMSEY, 30 Minn. 91, 14 N. W. 272.
Negotiable Instruments, 22.
EGAN V. FAENDEL, 19 Minn. 231, (Gil. 191.)
Appeal and Error, 524.
Contracts, 175, 176.
Damages, 114.
Trial, 73, 90.
Cited in Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 392;
Bishop v. Corbitt, 40 Minn. 201.
EGAN V. FULLER, 35 Minn. 515, 29 N. W. 313.
Negotiable Instruments, 40.
EGAN V. MENARD, (Egan v. Miller,) 32 Minn. 273,
20 N. W. 197.
Mechanics' Liens, 169, 170.
EGBERT V. PETERS, 35 Minn. 312, 29 N. W. 134.
Usury, 1.
EGGERS V. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, (Eg-
gers v. Hayes,) 40 Minn. 182, 41 N. W. 971.
Warehousemen, 17.
EпмCKE V. PORTER, 45 Minn. 338, 47 N. W. 1066.
Master and Servant, 143.
EICH V. TAYLOR, 17 Minn. 172, (Gil. 145.)
Appeal and Error, 490, 603.
New Trial, 43.
EICH V. TAYLOR, 20 Minn. 378, (Gil. 330.)
New Trial, 19.
Cited in State v. Conway, 23 Minn. 295.
EICHELER V. HANGGI, (Eicheler v. St. Paul Fur-
niture Co.,) 40 Minn. 263, 41 N. W. 975.
Master and Servant, 36, 154.
Cited in Jennings v. Iron Bay Co., 47 Minn. 114.
EICKMAN V. TroLL, 29 Minn. 124, 12 N. W. 347.
Appearance, 18.
Witness, 11.
EIDAM V. FINNEGAN, 50 N. W. 933.
Practice in Civil Cases, 45, 46.
EILERS V. CONRADT, 39 Minn. 242, 39 N. W. 320.
Husband and Wife, 25.
EISENMENGER V. BOARD OF WATER COM'RS, 41
Minn. 457, 47 N. W 156.
Municipal Corporations, SS, 89.
EISENMENGER V. MURPHY, 42 Minn. 84, 43 N. W.
784.
Infancy, 25, 34.
EKMAN V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. Rr. Co., 34 Minn. 24,
24 N. W. 2.1.
Negligence, 80.
Cited in Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 34
Minn. 478.
Eldridge V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 32
Minn. 253, 20 N. W. 151.
Appeal and Error, 472.
Carriers, 95.
Cited in Austin v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34
Minn. 353; Cirkel v. Croswell, 36 Minn. 325;
State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 77.
2399
2400
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ELFELT V. SMITH, 1 Minn. 125, (Gil. 101.)
Appeal and Error, 757.
Evidence, 165.
Cited in Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 229, (Gil.
209;) Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
34 Minn. 55.
ELIAS V. FINNEGAN, 37 Minn. 144, 33 N. W. 330.
Negotiable Instruments, 34, 97.
ELLEGARD V. ACKLAND, 43 Minn. 352, 45 N. W. 715.
Master and Servant, 21.
ELLINGBOE v. BRAKKEN, 36 Minn. 156, 30 N. W. 659.
Chattel Mortgages, 41.
Evidence, 218.
Replevin, 16, 32.
Cited in Ormund v. Hobart, 36 Minn. 308; Dav-
enport v. Ladd, 33 Minn. 547; Guthrie v. Olson,
44 Minn. 406; Howe v. Cochran, 47 Minn. 404;
McMillan v. Edfast, 52 N. W. 908.
ELLINGSEN V. COOKE, 37 Minn. 400, 34 N. W. 747.
Pleading, 254.
Cited in Kellogg v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 208.
ELLIOT V. SMALL, 35 Minn. 396, 29 N. W. 158.
Deed, 38.
Words and Phrases, 266, 658.
Applied in Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 401,
402. Cited in Carlson v. Duluth Short Line
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 306.
ELLIOTT V. CALDWELL, 43 Minn. 357, 45 N. W. 845.
Contracts, 117, 125, 178.
Words and Phrases, 717.
Cited in Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 470.
ELLISON V. Fox, 38 Minn. 454, 33 N. W. 358.
Appeal and Error, 201.
Equity, 35.
ELLISON V. TRUESDALE, 51 N. W. 918.
Master and Servant, 51.
ELLSWORTH V. LORD, 40 Minn. 337, 42 N. W. 389.
Highways, 3, 5, 78.
Cited in St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City of
Minneapolis, 44 Minn. 150.
EMERSON V. PETELER, 35 Minn. 481, 29 N. W. 311.
Negligence, S.
Cited in Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39
Minn. 168.
EMMET V. ROTARY MILL CO., 2 Minn. 286, (Gil. 248.)
Mechanics' Liens, 171, 174.
Cited in Lewis v. Williams, 3 Minn. 155, (Gil.
98;) Northwestern Pavement Co. v. Norwe-
gian Seminary, 43 Minn. 453.
EMMONS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 35
Minn. 503, 29 N. W. 202.
Constitutional Law, 182.
Railroad Companies, 53.
Followed in Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 216; Nelson v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 131. Applied in
Smith v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37
Minn. 106; Finch v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 46 Minn. 252. Cited in Emmons v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 133.
EMMONS V. MINNEAPOLIS & St. L. RY. Co., 38
Minn. 215, 36 N. W. 340.
Railroad Companies, 53.
Applied in Nelson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 41 Minn. 132, 133.
EMMONS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Ry. Co., 41
Minn. 133, 42 N. W. 789.
Railroad Companies, 55.
Cited in Minnesota Belt Line Railway & Trans-
fer Co. v. Gluek, 45 Minn. 465; Haynes v. City
of Duluth, 47 Minn. 459.
ENGEL V. BREITKREITZ, 39 Minn. 423, 40 N. W. 519
Master and Servant, 182.
ENGEL V. BUGBEE, 40 Minn. 492, 42 N. W. 351.
Pleading, 102.
Cited in Grace v. Michaud, 52 N. W. 391.
ENGELS V. MITCHELL, 30 Minn. 122, 14 N. W. 510
Landlord and Tenant, 58, 89, 90.
ENGLEBRECHT V. RICKERT, 14 Minn. 140, (Gil. 108.)
Appeal and Error, 390.
Mechanics' Liens, 152.
Cited in Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 462, (Gil.
415.)
ELLSWORTH V. SOUTHERN MINN. RY. EXTENSION ENNIS V BUCKEYE PUB. Co., 44 Minn. 105, 46 N. W.
Co., 31 Minn. 543, 18 N. W 822.
Contracts, 4.
Cited in Stensgaard v. Smith, 43 Minn. 13.
ELMIER V. BRANT, 51 N. W. 284.
Contracts, 171.
ELMQUIST V. MARKOE, 39 Minn. 494, 40 N. W. 825.
Negotiable Instruments, 181.
ELMQUIST V. MARKOE, 45 Minn. 305, 47 N. W. 970.
Negotiable Instruments, 166.
Cited in Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 186.
ELSBARG V. MYRMAN, 41 Minn. 541, 43 N. W 572.
Evidence, 336.
ELSTON V. KELLY, 34 Minn. 409, 26 N. W. 229.
Usury, 2.
ELY V. TITUS, 14 Minn. 125, (Gil. 93.)
Appeal and Error, 289.
Attachment, 22.
Cited in Harlan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 428; Feikert v. Wilson, 38 Minn. 342.
EMERSON V. HENNESSY, 47 Minn. 461, 50 N. W. 603.
Appeal and Error, 529.
314.
Damages, 27, 101.
Cited in Bowe v. Minnesota Milk Co., 44 Minn.
462.
ENTROP V. WILLIAMS, 11 Minn. 381, (Gil. 276.)
Appeal and Error, 127.
Execution, 3.
Words and Phrases, 291, 406.
Cited in Ives v. Phelps, 16 Minn. 453, (Gil. 40S.,
ERD V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 22 Minn. 443.
Appeal and Error, 434.
Municipal Corporations, 172, 181.
Negligence, 32, 74, 75.
ERICKSON V. BENNET, 39 Minn. 326, 40 N. W. 157.
Vendor and Purchaser, 117.
Cited in Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055.
ERICKSON V. ELDER, 34 Minn. 370, 25 N. W. 804.
Appeal and Error, 761.
Words and Phrases, 1.
Distinguished in Reitan v. Goebel, 35 Minn. 385.
ERICKSON V. JOHNSON, 22 Minn. 380.
Execution, 8, 10.
Distinguished in Spencer v. Haug, 15 Mina. 232.
2401
2402
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
:
EVANS V. SMITH, 43 Minn. 59, 44 N. W. 880.
Chattel Mortgages, 24.
ERICKSON V. JONES, 37 Minn. 459, 35 N. W. 267.
Fixtures, 7.
ERICKSON V. PATERSON, 47 Minn. 525, 50 N. W. EVANS V. TOWN OF STANTON, 23 Minn. 368.
699.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 61.
Disapproved in Sparrow v. Pond, 52 N. W. 37.
ERICKSON V. ROEIM, 33 Minn. 53, 21 N. W. 861.
Estoppel, 51.
Bridges, 4.
Towns, 13.
EVANS V. WINONA LUMBER Co., 30 Minn. 515, 16
N. W. 404.
Frauds, Statute of, 47.
ERICKSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 41 Minn. 500, Everard v. Warner, 36 Minn. 383, 31 N. W. 353.
43 N. W. 332.
Railroad Companies, 211, 212.
Cited in Anderson v. Northern Mill Co., 42 Minn.
426; Johnson v. Truesdale, 46 Minn. 347.
ERICKSON V. SCHUSTER, 44 Minn. 441, 46 N. W. 914
Pleading, 272.
ERKENS V. NICOLIN, 39 Minn. 461, 40 N. W. 567.
Payment, 22.
ERPELDING V. LUDWIG, 39 Minn. 518, 40 N. W. 829.
Limitation of Actions, 66.
Escп V. HARDY, 22 Minn. 65.
Negotiable Instruments, 171.
Payment, 15.
ESTELLE V. VILLAGE OF LAKE CRYSTAL, 27 Minn.
243, 6 N. W. 775.
Municipal Corporations, 160, 182.
Applied in McKenzie v. City of Northfield, 30
Minn. 456. Cited in Graham v. City of Albert
Lea, 50 N. W. 1109.
ESTES V. FARNHAM, 11 Minn. 423, (Gil. 312.)
Abatement and Revival, 10.
Contracts, 146, 147.
Evidence, 39, 54.
Judgment, 132.
Pleading, 109, 110.
Cited in Merriam v. Pine City Lumber Co., 23
Minn. 323; Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 238;
Rosby v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 37 Minn.
172; Mosness v. German American Ins. Co., 52
N. W. 934.
EVANS V. CHRISTOPHERSON, 24 Minn. 330.
New Trial, 69.
Followed in Evans v. McColley, 24 Minn. 331.
EVANS V. EVANS, 43 Minn. 31, 44 N. W. 524.
Divorce, 29.
EVANS V. FOLSOM, 5 Minn. 422, (Gil. 342.)
Public Lands, 129.
Specific Performance, 58-60.
Cited in Catlin v. Fletcher, 9 Minn. 88, (Gil.
78;) McKusick v. Commissioners Washington
County, 16 Minn. 156, (Gil. 139.)
EVANS V. GOODRICH, 46 Minn. 388, 49 N. W. 188.
Ferry, 8.
EVANS V. MILLER, 37 Minn. 371, 34 N. W. 596.
Work and Labor, 9.
EVANS V. MILLER, 38 Minn. 245, 36 N. W. 640.
Specific Performance, 56, 106.
EVANS V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 489,
16 N. W. 271.
Appeal and Error, 3S0.
Railroad Companies, 244, 270.
Cited in Holm v. Sandberg, 32 Minn. 429; Ho-
vorka v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 34
Minn. 281.
V.2M.DIG.-76
Orders, 3.
EVEREST v. FERRIS, 16 Minn. 26, (Gil. 14.)
Deed, 97.
Mortgages, 4, 104.
Distinguished in Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn.
201. Cited in Marshall v. Roberts, 18 Minn.
408, (Gil. 367;) Gesner v. Burdell, 18 Minu.
506, (Gil. 454;) Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 143;
Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn. 231.
EVEREST V. FERRIS, 17 Minn. 466, (Gil. 445.).
Appeal and Error, 666.
EVERETT V. BOYINGTON, 29 Minn. 264, 13 N. W. 45.
Appeal and Error, 21.
Ejectment, 42, 43.
Taxation, 162, 227.
Followed in Stewart v. Colter, 31 Minn. 389.
Cited in Hall v. McCormick, 31 Minn. 282.
EVERETT V. CONTINENTAL INS. Co., 21 Minn. 76.
Insurance, 45, 46.
Followed in Holbrook v. St. Paul Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 233. Cited in Austrian
v. Davidson, 21 Minn. 119; Frost's Detroit
Lumber Works v. Millers' Mut. Ins. Co., 37
Minn. 305; De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn.
505; Cannon v. Emmans, 44 Minn. 298.
EVERETT V. SMITH, 22 Minn. 53.
Counties, 10.
Words and Phrases, 454.
EVERGREEN CEMETERY ASS'N V. ARMSTRONG, 37
Minn. 259, 34 N. W. 32.
Specific Performance, 55.
EVERSON V. CITY OF WASECA, 44 Minn. 247, 46 N.
W. 405.
Boundaries, 4.
Estoppel, 68.
EVISON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45
Minn. 370, 48 N. W. 6.
Municipal Corporations, 47.
Railroad Companies, 209.
EWING V. WARNER, 47 Minn. 446, 50 N. W. 603.
Trusts, 12.
EXLEY V. BERRYHILL, 36 Minu. 117, 30 N. W. 436.
Appeal and Error, 138.
Judgment, 52, 53.
Distinguished in Brown v. Brown, 37 Minn. 129.
Cited in Exley v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 183.
EXLEY V. BERRYHILL, 37 Minn. 182, 33 N. W. 567.
Appeal and Error, 631.
Judgment, 26.
Usury, 26, 39, 40.
Words and Phrases, 440.
2403
2404
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
F.
FABER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 29 Minn. 465, | FARGUSSON V. WINSLOW-Continued.
13 N. W. 902.
Railroad Companies, 201, 202, 207.
Trial, 86.
Cited in Mahan v. Union Depot, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 34 Minn. 32; Bolinger v. St. Paul
& D. R. Co., 36 Minn. 420; Studley v. St. Paul
& D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 117.
FAGEBANK V. FAGEBANK, 9 Minn. 72, (Gil. 61.)
Rules of Court, 2.
Cited in Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 93, (Gil. 75.)
FAIR V STICKNEY FARM Co., 35 Minn. 380, 29 N.
W. 49.
Reference, 2.
FAIRBANKS V. WHITNEY, (Fairbanks v. Goodwin,)
36 Minn. 305, 30 N. W. 812.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 49.
Insolvency, 41.
Cited in Re Church & Graves Manuf'g Co., 40
Minn. 42; Thompson v. Winona Harvester
Works, 41 Minu. 437.
FAIRCHILD V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 46 Minn. 540, 49
N. W. 325.
Eminent Domain, 49, 55, 56, 123, 134.
Municipal Corporations, 21, 261, 272.
Newspapers, 4.
FAIRCHILD V. MARSHALL, 42 Minn. 14, 43 N. W. 563.
Descent and Distribution, 6.
Specific Performance, 40.
Applied in Richmond v. Koenig, 43 Minn. 481.
Cited in Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 445.
FAIRCHILD V. ROGERS, 32 Minn. 269, 20 N. W. 191.
Appeal and Error, 169.
Damages, 3.
Cited in Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 537.
FAKE V. ADDICKS, 45 Minn. 37, 47 N. W. 450,
Animals, 1, 2.
FALL V. MOORE, 45 Minn. 515, 48 N. W. 404.
Certiorari, 14.
Landlord and Tenant, 57.
FALL V. MOORE, 45 Minn. 517, 48 N. W. 404.
Certiorari, 14.
Landlord and Tenant, 57.
FALLMAN V. GILMAN, 1 Minn. 179, (Gil. 153.)
Appeal and Error, 17, 656, 750, 753.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 12.
Cited in Bryan v. Farnsworth, 19 Minn. 244,
(Gil. 203;) Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32
Minn. 355.
FALLS CITY, THE, V. KERR, 1 Minn. 390, (Gil. 288.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Cited in The Reveille v. Landreth, 2 Minn. 179,
(Gil. 147;) Irvine v. The Hamburg, 3 Minn.
196, 201, (Gil. 126, 132.)
FANNING, IN RE, 40 Minn. 4, 41 N. W. 1076.
Divorce, 32.
Applied in State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 43.
Applied in State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 27. Dis-
tinguished in Cable v. Foley, 5 Minn. 423.
Cited in Kraemer v. Deustermann, 37 Minn.
473; De Graff v. Ramsey County, 46 Minn. 320;
Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W. 217-219.
FARIBAULT V. HULETT, 10 Minn. 30, (Gil. 15.)
Certiorari, 7.
Waters and Water-Courses, 17, 18.
FARIBAULT V. SATER, 13 Minn. 223, (Gil. 210.)
Deceit, 22, 34.
Evidence, 93, 130.
Cited in Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 478, (Gil.
428;) Redding v. Wright, 51 N. W. 1056.
FARIBAULT WATER-WORKS Co. v. BOARD COUNTY
COM'RS RICE COUNTY, 44 Minn. 12, 46 N. W. 143.
Taxation, 57-59.
Cited in Gutches v. Todd County, 44 Minn. 385.
FARLEY V. KITTSON, 27 Minn. 102, 6 N. W. 450, 7 N.
W. 267.
Appeal and Error, 670.
Contracts, 57.
Followed in Haven v. Place, 23 Minn. 556.
FARMER V. CROSBY, 43 Minn. 459, 45 N. W. 866.
Attorney and Client, 20.
Malicious Prosecution, 46.
Practice in Civil Cases, 18.
FARMERS' BANK v. WINSLOW, 3 Minn. 86, (Gil. 43.)
Mechanics' Liens, 109.
Words and Phrases, 431.
Followed in Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 24, (Gil. 10;)
McCarty v. Van Etten, 4 Minn. 466, (Gil. 361.)
Cited in Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minu. 39, (Gil.
21;) Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 128.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST Co. V. MINNEAPOLIS EX-
GINE & MACHINE WORKS, 35 Minn. 543, 29 N.
W. 349.
Corporations, 166.
Fixtures, 1.
Followed in Merrill v. Ressler, 37 Minn. 83. Ap-
plied in Smith v. Pearson, 44 Minn. 399. Cited
in Watkins v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g.
Co., 41 Minn. 151; Minnesota Thresher Man-
uf'g Co. v. Langdon, 44 Minn. 39; McKusick
v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 50 N. W. 1115.
FARMERS' NAT. BANK V. MORAN, 30 Minn. 165, 14
N. W. 805.
Wills, 53.
Words and Phrases, 775.
Cited in Re Oertle, 34 Minn. 181.
FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. AMERICAN FIRE INS.
Co. See Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Liverpool
L. & G. Ins. Co.
FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. FIRE ASS'N OF PHILA-
DELPHIA. See Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Liv-
erpool L. & G. Ins. Co.
FARGUSSON V. WINSLOW, 31 Minn. 384, 25 N. W. FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. LANCASTER INS. Co.,
9-12.
Money Received, 19.
Payment. 25.
(Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Lancashire Ins.
Co.) See Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Liverpool,
L. & G. Ins. Co.
2405
2406
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
$
FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. LIVERPOOL, L. & G. FARRELL V. FABEL, 47 Minn. 11, 49 N. W. 303.
INS. Co, 40 Minn. 155, 41 N. W. 548.
Appeal and Error, 514.
Witness, 20.
FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. QUEEN INS. Co. See
Farmers' Union El. Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G.
Ins. Co.
FARMERS' UNION EL. Co. v. SYNDICATE INS. Co., 40
Minn. 152, 41 N. W. 547.
Appeal and Error, 514.
Witness, 20.
FARMERS' & MECHANICS' BANK V. BALDWIN, 23
Minn. 198.
Banks and Banking, 19.
Words and Phrases, 73, 93, 217-219.
Followed in First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 21
Minn. 141, 142.
FARMERS' & MECHANICS' BANK V. WELLES, 23 Minn.
475.
Garnishment, 5, 6, 51.
FARNHAM V. Jones, 32 Minn. 7, 19 N. W. 83.
New Trial, 47.
Taxation, 171, 217.
Followed in Sanborn v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 30;
Brown v. Setzer, 39 Minn. 317, 318. Cited in
Nelson v. Central Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 410; Mul-
vey v. Tozer, 40 Minn. 385; Vanderlinde v. Can-
field, 40 Minn. 543; Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
FARNHAM V. KENNEDY, (Farnham v. Trussell,) 28
Minn. 365, 10 N. W. 20.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 20.
FARNHAM V. MURCH, 36 Minn. 328, 31 N. W. 453.
Payment, 17.
FARNHAM V. THOMPSON, 32 Minn. 22, 18 N. W. 833.
Evidence, 366, 367.
New Trial, 16, 17.
Cited in Holm v. Sandberg, 32 Minn. 429.
FARNHAM V. THOMPSON, 34 Minn. 330, 26 N. W. 9.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 10.
Deed, 93.
Descent and Distribution, 12.
New Trial, 8.
Powers, 15.
Words and Phrases, 574.
Applied in Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 239.
Cited in Dobberstein v. Murphy, 44 Minu. 529;
Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, 51 N. W.
906.
FARNHAM V. TRUSSELL, (Farnham v. Kennedy,) 28
Minn. 365, 10 N. W. 20.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 20.
Principal and Surety, 24.
FARRELL V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., 38 Minn
394, 38 N. W. 100.
Practice in Civil Cases, 15.
FARRIER V. STATE AGRICULTURAL Soc., 36 Minn.
478, 32 N. W. 554.
Contracts, 74.
FARRINGTON v. WRIGHT, 1 Minn. 241, (Gil. 191.)
Attorney and Client, 7.
Pleading, 12, 164, 230.
Words and Phrases, 107.
Cited in Castner v. Austin, 2 Minn. 49, (Gil. 36.)
FARWELL V. BALE, 51 N. W. 621.
Mortgages, 333.
FARWELL V. ST. PAUL TRUST Co., 45 Minn. 495, 48
N. W. 326.
Negotiable Instruments, 145, 147.
Partnership, 45.
FASLER V. BEARD, 39 Minn. 32, 38 N. W. 755.
Damages, 12.
FAVORITE, THE. See Reynolds v. The Favorite.
FAY v. DAVIDSON, 13 Minn. 298, (Gil. 275.)
Appeal and Error, 66, 403.
Cited in Stevens v. McMillin, 37 Minn. 512.
FAY V. DAVIDSON, 13 Minn. 523, (Gil. 491.)
Appeal and Error, 639.
Carriers, 113.
Evidence, 26.
Master and Servant, 25-27.
Negligence, 17, 19.
Followed in Connolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 529,
(Gil. 435.) Cited in Warner v. Myrick, 16
Minn. 94, (Gil. 85;) Wilson v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., 26 Minn. 280; Wass v. Atwater, 33
Minn. 86.
FAY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
231, 15 N. W. 241.
Master and Servant, 56, 72, 133.
Followed in Macy v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 35
Minn. 200, 201. Distinguished in Fraker v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 59. Cited in
Brown v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 555; Moon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 46
Minn. 109.
FEIKERT V. WILSON, 38 Minn. 341, 37 N. W. 585.
Judgment, 256.
Summons, 40.
Cited in Cousins v. Alworth, 44 Minn. 507.
Farnsworth v. ROBBINS, 36 Minn. 369, 31 N. W. FELBER V. SOUTHERN MINNESOTA RY. Co.,
FARNSWORTH
349.
Building and Loan Associations, 3.
Corporations, 141, 142.
FARR V. DUNSMOOR, 36 Minn. 437, 31 N. W. 853.
Homestead, S2.
FARRAND V. HURLBURT, 7 Minn. 477, (Gil. 383.)
Principal and Agent, 68.
Cited in Cock v. Van Etten, 12 Minn. 526, (Gil.
434.)
FARRANT V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 13
Minn. 311, (Gil. 286.)
Eminent Domain, 263.
Pleading, 22.
Cited in Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn.
311, (Gil. 287.)
Minn. 156, 9 N. W. 635.
Appeal and Error, 65.
Cited in Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158.
FELLER V. CLARK, 36 Minn. 338, 31 N. W. 175.
Taxation, 147, 266.
28
Cited in Kipp v. Fernhold, 37 Minn. 134; Knight
v. Alexander, 38 Minn. 388; Smith v. Kipp, 51.
N. W. 657.
FELTON V. BISSEL, 25 Minn. 15.
Mortgages, 166.
Subrogation, 1, 3, 4.
Cited in Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 521.
FELTUS V. BALCH, (Felters v. Balch,) 27 Minn. 357,
7 N. W. 688.
Appeal and Error, 465.
2107
2408
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
!
FENHOLT V. FREEBORN COUNTY, 29 Minn. 158, 12 | FETZ V. CLARK, 7 Minn. 217, (Gil. 159.)
N. W. 458.
Poor and Poor Laws, 2.
FENNO V. CHAPIN, 27 Minn. 519, 8 N. W. 762.
Evidence, 357.
New Trial, 71.
Cited in State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 79.
FERGESTAD v. GJERTSEN, 46 Minn. 369, 49 N. W.
127.
Mechanics' Liens, 153.
FERGUSON V. GLASPIE, 38 Minn. 418, 38 N. W. 352.
Factors and Brokers, 61.
FERGUSON V. HOGAN, 25 Minn. 135.
Chattel Mortgages, 101, 109.
Replevin, 59, 60.
Words and Phrases, 270.
Applied in Reisan v. Mott, 42 Minn. 52. Cited
in Keyes v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 294; Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 103;
Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 430; Loudy v.
v. Clarke, 45 Minn. 479.
FERGUSON V. KUMLER, 11 Minn. 104, (Gil, 62.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 11.
Judgment, 187.
Public Lands, 133.
Cited in Vose v. Stickney, 19 Minn. 369, (Gil.
314.)
FERGUSON V. KUMLER, 25 Minn. 183.
Homestead, 30, 31, 60, 61.
Judgment, 87, 91.
New Trial, 94.
Words and Phrases, 11.
Followed in Ferguson v. Kumler, 27 Minn. 158;
Kipp v. Bullard, 30 Minn. 85. Applied in
Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 131. Distin-
guished in Somerville v. Donaldson, 26 Minn.
76; Hunter v. Cleveland Co-operative Stove
Co., 31 Minn. 510. Cited in Wilson v. Proctor,
25 Minn. 16; Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 275;
Petsch v. Biggs, 31 Minn. 395; Knight v. Val-
entine, 35 Minn. 368; Jelinek v. Stepan, 41
Minn. 413.
FERGUSON V. KUMLER, 27 Minn. 156, 6 N. W. 618.
Homestead, 31, 81.
Words and Phrases, 347.
Followed in Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 548;
Kipp v. Bullard, 30 Minn. S5; Mohan v. Smith,
30 Minn. 259.
FERN V. LEUTHOLD, 39 Minn. 212, 39 N. W. 399.
Executors and Administrators, 53.
Cited in Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 168; Hill v.
Nichols, 47 Minn. 383.
FERRIS V. BOXELL, 34 Minn. 262, 25 N. W. 592.
Evidence, 253.
Payment, 19.
Cited in Heartz v. Klinkhammer, 39 Minn. 490;
McMillan v. Edfast, 52 N. W. 908.
FERRISS V. SCHREINER, 43 Minn. 148, 44 N. W. 10S3.
Livery Stable Keepers, 2.
FERSON V. WILCOX, 19 Minn. 449, (Gil. 388.)
Appeal and Error, 369, 370.
Evidence, 85.
Cited in Carroll v. Williston, 44 Minn. 288.
FETSCHI V. MANDEHR, 36 Minn. 295, 31 N. W. 49.
Witness. 46.
Judgment, 66.
Partnership, 96, 97.
Followed in Fetz v. Clark, 8 Minn. 86, (Gil. 61;)
Fogle v. Schaeffer, 23 Minn. 305. Disapproved
in Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 59. Distinguished
in Town v. Washburn, 14 Minn. 272, (Gil. 202.)
Cited in Whitney v. Reese, 11 Minn. 145, (Gil.
88;) Beatty v. Ambs, 11 Minn. 336, (Gil. 237.)
FETZ V. CLARK, 8 Minn. 86, (Gil. 61.)
Judgment, 66.
Partnership, 97.
FIFE V. BLAKE, 38 Minn. 426, 38 N. W. 202.
Contracts, 23.
FILEBECK V. BEAN, 45 Minn. 307, 47 N. W. 969.
Chattel Mortgages, 36.
FILLEY V. REGISTER, 4 Minn. 391, (Gil. 296.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 5, 103, 116.
Cited in Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 424, (Gil
382.)
FINCH V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn
250, 48 N. W. 915.
Evidence, 162.
Railroad Companies, 56, 57.
Trial, 17.
FINCHI V. GREEN, 16 Minn. 355, (Gil. 315.)
Evidence, 106.
New Trial, 30, 32, 77.
Nuisance, 13, 14, 26.
Trial, 164.
Waters and Water-Courses, 9.
Applied in Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 517. Cited in Jaspers v. Lano, 17
Minn. 301, (Gil. 278;) Brown v. Lawler; 21 Minn.
328; Peterson v. Faust, 30 Minn. 23; State v.
Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 217.
FINCH V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 47 Minn. 36, 49
N. W. 329.
Carriers, 329.
Followed in McLean v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 936.
FINLAYSON V. CROOKS, 47 Minn. 74, 79, 49 N. W.
398, 645.
Mechanics' Liens, 112, 115, 144.
Mortgages, 38.
Explained in Glass v. Freeberg, 52 N. W. 901.
Cited in Miller v. Stoddard, 52 N. W. S97.
FINLEY V. QUIRK, 9 Minn. 194, (Gil. 179.)
Appeal and Error, 232, 559.
Contracts, 160.
Evidence, 362, 378.
Pleading, 247.
Sale, 103.
Sunday, 2.
Words and Phrases, 484.
Explained in Johnson v. Oswald, 38 Minn. 552.
Cited in Nash v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minu.
178, (Gil. 113;) Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 76;
Cochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 61; Livingston v.
Ives, 35 Minn. 58.
FINNEGAN V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 51
N. W. 122.
Carriers, 83.
FINNEY V. CALLENDAR, 8 Minn. 41, (Gil. 23.)
Evidence, 18.
Sunday, 1.
Cited in Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 199, (Gil. 185;)
Webb v. Kennedy, 20) Minn. 420, (Gil. 376 )
2409
2410
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co. v. CITY OF ST. FIRST NAT. BANK V. KIDD-Continued.
PAUL, 21 Minn. 526.
Municipal Corporations, 262.
Words and Phrases, 50, 51.
Distinguished in Matthews v. Torinus, 22 Minn.
136. Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Loyhed, 28
Minn. 398.
Cited in City of St. Paul v. St. Paul & S. C. R. FIRST NAT. BAnk v. La Due, 39 Minn. 415, 40 N.
Co., 23 Minn. 473.
FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co. v. PARCHER, 14
Minn. 297, (Gil. 224.)
Constitutional Law, 63.
Railroad Companies, 99, 103, 153.
Followed in Nobles County v. Hamline Univer-
sity, 46 Minn. 317. Applied in State v. North-
ern Pac. R. Co., 32 Minn. 295. Cited in State
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 317; Min-
nesota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Melvin, 21 Minn. 339;
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 80; Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co. v. Pfaender, 23 Minn. 224; City
of St. Paul v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn.
475; Welsh v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 25 Minn. 321; Nobles County v. Sioux City
& St. P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 296; Chauncey v.
Wass, 35 Minn. 17; Baker v. Northwestern
Guaranty Loan Co., 36 Minn. 187; Stevens
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn.
470-472; Bradley v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 38
Minn. 235.
FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co. v. RICE, 25
Minn. 278.
Action, 25.
Pleading, 57, 138.
Cited in Canty v. Latterner, 31 Minn. 241.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. AMES, 39 Minn. 179, 39 N. W.
30S.
Summons, 24.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON, 24 Minn. 435.
Chattel Mortgages, 30, 32.
Distinguished in Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47
Minn. 510. Cited in Mann v. Flower, 25 Minn.
507; Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 509.
W. 367.
Banks and Banking, 36.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. LINCOLN, 36 Minn. 132, 30 N.
W. 449.
Conversion of Personal Property, 30.
Cited in First Nat. Bank of Glencoe v. Lincoln,
39 Minn. 474, 475.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. LINCOLN, 33 Minn. 473, 40 N.
W. 573.
New Trial, SO.
W. 421.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. LOYMED, 28 Minn. 396, 10 N.
Corporations, 79.
Negotiable Instruments, 58, 95.
Principal and Agent, 39.
Followed in National Bank v. Mallan, 37 Minn.
405. Cited in Tarbox v. Gorman, 31 Minn. 63;
Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn. 102.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. NATHAN, (First Nat. Bank v.
How,) 23 Minn. 150, 9 N. W. 626.
Executors and Administrators, 21.
Pleading, 143, 147.
Words and Phrases, 170.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. NATIONAL MARINE BANK, 20.
Minn. 63, (Gil. 49.)
Evidence, 332.
Negotiable Instruments, 80.
Applied in Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 35. Cit-
ed in Barnard v. Gaslin, 23 Minn. 196; Coon v.
Pruden, 25 Minn. 105; Knoblauch v. Fogle-
song, 38 Minn. 353; Farwell v. St. Paul Trust
Co., 45 Minn. 497, 498.
FIRST NAT. BANK v. BENTLEY, 27 Minn. 87, 6 N. W. FIRST NAT. BANK V. PARSONS, 19 Minn. 289, (Gil
422.
Usury, 30.
246.)
Appeal and Error, 255.
Negotiable Instruments, 67.
FIRST NAT. Bank v. Briggs, 34 Minn. 266, 26 N. FIRST NAT. BANK V. PIERSON, 24 Minn. 140.
W. 6.
Appeal and Error, 140.
Insolvency, 6.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. COMMISSIONERS OF SCOTT
COUNTY, 14 Minn. 77, (Gil. 59.)
Negotiable Instruments, 101, 103.
Cited in Stein v. Rheinstrom, 47 Minn. 479.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. GUSTIN MINERVA CON. MIN.
Co., 42 Minn. 327, 44 N. W. 198.
Corporations, 146, 147, 177.
Banks and Banking, 34.
Words and Phrases, 483.
Overruled in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hanson,
33 Minn. 41.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. RANDALL, 38 Minn. 382, 37 N.
W. 799.
Appeal and Error, 520.
Attachment, 86, 88.
Cited in Olmstead v. Olmstead, 41 Minn. 297; Lee
v. Macfee, 45 Minn. 34.
Cited in Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf'g & Car FIRST NAT. BANK v. ROGERS, 12 Minn. 529, (Gil.
Co., 50 N. W. 1121.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. How, (First Nat. Bank V.
Nathan.) 28 Minn. 150, 9 Ñ. W. 626.
Executors and Administrators, 21.
Pleading, 143, 147.
Words and Phrases, 170.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. JAGGER, 41 Minn. 308, 43 N.
W. 70.
Contracts, 67.
437.)
Appearance, 1.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. ROGERS, 13 Minn. 407, (Gil. 376.)
Appeal and Error, 763, 771.
Execution, 137.
Pleading, 2.
Cited in Robertson v. Davidson, 14 Minn. 557,
(Gil. 427;) First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 15 Minn.
356, (Gil. 309.)
FIRST NAT. BANK V. KIDD, 20 Minn. 234, (Gil. 212.) | FIRST NAT. BANK V. ROGERS, 15 Minn. 381, (Gil. 305.)
Banks and Banking, 30-32.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 6.
Evidence. 208, 224, 325.
Appeal and Error, 765, 766, 769.
Execution, 111, 136, 138.
Cited in Willis v. Jelineck, 27 Minn. 22.
2411
2412
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
FIRST NAT. BAYK V. ROGERS, 22 Minn. 224.
Execution, 85, 142.
Judgment, 156.
Judicial Sales, 1.
{
FIRST NAT. BANK V. ST. CROIX BOOM CORP., 41 Minn.
141, 42 N. W. 861.
Conversion of Personal Property, 23–25.
FIRST NAT. BANK V. SHEPARD, 22 Minn. 196.
Counties, 48.
FISH V. BERKEY, 10 Minn. 199, (Gil. 161.)
Action, 24.
Parties. 7.
Cited in Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 116, (Gil. 87)
Graham v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 438.
FISH V. HEINLIN, 8 Minn. 540, (Gil. 483.)
Contracts, 168.
Affirming Heinlin v. Fish, 8 Minn. 70, (Gil. 48.)
Followed in Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn.
342, (Gil. 274.)
FISH v. MCDONNELL, 42 Minn. 519, 44 N. W. 535.
Fraudulent Conveyancès, 13.
FLAHERTY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. Co., (Fla-
herty v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,) 39 Minn. 328,
40 N. W. 160.
Carriers, 89.
Railroad Companies, 165.
FLANIGAN V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 36 Minn. 406,
31 N. W. 359.
Bail, 13.
Duress, 4.
FLANIGAN V. DUNCAN, 47 Minn. 250, 49 N. W. 981.
Appeal and Error, 523.
FLANIGAN V. PHELPS, 42 Minn. 186, 43 N. W. 1113.
Alteration of Instruments, 5, 6.
FLANIGAN V. SABLE, 44 Minn. 417, 46 N. W. 854.
Mortgages, 130.
Cited in Marston v. Williams, 45 Minn. 120.
FLARSHEIM V. Brestrup, 43 Minn. 298, 45 N. W.
438.
Partnership, 39.
Payment, 43.
FLATNER V. Good, 35 Minn. 395, 29 N. W. 56.
Replevin, 10.
FISH V. TONER, (Fisk v. Toner,) 40 Minn. 211, 41 N. FLATT v. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 33 Minn. 98, 22 N.
W. 972.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 24.
FISHBACK V. G. W. VAN DUSEN & Co., 33 Minn. 111,
22 N. W. 214.
Sale, 25, 26.
Warehousemen, 13, 14.
Words and Phrases, 803.
Modified in National Exchange Bank v. Wilder,
34 Minn. 157, 158. Cited in Pond Machine Tool
Co. v. Robinson, 38 Minn. 277; Eggers v. Na-
tional Bank of Commerce, 40 Minn. 183; Man-
chester Locomotive Works v. Truesdale, 44
Minn. 117.
FISK V. STEWART, 24 Minn. 97.
Limitation of Actions, 71.
Mortgages, 1.
Applied in Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 271. Cited
in Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn. 227: Buse v.
Page, 32 Minn. 115; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34
Minn. 121; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 24;
Marshall v. Thompson, 39 Minn. 142; King v.
McCarthy, 52 N. W. 649.
FISK V. STEWART, 26 Minn. 365, 4 N. W. 611.
Mortgages, 452.
Cited in Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 61; Rogers
v. Benton, 39 Minn. 45.
FISK V. TONER, (Fish v. Toner,) 40 Minn. 211, 41 N.
W. 972.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 24.
W. 440.
Custom and Usage, 4.
Damages, 93.
Principal and Agent, 31.
Sale, 75.
:
Cited in Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 34 Minn.
456; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter, 37
Minn. 333.
FLEMING v. ALDEN, 44 Minn. 493, 47 N. W. 157.
Appeal and Error, 507.
FLEMING v. ROVERUD, 30 Minn. 273, 15 N. W. 119.
Taxation, 284.
Cited in State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 352, 353; Mer-
rill v. Dearing, 33 Minn. 480; Coles v. Wash-
ington County, 35 Minn. 123; Corbin v. Mor-
row, 46 Minn. 524.
FLEMING V. ST. PAUL CITY Rr. Co., 47 Minn. 124,
49 N. W. 661.
Mechanics' Liens, 66, 80.
FLEMING V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 111,
6 N. W. 448.
Master and Servant, 151.
Followed in Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 423. Applied in Clark v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 131. Cited in
Gates v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 28 Minn.
112; Smith v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42
Minn. 89; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47
Minn. 364; Bengston v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 487.
FITZ V. MINNESOTA CENT. R. Co., 11 Minn. 414, FLETCHER V. NEUDECK, 30 Minn. 125, 14 N. W. 513.
(Gil. 304.)
Corporations, 15.
FITZGERALD V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
336, 13 N. W. 168.
Negligence, 73.
Railroad Companies, 157.
Trial, 53.
Applied in O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 294. Cited in Halverson v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 88.
FIXEN V. BLAKE, 47 Minn. 540, 50 N. W. 612.
Deceit, 46.
Chattel Mortgages, 55.
Cited in Cushing v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 30
Minn. 304; Kellogg v. Olson, 34 Minn. 105;
Dyckman v. Sevatson, 33 Minn. 134; Close v.
Hodges, 44 Minn. 206.
FLETCHER V. SPAULDING, 9 Minn. 64, (Gil. 54.)
Conflict of Laws, 9.
Cited in Hoyt v. McNeil, 13 Minn. 392, (Gil. 363;)
Bigelow v. Ames, 18 Minn. 528, (Gil. 473;)
Smith v. Glover, 44 Minn. 265.
FLIBOTTE V. MULLEN, 33 Minn. 144, 30 N. W. 448.
Appeal and Error, 176.
2413
2114
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
FLINT V. WEBB, 25 Minn. 93.
Municipal Corporations, 278, 279.
Taxation, 239, 240, 255.
FLINT V. WEBB, 25 Minn. 233.
Execution, 143-147, 155.
Cited in Towne v. Campbell, 35 Minn. 233; Sher-
burne v. Rippe, 35 Minn. 542; Spooner v. Bay
St. Louis Syndicate, 44 Minn. 404.
FLOWER V. CORNISH, 25 Minn. 473.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 69.
Cited in Mann v. Flower, 25 Minn. 507.
FLOWER V. DAVIDSON, 44 Minn. 46, 46 N. W. 308.
Factors and Brokers, 43.
FLOWER V. GRACE, 23 Minn. 32.
New Trial, 79.
FLYNN V. LEMIEUX, 46 Minn. 458, 49 N. W. 238.
Constitutional Law, 122.
Applied in Craig v. Dunn, 47 Minn. 59-61.
FLYNN V. MESSENGER, 28 Minn. 208, 9 N. W. 759.
Husband and Wife, 5, 6.
Cited in Wagner v. Nagel, 33 Minn. 351; Chester
v. Pierce, 33 Minn. 370; Bergh v. Warner, 47
Minn. 253; Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer,
51 N. W. 380.
F. M. SLAGLE & Co. v. GOODNOW, 45 Minn. 531, 48
N. W. 402.
Sale, 123, 129.
FOERSTER V. KIRKPATRICK, 2 Minn. 210, (Gil. 171.)
Partnership, 95.
Sale, 156.
Overruled in Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205,
206. Explained in Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn.
57, (Gil. 52.) Cited in Holgate v. Broome, 8
Minn. 247, (Gil. 213.)
FOGARTY V. WILSON, 30 Minn. 289, 15 N. W. 175.
Negotiable Instruments, 153.
FOLSOM V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS-Continued.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 228.
Cited in Goetz v. School Dist. No. 59, 31 Minn.
164; Glass v. St. Paul, P. C. & S. Co., 43 Minn.
230.
FOLSOM V. CARLI, 5 Minn. 333, (Gil. 264.)
Execution, 39, 105, 109.
Homestead, 63.
Negotiable Instruments, 88.
Pleading, 288.
Followed in Tillotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. 519,
(Gil. 424;) Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 156, (Gil.
125;) Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 89, (Gil. 53,
54;) Burwell v. Tullis, 12 Minn. 575, (Gil. 495;)
Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 496. Distinguished
in Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 304. Cited in
Felton v. Bissel, 25 Minn. 19; Hossfeldt v.
Dill, 28 Minn. 473; Quehl v. Peterson, 47
Minn. 16.
FOLSOM V. CARLI, 6 Minn. 420, (Gil. 284.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 19.
Cited in Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 509, (Gil.
420;) Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177.
FOLSOM V. CHISAGO COUNTY, (Folsom v. Board of
County Com'rs,) 28 Minn. 324, 9 N. W. SS1.
Counties, 83-85.
Words and Phrases, 244, 245.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 228.
Cited in Goetz v. School Dist. No. 59, 31 Minn.
164; Glass v. St. Paul, P. C. & S. Co., 43 Minn.
23J.
FOLSOM V. EVANS, 5 Minn. 418, (Gil. 338.)
Appeal and Error, 7.
FOLSOM v. Lockwood, 6 Minn. 186, (Gil. 119.)
Mortgages, 41, 42.
Cited in Lash v. McCormick, 17 Minn. 407, (Gil.
385;) Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 41.
FONTAINE V. Bush, 40 Minn. 141, 41 N. W. 465.
Frauds, Statute of, 45, 66.
FOGERTY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30 FOOTE V. BRANCH, 42 Minn. 62, 43 N. W. 782,
Minn. 185, 14 N. W. S78.
Appeal and Error, 489.
FOGLE V. SCHAEFFER, 23 Minn. 304.
Executors and Administrators, 141, 142.
FOLDS V. ALLARDT, 35 Minn. 4S8, 29 N. W. 201.
Infancy, 9.
FOLLANSBEE V. JOHNSON, (Follansbe v. Menage,)
28 Minn. 311, 9 N. W. 882.
Contracts, 63.
Evidence, 345.
Mortgages, 123.
Followed in Stariha v. Greenwood, 28 Minn. 522;
Walter v. Greenwood, 29 Minn. 90. Distin-
guished in Brown v. Stillman, 43 Minn. 129.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 280.
FOLLMAN V. CITY OF MANKATO, 35 Minn. 522, 29 N.
W. 317.
Negligence, 72.
Cited in Flaherty v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 39 Minu. 329.
FOLLMANN V. CITY OF MANKATO, 45 Minn. 457, 48 N.
W. 192.
Surface Water, 7.
FOLSOM V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, (Folsom v.
Chisago County,) 28 Minn. 324, 9 N. W. 881.
Counties, 83-85.
Words and Phrases, 244, 245.
Judgment, 40.
FORBES V. BUSHNELL, 47 Minn. 402, 50 N. W. 368.
Factors and Brokers, 24.
FORBUSH V. LEONARD, 8 Minn. 303, (Gil. 267.)
Attorney and Client, 31-33.
Words and Phrases, 158.
Distinguished in Crowley v. Le Duc, 21 Minn.
412, 414, 415.
FORD V. BROWNELL, 13 Minn. 184, (Gil. 174.)
Payment, 34.
FORD V. WRIGHT, 13 Minn. 518, (Gil. 480.)
Elections and Voters, 41, 46, 49.
Cited in State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g
Co., 40 Minu. 217.
FOREMAN V. BARRIE, 24 Minn. 349.
Sale, 50.
FOREPAUGH v. HOFFMAN, 23 Minn. 295.
Executors and Administrators, 17.
FOREPAUGH V. PRYOR, 30 Minn. 35, 14 N. W. 61.
Chattel Mortgages, 103.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 12.
FORREST V. HENRY, 33 Minn. 434, 23 N. W. S48.
Taxation, 204.
Words and Phrases, 539, 556.
Distinguished in Knight v. Valentine, 34 Minn.
25.
2415
2416
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
•
Foss v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 33 Minn., FOWLER V. ATKINSON, 6 Minn. 578, (Gil. 412.)
392, 23 N. W. 553.
Railroad Companies, 223.
FOSTER V. BAILEY, 1 Minn. 436, (Gil. 310.)
Public Lands, 33.
FOSTER V. BERKEY, 8 Minn. 351, (Gil. 310.)
Appeal and Error, 367, 373, 456.
Chattel Mortgages, 22, 67.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 29.
Negotiable Instruments, 53.
Replevin, 58.
Trial, 11.
Witness, 18.
Applied in Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Minn.
88. Cited in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Han-
son, 33 Minn. 43.
FOSTER V. COMMISSIONERS OF BLUE EARTH COUN-
TY, 7 Minn. 140, (Gil. 84.)
Taxation, 17, 79.
Cited in Commissioners of Dakota County v.
Parker, 7 Minn. 273, (Gil. 209.)
FOSTER V. DEARBORN. See In re Hess' Will.
Appeal and Error, 61, 191, 213.
Negotiable Instruments, 4.
Principal and Agent, 85.
Schools and School Districts, 30.
FOWLER V. JOHNSON, 26 Minn. 338, 3 N. W. 986, 6
N. W. 486.
Mortgages, 323.
Words and Phrases, 232.
Followed in Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175;
Martin v. Sprague, 29 Minn. 58. Cited in
Brown v. Crookston Agricultural Ass'n, 34
Minn. 546; Cleveland v. Booth, 43 Minn. 16.
FoWLER V. MICKLEY, 39 Minn. 25, 38 N. W. 634.
Execution, 11.
FOWLER V. WOODWARD, 26 Minn. 347, 4 N. W. 231.
Mortgages, 39, 163.
FOX v. BURKE, 29 Minn. 171, 12 N. W. 459.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Followed in Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294; Cros-
by v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn. 414. Cited in
Fox v. Burke, 31 Minn. 321.
FOSTER V. JOHNSON, (Foster v. Trowbridge,) 39 | Fox v. BURKE, 31 Minn. 319, 17 N. W. S61.
Minn. 378, 40 N. W. 255.
Mortgages, 30π, 340.
Cited in Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212.
FOSTER V. JOHNSON, (Foster v. Trowbridge,)
Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350.
Limitation of Actions, 57, 58.
Mortgages, 338.
Cited in Buettel v. Harmount, 46 Minn. 483.
44
FOSTER V. MINNESOTA CENT. RY. Co., 14 Minn. 360,
(Gil. 277.)
Master and Servant, 85, 97.
Followed in Brown v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
27 Minn. 163. Distinguished in Drymala v.
Thompson, 26 Minn. 41. Cited in Collins v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 33; Connelly
v. Minneapolis Eastern Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 82;
Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 237.
FOSTER V. MOULTON, (Foster v. Pray,) 35 Minn.
458, 29 N. W. 155.
Corporations, 29.
Applied in State v. Critchett, 37 Minn. 14. Cited
in State v. Steele, 37 Minn. 429; Scheufler v.
Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 45 Minn. 258; Min-
nesota Gas-Light Economizer Co. v. Denslow,
46 Minn. 174.
FOSTER V. TROWBRIDGE, (Foster v. Johnson,) 39
Minn. 378, 40 N. W. 255.
Mortgages, 30, 310.
Cited in Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212.
FOSTER V. TROWBRIDGE, (Foster v. Johnson,) 44
Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350.
Limitation of Actions, 57, 58.
Mortgages, 338.
Cited in Buettel v. Harmount, 46 Minn. 483.
FOWLER V. ATKINSON, 5 Minn. 505, (Gil. 399.)
Appeal and Error, 78, 443.
Modified in Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 579,
(Gil. 413.) Cited in Fowler v. Atkinson, 6
Minn. 507, (Gil. 353;) Caldwell v. Bruggerman,
8 Minn. 294, (Gil. 258;) White v. Culver, 10
Minn. 198, (Gil. 159;) City of Winona v. Min-
nesota Ry. Const. Co., 29 Minn. 72.
FOWLER V. ATKINSON, 6 Minn. 503, (Gil. 350.)
Action, 47, 48.
Evidence, 400.
FOX v. CITY OF WINONA, 23 Minn. 10.
Municipal Corporations, 135.
Words and Phrases, 255, 36).
FOX V. ELLISON, 43 Minn. 41, 44 N. W. 671.
Courts, 23.
FOX V. STEVENS, 13 Minn. 272, (Gil. 252.)
Damages, 14.
Seduction, 1–3, 5.
Followed in Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 468.
Cited in McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 91;
Boetcher v. Staples, 27 Minn. 308; Russell v.
Chambers, 31 Minn. 56.
FRAKER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 103,
14 N. W. 366.
Pleading, 192.
Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 455; Orth v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 210.
FRAKER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 54,
19 N. W. 349.
Master and Servant, 87, 98, 99, 134.
Affirmed in Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 379. Applied in Lindvall v. Woods,
41 Minn. 216. Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 306; Tierney v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 317; Kel-
ley v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 490, 492; Connelly v. Minneapolis East-
ern Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 83; Olson v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 118, 120; Corneilson v.
Eastern Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 225.
FRANCIS V. BAKER, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N. W. 452.
Factors and Brokers, 25.
FRANCIS V. BOND, 1 Minn. 425, (Gil. 309.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
FRANK V. IRGINS, (Frunk v. Irgens,) 27 Minn. 43,
6 N. W. 380.
Contracts, 30.
Negotiable Instruments, 180.
Words and Phrases, 787.
Cited in Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 495.
FRANKLIN V. Stoddart, 34 Minn. 247, 25 N. W. 400.
Gaming, 3.
2417
2418
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
FRANKLIN V. WARDEN, 9 Minn. 124, (Gil. 114.)
Attorney and Client, 10.
Equity, 11.
Execution, 69.
FRANKLIN V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 37 Minn.
409, 34 N. W. 898.
Master and Servant, 46, 101.
Cited in McLaren v. Williston, 51 N. W. 375.
FRANKOVIZ V. SMITH, (Frankoviz v. Ireland,) 34
Minu. 403, 26 N. W. 225.
Mechanics' Liens, 102, 149.
Cited in Frankoviz v. Smith, 35 Minn. 280;
Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 510; Linne v.
Stout, 41 Minn. 484; Tell v. Woodruff, 45 Minn.
12; Spencer v. Haug, 45 Minn. 233.
FRANKOVIZ V. SMITH, (Frankoviz v. Ireland,) 35
Minn. 278, 28 N. W. 50s.
Judgment, 44.
Pleading, 163.
Limited in Lord v. Hawkins. 39 Minn. 75. Cited
in People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 52 N. W. 219.
Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co., 42 Minn. 520,
44 N. W. 878.
Master and Servant, 37.
Distinguished in Jennings v. Iron Bay Co., 47
Minn. 114.
FRASER V. RED RIVER LUMBER Co., 45 Minn. 235,
47 N. W. 785.
Master and Servant, 80.
Affirmed in Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 379. Cited in Marsh v. Herman, 47
Minn. 539; Corneilson v. Eastern Ry. Co., 52 N.
W. 225.
FRASIER V. WILLIAMS, 15 Minn. 288, (Gil. 219.)
Appeal and Error, 478.
Negotiable Instruments, 174.
Pleading, 67, 78.
Summons, 54.
Overruled in Crosby v. Farmer, 39 Minn. 306,
307; Doubted in Jensen v. Crevier, 33 Minn.
372. Cited in Hutchins v. Commissioners Car-
ver County, 16 Minn, 19, (Gil. 7;) Downer v.
Read, 17 Minn. 495, (Gil. 471.) Compare Nun-
nemacker v. Johnson, 38 Minn. 392.
FRAVELL V. NETT. 46 Minn. 31, 48 N. W. 446.
Money Lent, 4.
Work and Labor, 16.
FREEMAN V. CARSON, (Freeman v. Getchell,) 27
Minn. 516, 8 N. W. 761.
Mechanics' Liens, 116.
FREEMAN V. CURRAN, 1 Minn. 169, (Gil. 144.)
Negotiable Instruments, 122, 190.
Pleading, 186.
Distinguished in Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn.
223, (Gil. 185.) Cited in Hedderly v. Downs,
31 Minn. 185; St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Cannon, 46
Minn. 99.
FREEMAN V. ETTER, 21 Minn. 2.
Conversion of Personal Property, 2, 4.
Cited in Tousley v. Board of Education, 39 Minn.
419.
FREEMAN V. ETTER, 21 Minn. 3.
Money Paid, 2.
FREEMAN V. FREEMAN, 39 Minn. 370, 40 N. W. 167.
Divorce, 16.
FREEMAN V. GETCHELL, (Freeman v. Carson,) 27
Minn. 516, 8 N. W. 764.
Mechanics' Liens, 116.
FREEMAN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 28
Minn. 443, 10 N. W. 594.
Railroad Companies, 91, 92, 158.
Distinguished in Crolley v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 544. Cited in Pence v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 491; State
v. District Court of Ramsey County, 31 Minn.
359.
FREEMAN V. RHODES, 36 Minn. 297, 30 N. W. 891.
Appeal and Error, 199.
FRENCH V. DONOHUE, (Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v.
Donahue,) 29 Minn. 111, 12 N. W. 354.
Corporations, 82.
Partnership, 87.
Pleading, 285.
Cited in Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30
Minn. 310; Jewell v. Grand Lodge A. O. U.
W., 41 Minn. 406; Minnesota Gas-Light Econ-
omizer Co. v. Denslow, 46 Minn. 173; Colum-
bia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 465.
FRIDLEY V. BITLEY, 1 Minn. 426, (Gil. 309.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
FRIESENHAHN V. BUSHNELL, 47 Minn. 443, 50 N. W.
597.
Principal and Agent, 66, 67.
FRAWLEY V. HOVERTER, 36 Minn. 379, 31 N. W. 356. FRISBEE V. POOLE, 32 Minn. 411, 21 N. W. 470.
Appeal and Error, .159.
FRAZER V. SHERRERD, 6 Minn. 576, (Gil. 410.)
Appeal and Error, 674.
FREAR V. HEICHERT, 34 Minn. 96, 24 N. W. 319.
Appearance, 6.
Judgment, 39.
FREDERICKSEN V. SINGER MANUF'G Co., 38 Minn.
356, 37 N. W. 453.
Assault and Battery, 6.
Cited in Re Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
FREEBERG V. ST. PAUL PLOW-WORKS, 50 N. W.
1026.
Evidence, 139.
Master and Servant, 40, 157, 158.
Mortgages, 37.
FRITZ V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 22
Minn. 404.
Railroad Companies, 177.
FRITZ V. MCGILL, 31 Minn. 536, 18 N. W. 753.
Action, 19.
Executors and Administrators, 40, 41.
Vendor and Purchaser, 9.
FRITZ V. PUSEY, 31 Minn. 368, 18 N. W. 94.
Covenants, 10, 15, 37.
Words and Phrases, 262, 263. 367.
Cited in Mackey v. Harmon, 34 Minn. 172; Og-
den v. Ball, 40 Minn. 96.
FREEBORN V. PETTIBONE, 5 Minn. 277, (Gill. 219.) FROHREICH V. GAMMON, 28 Minn. 476, 11 N. W. SS.
Mortgages, 404.
FREEMAN V. BERKEY, 45 Minn. 438, 48 N. W. 194.
Municipal Corporations, 122.
Sale, 93, 123.
Followed in Thoreson v. Minneapolis Harvester
Works, 29 Minn. 344; Hitchcock v. Turnbull,
44 Minn. 478. Applied in Wilson v. Reedy, 32
2419
2420
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
FROHREICH V. GAMMON-Continued.
V.
Minn. 257, 258; Paulson v. D. M. Osborne &
Co., 35 Minn. 94. Cited in Juergens v. Thom,
39 Minn. 461; Liljengren Furniture & Lumber
Co. v.
Mead, 42 Minn. 422; Maxfield
Schwartz. 45 Minn. 151; Schurmier v. Eng-
lish, 46 Minn. 307; Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Os-
borne & Co., 52 N. W. 63.
FROST V. JORDAN, 37 Minn. 544, 36 N. W. 713.
Attachment, 36.
Explained in Lamb v. Shaw, 43 Minn. 509.
FROST V. STEELE, 46 Minn. 1, 48 N. W. 413.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 22.
Husband and Wife, 27.
FROST'S DETROIT LUMBER & WOODEN-WARE WORKS
v. MILLERS' & MANUF'RS' MUT. INS. Co., 37
Minn. 300, 34 N. W. 35.
Evidence, 260a.
Insurance, 73.
FRUNK V. IRGENS, (Frank v. Irgins,) 27 Minn. 43, 6
N. W. 380.
Contracts, 30.
Negotiable Instruments, 180.
Words and Phrases, 787.
Cited in Elmquist v. Markoe, 33 Minn. 495.
FRYBERGER V. CARNEY, 26 Minn. 84, 1 N. W. 807.
Trial, 134.
Distinguished in Jones v. King, 30 Minn. 371.
F. SIGEL, THE. See Morin v. The F. Sigel.
FULLER, IN RE, 42 Minn. 22, 43 N. W. 486.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 100.
FULLER V. LANGUM, 37 Minn. 74, 33 N. W. 122.
Mortgages, 297.
Sheriffs and Constables, 15.
Words and Phrases, 56.
FULLER V. ROLLER, 45 Minn. 152, 47 N. W. 651.
Judgment, 142.
FULLINGTON V. NORTHWESTERN BREEDERS' Ass'N,
51 N. W. 475.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 55.
FULTON V. AMERICAN BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N, 46
Minn. 190, 43 N. W. 781.
Building and Loan Associations, 4.
FULTON V. TOWN OF RIVERTON, 42 Minn. 395, 44 N.
W. 257.
Municipal Corporations, 312.
FUNKE V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'n, 29 Minn. 347, 13 N. W. 164.
Insurance, 67.
Words and Phrases, 386.
FURBER V. BARNES, 32 Minn. 105, 19 N. W. 728.
Principal and Agent, 57.
FURLONG V. GRIFFIN, 3 Minn. 207, (Gil. 138.)
Appeal and Error, 134, 135.
Followed in Haines v. Paxton, 5 Minn. 414, (Gil.
362;) Ayer v. Termatt, 8 Minn. 97, (Gil. 72.)
Overruled in Humphrey v. Havens, 9 Minn.
350, (Gil. 334.) Explained in Sherrerd v. Fra-
zer, 6 Minn. 574, (Gil. 408.) Cited in Nininger
v. Commissioners Carver County, 10 Minn. 135,
(Gil. 107;) Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn.
27, (Gil. 9.)
FURMAN V. TENNY, (Furman v. Furman,) 28 Minn.
77, 9 N. W. 172.
Exemptions, 24.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 95.
Gifts, 2.
Homestead, 81.
Followed in Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 548.
Cited in Kenney v. Goergen, 36 Minn. 192;
King v. Lacrosse, 42 Minn. 489; Mullen v.
Noonan, 44 Minn. 542.
FULLER v. MORRISON COUNTY, 36 Minn. 309, 30 N. FURNELL V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 20 Minn. 117, (Gil.
W. 824.
Constitutional Law, 49.
Overruling Sanborn v. Commissioners Rice
County, 9 Minn. 273, (Gil. 258.)
FULLER V. NELSON, 35 Minn. 213, 28 N. W. 511.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 71.
Partnership, 86.
101.)
Appeal and Error, 362.
Municipal Corporations, 136, 145-147, 171,
180.
Cited in Bohen v. City of Waseca, 32 Minn. 179;
Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 200;
Young v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 196.
G.
GAFFNEY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 38 Minn. GALE v. BATTIN, 12 Minn. 287, (Gil. 188.)
111, 35 N. W. 728.
Pleading, 243.
GAGE V. STIMSON, (Gage v. Ames,) 26 Minn. 64, 1
N. W. 808.
Garnishment, 63.
Judgment, 124.
GAINES V. CLARK, 23 Minn. 64.
Arbitration and Award, 18.
Applied in Heglund v. Allen, 30 Minn. 39. Dis-
tinguished in Barney v. Flower, 27 Minn. 405.
Mortgages, 105.
Approved in Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 31, (Gil.
18.)
GALE V. BATTIN, 16 Minn. 148, (Gil. 133.)
Creditors' Suit, 4.
Execution, 31.
GALE V. SEIFERT, 39 Minn. 171, 39 N. W. 69.
Appeal and Error, 73.
Attachment, 40.
2421
2422
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GALE V. TOWNSEND, 45 Minn. 357, 47 N. W. 1064.
Associations, 2.
Summons, 26.
GASLIN V. PINNEY, 23 Minn. 26.
Partnership, 38.
Cited in Gaslin v. Pinney, 24 Minn. 322.
GALLAGHER V. ROSENFIELD, 47 Minn. 507, 50 N. W. GASLIN V. PINNEY, 24 Minn. 322.
696.
Chattel Mortgages, 37-40.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 82.
GALLAGHER V. STATE, 3 Minn. 270, (Gil. 185.)
Assault and Battery, 19, 20.
GALLOWAY V. LITCHFIELD, 8 Minn. 188, (Gil. 160.)
Appeal and Error, 144.
Mortgages, 153.
GALLOWAY V. YATES, 10 Minn. 75, (Gil. 53.)
Appeal and Error, 760.
GAME V. WHALEY, 43 Minn. 234, 45 N. W. 228.
Replevin, 49.
GAMMON V. GANFIELD, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N. W. 125.
Evidence, 292a.
Pleading, 229.
GANSER V. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. Co., 34 Minn. 372,
25 N. W. 943.
Insurance, 129, 130, 193.
Cited in Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 428; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pratt, 36
Minn. 412.
GANSER V. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. Co., 38 Minn. 74,
35 N. W. 584.
Evidence, 100, 291.
Insurance, 14, 136, 146.
Principal and Agent, 9.
GARDNER V. COMMISSIONERS OF DAKOTA County,
21 Minn. 33.
Counties, 28.
Landlord and Tenant, 50-53.
Cited in Hunter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 2.
GARDNER V. KELLOGG, 23 Minn. 463.
Appeal and Error, 315, 383.
Indecent Assault, 1, 4.
New Trial, 60.
Parent and Child, 5, 6.
Witness, 36.
Cited in State v. Bagan, 41 Minn. 2S6.
GARDNER V. LECK. See Bardwell v. Mann.
GARDNER V. MCCLURE, 6 Minn. 250, (Gil. 167.)
Mortgages, 2.
Parties, 21, 22.
Words and Phrases, 703.
GARDNER V. MINEA, 47 Minn. 295, 50 N. W. 199.
Damages, 23.
Trial, 159.
GARNER V. REIS, 25 Minn, 475.
Constitutional Law, 133.
Cited in Bausman v. Woodman, 33 Minn. 514;
Fair v. Stickney Farm Co., 25 Minn. 383.
GARRETT V. MANNHEIMER, 24 Minn. 193.
Evidence, 383.
Malicious Prosecution, 23.
Applied in Seigneuret v. Fahey, 27 Minn. 63.
Cited in Bartlett v. Hawley, 38 Minn. 312;
Fontaine v. Bush, 40 Minn. 144.
GASLIN V. BRIDGMAN, 26 Minn. 442, 4 N. W. 1111.
Logs and Logging, 38.
Cited in Lovejoy v. Itasca Lumber Co., 46 Minn.
219.
Frauds, Statute of, 46.
Logs and Logging, 40.
Cited in Ortloff v. Klitzke, 43 Minn. 155.
GASNER V. METROPOLITAN Ins. Co., 13 Minn 483,
(Gil. 447.)
Insurance, 65.
GASSER V. SUN FIRE OFFICE, 42 Minn. 315, 44 N. W.
252.
Insurance, 89, 90.
Cited in Mosness v. German-American Ins. Co.,
52 N. W. 933.
GASTON V. MERRIAM, 33 Minn. 271, 22 N. W. 614.
Deed, 65, 106.
Evidence, 44, 370.
Municipal Corporations, 305.
Taxation, 184.
Words and Phrases, 333, 615.
Cited in Tatge v. Tatge, 34 Minn. 276; State v.
Smith, 35 Minn. 258, 259; Nelson v. Central
Land Co., 35 Minn. 411; Conlan v. Grace, 36
Minn. 281; McLellan v. Omodt, 37 Minn. 159;
Nazro v. Ware, 33 Minn. 445; Koerper v. St.
Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 136; Lee v.
Fletcher, 46 Minn. 52.
GATES V. MANNY, 14 Minn. 21, (Gil. 13.)
Evidence, 83, 84, 119.
Trial, 105.
Cited in Leighton v. Sheldon, 16 Minn. 248, (Gil.
220.)
GATES V. NATIONAL BUILDING, LOAN & PROTECTIVE
UNION, 46 Minn. 419, 49 N. W. 232.
Contracts, 114.
GATES V. SHUGRUE, 35 Minn. 392, 29 N. W. 57.
Descent and Distribution, 17, 18.
GATES V. SMITH, 2 Minn. 30, (Gil. 21.)
Action, 45, 46.
Chattel Mortgages, 49.
Followed in Birdsall v. Fischer, 17 Minn. 102, 103,
(Gil. 81.) Applied in Becker v. Northway, 44
Minn. 62. Cited in Schmidt v. Coulter, 6
Minn. 495, (Gil. 342;) Barker v. Walbridge. 14
Minn. 475, (Gil. 353;) Williams v. Murphy, 21
Minn. 537.
GATES V. SOUTHERN MINNESOTA RY. Co., 28 Minn.
110, 9 N. W. 579.
Master and Servant, 42.
Cited in Steen v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 37 Minn.
312.
GATES V. THATCHER, 11 Minn. 204, (Gil. 133.)
Bounties, 4, 5.
GAUTHIER V. WEST, 45 Minn. 192, 47 N. W. 656.
Factors and Brokers, 41, 42.
GAVIN V. MURPHY, 25 Minn. 142.
Equity, 22.
Vendor and Purchaser, 40.
GAZETT, IN RE, 35 Minn. 532, 29 N. W. 347.
Evidence, 58.
Insolvency, 98, 102.
42
Applied in Re Shotwell, 43 Minn. 391; In re
Harrison, 46 Minn. 332. Cited in Re Miller,
Minn. 98.
2428
2424
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GEBHARD V. EASTMAN, 7 Minn. 56, (Gil. 40.)
Corporations, 65, 78, 131.
Distinguished in Dodge v. Minnesota Plastic
Slate Roofing Co., 16 Minn. 373, (Gil. 332.)
Cited in Robertson v. Sibley, 10 Minn. 328,
Gil. 256.)
GEER V. SMITH, 25 Minn. 472.
Appeal and Error, 253.
GEIB V. REYNOLDS, 35 Minn. 331, 28 N. W. 923.
Mortgages, 54.
Followed and applied in Ligget v. Himle, 38
Minn. 422. Cited in Egan v. Fuller, 35 Minn.
517; Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 421-43;
Combination Steel & Iron Co. v. St. Paul City
Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 208; Emmert v. Thompson,
52 N. W. 32.
GEISER THRESHING MACHINE Co. v. DRESDEN, 29
Minn. 169, 12 N. W. 453.
Sale, 117.
GEISER THRESHING MACHINE Co. v. FARMER,
(Gieser Threshing Machine Co. v. Farmer,) 27
Minn. 423, 8 N. W. 141.
Action, 36.
Sale, 154.
Followed in Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Bonnallie, 29 Minn. 374. Cited in Schurmeier
v. English, 46 Minn. 307.
GELLATLY V. MINNESOTA ODD FELLOWS' MUT. BEN.
Soc., 27 Minn. 215, 6 N. W. 627.
Insurance, 172.
GEMMELL V. RICE, 13 Minn. 400, (Gil. 371.)
Appearance, 17.
Judgment, 197.
Overruled in Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 196.
Cited in Skillman v. Greenwood, 15 Minn. 105,
(Gil. 80;) Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 95, (Gil.
78;) Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn. 456, (Gil.
398;) Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 370;
Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158.
GENOIS V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 35 Minn. 330, 29 N.
W. 129.
Municipal Corporations, 237.
Distinguished in Overmann v. City of St. Paul,
39 Minn. 121.
GEORGE V. CONHAIM, 38 Minn. 338, 37 N. W. 791.
Evidence, 292.
Vendor and Purchaser, 21, 25.
Cited in Holliday v. Hubbard, 45 Minn. 334.
GERDINE V. MENAGE, 41 Minn. 417, 43 N. W. 91.
Mortgages, 121.
Subrogation, 7-9.
Distinguished in Ahern v. Freeman, 46 Minn.
159. Cited in Wistar v. Foster, 46 Minn. 487;
Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zelimer, 51 N. W.
382; Emmert v. Thompson, 52 N. W. 32.
GERE V. MURRAY, 6 Minn. 305, (Gil. 213.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 19,
65.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 117.
Words and Phrases, 625.
Cited in Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn. 191; Ben-
nett v. Ellison, 23 Minn. 254; Mann v. Flower,
25 Minn. 507; Lesher v. Getman, 28 Minn. 96.
GERE V. WEED, 3 Minn. 352, (Gil. 249.)
Appeal and Error, 11.
Court Commissioners, 1.
GERE V. WEED-Continued.
Followed in Pulver v. Grooves, 3 Minn. 359, (Gil.
252;) Prignitz v. Fischer, 4 Minn. 367, (Gil. 276.)
Cited in Marty v. Ahl, 5 Minn. 33, (Gil. 18.)
GERISH V. JOHNSON, 5 Minn. 23, (Gil. 10.)
Appeal and Error, 63, 190.
Judgment, 247.
Approved in Groh v. Bassett, 7 Minn. 329, (Gil.
259.) Limited in Washburn v. Sharpe, 15
Minn. 66, (Gil. 47.) Cited in Holmes v. Camp-
bell, 13 Minn. 70, (Gil. 65;) Goodell v. Ward, 17
Minn. 19, (Gil. 2;) Blandy v. Raguet, 14 Minn.
497, (Gil. 372;) Altmann v. Gabriel, 28 Minn.
134.
GERISH V. PRATT, 8 Minn. 106, (Gil. 81.)
Appeal and Error, 669.
GERKEN V. SIBLEY COUNTY, (Gerken v. Board of
County Com'rs,) 39 Minn. 433, 40 N. W. 508.
Counties, 59, 60.
Public Lands, 95.
GERMAIN V. SHEEHAN, 25 Minn. 338.
Infancy, 22-24.
GERMAN-AMERICAN BANK v. WHITE, 38 Minn. 471.
33 N. W. 361.
Deed, 71.
Pleading, 81.
Taxation, 144, 285.
Overruling Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 51, (Gil.
38;) Pottgieser v. Dorn, 16 Minn. 204, (Gil.
180;) Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 120. Cit
ed in Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 104.
GERMAN LAND Ass'N V. SCHOLLER, 10 Minn. 331,
(Gil. 260.)
Associations, 1.
Trusts, 3.
Cited in Woodson v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.,
21 Minn. 62. Gille v. Hunt, 35 Minn, 359;
Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212.
GERRISH V. PRATT, 6 Minn. 53, (Gil. 14.)
Costs, 57.
Judgment, 103, 104.
Pleading, 58.
GERTLER V. LINSCOTT, 26 Minn. 82, 1 N. W. 579.
Action, 26.
Pleading, 47.
Cited in Humphrey v. Merriam, 37 Minn. 503.
GERVAIS V. POWERS, 1 Minn. 45, (Gil. 30.)
Animals, 8.
Certiorari, 27.
GESNER V. BURDELL, 18 Minn. 497, (Gil. 444.)
Deed, 97.
Mortgage, 382.
GETCHELL V. HILL, 21 Minn. 464.
Appeal and Error, 494.
Evidence, 177.
Malpractice, 1.
Followed in State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn.
521; In re Storer's Will, 28 Minn. 12.
GETCHELL V. LINDLEY, 24 Minn. 265.
Damages, 88.
Malpractice, 10.
GIBBENS V. THOMPSON, 21 Minn. 398.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 9, 16, 17.
Landlord and Tenant, 61.
GIBBS V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 26 Minn.
427, 4 N. W. $19.
Negligence, 12.
2425
2426
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GIBSON V. BRENNAN, (In re Brennan's Estate,) 46 | GILFILLAN V. HOBART, 35 Minn. 185, 28 N. W. 222.
Minn. 92, 48 N. W. 460.
Appeal and Error, 485.
Cited in St. Croix Boom Corp. v. Brown, 47 Minn.
284.
GIERMANN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 5, 43 N. W. 483.
Trial, 67.
GIES V. BECHTNER, 12 Minn. 279, (Gil. 183.)
Garnishment, 11, 12.
Words and Phrases, 231.
Cited in Bowlin v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 36 Minn.
434.
GIESER
THRESHING MACHINE Co. v. FARMER,
(Geiser Threshing Machine Co. v. Farmer,) 27
Minn. 428, 8 N. W. 141.
Action, 36.
Followed in Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Bonnallie, 29 Minn. 574. Cited in Schurmeier
v. English, 46 Minn. 307.
GILBERT V. ELDRIDGE, 47 Minn. 210, 49 N. W. 679.
Riparian Rights, 12-14.
Taxation, 210.
Words and Phrases, 468.
Distinguished in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn.
329. Cited in Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 37 Minn.
12; Vanderlinde v. Canfield, 40 Minn. 542, 543.
GILFILLAN V. RYDER, 22 Minn. 87.
Appeal and Error, 679.
Execution, 116.
GILL V. BRADLEY, 21 Minn. 15.
Limitation of Actions, 54.
Pleading, 122.
Specific Performance, 33, 61.
Tender, 1.
Venue in Civil Cases, 8.
Followed in Kipp v. Cook, 46 Minn. 536. Cited
in Lovejoy v. Stewart, 23 Minn. 99, 100.
GILL V. NEWELL, 13 Minn. 462, (Gil. 430.)
Specific Performance, 8, 46.
Distinguished in McCarthy v. Couch, 37 Minn.
125. Cited in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 350,
(Gil. 324.)
Cited in Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Eastman, 47 GILL V. RUSSELL, 23 Minn. 362.
Minn. 304; City of Duluth v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 51 N. W. 1166.
GILBERT V. How, 45 Minn. 121, 47 N. W. 643.
Powers, 17.
Cited in Hersey v. Lambert, 52 N. W. 964.
GILBERT V. THOMPSON, 14 Minn. 544, (Gil. 414.)
Evidence, 289.
Public Lands, 106, 107.
Trial, 23, 25.
Followed in Thompson v. Myrick, 20 Minn. 214,
(Gil. 192.) Approved in Dole v. Wilson, 20
Minn. 360, (Gil. 311.) Applied in Cannady v.
Lynch, 27 Minn. 439. Cited in Stillman v.
Northern Pac., F. & B. H. R. Co., 34 Minn. 422;
Nelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 171.
GILBERTSON v. FULLER, 40 Minn. 413, 42 N. W. 203.
Malicious Prosecution, 17, 37
Words and Phrases, 590.
Gile v. CateR, (In re Cater,) 33 Minn. 529, 24 N.
W. 197.
Contracts, 38.
GILES V. GILES, 22 Minn. 348.
Husband and Wife, 2.
Statutes, 58.
Applied in State v. Waholz, 28 Minn. 115. Cited
in State v. Hill, 32 Minn. 276; Gaston v. Mer-
riana, 33 Minn. 279.
GILFILLAN V. CHATTERTON, 37 Minn. 11, 33 N. W. 35.
Taxation, 209.
Followed in Kipp v. Hill, 40 Minn. 189.
GILFILLAN V. CHATTERTON, 38 Minn. 335, 37 N. W.
583.
Taxation, 174, 238.
Words and Phrases, 106, 234.
Applied in Mulvey v. Tozer, 40 Minn. 385, 386.
GILFILLAN V. HOBART, 34 Minn. 67, 24 N. W. 342.
Taxation, 124, 143.
Applied in Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 178. Cited
in Gilfillan v. Hobart, 35 Minn. 185; Godfrey v.
Valentine, 45 Minn. 503.
Appeal and Error, 292.
Estoppel, 40.
GILL V. TRUELSEN, 39 Minn. 373, 40 N. W. 254.
Judgment, 283.
GILLAM V. SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co., 26 Minn.
268, 3 N. W. 353.
Railroad Companies, 47, 275.
Followed in Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 93; Finch v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 251. Cited in Fleming
v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 114; Fitz-
gerald v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29 Minn.
341; Smith v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37
Minn. 104; State v. District Court for Hennepin
County, 42 Minn. 249.
GILLE V. HUNT, 35 Minn. 357, 29 N. W. 2.
Mortgages, 141.
Partnership, 24.
Applied in Foster v. Johnson, 39 Minn. 379.
Cited in Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 32;
Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 313; Men-
age v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212.
GILLIS V. DULUTH, N. S. & S. W. R. Co., 34 Minn.
301, 25 N. W. 603.
Principal and Agent, 33.
Cited in Mason v. Taylor, 38 Minn. 34.
GILLITT V. MCCARTHY, (Gillett v. McCarthy,) 34
Minn. 318, 25 N. W. 637.
Statutes, 27.
GILLITT V. TRUAX, (Gillett v. Truax,) 27 Minn. 528,
8 N. W. 767.
Execution, 23.
Justices of the Peace, 57, 85.
Cited in Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 142.
GILMAN V. HOLYOKE, 14 Minn. 138, (Gil. 104.)
Mortgages, 364.
GILMAN V. VAN BRUNT, 29 Minn. 271, 13 N. W. 125.
Quieting Title, 11.
Cited in Morin v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 102; Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 71.
GILMORE V. BROST, 39 Minn. 190, 39 N. W. 139.
Evidence, 164.
New Trial, 55.
2427
2428
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GJERNESS V. MATHEWS, (Gjeniess v. Fladeland,) | GOENEN V. SCHROEDER-Continued.
27 Minn. 320, 7 N. W. 355.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 78.
GLASPIE V. GLASSOW, 28 Minn. 158, 9 N. W. 669.
Damages, 37.
Cited in Pevey v. Schulenburg & Boeckeler
Lumber Co., 33 Minn. 49; Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 77; Dunn v.
Barton, 40 Minn. 416.
GLASS V. ST. PAUL PARK CARRIAGE & SLeigh Co.,
43 Minn. 228, 45 N. W. 150.
Mechanics' Liens, 33, 150.
GLATZ V. THEIN, 47 Minn. 278, 50 N. W. 127.
Libel and Slander, 62.
Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 19 Minn.
293, (Gil. 250;) Golcher v. Brisbin, 20 Minn.
461, (Gil. 416;) Messerschmidt v. Baker, 22
Minn. 86; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Randall,
29 Minn. 285; Geib v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 335.
GOENER v. WOLL, 26 Minn. 154, 2 N. W. 163.
Animals, 4, 5.
Summons, 16.
Words and Phrases, 70.
GOETZ V. Foos, 14 Minn. 265, (Gil. 196.)
Contracts, 24.
Frauds, Statute of, 16.
Followed in Sullivan v. Murphy, 23 Minn. 7.
GLOBE MILLING Co. v. MINNEAPOLIS ELEVATOR CO., GOETZ V. SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 59, 31 Minn. 164, 17 N.
44 Minn. 153, 46 N. W. 306.
Custom and Usage, 10.
Sale, 30, 194.
Cited in Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Prince, 52 N. W.
132.
GLUCK V. ELKAN, 36. Minn. 80, 30 N. W. 116.
Landlord and Tenant, 20, 77.
GOAR V. JACOBSON, 26 Minn. 71, 1 N. W. 799.
Certiorari, 20.
GODDARD V. KING, 40 Minn. 164, 41 N. W. 659.
Arbitration and Award, 12, 13.
Godfrey v. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY,
(Lincoln Park, In re,) 44 Minn. 299, 46 N. W.
355.
Eminent Domain, 48.
GODFREY V. VALENTINE, 39 Minn. 336, 40 N. W.
163.
Appearance. 13.
Summons, 50, 52.
Followed in Roberts v. Chicago, St. P. M., & O.
Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 479. Cited in Burr v. Sey-
mour, 43 Minn. 402.
GODFREY V. VALENTINE, 45 Minn. 502, 48 N. W.
$25.
Taxation, 104, 105, 131.
GOEBEL V. HOUGH, 26 Minn. 252, 2 N. W. 847.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 12.
Damages, 6.
Landlord and Tenant, 9, 70.
Distinguished in Schmidt v. Bickenbach, 29
Minn. 124; Cushing v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.,
30 Minn. 305. Cited in Fairchild v. Rogers, 32
Minn. 271; Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v.
Prince, 34 Minn. 76; Lommeland v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 414.
GOENEN V. SCHROEDER, 8 Minn. 387, (Gil. 344.)
Mortgages, 405.
Explained in Merriam v. Baker, 9 Minn. 45 48,
(Gil. 34, 36, 37.) Cited in Carroll v. Rossiter,
10 Minn. 178, (Gil. 143;) Goenen v. Schroeder,
18 Minn. 68, 69, 71, (Gil. 53-55;) Ferguson v.
Kumler, 25 Minn 186; Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn.
275; O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 138; Radley
v. O'Leary, 36 Minn. 174; Tordsen v. Gummer,
37 Minn. 211.
GOENEN V. SCHROEDER, 18 Minn. 66, (Gil. 51.)
Judgment, 148.
Justices of the Peace, 24.
Mortgages, 169, 234, 237, 238, 274, 277, 282.
Payment, 5, 6.
Words and Phrases, 236, 693.
W. 276.
Schools and School-Districts, 50.
Cited in Glass v. St. Paul, P. C. & S. Co., 43
Minn. 230.
GOETZ v. WALTERS, 34 Minn. 241, 25 N. W. 404.
Vendor and Purchaser, 30.
Cited in Benedict v. Williams, 39 Minn. 77;
Gregory v. Christian, 42 Minn. 306.
GOLCHER V. BRISBIN, 20 Minn. 453, (Gil. 407.)
Evidence, 8.
Judgment, 188.
Mortgages, 185, 220, 239-241, 268.
Followed in Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337.
Approved in Thorwath v. Armstrong, 20 Minn.
467, (Gil. 423.) Applied in Goener v. Woll, 26
Minn. 156. Explained in Martin v. Baldwin,
30 Minn. 539. Cited in Coles v. Berryhill, 37
Minn. 57.
GOLDIN V. NORTHERN ASSUR. Co. OF LONDON, 46
Minn. 471, 49 N. W. 246.
Insurance, 70, 116.
GOLDSCHMIDT V. NOBLES COUNTY, (Goldschmidt
v. Mills,) 37 Minn. 49, 33 N. W. 544.
Judgment, 118.
GOLDSMIDT V. TRUSTEES FIRST M. E. Church, 25
Minn. 202.
Pledge, 13, 14.
Cited in Cooper v. Simpson, 41 Minn. 47.
GOLTZ V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 55.
Master and Servant, 180.
Trial, 151.
GONCELIER V. FORET, 4 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Courts, 11.
Pleading, 131.
Trusts, 34, 35.
Cited in Ashton v. Slater, 19 Minn. 356, (Gil.
309;) Clark v. Stanton, 24 Minn. 244.
GONSIOR V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 36
Minn. 385, 31 N. W. 515.
Master and Servant, 92.
Applied in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 216.
Cited in Corneilson v. Eastern Ry. Co., 52 N.
W. 225.
GOOD V. SINGLETON, 39 Minn. 340, 40 N. W. 359.
Payment, 2.
GOODELL V. WARD, 17 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
Appeal and Error, 305.
Evidence, 144.
Replevin, 51, 52, 86.
Witness, 88.
2429
2430
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GOODNOW V. BOARD COM'RS RAMSEY COUNTY, 11 | GOTZIAN, IN RE, 34 Minn. 159, 24 N. W. 920.
v.
Minn. 31, (Gil. 12.)
Counties, 25, 26.
Highways, 21.
Cited in McDonald v. City of Red Wing, 13
Minn. 39, (Gil. 26;) Board of Education of Sauk
Centre v. Moore, 17 Minn. 417, (Gil. 396.)
GOODNOW v. EMPIRE LUMBER Co., 31 Minn. 468, 18
N. W. 283.
Infancy, 20.
Applied in Eisenmenger v. Murphy, 42 Minn. 86.
GOODRICH V. FLORER, 27 Minn. 97, 6 N. W. 452.
Taxation, 179, 180, 294.
GOODRICH V. HOPKINS, 10 Minn. 162, (Gil. 130.)
Appeal and Error, 481.
Garnishment, 35, 37.
Practice in Civil Cases, 28, 39.
GOODRICH V. MOORE, 2 Minn. 61, (Gil. 49.)
Constitutional Law, 1, 2.
Equity, 1.
Injunction, 3, 31.
States and State Officers, 4.
Words and Phrases, 361.
Descent and Distribution, 4, 5.
Cited in Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 17; Sher-
man v. Lewis, 44 Minn. 108; McGowan v.
Baldwin, 46 Minn. 479.
GOULD V. JOHNSTON, 24 Minn. 188.
Courts, 18, 19.
Distinguished in Shatto v. Latham, 33 Minn. 38.
Cited in Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 145.
GOULD V. SUBDISTRICT No. 3, EAGLE CREEK, 7
Minn. 203, (Gil. 145.)
Corporations, 69, 77.
Pleading, 15.
Schools and School-Districts, 34.
Statutes, 68.
Words and Phrases, 569, 668.
Cited in Robbins v. School Dist., 10 Minn. 349,
(Gil. 275;) Moon v. Avery, 42 Minn. 407,
Gould v. SUBDISTRICT No. 3, EAGLE CREEK, 8
Minn. 427, (Gil. 82.)
Landlord and Tenant, 43, 41.
Words and Phrases, 740.
GOULDS V. BROPHY, 42 Minn. 109, 43 N. W. 834.
Sale, 69.
Cited in Hart v. Marshall, 4 Minn. 296, (Gil.
214;) Montgomery v. McEwen, 9 Minn. 108, GovE v. BLETHEN, 21 Minn. 80.
(Gil. 97;) Conkey v. Dike, 17 Minn. 464, (Gil.
443.)
GOODRICH V. PARKER, 1 Minn. 195, (Gil. 169.)
Equity, 84-87.
Overruled in Vermilye v. Vermilye, 32 Minn. 500.
GOODSELL V. TAYLOR, 41 Minn. 207, 42 N. W. S73.
Evidence, 137.
Negligence, 5-7.
Trial, 111.
GOODWIN V. KUMM, 43 Minn. 403, 45 N. W. 853.
Covenants, 2.
Descent and Distribution, 16.
Words and Phrases, 530.
GOODWIN V. RICE, 26 Minn. 20, 1 N. W. 257.
Deed, 36.
Public Lands, 64.
Trusts, 28.
GORHAM V. SUMMERS, 25 Minn. 81.
Chattel Mortgages, 74.
Words and Phrases, 284, 286, 287.
Applied in Smith v. Headley, 33 Minn. 388; Ap-
pleton Mill Co. v. Warder, 42 Minn. 119.
GORMAN V. SUPERVISORS OF TOWN OF ST. MARY,
20 Minn. 392, (Gil. 343.)
Highways, 34, 35.
Followed in Shuster v. Town of Lemond, 27
Minn. 254.
GORTON V. MASSEY, (Massey v. Gorton,) 12 Minn.
145, (Gil. 83.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 79.
Vendor and Purchaser, 123.
Applied in Overmire v. Haworth, 51 N. W. 122.
Cited in Matthews v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 134;
Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 520.
Goss V. BROOM, (Goss v. Brown,) 31 Minn. 484, 18
N. W. 290.
Factors and Brokers, 27.
v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188.
Libel and Slander, 15, 16, 57, 58.
GOWAN V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 25 Minn.
3. S.
Railroad Companies, 46, 52.
GRACE, IN RE, (Hennepin County v. Grace,) 27
Minn. 503, 8 N. W. 761.
Taxation, 40, 42.
Words and Phrases, 6S9.
Cited in Ramsey County v. Church of the Good
Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229, 23).
GRACE V. DONOVAN, 12 Minn. 580, (Gil. 503.)
Constitutional Law, 128.
Followed in Dana v. Porter, 14 Minn. 480, (Gil.
357.)
GRADIN V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 30 Minn. 217, 14
N. W. SS1.
Carriers, 81.
GRAEFF, IN RE, (Leary v. Graeff,) 30 Minn. 358, 16
N. W. 395.
Insolvency, 36.
Cited in Re Jones, 33 Minn. 406; Brown v. Min-
nesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 44 Minn. 323.
GRAEFF, IN RE, (Leary v. Graeff,) 30 Minn. 476,
16 N. W. 363.
Insolvency, 33.
GRAFF V. BUCHANAN, 46 Minn. 254, 48 N. W. 915.
Contracts, 6.
GRAGG, In re, (O'Brien, In re,) 32 Minn. 142, 19 N.
W. 651.
Executors and Administrators, 79.
Judgment, 244.
Distinguished in State v. Probate Court of Sib-
ley County, 33 Minn. 95.
GRAGG'S ESTATE, IN RE, (O'Mulcahey v. Gragg,) 45
Minn. 112, 47 N. W. 543.
Executors and Administrators, 54.
Cited in Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 383.
Cited in Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 173; Grosse GRAHAM V. BIRCH, (Graham v. Burch,) 47 Minn.
Goss v. STEVENS, 32 Minn. 472, 21 N. W. 549.
Factors and Brokers, 11, 26.
171, 49 N. W. 697.
Wills, 29, 32, 40.
Words and Phrases, 666.
2431
2432
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GRAHAM T. BURCH, 44 Minn. 33, 46 N. W. 148.
Equity, 60, 61.
GRAHAM V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. Co., 39
Minn. 81, 38 N. W. 812.
Damages, 53.
GRAHAM V. CITY OF ALBERT LEA, 50 N. W. 1103.
Municipal Corporations, 148.
GRAHAM V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 40 Minn. 436,
42 N. W. 291.
Parties, 13.
GRAHAM V. EVANS, 39 Minn. 382, 40 N. W. 368.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 50.
GRANNIS V. ST. PAUL & C. Ry. Co., 18 Minn. 194,
(Gil. 178.)
Eminent Domain, 203, 216.
Evidence, 143.
Applied in Barnett v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 33 Minn. 270. Cited in Scott v. St.
Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 324; Sigafoos v.
Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 9.
GRANSE V. FRINGS, 46 Minn. 352, 49 N. W. 60.
Judgment, 258.
Words and Phrases, 330.
GRAY V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co.-Con-
tinued.
375. Cited in Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C.
R. Co., 17 Minn. 224, 225, 227, 230, (Gil. 200,
201, 204, 206;) Hursh v. First Division St. P,
& P. R. Co., 17 Minn. 448, (Gil. 426;) Adams v.
Hastings & D. R. Co., 18 Minn. 261, 264, (Gil.
238, 240;) Warren v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 18 Minn. 396, (Gil. 358;) Mathews v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 440, (Gil.
396;) Scott v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn.
324; Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23
Minn. 130; Leber v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 260; Hennessy v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 56; Lamm v. Chicago, St.
P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 75.
GRAY V. HAYS, 41 Minn. 12, 42 N. W. 594.
Judgment, 41.
GRAY V. HURLEY, (Gray v. Henley,) 23 Minn. 383,
10 N. W. 417.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 22.
GRAY V. STOCKTON, 8 Minn. 529, (Gil. 472.)
Deed, 84.
Public Lands, 147.
Distinguished in Judd v. Randall, 36 Minn. 14.
Grant v. City of STILLWATER, 35 Minn. 242, 28 N. GREAVES V. NEWPORT, 41 Minn. 240, 42 N. W. 1059.
W. 660.
Municipal Corporations, 156.
GRANT V. SCHMIDT, 22 Minn. 1.
Appearance, 4.
Judgment, 241, 242.
Nuisance, 23.
Cited in White v. Iltis, 24 Minn. 48; Weld v.
Weld, 28 Minn. 35; State Sash & Door Manuf'g
Co. v. Adams, 47 Minn. 401.
GRANT V. WEBB, 21 Minn. 39.
Appeal and Error, 7, 69.
Receivers, 4.
GRANT V. WOLF, 34 Minn. 32, 24 N. W. 289.
Frauds, Statute of, 22.
New Trial, 38.
Cited in Maurin v. Fogelberg, 37 Minn. 24.
GRAVES V. AMERICAN LIVE-STOCK INS. Co., 46
Minn. 130, 48 N. W. 684.
Insurance, 101.
GRAVES V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Rr. Co., 47 Minn.
429, 50 N. W. 474.
Railroad Companies, 245.
GRAVES V. HORTON, 38 Minn. 66, 35 N. W. 568.
Factors and Brokers, 3.
GRAVES V. MOSES, 13 Minn. 335, (Gil. 307.)
Bailment, 2, 4-6.
Cited in Keyes v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 294.
GRAY V. BARGE, 47 Minn. 498, 50 N. W. 1014.
Principal and Agent, 70.
GRAY V. BULLARD, 22 Minn. 278.
Trespass, 23.
Cited in Ferguson v. Hogan, 25 Minn. 139.
GRAY V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 13
Minn. 315, (Gil. 289.)
Eminent Domain, 5, 29, 31, 255.
Followed in Molitor v. First Division St. P. &
P. R. Co., 14 Minn. 285, (Gil. 213.) Distin-
guished in Greve v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 26 Minn. 67. Applied in Carli v. Still-
water St. Railway & Transfer Co., 28 Minn.
Attachment, 35.
GREELEY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 33 Minn.
136, 22 N. W. 179.
Railroad Companies, 60, 61.
Followed in Hooper v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 53; Hurt v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 486. Cited in Kobe v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., 36 Minn. 518; Smith v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 104
Sather v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 40
Minn. 91; Cox v. Minneapolis, S. S. M. & A.
Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 102; La Paul v. Truesdale, 41
Minn. 277.
GREEN V. KNIFE FALLS BOOM CORP., 35 Minn. 155,
27 N. W. 924.
Constitutional Law, 68.
Words and Phrases, 308.
GREEN V. THOMPSON, 26 Minn. 500, 5 N. W. 376.
Abatement and Revival, 14.
Death by Wrongful Act, 8.
GREENE V. DOCKENDORF, 13 Minn. 70, (Gil. 66.)
Estoppel, 38.
Evidence, 78, 79.
Cited in Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v.
Burke, 42 Minn. 27.
GREENE V. DWYER, 33 Minn. 403, 23 N. W. 546.
Adverse Claim, 9.
Appeal and Error, 194.
GREENE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 31
Minn. 248, 17 N. W 378.
Damages, SO.
Master and Servant, 145, 160, 184.
Negligence, 100.
Cited in Lyberg v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 39
Minn. 16; Smith v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42
Minn. 90.
GREENLEAF Vv. EDES, 2 Minn. 264, (Gil. 226.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 7.
Attachment, 46, 47.
Deed, 78.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 9.
Words and Phrases, 333.
2433
2434
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GREENLEAF v. EDES-Continued.
Cited in Truitt v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 376, (Gil.)
270;) Scott v. Edes, 3 Minn. 383, (Gil. 275;)
Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 403, (Gil. 306;)
Chophard v. Bayard, 4 Minn. 539, (Gil. 423;)
Dickinson v. Kinney, 5 Minn. 417, (Gil. 337;)
Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 234, (Gil. 154;) Gere v.
Murray, 6 Minn. 316, (Gil. 221;) Banning v.
Edes, 6 Minn. 411, (Gil. 277;) Daughaday v.
Paine, 6 Minn. 451, (Gil. 207;) Dunwell v. Bid-
well, 8 Minn. 40, (Gil. 23;) Johnson v. Robin-
son, 20 Minn. 193, (Gil. 172;) Benton v. Sny-
der, 22 Minn. 248; Bennett v. Ellison, 23 Minn.
252; Lamberton v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 24
Minn. 282; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 278,
279.
GREENLEAF V. EGAN, 30 Minn. 316, 15 N. W. 254.
Appeal and Error, 583.
Jury, 41, 42.
Pleading, 234.
Practice in Civil Cases, 13.
Principal and Agent, 100.
Applied in Chadbourne v. Zilsdorf, 34 Minn. 44.
Cited in Judd v. Dike, 30 Minn. 3:5; Herber v.
Christopherson, 30 Minn. 398; Bohrer v. Drake,
33 Minn. 410; Bausman v. Woodman, 33 Minn.
514; Lace v. Fixen, 39 Minn. 49; Peterson v.
Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 116.
GREENMAN V. SMITH, 20 Minn. 418, (Gil. 370.)
Assault and Battery, 3, 5.
Costs, 6.
Words and Phrases, 301.
Cited in Potter v. Mellen, 36 Minn. 123.
GREVE V. COFFIN-Continued.
Followed in Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 261.
Approved in Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 31,
(Gil. 18.) Applied in Bonham v. Weymouth,
39 Minn. 97. Distinguished in Madland v.
Benland, 24 Minn. 379. Cited in Broughton v.
Sherman, 21 Minn. 433; Allis v. Goldsmith, 22
Minn. 126, 127; Gilbert v. How, 45 Minn. 123;
Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1054.
GREVE V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 26
Minn. 66, 1 N. W. 816.
Eminent Domain, 73.
Followed in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 428. Cited
in Wilmes v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 29
Minn. 245; Haynes v. City of Duluth, 47 Minn.
459.
GREVE V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 25 Minn.
327.
Appeal and Error, 208.
Explained in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 427, 428.
GRIBBLE V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 34 Minn. 342, 25
N. W. 710.
Libel and Slander, 68, 87.
Words and Phrases, 697.
Cited in Larrabee v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 36
Minn. 142.
GRIBBLE V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 37 Minn. 277, 34
N. W. 30.
Libel and Slander, 78.
GRIEBER V. LINDENMEIER, (Grueber v. Linden-
meier,) 42 Minn. 99, 43 N. W. 964.
Deed, 86.
GREEN'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Stevens, In re,) 38 Minn. GRIFFIN v. BRISTLE, 39 Minn. 456, 40 N. W. 523.
432, 38 N. W. 111.
Insolvency, 34.
Cited in Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 120.
GREENWOOD v. HOYT, 41 Minn. 381, 43 N. W. 8.
Exchange of Property, 3-6.
Cited in Guthrie v. Olson, 44 Minn. 406.
GREENWOOD v. MURRAY, 26 Minn. 259, 2 N. W. 945.
Judgment, 136.
Wills, 39.
Cited in Greenwood v. Murray, 23 Minn. 121;
Christman v. Colbert, 33 Minn. 511; Farnham
v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 336; Graham v. Burch,
47 Minn. 176.
GREENWOOD V. MURRAY, 28 Minn. 120, 9 N. W. 629.
Descent and Distribution, 9, 10.
Wills, 45.
Words and Phrases, 344, 541.
GREENWOOD V. SHELDON, 31 Minn. 254, 17 N. W.478.
Contracts, 65.
GREGG V. OWENS, 37 Minn. 61, 33 N. W. 216.
Husband and Wife, 50, 52.
Words and Phrases, 146, 401.
Cited in Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 243.
GREGG V. UHLESS, 25 Minn. 272.
Appeal and Error, 143.
Contracts, 13.
Conversion of Personal Property, 2.
Evidence, 72.
GRIFFIN V. CHADBOURNE, 33 Minn. 123, 19 N. IV.
647.
Logs and Logging, 4-6.
Cited in State Bank of Duluth v. Heney, 40
Minn. 148.
GRIFFIN V. FARRIER, 32 Minn. 474, 21 N. W. 553.
Deceit, 28.
Cited in Busterud v. Farrington, 36. Minn. 322;
Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055.
GRIFFIN V. JORGENSON, 22 Minn. 92.
Appeal and Error, 228.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 3, 41.
Practice in Civil Cases, 4, 36, 41.
Quieting Title, 28.
Reference, 13.
Cited in Campbell v. Jones, 25 Minn. 158; Wil-
son v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 206; Townsend v.
Minneapolis Cold-Storage and Freezer Co., 46
Minn. 123.
GRIFFITHS V. WOLFRAM, 23 Minn. 185.
Appeal and Error, 455.
Negligence, 25, 26.
Trial, 11.
GREGORY V. CHRISTIAN, 42 Minn. 304, 44 N. W. 202. GRIGGS v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 9 Minn. 246, (Gil.
Vendor and Purchaser, 26, 38.
Cited in Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 487.
GREVE V. COFFIN, 14 Minn. 345, (Gil. 263.)
Deed, 25.
Internal Revenue, 2.
Mortgages, 104.
Powers, 12.
Taxation, 242, 243.
V.2M.DIG.-77
281.)
Pleading, 1, 40, 152.
Cited in Lee v. Emery, 10 Minn. 192, (Gil. 155.)
GRIGGS V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 11 Minn. 308, (Gil.
214.)
Municipal Corporations, 288.
Followed in De Rochbrune v. City of St. Parl,
11 Minn. 313, (Gil. 218.)
2435
2436
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GRIGGS V. FLECKENSTEIN, 14 Minn. 81, (Gil. 62.)
Negligence, 15, 35, 48, 51.
Applied in Krippner v. Biebl, 28 Minn. 144, 146;
Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 311;
Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 333-335. Cited in Johnson v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 61; Bott v. Pratt,
33 Minn. 325.
GRIMES V. BRYNE, 2 Minn. 89, (Gil. 72.)
Constitutional Law, 116, 117.
Exemptions, 2, 4, 11.
Stare Decisis, 1.
Statutes, 49.
Words and Phrases, 526.
Followed in Temple v. Scott, 3 Minn. 421, (Gil.
308.) Applied in Hillyer v. Remore, 42 Minn.
255. Cited in Levering v. Washington, 3
Minn. 331, (Gil. 232;) Stone v. Bassett, 4 Minn.
301, (Gil. 219;) Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 491,
(Gil. 381;) Barker v. Kelderhouse, 8 Minn.
211, (Gil. 182;) McAbe v. Thompson, 27 Minn.
135.
GROH V. BASSETT, 7 Minn. 325, (Gil. 254.) ´
Appeal and Error, 475.
Judgment, 24S.
Distinguished in Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn.
302. Limited in Washburn v. Sharpe, 15 Minn.
66, (Gil. 47.) Cited in Jorgensen v. Boehmer,
9 Minn. 182, (Gil. 168;) Conklin v. Hinds, 16
Minn. 464, 465, (Gil. 416, 417;) Altman v. Ga-
briel, 28 Minn. 134.
GROMMES V. SHUTE, 46 Minn. 182, 48 N. W. 784.
Sale, 4.
GROSS V. DILLER, 33 Minn. 424, 23 N. W. 837.
Appeal and Error, 596.
Pleading, 244.
Release and Discharge, 2.
GROSSE V. COOLEY, 43 Minn. 188, 45 N. W. 15.
Factors and Brokers, 52, 58.
Cited in Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 84.
GRUBE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 34 Minn. 402, 26 N. W.
Municipal Corporations, 93.
228.
GRIMES V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. GRUEBER V. LINDENMEIER. (Grieber v. Linden-
66, 33 N. W. 33.
meier,) 42 Minn. 99, 43 N. W. 964.
Deed, 86.
Carriers, 67, 68.
GRINAGER V. TOWN OF NORWAY, 33 Minn. 127, 22 GUDE V. CITY OF MANKATO, 30 Minn. 256, 15 N. W.
N. W. 174.
Certiorari, 21.
Cited in State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 44 Minn. 245.
"GRINNELL V. WISCONSIN CENT. Co., 47 Minn. 569,
50 N. W.
91.
Carriers, 20.
GRINNELL V. YOUNG, 41 Minn. 186, 42 N. W. 929.
Replevin, 48.
GRISWOLD V. EDSON, 32 Minn. 436, 21 N. W. 475.
Evidence, 68.
Trial, 31.
Witness, 26.
Cited in Rhodes v. Pray, 36 Minn. 395; Farmers'
Union Elevator Co. v. Syndicate Ins. Co., 40
Minn. 154.
GRISWOLD V. TAYLOR, 8 Minn. 342, (Gil. 301.)
Mortgages, 36.
GRISWOLD V. THE OTTER, 12 Minn. 465, (Gil. 364.)
Admiralty, 2.
175.
Municipal Corporations, 173.
Cited in Kellogg v. Janesville, 34 Minn. 133.
GUERIN V. HUNT. 6 Minn. 375, (Gil. 260.)
Appeal and Error, 604.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 20-22,
42, 44.
Evidence, 46.
Cited in Lesher v. Getman, 28 Minn. 96.
GUERIN V. HUNT, 8 Minn. 477, (Gil. 427.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 23, 25.
Attachment, 59.
Followed in Jacoby v. Drew, 11 Minn. 409, (Gil.
301.) Distinguished in Braley v. Byrnes, 20
Minn. 441, (Gil. 393.) Cited in Merritt v. City
of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 231, (Gil. 152.)
GUERIN V. MOORE, 25 Minn. 462.
Dower, 1-3.
Words and Phrases, 360.
Cited in Re Mousseau's Will, 30 Minn. 203; Mor-
rison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 437.
GROESBECK V. MATTISON, 43 Minn. 547, 46 N. W. GUERIN V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co., 44
135.
Mortgages, 134, 135, 140.
GROFF V. RAMSEY, 19 Minn. 44, (Gil. 24.)
Appeal and Error, 455, 460.
Deed, 98.
Evidence, 42, 43, 55, 92, 192.
Principal and Agent, 5.
Trial, 11, 13, 14.
Vendor and Purchaser, 2, 139–141.
Followed in Palmer v. Bates, 22 Minn. 534; New
v. Wheaton, 24 Minn. 409. Cited in Messer-
schmidt v. Baker, 22 Minn. 84; Allis v. Gold-
smith, 22 Minn. 127; Siebert v. Rosser, 24
Minn. 161; Carleton College v. McNaughton,
26 Minn. 199; Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 53;
Stocking v. St. Paul Trust Co., 39 Minn. 412;
Wilkins v. Bevier, 43 Minn. 216; Wolf v.
Zabel, 44 Minn. 92; Hersey v. Lambert, 52 N.
W. 964.
Minn. 20, 46 N. W. 138.
Insurance, 133, 141.
GUERIN V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 32 Minn. 409,
21 N. W. 470.
Appeal and Error, 163.
GUERNSEY V. AMERICAN Ins. Co., 13 Minn. 278,
(Gil. 256.)
Summons, 20.
Limited in State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 26 Minn. 234.
GUERNSEY V. AMERICAN INs. Co., 17 Minn. 101,
(Gil. 83.)
Equity, 30, 33.
Evidence, 392.
Insurance, 110, 113, 114.
Trial, 163.
Applied in Sloan v. Becker, 34 Minn. 492. Dis-
tinguished in Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 364,
(Gil. 323.)
2437
2433
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
GUILDER V. TOWN OF DAYTON, 22 Minn. 366.
Bridges, 1-3.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Robinson, 40
Minn. 368.
GUILDER V. TOWN OF OTSEGO, 20 Minn. 74, (Gil. 59.)
Bridges, 5, 6.
Explained in Maltby v. Tautges, 52 N. W. 860.
Cited in Guilder v. Town of Dayton, 22 Minn.
369; State v. Ames, 31 Minn. 444; Martin v.
Elwood, 35 Minn. 310; Hennepin County v.
Bartleson, 37 Minn. 343.
GUILE V. MCNANNY, 14 Minn. 520, (Gil. 391.)
Attachment, 25.
Words and Phrases, 61, 62, 221, 684.
Distinguished in Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber
Co., 25 Minn. 461.
GUILFORD V. MINNEAPOLIS, S. S. M. & A. Rr. Co.,
51 N. W. 658.
Negotiable Instruments, 102.
Railroad Companies, 143.
GUILFORD V. WESTERN UNION TEL. Co., 43 Minn.
434, 46 N. W. 70.
Corporations, 113.
Guirney v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 43 Minn.
496, 46 N. W. 78.
Principal and Agent, 71.
GUITERMAN V. SHARVY, 46 Minn. 183, 48 N. W. 780.
Sheriffs and Constables, 11.
GUNDERSON v. NORTHWESTERN ELEVATor Co., 47
Minn. 161, 49 N. W. 694.
Death by Wrongful Act, 18.
Master and Servant, 20.
Negligence, 69.
Applied in Hepfel v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
51 N. W. 1050.
GUNN V. PEAKES, 36 Minn. 177, 30 N. W. 466.
Evidence, 221.
Judgment, 102, 203, 287.
|
GUNN V. PEAKES-Continued.
Overruling Karns v. Kunkle, 2 Minn. 313, (Gil.
268.) Cited in Re Minneapolis Ry. Terminal
Co., 38 Minn. 161.
GUNNALDSON V. NYпus, (Gunnaldson v. Olson,)
27 Minn. 440, 8 N. W. 147.
Auction and Auctioneer.
GUNZ v. HEFFNER, 33 Minn. 215, 22 N. W. 386.
Execution, 100, 101.
Cited in Herrick v. Morrill, 37 Minn. 254; Bart-
lett v. Hawley, 38 Minn. 312; Beyersdorf v.
Sump, 39 Minn. 497; Farmer v. Crosby, 43
Minn. 461.
GURNEY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 36 Minn. 163, 30 N.
W.661.
Appeal and Error, 107.
Statutes, 64.
GURNEY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. C. Rr. Co., 41 Minn.
223, 43 N. W. 2.
New Trial, 24.
GUTCHES V. TODD COUNTY, (Gutches v. Board
County Com'rs,) 44 Minn. 383, 46 N. W. 678.
Counties, 81.
Taxation, 71.
GUTHRIE V. OLSON, 32 Minn. 465, 21 N. W. 557.
Justices of the Peace, 65.
GUTHRIE V. OLSON, 44 Minn. 404, 46 N. W. 853.◄
Replevin, 16, 55.
Applied in Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 101.
GUTZWILLER V. CROWE, 32 Minn. 70, 19 N. W. 344.
Taxation, 152.
Applied in Smith v. Headley, 33 Minn. 389.
Cited in Collins v. Welch, 38 Minn. 64.
G. W. VAN DUSEN & Co. v. PIPER, 42 Minn. 43, 43
N. W. 684.
Sale, 29.
HAAS V. SACKETT, 40 Minn. 53, 41 N. W. 237.
Negotiable Instruments, 64.
HAASE V. NONNEMACHER, 21 Minn. 486.
Sale, 134, 179.
H.
Distinguished in Cosgrove v. Bennett, 32 Minn.
374. Explained in Scott v. Raymond, 31 Minn.
438. Cited in Maxwell v. Lee, 34 Minn. 516;
Thompson v. Libbey, 35 Minn. 446.
HAESLEY V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 46 Minn. 233,
48 N. W. 1023.
Railroad Companies, 217.
HALL V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 46 Minn. 439, 49
N. W. 239.
Damages, 85.
Master and Servant, 152, 181.
Words and Phrases, 520.
HALL V. HALL, (Hall v. McCormick,) 31 Minn. 280,
17 N. W. 620.
Appeal and Error, 22, 33.
Mortgages, 373.
Distinguished in Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn.
226.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
HAIN V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & N. RY. Co. See HALL V. HUNTER, 41 Micn. 223, 42 N. W. 1136.
Reichenberger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co.
HAIGH V. CHADBOURNE. See Griffin v. Chadbourne.
HAINES V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 29
Minn. 160, 12 N. W. 447.
Carriers, 143.
HAINES V. PAXTON, 5 Minn. 442, (Gil. 361.)
Appeal and Error, 134.
HALL V. MCCORMICK, (Hall v. Hall,) 31 Minn. 280,
17 N. W. 620.
Appeal and Error, 22, 33.
Mortgages, 373.
Distinguished in Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn.
226.
2439
2440
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HALL V. MERRILL, 47 Minn. 260, 49 N. W. 980.
Judgment, 232.
HALL V. NORTHWESTERN ENDOWMENT & LEGACY
Ass'y, 47 Minn. 85, 49 N. W. 524.
Insurance, 159.
Witness, 25.
HALL V. PILLSBURY, 43 Minn. 33, 44 N. W. 673.
Warehousemen, 9-11, 22.
HAMLIN V. SCHULTE, 34 Minn. 534, 27 N. W. 301.
Factors and Brokers, 45.
Cited in Burke v. Cogswell, 39 Minn. 344; Cre-
vier v. Stephen, 40 Minn. 290; Cullen v. Bell,
43 Minn. 227; Gauthier v. West, 45 Minn. 193.
HAMLIN V. WISTAR, 31 Minn. 418, 18 N. W. 145.
Specific Performance, 11.
Cited in Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 53; Lang-
ellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 363.
HALL V. RAMSEY COUNTY, 30 Minn. 68, 14 N. W. 263. HAMM V. ST. PAUL WATER Co., 30 Minn. 185, 14 N.
*
Counties, 68, 69.
Cited in Russell v. Gilson, 36 Minn. 367.
HALL V. SMITH, 16 Minn. 58, (Gil. 46.)
Appeal and Error, 188.
Landlord and Tenant, 60, 62, 78.
Cited in Davis v. Mendenhall, 19 Minn. 157, (Gil.
120.)
HALL V. SOUTHWICK, 27 Minn. 234, 6 N. W. 799.
Action, 43.
Mortgages, 144.
HALL V. TORRENS, 32 Minn. 527, 21 N. W. 717.
Ejectment, 41.
Words and Phrases, 120.
HALL V. WHEELER, 37 Minn. 522, 35 N. W. 377.
Compromise, 4.
Cited in Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 463.
HALL V. WILLIAMS, 13 Minn. 260, (Gil. 242 ▼
Appeal and Error, 324.
Bonds, 12.
Pleading, 23.
W. 876.
Covenants, 31.
HAMMEL V. BEARDSLEY, 31 Minn. 314, 17 N. W. 858.
Negotiable Instruments, 172.
Words and Phrases, 724.
Applied in Lucy v. Wilkins, 33 Minn. 22.
HAMMOND V. DIKE, 42 Minn. 273, 44 N. W. 61.
Wills, 6, 7.
Witness, 96.
Cited in Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 458.
HAMMOND V. PEYTON, 34 Minn. 529, 27 N. W. 72.
Vendor and Purchaser, 125.
Applied in Peters v. Tunell, 43 Minn. 475. Cited
in Law v. Butler, 44 Minn. 487.
HANCHETT V. JORDAN, 43 Minn. 149, 45 N. W. 617.
Sunday, 4.
HANDY V. ST. PAUL GLOBE PUB. Co., 41 Minn. 188,
42 N. W. 872.
Contracts, 161.
Sunday, 8-10.
Cited in Malone v. Minnesota Stone Co., 36 Minn. HANFORD V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 104,
327.
HALLAM V. DOYLE, 35 Minn. 337, 29 N. W. 130.
Ejectment, 30.
New Trial, 97.
HALLIBERT V. PORTER, (Hillebert v. Porter,) 28
Minn. 496, 11 N. W. S4.
Constitutional Law, 104.
Cited in State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 353; Merrill v.
Dearing, 32 Minn. 450; O'Brien v. Krenz, 36
Minn. 138.
HALVERSON V. BELL, 39 Minn. 240, 39 N. W. 324.
Highways, 25.
HALVERSON v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 32
Minn. 88, 19 N. W. 392.
Railroad Companies, 51, 239.
Followed in Halverson v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 89; Schimmele v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 217.
HAMBURG, THE. See Irvin v. The Hamburg.
HAMILTON V. BATLIN, S Minn. 403, (Gil. 359.)
Quieting Title, 17.
Cited in Murphy v. Hinds, 15 Minn. 183, (Gil.
140;) Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 415; Baus-
man v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 206.
HAMLIN V. PARSONS, 12 Minn. 10S, (Gil. 59.)
Mortgages, 43.
Cited in Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 345, (Gil.
223;) Warner v. Kenning, 25 Minn. 175; Whit-
ney v. Huntington, 34 Minn. 463.
HAMLIN V. SCHULTE, 31 Minn. 456, 18 N. W. 415.
Factors and Brokers, 30.
42 N. W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144.
Eminent Domain, 59, 136.
Riparian Rights, 2, 8, 9.
Words and Phrases, 606.
Overruling Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson,
38 Minn. 406. Cited in Minneapolis Trust Co.,
v. Eastman, 47 Miun. 304; City of Duluth v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 1166.
HANKEY V. BECHт, 25 Minn. 212.
Execution, 25, 26.
HANLEY V. NOYES, 35 Minn. 174, 28 N. W. 189.
Account Stated, 2.
HANNA V. RUSSELL, 12 Minn. 80, (Gil. 43.)
Summons, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 595, 597.
Followed in Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 264, (Gil.
169;) Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn. 30, (Gil.
13.) Cited in Shatto v. Latham, 33 Minn. 38.
HANNEM V. PENCE, 40 Minn. 127, 41 N. W. 657.
Negligence, 4.
HANOVER FIRE INS. Co. v. AMES, 39 Minn. 150, 39
N. W. 300.
Insurance, 122.
HANSCOM V. HERRICK, 21 Minn. 9.
Pleading, 180.
Cited in Bausman v. Woodman, 33 Minn. 514.
HANSEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., (Han-
son v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,) 37 Minn.
355, 34 N. W. 223.
Railroad Companies, 166, 172, 198.
HANSON V. DUNTON, 35 Minn. 189, 28 N. W. 221.
Mortgages, 327.
2441
2442
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HANSON V. EASTMAN, 21 Minn. 509.
Dedication, 14, 44.
Followed in Downer v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 23
Minn. 275. Cited in Gilfillan v. Hobart, 35
Minn. 188.
HANSON V. ELTON, 38 Minn. 493, 38 N. W. 614.
Breach of Marriage Promise, 1, 8.
HANSON V. JOHNSON, 20 Minn. 194, (Gil. 172.)
Execution, 4, 5.
HANSON V. MARSH, 40 Minn. 1, 40 N. W. 841.
Frauds, Statute of, 40, 43.
HANSON V. METCALF, 46 Minn. 25, 48 N. W. 441.
Insolvency, 12, 21, 22.
HANSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., (Hansen
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,) 37 Minn. 355,
34 N. W. 223.
Railroad Companies, 166, 172, 198.
HANSON V. STOCKING. See Stocking v. Hanson.
HANSON V. TARBOX, 47 Minn. 433, 50 N. W. 474.
Conversion of Personal Property, 42.
Payment, 10.
HARBORD V. COOPER, 43 Minn. 466, 45 N. W. 860.
Assignment, 6.
HARDENBERGH V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 39
Minn. 3, 38 N. W. 625.
Carriers, 78, 135.
HARDENBERGH v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 41
Minn. 200, 42 N. W. 933.
Damages, 117.
HARDER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 40 Minn. 446, 42
N. W. 350.
Municipal Corporations, 324.
HARRINGTON V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn.
215, (Gil. 183.)
Appeal and Error, 329, 543.
Eminent Domain, 30, 32, 259–261, 292–293.
Public Lands, 27, 42, 61.
Words and Phrases, 521.
Applied in Carli v. Stillwater St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 375; Colstrum v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 517. Cited
in Lohman v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 18
Minn. 176, (Gil. 162;) Adams v. Hastings & D.
R. Co., 18 Minn. 262, 265, (Gil. 238, 241;) Math-
ews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 440,
(Gil. 396;) Ames v. Lake Superior & M. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 266; Spencer v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 21 Minn. 363; Kaiser v. St. Paul, S. & T.
F. R. Co., 22 Minn. 150; Weaver v. Mississippi
& R. R. Boom Co., 30 Minn. 479; Lamm v. Chi-
cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 77.
HARRINGTON V. SAMPLES, 36 Minn. 200, 30 N. W.
671.
Evidence, 333.
Witness, 19.
HA RINGTON v. TOWN OF PLAINVIEW, 27 Minn. 224,
6 N. W. 777.
Appeal and Error, 651.
Elections and Voters, 3.
Injunction, 4.
Followed in Town of Plainview v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co., 36 Minn. 510, 511, 513. Cited in
Dowlan v. Sibley County, 36 Minn. 431; Fulton
v. Town of Riverton, 42 Minn. 393.
HARRIS V. CORLIES, CHAPMAN & DRAKE, 40 Minn.
106, 41 N. W. 940.
Landlord and Tenant, 22.
Words and Phrases, 251.
HARDIN V. PALMERLEE, 28 Minn. 450, 10 N. W. 773. HARRIS V. KERR, 37 Minn: 537, 35 N. W. 379.
Judgment, 162.
HARDY, IN RE, (Hardy v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co.,) 35 Minn. 193, 28 N. W. 219.
Executors and Administrators, 2.
HARKINS V. SENCERBOX, 2 Minn. 344, (Gil. 297.)
Mandamus, 43.
Cited in Prignitz v. Fischer, 4 Minn. 367, (Gil.
276.)
HARKINS V. SUPERVISORS SCOTT COUNTY, 2 Minn.
342, (Gil. 294.)
Mandamus, 1, 42, 43.
Followed in Harkins v. Sencerbox, 2 Minn. 344,
(Gil. 297.) Cited in Prignitz v. Fischer, 4
Minn. 367, (Gil. 276;) Crowell v. Lambert, 10
Minn. 373, (Gil. 298;) State v. Burr, 28 Minn.
41.
HARLAN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 31 Minn.
427, 18 N. W. 147.
Appeal and Error, 222.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 56.
Cited in Townsend v. Minneapolis Cold-Storage
and Freezer Co., 46 Minn. 125.
HARLEY V. DAVIS, 16 Minn. 487, (Gil. 441.)
Exemptions, 21.
Appeal and Error, 240.
New Trial, S7.
Cited in Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462; Hitch-
cock v. Turnbull, 44 Minn. 478.
HARRIS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 33 Minn.
459, 23 N. W. 850.
Railroad Companies, 170.
Distinguished in Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 40 Minn. 277. Cited in Harris v. Minne-.
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 47.
HARRIS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 37 Minn.
47, 33 N. W. 12.
Railroad Companies, 191.
HARRIS V. ROBINSON, 35 Minn. 340, 28 N. W. 923.
Appeal and Error, 525.
HARRIS MANUF'G Co. v. ANFINSON, 31 Minn. 182,
17 N. W. 274.
Contracts, 39.
>
HARRISON, IN RE, (Harrison v. Kellogg,) 46 Minn.
331, 48 N. W. 1132.
Insolvency, 96, 103, 104.
HARRISON V. MORRISON, 39 Minn. 319, 40 N. W. 66.
Negotiable Instruments, 14.
HARPER V. EAST SIDE SYNDICATE, 40 Minn. 381, 42 HARRISON V. NICOLLET NAT. BANK OF MINNEAPO-
N. W. 86.
Judgment, 128.
HARRINGTON V. LOOMIS, 10 Minn. 366, (Gil. 293.)
Summons, 35.
Distinguished in Gemmell v. Rice, 13 Minn. 406,
(Gil. 375.) Cited in Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn.
197.
LIS, 41 Minn. 488, 43 N. W. 336.
Negotiable Instruments, 157.
Words and Phrases, 85, 110, 111.
HARROLD V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 47 Minn.
17, 49 N. W. 389.
Carriers, 92, 109.
Evidence, 153..
2443
2444
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HARROW V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 71, 44 | HASTINGS & D. R. Co. v. WHITNEY, 34 Minn. 538,
N. W. SS1.
Damages, 108.
HART V. EASTMAN, 7 Minn. 74, (Gil. 50.)
Deposition, 1.
Negotiable Instruments, 124, 125, 142, 146.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn.
499.
HART V. MARSHALL, 4 Minn. 294, (Gil. 211.)
Injunction, 2.
Cited in Montgomery v. McEwen, 9 Minn. 108,
(Gil. 97;) Conkey v. Dike, 17 Minn. 464, (Gil.
435;) Hanson v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 195, (Gil.
174.)
HART V. MARSHALL, 4 Minn. 552, (Gil. 434.)
Costs, 49.
Words and Phrases, 540.
Cited in Cooper v. Stinson, 5 Minn. 522, (Gil. 417.)
HARTLEY V. CROZE, (Hartley, In re,) 38 Minn. 325,
37 N. W. 449.
Executors and Administrators, 96, 111, 112.
Words and Phrases, 563.
HARTMAN V. MUNCH, 21 Minn. 107.
Homestead, 10, 68.
Followed in Smith v. Lackor, 23 Minn. 457.
Cited in Jelinek v. Stepan, 41 Minn. 413.
HARTMAN V. WEILAND, 36 Minn. 223, 30 N. W. S15.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 73.
Judgment, 123.
Cited in Bloom v. Moy, 43 Minn. 397; Fullington
v. Northwestern Breeders' Ass'n, 51 N. W.
475.
HARTSHORN v. GREEN, 1 Minn. 92, (Gil. 71.)
Negotiable Instruments, 192.
HARTSON V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 21
Minn. 517.
Appeal and Error, 376.
HARTZ V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 358.
Appeal and Error, 313.
Eminent Domain, 256.
Followed in Wampach v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 365. Cited in Brakken v. Minneapo-
lis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 45; Carli v. Ün-
ion Depot St. Railway & Transfer Co., 32
Minn. 103.
HASS V. BILLINGS, 42 Minn. 63, 43 N. W. 797.
Judgment, 276.
HASS V. CAMP, 40 Minn. 329, 42 N. W. 20.
Usury, 45.
HASSFELDT V. DILL, (Hossfeldt v. Dill,) 28 Minn.
469, 10 N. W. 781.
Conversion of Personal Property, 8.
Husband and Wife, 23.
Applied in Appleton Mill Co. v. Warder, 42
Minn. 119. Cited in Ladd v. Newell, 34 Minn.
109; Howard v. Rugland, 35 Minn. 391; Eilers
v. Conradt, 39 Minn. 244; Heartz v. Klinkham-
mer, 39 Minu. 489.
27 N. W. 69.
Public Lands, 77.
Affirmed in Hastings & D. R. Co. v. Whitney,
10 Sup. Ct. 112, 132 U. S. 357. Followed in
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, 47 Minn. 40, 46.
HATCH v. BURBANK, 17 Minn. 231, (Gil. 207.)
Reference, 14.
HATCH V. CODDINGTON, 32 Minn. 92, 19 N. W. 393.
Judgment, 163.
Cited in Bazille v. Murray, 40 Minn. 50; Farmer
v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 432.
HATCH V. MINNESOTA RY. CONST. Co., 26 Minn. 451,
5 N. W. 97.
Contracts, 85.
HATCH & ESSENDRUP Co. v. SCHUSLER, 46 Minn.
207, 48 N. W. 782.
Pleading, 218.
HATFIELD V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 33 Minn. 130,
22 N. W. 176.
Trial, 1, 2.
HATHAWAY V. BROWN, 18 Minn. 414, (Gil. 373.)
Courts, 34.
Evidence, 393, 394.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 74, 97, 104, 105.
Dicta overruled in Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 298.
Cited in Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn. 46.
HATHAWAY V. BROWN, 22 Minn. 214.
Evidence, 123.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 49.
HAUBRICK V. JOHNSTON, 23 Minn. 237.
Assignment, 18.
Arbitration and Award, 8.
HAUSE, IN RE, (Hause v. Wood,) 32 Minn. 155, 19
N. W. 973.
Appeal and Error, 683.
Guardian and Ward, 18.
Words and Phrases, 514-516.
Distinguished in Re Brown, 32 Minn. 444; State
v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn.
95. Cited in Auerbach v. Gloyd, 34 Miun. 502.
HAUSE V. HAUSE, 29 Minn. 252, 13 N. W. 43.
Action, 18.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 19.
HAUSE V. WOOD, (Hause, In re,) 32 Minn. 155, 19
N. W. 973.
Appeal and Error, 683.
Guardian and Ward, 18.
Words and Phrases, 514-516.
Distinguished in Re Brown, 32 Minn. 444; State
v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn.
95. Cited in Auerbach v. Gloyd, 34 Minn. 502.
HAVEN V. NEAL, 43 Minn. 315, 45 N. W. 612.
Deceit, 33, 36.
Sale, 189.
Cited in Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 495.
HAVEN V. PLACE, 28 Minn. 551, 11 N. W. 117.
Appeal and Error, 670.
Bankruptcy, 13, 14.
Sale, 149.
Words and Phrases, 44, 758.
HASTINGS MALTING CO. v. HELLER, 47 Minn. 71, 49 HAWKE V. BANNING, 3 Minn. 67, (Gil. 30.)
N. W. 400.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 14, 26.
Words and Phrases, 756,
Cited in Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 482.
Appeal and Error, 216.
Mortgages, 337.
Followed in Kent v. Bown, 3 Minn. 351, (Gil.
248;) Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 163, (Gi
2445
2446
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HAWKE V. BANNING-Continued.
108;) Kern v. Chalfant, 7 Minn. 492, (Gil. 399.)
Overruled in Reynolds v. La Crosse & M.
Packet Co., 10 Minn. 186, (Gil. 150.)
HAWKE V. DEUEL, 2 Minn. 58, (Gil. 46.)
Appeal and Error, 28, 653.
Cited in Ætna Ins. Co. v. Swift, 12 Minn. 444,
(Gil. 333.)
HAWKINS V. LANGE, 22 Minn. 557.
Work and Labor, 7.
HAWKINS V. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF
COTTAGE GROVE, 23 Minn. 256.
Estoppel, 27, 33.
HAWKINS V. SAUBY, 50 N. W. 1015.
Evidence, 396.
Cited in Anderson v. Liljengren, 52 N. W. 220.
HAWKINS V. WATKINS, 34 Minn. 554, 27 N. W. 65.
Counties, 62.
Cited in Rockwell v. Board of County Com'rs of
Filmore County, 47 Minn. 219.
HAWLEY V. WILKINSON, 18 Minn. 525, (Gil. 468.)
Appeal and Error, 447.
Contracts, 62.
Followed in Plummer v. Mold, 22 Minn. 16. Cit-
ed in Wagner v. Nagel, 33 Minn. 350; Rhodes
v. Pray, 36 Minn. 393.
HAWTHORNE v. CITY BANK, 34 Minn. 382, 26 N. W. 4.
Covenants, 39.
Cited in Fasler v. Beard, 39 Minn. 34.
HAYDEN V. ALBEE, 20 Minn. 159, (Gil. 143.)
Evidence, 150.
Nuisance, 11.
Waters and Water Courses, 11, 13.
HAYDEN V. DWYER, 47 Minn. 246, 50 N. W. 200.
Sale, 196.
HAYDEN V. KEITH, 32 Minn. 277, 20 N. W. 195.
Injunction, 33.
Cited in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 512.
HAYES V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 45 Minn.
17, 47 N. W. 260.
Railroad Companies, 293.
Cited in Hoye v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
46 Minn. 272.
HAYES V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 46 Minn.
349, 49 N. W. 61.
Eminent Domain, 273.
HAYES V. CRANE, 50 N. W. 925.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 71.
Words and Phrases, 43.
HAYES V. SHAW, 20 Minn. 405, (Gil. 355.)
Judgment, 2.
Followed in Stocking v. Hanson, 22 Minn. 547.
HAYNES V. CITY OF DULUTH, 47 Minn. 458, 50 N. W.
693.
Eminent Domain, 96, 217.
HAYWARD V. GRANT, 13 Minn. 165, (Gil, 154.)
Appeal and Error, 428.
Negotiable Instruments, 164, 178, 193, 211.
Pleading, 203, 204, 288.
Words and Phrases, 267.
Followed in Cabbott v. Radford, 17 Minn. 320,
(Gil. 296.) Approved in C. N. Nelson Lumber
Co. v. Richardson, 31 Minn. 268. Cited in
Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 294, (Gil. 225 ;)
Bausman v. Kelley, 33 Minn. 205.
HAYWARD V. KNAPP, 22 Minn. 5.
New Trial, 22.
HAYWARD V. KNAPP, 23 Minn. 430.
Appeal and Error, 581.
Custom and Usage, 5.
Evidence, 133.
Navigable Waters, 2, 3, 5, 6.
Trial, 95.
Cited in Armstrong v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 45 Minn. 88.
HAZELTINE V. SWENSEN, 38 Minn. 424, 3S N. W. 110.
Replevin, 7.
HEAD V. MILLER, 45 Minn. 446, 48 N. W. 192.
Sale, 9.
HEALY V. YOUNG, 21 Minn. 389.
Evidence, 286.
Followed in Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 370.
Distinguished in Harrison v. Morrison, 39
Minn. 320. Explained in Thompson v. Libby,
34 Minn. 378. Cited in Wilson v. Hentges, 29
Minn. 106; Bretto v. Levine, 52 N. W. 525.
HEARTZ V. KLINKHammer, 39 Minn. 488, 40 N. W.
$26.
Evidence, 241.
Husband and Wife, 24.
Trespass, 10, 19, 20.
HEATH V. HALL, 7 Minn. 315, (Gil. 243.)
Mortgages, 224.
Cited in Casey v. McIntyre, 45 Minn. 530.
HEBERLING V. JUGGAR, 47 Minn. 70, 49 N. W. 306.
Execution, 86, 87.
HECKLIN V. Ess, 16 Minn. 51, (Gil. 38.)
Appeal and Error, 743.
Justices of the Peace, 17, 18.
Pleading, 77.
Replevin, 70.
Approved in Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 223,
(Gil. 203.) Applied in Moulton v. Thompson,
26 Minn. 121. Distinguished in Stevers v.
Gunz, 23 Minn. 521. Overruled in German-
American Bank v. White, 38 Minn. 471.
HEDDERLY V. Downs, 31 Minn. 183, 17 N. W. 274.
Contracts, 58.
HEDDERLY V. JOHNSON, 42 Minn. 443, 44 N. W. 527.
Vendor and Purchaser, 32.
Words and Phrases, 462.
Applied in Richmond v. Koenig, 43 Minn. 482.
Distinguished in McManus v. Blackmarr, 47
Minn. 333.
HEENAN V. NASH, 8 Minn. 407, (Gil. 363.)
Negotiable Instruments, 118.
HEFFEREN V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 45 Minn. 471,
48 N. W. 1, 526.
Appeal and Error, 353.
Master and Servant, 102, 156.
Affirmed in Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 379.
HEFFINGER v. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Ry. Co., 43
Minn. 503, 45 N. W. 1131.
Railroad Companies, 223.
HEFFNER V. GUNZ, 29 Minn. 103, 12 N. W. 342.
Attachment, 69.
Judgment, 255.
Summons, 17.
Applied in Magin v. Lamb, 43 Minn. 81, 82.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 35; Fei-
kert v. Wilson, 38 Minn. 341.
2447
2448
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HEGENMYER v. MARKS, 37 Minn. 6, 32 N. W. 785.
Principal and Agent, 64.
Vendor and Purchaser, 65, 66.
Distinguished in Barringer v. Stoltz, 39 Minn.
64; Tilleny v. Wolverton, 46 Minn. 258; Carlton
v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055.
HEGLUND V. ALLEN, (Allen v. Heglund,) 30 Minn.
38, 14 N. W. 57.
Arbitration and Award, 1, 4, 14, 20.
HEIGU V. CHADBOURNE. See Griffin v. Chadbourne.
HEIMAN V. PHENIX MUT. LIFE INS. Co., 17 Minn.
153, (Gil. 127.)
Insurance, 2-6.
Approved in Schwartz v. Germania Life Ins. Co.,
18 Minn. 455, (Gil. 407.)
HEINLIN V. FISH, 8 Minn. 70, (Gil. 48.)
Appeal and Error, 488.
Contracts, 168.
Affirmed in Fish v. Heinlin, 8 Minn. 540; (Gil.
483, 484.) Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26
Minn. 408.
HEINRICH V. ENGLUND, 34 Minn. 395, 26 N. W. 122.
Account Stated, 10.
Judgment, 22, 28.
Cited in Hersey v. Walsh, 38 Minn. 522.
HEINTZELMAN V. DRUIDS' RELIEF ASS'N, 38 Minn.
138, 36 N. W. 100.
Corporations, 19, 120.
HEISLEY V. SWANSTROM, 40 Minn. 196, 41 N. W. 1029.
Vendor and Purchaser, 7.
Cited in Dana v. St. Paul Investment Co., 42
Minn. 196.
HEITSCH V. COLE, 47 Minn. 320, 50 N. W. 235.
Principal and Surety, 8.
HELFER V. ALDEN, 3 Minn. 332, (Gil. 232.)
Negotiable Instruments, 24, 87, 160, 209.
Cited in Hart v. Eastman, 7 Minn. 79, (Gil. 51.)
HELMBRECHT V. HELMBRECHT, 31 Minn. 504, 18 N.
W. 449.
Appeal and Error, 747.
HEMPHILL V. HOLLEY, 4 Minn. 233, (Gil. 166.)
Libel and Slander, 67, 73.
Pleading, 29s.
HENKLE V. ALDRICH, (Henkle v. Aldridge,) 40
Minn. 468, 42 N. W. 298.
Judgment, 125.
HENNEPIN COUNTY V. BARTLESON, 37 Minn. 343, 34
N. W. 222.
Constitutional Law, 170.
HENNEPIN COUNTY V. BELL, (State v. Bell,) 43
Minn. 344, 45 N. W. 615.
Taxation, 35.
Cited in Ramsey County v. Church of the Good
Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229.
HENNEPIN County v. Brotherhood oF GETHSEM-
ANE, (Nelson's Addition, In re,) 27 Minn. 460,
8 N. W. 595.
Taxation, 41.
Words and Phrases, 505, 614, 616.
HENNEPIN COUNTY V. GRACE, (Grace, In re,) 27
Minn. 503, 8 N. W. 761.
Taxation, 40, 42.
Words and Phrases, 689.
Cited in Ramsey County v. Church of the Good
Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229, 230.
HENNEPIN COUNTY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co.,
(State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 33 Minn.
534, 24 N. W. 196.
Railroad Companies, 117.
Distinguished in Martin County v. Drake, 40
Minn. 140. Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35
Minn. 18; Todd County v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 165.
HENNEPIN COUNTY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
(State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 42 Minn.
238, 44 N. W. 63.
Railroad Companies, 123.
Cited in St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 511, 513.
HENNESSEY V. PEDERSON, 28 Minn. 461, 11 N. W.
63.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 18.
HENNESSY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 44 Minn. 306, 46 N.
W. 353.
Municipal Corporations, 217.
HEMPSTED V. CARGILL, 46 Minn. 118, 48 N. W. 558. HENNESSY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 30 Minn.
Limitation of Actions, 34.
Waters and Water Courses, 24.
55, 14 N. W. 269.
Eminent Domain, 241.
HEMPSTED V. CARGILL, 46 Minn. 141, 48 N. W. 686. HENNING V. RAYMOND, 35 Minn. 303, 29 N. W. 132.
Appeal and Error, 407.
Court Commissioners, 3.
HENDERSHOTT V. FILLMORE COUNTY, 45 Minn. 281,
47 N. W. 810.
Costs, 58.
HENDERSON V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 32 Minn. 319,
20 N. W. 322.
Municipal Corporations, 197, 223, 236.
Cited in Genois v. City of St. Paul, 35 Minn. 331;
Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 374, 375; Jor-
dan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 175;
Rakowsky v. City of Duluth, 44 Minn. 188;
Yanish v. City of St. Paul, 52 N. W. 925.
HENDRICKS V. BANNING, 7 Minn. 32, (Gil. 17.)
Usury, 7.
Action, 4.
HENRY V. BRUNS, 43 Minn. 295, 45 N. W. 414.
Costs, 16.
Pleading, 52.
HENRY V. HINMAN, 21 Minn. 378.
Langin,
Appeal and Error, 423.
Negotiable Instruments, 197.
Followed in St. Paul Harvester Works v.
23 Minn. 462; Boright v. Springfield Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 34 Minn. 354. Overruled in
Chesley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 39
Minn. 56. Cited in Dickerman v. Ashton, 21
Minn. 538; Koethe v. O'Brien, 32 Minn. 78;
Gaffney v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn.
112; Mead v. Billings, 40 Minn. 506.
HENKES V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 42 Minn. 530, 44 | HENRY V. HINMAN, 25 Minn. 199.
N. W. 1026.
Municipal Corporations, 161, 162.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 38.
Cited in Tupper v. Thonipson, 26 Minn. 386.
2449
2450
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HENRY V. MEIGIEN, 46 Minn. 548, 49 N. W. 323, | HERRICK v. ROOT, (Herrick v. Marotte,) 30 Minn.
646.
Costs, 44, 51.
Execution, 103, 104.
Judgment, 277.
HENRY V. TRAYNOR, 42 Minn. 234, 44 N. W. 11.
Attorney and Client, 38.
Execution, 28, 49, 50.
HENSEL V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 37
Minn. 87, 33 N. W. 329.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Negotiable Instruments, 158, 159.
HERBER V. CHRISTOPHERSON, 30 Minn. 395, 15 N.
W. 676.
Mortgages, 329, 371, 441.
HERFORD V. SCHULTE, 37 Minn. 359, 34 N. W. 740.
Boundaries, 14.
HERRICK V. AMMERMAN, 32 Minn. 544, 21 N. W. 836.
Evidence, 198.
Execution, 64, 89.
159, 14 N. W. 793.
Appeal and Error, 68.
Cited in Myrick v. Coursalle, 32 Minn. 154.
HERSEY V. BENNETT, 28 Minn. 86, 9 N. W. 590.
Payment, 38.
Cited in Tomlinson v. Simpson, 33 Minn. 448.
HERSEY V. LONG, 30 Minn. 114, 14 N. W. 508.
Judgment, 122.
Sale, 95.
Cited in Mackey v. Fisher, 36 Minn. 348.
HERSEY V. WALSH, 38 Minn. 521, 38 N. W. 613.
Conversion of Personal Property, 49.
Judgment, 23, 94.
Cited in Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 142.
HERTZELL V. WOODRUFF. See Hone v. Woodruff.
HESINGER V. HOME BEN. ASS'N, 41 Minn. 516, 43 N.
W. 481.
Insurance, 175.
Wills, 18, 19.
Distinguished in Herrick v. Morrill, 37 Minn. HESS' WILL, IN RE, 51 N. W. 614.
253, 254; Todd v. Johnson, 52 N. W. 865.
HERRICK V. BALDWIN, 17 Minn. 209, (Gil. 183.)
Negotiable Instruments, 48, 127, 128, 135.
Cited in Salisbury v. Bartleson, 3) Minn. 367;
Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 499.
HERRICK V. BUTLER, 30 Minn. 156, 14 N. W. 794.
Appeal and Error, 68, 441.
Followed in Herrick v. Marotte, 30 Minn. 161.
Cited in Nye v. Swan, 42 Minn. 244.
HERRICK V. CHURCHILL, 35 Minn. 318, 29 N. W. 129.
Adverse Claim, 23.
Cited in Knight v. Alexander, 38 Minn. 386; Jel-
lison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 485; Wakefield v.
Day, 41 Minn. 346.
HERRICK V. MAROTTE, (Herrick v. Root,) 30 Minn.
159, 14 N. W. 793.
Appeal and Error, 68.
Cited in Myrick v. Coursalle, 32 Minn. 154.
HERRICK V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 31
Minn. 11, 16 N. W. 413.
Conflict of Laws, 7.
Constitutional Law, 74.
Case affirmed in Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Herrick, 8 Sup. Ct. 1176, 127 U. S. 210. Fol-
lowed in Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 435. Applied in Lavallee v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 251. Cited in
State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 N. W.
112.
HERRICK V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 32
Minn. 435, 21 N. W. 471.
Assignment, 28.
Conflict of Laws, 7.
Constitutional Law, 74.
Case affirmed in Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Herrick, 8 Sup. Ct. 1176, 127 U. S. 210.
HERRICK V. MORRILL, 37 Minn. 250, 33 N. W. 849.
Execution, 65, 66.
Summons, 13.
Words and Phrases, 698, 716, 752, 754.
Cited in West v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 40
Minn. 192: Ambuehi v. Matthews, 41 Minn.
539.
HERRICK V. NEWELL, 51 N. W. 819.
Justices of the Peace, 23.
Money Received, 13.
HEWITT V. BLUMENKRANZ, 33 Minn. 417, 23 N. W.
858.
Appeal and Error, 584
Trial, 188.
Cited in Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 317;
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 44 Minn. 132.
HEWITT V. BROWN, 21 Minn. 163.
Appeal and Error, 314.
Contracts, 131.
Factors and Brokers, 28.
Cited in Heisley v. Swanstrom, 40 Minn. 200.
HEWITT V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 23 Minn. 178.
Appeal and Error, 470.
Libel and Slander, 45.
Cited in Marks v. Baker, 28 Minn. 166; Larrabee
v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 143.
HEWITT V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. R. Co., 35 Minn. 226,
28 N. W. 255.
Railroad Companies, 23.
HEYWARD V. JUDD, 4 Minn. 483, (Gil. 375.)
Constitutional Law, 100, 101.
Mortgages, 352, 403.
Followed in Freeborn v. Pettibone, 5 Minn. 278,
(Gil. 220;) Turrell v. Morgan, 7 Minn. 374, (Gil.
294.) Approved in Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 307,
(Gil. 235.) Disapproved in Hillebert v. Porter,
28 Minn. 498. Distinguished in Archambau v.
Green, 21 Minn. 525. Explained in Berthold v.
Holman, 12 Minn. 346, (Gil. 2.5.) Cited in Pace
v. Chadderdon, 4 Minn. 502, (Gil. 392;) Whitta-
cre v. Fuller, 5 Minn. 520, (Gil. 414;) Davidson
v. Farrell, 8 Minn. 264, (Gil. 230;) Goenen v.
Schroeder, 8 Minn. 392, (Gil. 349;) Spencer v.
Levering, 8 Minn. 464, (Gil. 414;) Carroll v.
Rossiter, 10 Minn. 178, (Gil. 143;) Stine v. Ben-
bett, 13 Minn. 157, (Gil. 143;) Bacon v. Cottrell,
13 Minn. 197, (Gil. 187;) O'Brien v. Krenz, 38
Minn. 133.
HICKEY V. COLLOM, 47 Minn. 565, 50 N. W. 918.
Mechanics' Liens, 29, 95.
Applied in Burns v. Sewell, 51 N. W. 225.
HICKS V. HAWTHORNE. See Hicks v. Stone.
HICKS V. MENDENHALL, 17 Minn. 475, (Gil. 453.)
Replevin, 91.
Words and Phrases, 615.
2451
2452
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HICKS V. STONE, 13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398.)
Appeal and Error, 526.
Sale, 190.
Witness, 86, 87.
Affirmed in Panton v. Duluth Gas & Water Co.,
52 N. W. 527. Followed in Barron v. Paulson,
22 Minn. 37; Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 94;
Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294: Carlson v.
Small, 32 Minn. 439; Taylor v. Spaulding, 36
Minn. 550; Hensel v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 88; Werner v. Schroeder, 38
Minn. 321; Smith v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 44
Minn. 19; Powell v. Heisler, 45 Minn. 552;
Grommes v. Shute, 46 Minn. 182; Emerson v.
Hennessy, 47 Minn. 461; Dupee v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 52 N. W. 957. Applied in Siebert
v. Mainzier, 26 Minn. 104; Campbell v. Land-
berg. 27 Minn. 455; Rheiner v. Stillwater St.
Railway & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 148-150; Ja-
cobson v. Williams, 34 Minn. 23; Clark v. Nel-
son Lumber Co., 34 Minn. 249; Crosby v. St.
Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414: Chesley v.
Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 39 Minn. 86;
Knappen v. Swensen, 40 Minn. 171. Cited in
Cable v. Byrne, 38 Minn. 535; Smith v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 12 Minn. 89; Reynolds v. Reyn-
olds, 44 Minn. 133; Farmers' & Merchants'
State Bank v. Haug, 52 N. W. 214.
HIELSCHER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 46 Minn. 529,
49 N. W. 287.
Municipal Corporations, 226.
HIGBIE V. FARR, 28 Minn. 439, 10 N. W. 592.
Vendor and Purchaser, 61.
HIGGINS V. BEVERIDGE, 35 Minn. 285, 28 N. W. 506.
Constitutional Law, 44.
Justices of the Peace, 3, 9.
Cited in Chubbuck v. Cleveland, 37 Minn. 468.
HIGGINS V. DALE, 28 Minn. 126, 9 N. W. 583.
Bankruptcy, 20.
HIGHLAND V. DRESSER, 35 Minn. 345, 29 N. W. 55.
Frauds, Statute of, 32.
·
HILL V. GILL, 40 Minn. 441, 42 N. W. 294.
Mechanics' Liens, 27.
Applied in McGlauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 409,
411; Hickey v. Collom, 47 Minn. 567. Distin-
guished in Boyd v. Blake, 42 Minn. 2, 3; Ness
v. Wood, 42 Minn. 430; Nolander v. Burns, 50
N. W. 1017. Cited in Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N.
W. 1019; Hill v. Aldrich, 50 N. W. 1020
HILL V. HENRY. See Hill v. Lovell.
HILL V. LOVELL, 47 Minn. 293, 50 N. W. 81.
Mechanics' Liens, 60.
HILL V. LUND, 13 Minn. 451, (Gil. 419.)
Taxation, 261.
Cited in Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 362.
HILL V. NICHOLS, 47 Minn. 382, 50 N. W. 367.
Descent and Distribution, 19.
Equity, 81.
HILL V. RASICOT, 34 Minn. 270, 25 N. W. 604.
Sheriffs and Constables, 14.
HILL V. TOWNLEY, 45 Minn. 167, 47 N. W. 653.
Limitation of Actions, 47, 56.
Mortgages, 90, 339.
Cited in Hill v. Nichols, 47 Miun. 333.
HILL V. WEBB, 43 Minn. 545, 45 N. W. 1133.
Partnership, 18.
HILLEBERT V. PORTER, (Hallibert v. Porter,) 28
Minn. 495, 11 N. W. 84.
Constitutional Law, 104.
Cited in State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 353;
Foley, 30 Minn. 353; Merrill v.
Dearing, 32 Minn. 450; O'Brien v. Krenz, 36
Minn. 138.
HILLESTAD V. HOSTETTER, 46 Minn. 393, 19 N. W.
192.
Sale, 19.
HILLIS V. STOUT, 42 Minn. 410, 44 N. W. 982.
Principal and Agent, 8.
HILLS V. RIX, 43 Minn. 543, 46 N. W. 297.
Evidence, 308.
HILBERT V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 11 Minn. 246, HILLSTROM V. ANDERSON, 46 Minn. 382, 49 N. W.
(Gil. 163.)
Corporations, 14.
HILDERBRANDT V. ROBBECKE, 20 Minn. 100, (Gil.
83.)
Judgments, 38.
HILL V. ALDRICH, 50 N. W. 1020.
Mechanics' Liens, 114.
Words and Phrases, 86.
Disapproved in Haupt Lumber Co. v. Westman,
52 N. W. 34. Explained in Glass v. Freeberg,
52 N. W.901.
HILL V. EDWARDS, 11 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5.)
Mortgages, 5, 68, 104.
Pleading, 71.
Followed in Gale v. Battin, 12 Minn. 292, (Gil.
189;) Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn. 231. Distin-
guished in Weide v. Gehl, 21 Minn. 454; John-
son v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 201. Cited in Ber-
thold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 344, (Gil. 223;) John-
son v. Lewis, 13 Minn. 366, (Gil. 338) Greve
v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 353, 354, (Gil. 271, 272;)
Holton v. Meighen, 15 Minn. 74, (Gil. 52;) Ev-
erest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 31, (Gil. 18;) Morri-
son v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 241, (Gil. 223:)
Humphrey v. Buisson, 19 Minn. 222, (Gil. 183 :)
Meighen v. King, 31 Minn. 117; Buse v. Page,
32 Minn. 115.
Negotiable Instruments, 1, 2.
187.
HILLYER V. REMORE, 42 Minn. 254, 44 N. W. 116.
Exemptions, 13, 14.
Words and Phrases, 709.
HINDS V. AMERICAN EXP. Co., 24 Minn. 95.
Appeal and Error, 745.
Followed in Warner v. Fischbach, 29 Minn. 263.
Approved in Smith v. Force, 31 Minn. 121.
Cited in Watson v. Ward, 27, Minn. 30.
HINDS V. BACKUS, 45 Minn. 170, 47 N. W. 655.
Venue in Civil Cases, 3.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45
Minn. 501.
HINDS V. FAGEBANK, 9 Minn. 68, (Gil. 57.)
Attachment, 9, 23, 24.
Distinguished in Nelson v. Munch, 23 Minn. 230.
HINES V. CHAMBERS, 29 Minn. 7, 11 N. W. 129.
HINES V. CHAMBERS. 29 Minn. 7, 11 N. W. 129.
Attachment, 66, 67.
Sheriffs and Constables, 25, 33, 34.
Explained in Howard v. Manderfield, 31 Minn.
339.
HINKEL V. KRUEGER, 47 Minn. 497, 50 N. W. 689.
Taxation, 187.
2453
2454
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HINKLE V. LAKE SUPERIOR & M. R. Co., 18 Minn. | HODINS V. HEANEY-Continued.
297, (Gil. 270.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408.
Cited in St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.
v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 312, (Gil. 270.)
HINKLE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 31
Minn. 434, 18 N. W. 275.
Accord and Satisfaction, 8.
Distinguished in Sobieski v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 41 Minn. 172.
HINKLEY V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co., 9 Minn. 55, (Gil. 44.)
Appeal and Error, 238.
Attorney and Client, 3.
Garnishment, 27-30, 32.
Overruled in Hanna v. Russell, 12 Minn, 86,
(Gil. 45.) Cited in Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn.
54; Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 495.
HINMAN V. HENRY. See Hooper v. Henry.
HINMAN V. HEYDERSTADT, 31 Minn. 264, 17 N. W.
476. See Hooper v. Henry.
HINMAN V. HEYDERSTADT, 32 Minn. 250, 20 N. W. 155.
Damages, 72.
Cited in Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn. 201;
Viliski v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 308.
HITCHCOCK V. TURNBULL, (Cleveland v. De Soto
Boiler Works,) 44 Minn. 475, 47 N. W. 153.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 52.
'Sale, 160.
HOAG V. MENDENHALL, 19 Minn. 335, (Gil. 289.)
Limitation of Actions, 79.
Pleading, 6.
Words and Phrases, 60, 373.
HOARD V. CLUM, 31 Minn. 186, 17 N. W. 275.
Partnership, 56.
Pleading, 133.
HOBERG V. STATE, 3 Minn. 262, (Gil. 181.)
Criminal Law, 113, 182.
Larceny, 25.
Witness, 72.
Modified in Oswald v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 6; Helmbrecht v. Helmbrecht,
31 Minn. 504, 505. Cited in Maher v. State, 3
Minn. 447, (Gil. 332;) State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn.
142, (Gil. 127;) Hudson v. Minneapolis, L. &
M. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 55.
HOCUM V. WEITHERICK, 22 Minn. 152.
Appeal and Error, 251.
Negligence, 59, 83.
Trial, 86, 96, 97.
Cited in Whittier v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 24 Minn. 405.
HODGE V. LUDLUM, 45 Minn. 290, 47 N. W. 805.
Estoppel, 57.
Trial, 190.
Cited in Irish-American Bank v. Ludlum, 51 N.
W. 1047, 1048.
HODGE V. TWITCHELL, 33 Minn. 389, 23 N. W. 547.
Partnership, 53.
Applied in Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 378.
HODGINS V. HEANEY, 15 Minn. 185, (Gil. 142.)
Appeal and Error, 37.
Frauds, Statute of, 15.
Judgment, 236.
Cited in Hodgins v. Heaney, 17 Minn. 46, 47,
(Gil. 28, 29;) Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 353,
(Gil. 327;) Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn.
534.
HODGINS v. HEANEY, 17 Minn. 45, (Gil. 27.)
Attorney and Client, 17.
Husband and Wife, 36.
Cited in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 353, (Gil. 327.)
HODGMAN V. CHICAGO & ST. P. Rr. Co., 20 Minn.
48, (Gil. 36.)
Injunction, 8.
Municipal Corporations, 331.
Railroad Companies, 64, 65.
HODGMAN V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 23 Minn. 153.
Railroad Companies, 85, 87, 88.
HODGSON V. DULUTH, H. & D. R. Co., 46 Minn. 454,
49 N. W. 197.
Corporations, 31, 127.
HOFFMAN V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 40 Minn
60, 41 N. W. 301.
Railroad Companies, 301, 306, 309.
HOFFMAN V. CHICAGO, M. & Sr. P. Rr. Co., 43 Minn.
334, 45 N. W. 608.
Railroad Companies, 292.
Cited in Cantlon v. Eastern Ry. Co., 45 Minn.
482.
HOFFMAN V. MANN, 11 Minn. 364, (Gil. 262.)
Appeal and Error, 8.
Followed in Schurmeier v. First Division St. P.
& P. R. Co., 12 Minn. 351, (Gil. 229.)
HOFFMAN V. MINNEAPOLIS MUT. FIRE INS. Co., 42
Minn. 291, 44 N. W. 67.
Insurance, 96.
HOFFMAN V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 45 Minn. 53,
47 N. W. 312.
Carriers, 66, 138-140.
Words and Phrases, 679, 680.
Cited in Serwe v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 50 N. W.
1022.
HOFFMAN V. PARSONS, 27 Minn. 236, 6 N. W. 797.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 2, 23.
Statutes, 40.
HOGENSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., (Hoganon
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 31 Minn. 224, 17
N. W. 374.
Surface Water, S.
Followed in Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 420. Cited in Township of Blakely v.
Devine, 36 Minn. 55; Pye v. City of Mankato,
36 Minn. 375; Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 41 Minn. 386; Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 176.
HOHMAN V. CARTER. See Schilling v. Carter.
HOLBROOK V. COOLEY, 25 Minn. 275.
Witness, 111.
HOLBROOK V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co.,
25 Minn. 229.
Insurance, 28, 29, 64, 71.
Words and Phrases, 136.
Cited in French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. 113; Fred-
ericksen v. Singer Manuf'g Co., 38 Minn. 358;
De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 39 Minn. 503, 505
Jewell v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 41 Minn.
406; Minnesota Gas-Light Economizer Co. v.
Denslow, 46 Minn. 173; Columbia Electric Co
v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 465.
2455
2456
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HOLBROOK V. SIMS, (Holbrook v. Usher,) 39 Minn. | HOLLINSHEAD V. VON GLAHN, 4 Minn. 190, (Gil.
122, 39 N. W. 74, 140.
Interest of Money, 20, 21.
Negotiable Instruments, 194.
HOLBROOK V. WIGHTMAN, (Wightman, In re,) 31
Minn. 168, 17 N. W. 280.
Homestead, 46, 47.
Words and Phrases, 350.
Cited in McCarthy v. Van Der Mey, 42 Minn.
193.
131.)
Interest of Money, 11.
Judgment, 37.
Cited in Bidwell v. Whitney, 4 Minn. 83, (Gil.
52.)
HOLLY V. BENNETT, 46 Minn. 386, 49 N. W. 189.
Damages, 111.
Evidence, 227.
Negligence, 14.
HOLCOMB V. C. N. NELSON LUMBER CO., 39 Minn. HOLM v. RINGSTROM, 26 Minn. 505, 5 N. W. 680.
342, 40 N. W. 354.
Sheriffs and Constables, 4.
HOLCOMBE V. EHRMANNTRAUT, 46 Minn. 397, 49 N.
W. 191.
Insolvency, 51.
Cited in Hastings Malting Co. v. Heller, 47
Minn. 73; Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 482.
HOLCOMBE V. JOHNSON, 27 Minn. 353, 7 N. W. 364.
Execution, 156.
HOLCOMBE V. McKUSICK, 1 Minn. 334, (Gil. 251.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
HOLCOMBE V. RICHARDS, 38 Minn. 38, 35 N. W. 714.
Deed, 62.
Mortgages, 162.
Followed in Yoerg v. Holcombe, 38 Minn. 46.
HOLCOMBE V. TRACY, 2 Minn. 241, (Gil. 201.)
Judgment, 285.
Limitation of Actions, 3, 6, 7.
Followed in Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 219, 220,
(Gil. 192.) Cited in Marshall v. Hart, 4 Minn.
460, (Gil. 357;) Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 157,
(Gil. 143;) Cook v. Kendall, 13 Minn. 326, (Gil.
298.)
HOLDEN V. GREVE, 41 Minn. 173, 42 N. W. 861.
Appearance, 20.
HOLDEN V. VILLAGE COUNCIL OF LAMBERTON,
(State v. Village of Lamberton,) 37 Minn. 362,
34 N. W. 336.
Certiorari, 3.
Elections and Voters, 32.
HOLDRIDGE V. STOWELL, 39 Minn. 360, 40 N. W. 259.
Arbitration and Award, 2.
HOLGATE V. BROOME, 8 Minn. 243, (Gil. 209.)
Appearance, 21.
Justices of the Peace, 51, 59.
Sale, 157.
Applied in Universalist General Convention v.
Bottineau, 42 Minn. 36. Overruled in Solomon
v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205, 206. Cited in Mattice
v. Litcherding, 14 Minn. 144, (Gil. 112;) Taylor
v. Parker, 17 Minn. 471, (Gil. 449;) Johnson v.
Hagberg, 50 N. W. 1038.
HOLLEY V. HUNTINGTON, 21 Minn, 325.
Husband and Wife, 35.
Cited in Welch v. Huntington, 23 Minn. 91.
HOLLIDAY V. HUBBARD, 45 Minn. 333, 47 N. W. 1134.
Specific Performance, 28.
HOLLINGSWORTH V. CAMPBELL, 28 Minn. 18, 8 N. W.
873.
Judgment, 4.
Mortgages, 23, 408.
HOLLINSHEAD v. BANNING, 4 Minn. 116, (Gil. 77.)
Garnishment, 72.
Judge, 9.
HOLM V. SANDBERG, 32 Minn. 427, 21 N. W. 416.
Appeal and Error, 381.
Frauds, Statute of, 21.
Cited in D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Doherty, 38
Minn. 431.
HOLMEN V. RUGLAND, 46 Minn. 400, 49 N. W. 189.
Usury, 4.
Cited in Chase v. New York Mortg. Loan Co.,
51 N. W. 817.
HOLMES V. CAMPBELL, 10 Minn. 401, (Gil. 320.)
Execution, 140.
Words and Phrases, 402.
Cited in Holmes v. Campbell, 13 Minn. 67, (Gil
63.)
HOLMES V. CAMPBELL, 12 Minn. 221, (Gil. 141.)
Appeal and Error, 281.
Judgment, 193.
Pleading, 170, 177, 282, 304.
Words and Phrases, 413.
Cited in Holmes v. Campbell, 13 Minn. 67, (Gil.
63;) Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 86, (Gil. 63;)
Johnston v. Higgins, 15 Minn. 488, (Gil. 402;)
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 34; Herrick v. But-
ler, 30 Minn. 158; Malone v. Minnesota Stone
Co., 36 Minn. 327.
HOLMES V. CAMPBELL, 13 Minn. 66, (Gil. 58.)
Appeal and Error, 89.
Judgment, 55, 250.
Words and Phrases, 471.
Cited in Chisago County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
27 Minn. 110; National Albany Exchange Bank
v. Cargill, 39 Minn. 478; People's Ice Co. v.
Schlenker, 52 N. W. 219.
HOLMES V. CRUMMETT, 30 Minn. 23, 13 N. W. 924.
Mortgages, 226.
HOLMES V. WILLIAMS, 16 Minn. 164, (Gil. 146.)
Ejectment, 5, 16.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 2,
12, 13.
Cited in Hurley v. Lamoreaux, 29 Minn. 138;
Lowry v. Tilleny, 31 Minn. 502.
HOLSTON V. BOYLE, 46 Minn. 432, 49 N. W. 203.
Libel and Slander, 20, 55, 90.
Witness, 105.
HOLTERHOFF V. MEAD, 36 Minn. 42, 29 N. W. 675.
Equity, 76.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
4, 6.
HOLTON V. BOWMAN, 32 Minn. 191, 19 N. W. 734.
Mortgages, 316.
Cited in Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 42; Jellison
v. Halloran, 44 Minn. 202; Casey v. McIntyre,
45 Minn. 530.
2457
2458
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HOLTON V. MEIGHEN, 15 Minn. 69, (Gil. 50.)
Mortgages, 4, 17, 18, 448.
Applied in King v. Meighen, 20 Minn. 266, (Gil.
Applied in King v. Meighen, 20 Minn. 266, (Gil.
238;) Parsons v. Noggle, 23 Minn. 330-332.
Cited in Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn. 227; Fisk
v. Stewart, 26 Minn. 372; Madigan v. Mead, 31
Minn. 96; Buse v. Page, 32 Miun. 115; Living-
ston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 61; Rogers v. Benton, 39
Minn. 45.
HOLTON V. PARKER, 13 Minn. 383, (Gil. 355.)
Pleading, 38.
HOLTZ V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 29 Minn.
384, 13 N. W. 147.
Railroad Companies, 270, 278.
Followed in Evans v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30
Minn. 492.
HOMBERG V. KIKHAFFER, 43 Minn. 205, 45 N. W. 154.
Negotiable Instruments, 167.
HOMBERGER V. BRANDENBERG, 35 Minn. 401, 29 N.
W. 123.
Practice in Civil Cases, 26.
Sheriffs and Constables, 35, 36, 38.
Cited in Riddell v. Munro, 52 N. W. 142.
HOME INS. Co. v. FLINT, 13 Minn. 244, (Gil. 228.)
Constitutional Law, 52.
Prohibition, Writ of, 2, 4.
Words and Phrases, 408, 410.
Cited in Dayton v. Paine, 13 Minn. 495, 496, (Gil.
455;) State v. Probate Court of Ramsey County,
19 Minn. 130, (Gil. 97;) State v. Ueland, 30
Minn. 31; Christlieb v. Hennepin County, 41
Minn. 143.
HOOVER V. JOHNSON, 47 Minn. 424, 50 N. W. 475.
Mortgages, 397, 411.
HOOVER V. PERKINS WINDMILL & AXE Co., 41
Minn. 143, 42 N. W. 866.
Principal and Agent, î
HOPE v. STONE, 10 Minn. 141, (Gil. 114.)
Covenants, 3-5.
Deed, 82, 97.
Indians, 3.
Followed in Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 32, (Gil.
18;) Marshall v. Roberts, 18 Minn. 408, (Gil.
367.)
HOPKINS V. STUART, 39 Minn. 90, 38 N. W. 801.
Deceit, 30.
HOPKINS V. SWENSEN, 41 Minn. 292, 42 N. W. 1062.
Sheriffs and Constables, 24.
HORN V. BUTLER, 39 Minn. 515, 40 N. W. 833.
Vendor and Purchaser, 110.
HORN V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., 37 Minn. 375, 34
N. W. 593.
Account Stated, 6.
HORN V. WESTERN LAND Ass'n, 22 Miun. 233.
Corporations, 32.
Master and Servant, 6.
Pleading, 89.
Cited in Jones v. Schneider, 22 Minn. 283; Ben-
nett v. Morton, 46 Minn. 114.
HORNING v. SWEET, 27 Minn. 277, 6 N. W. 782.
Ejectment, 26.
HORNSBY V. HAUSE, 35 Minn. 369, 29 N. W. 119.
Factors and Brokers, 8.
HOME INS. Co. v. SHEFFER, 12 Minn. 382, (Gil. 261.) HORN SILVER MIN. Co. v. RYAN, 42 Minn. 196, 44
Mandamus, 44, 45.
HONE V. WOODRUFF, 1 Minn. 418, (Gil. 303.)
Contracts, 54.
Deed, 92.
N. W. 56.
Corporations, 43, 51–54.
HORRIGAN V. RICE, 39 Minn. 49, 38 N. W. 765.
Covenants, 20.
Hooper v. Balch, (Hooper v. Shakopee Bank,) 31 HORTON V. CHADBOURN, 31 Minn. 322, 17 N. W. §65.
Minn. 276, 17 N. W. 617.
Interpleader, 6, 7.
HOOPER V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 37
Minn. 52, 33 N. W. 314.
Appeal and Error, 296.
Railroad Companies, 236, 281.
Distinguished in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 486. Cited in Cox v. Minneapo-
lis, S. S. M. & A. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 102; Stacey
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 160.
HOOPER V. FARWELL, 3 Minn. 106, (Gil. 58.)
Appeal and Error, 733, 749.
Cited in Johnson v. Lough, 22 Minn. 204, 205.
HOOPER V. HENRY, 31 Minn. 264, 17 N. W. 476.
Adverse Claim, 28.
Mortgages, 52.
Cited in Windom v. Schuppel, 39 Minn. 38; Jelli-
son v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 488; Abraham v.
Holloway, 41 Minn. 164; Burke v. Lacock, 41
Minn. 251; Mitchell v. McFarland, 47 Minn.
536.
HOOPER V. HEYDERSTADT. See Hooper v. Henry.
HOOPER V. SHAKOPEE BANK, (Hooper v. Balch,) 31
Minn. 276, 17 N. W. 617.
Interpleader, 6, 7.
HOOPER V. WEBB, 27 Minn. 485, 8 N. W. 589.
Appeal and Error, 595.
Contracts, 11.
Witness, 80, 101.
Cited in Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 48.
HORTON V. KELLY, 40 Minn. 193, 41 N. W. 1031.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 3, 124.
Mortgages, 259.
Cited in Miller v. McCarty, 47 Minn. 324.
HORTON V. MAFFITT, 14 Minn. 289, (Gil. 216.)
Mortgages, 128, 416, 421.
Partition, 2.
Cited in First Division St. P. & P. R. Co. v.
Parcher, 14 Minn. 304, (Gil. 230;) Davis v. Sey-
mour, 16 Minn. 213, (Gil. 185;) Tinkcom v.
Lewis, 21 Minn. 142; McArthur v. Martin, 23
Minn. 80; McCarthy v. Grace, 23 Minn. 156;
Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn. 319; Standish
v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 176; Smith v. Lytle, 27
Minn. 193; Schroeder v. Lahrman, 28 Minn.
76; Parke v. Hush, 29 Minu. 435; Lindley v.
Crombie, 31 Minn. 233; Buchanan v. Reid, 43
Minn. 175.
HORTON V. WILLIAMS, 21 Minn. 197.
Appeal and Error, 567.
Chattel Mortgages, 17, 27, 28, 60, 77.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 8.
Trial, 103.
Followed in Stein v. Munch, 24 Minn. 394; First
Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 24 Minn. 436; Mann v.
Flower, 25 Minn. 507; Filebeck v. Bean, 45
2459
2460
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HORTON V. WILLIAMS-Continued.
Minn. 308. Applied in Bannon v. Bowler, 34
Minn. 418; Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn.
509. Cited in Braley v. Byrnes, 25 Minn. 298;
Smith v. Bean, 46 Minn. 140.
HOSFORD V. ROWE, (Hosford v. Hosford,) 41 Minn.
245, 42 N. W. 1018.
Evidence, 97.
Husband and Wife, 60.
New Trial, 50.
HOSPES V. AMES, (Hospes v. Sanborn,) 28 Minn.
48, 8 N. W. 905.
Mortgages, 386.
HOSPES V. NORTHWESTERN MANUF'G & CAR Co.,
41 Minn. 256, 43 N. W. 180.
Appeal and Error, 165.
Corporations, 167.
Cited in Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co. v.
Langdon, 44 Minn. 38, 45; Brown v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 44 Minn. 322, 323.
HOSPES V. NORTHWESTERN MANUF'G & CAR Co.,
50 N. W. 1117.
Corporations, 104, 143-145, 163.
Executors and Administrators, 47.
Limitation of Actions, 32.
Words and Phrases, 763.
HOSPES V. SANBORN, (Hospes v. Ames,) 28 Minn.
48, 8 N. W. 905.
Mortgages, 386.
HOSSFELDT V. DILL, (Hassfeldt v. Dill,) 28 Minn.
469, 10 N. W. 781.
Conversion of Personal Property, 8.
Husband and Wife, 23.
Applied in Appleton Mill Co. v. Warder, 42 Minn.
119. Cited in Ladd v. Newell, 34 Minn. 109;
Howard v. Rugland, 35 Minn. 391; Eilers v.
Conradt, 39 Minn. 244; Heartz v. Klinkham-
mer, 39 Minn. 489.
HOSTETTER V. ALEXANDER, 22 Minn. 559.
Appeal and Error, 137.
Mortgages, 112.
Followed in Öster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 245, 246.
Cited in Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 29 Minn. 178;
Exley v. Berryhill, 36 Minn. 121; Scott v. Aus-
tin, 36 Minn. 461; Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn.
285, 286.
HOTCHKISS V. CUTTING, 14 Minn. 537, (Gil. 408.)
Judgment, 20, 82, 200.
Mortgages, 359.
Sheriffs and Constables, 63.
Summons, 6, 7, 12.
Cited in Cone v. Hooper, 18 Minn. 535, (Gil. 479;)
Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn. 457, 463, (Gil.
398, 405;) State v. Macdonald, 24 Minn. 59;
Herrick v. Morrill, 37 Minn. 251; Crombie v.
Little, 47 Minn. 589.
HOUDE V. TOLMAN, 42 Minn. 522, 44 N. W. 879.
Evidence, 359.
HOUGH V. COMMISSIONERS RAMSEY COUNTY, 9
Minn. 23, (Gil. 11.)
Register of Deeds, 2.
Approved in Mapes v. Commissioners Olmsted
County, 11 Minn. 368, (Gil. 265.) Distinguished
in Nordin v. Commissioners Kandiyohi Coun-
ty, 23 Minn. 171.
HOUGHTON V. LYNCH, 13 Minn. 85, (Gil. 80.)
Action, 6.
Shipping, 5.
HOULIHAN V. KELLER, 34 Minn. 407, 26 N. W. 227.
Mechanics' Liens, 127.
HOUSTON V. NORD, 39 Minn. 490, 40 N. W. £63.
Chattel Mortgages, 58.
Husband and Wife, 20.
HOVORKA V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 31
Minn. 221, 17 N. W. 376.
Railroad Companies, 246.
Followed in Hovorka v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 34 Minn. 281.
HOVORKA V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 34
Minn. 281, 25 N. W. 595.
Railroad Companies, 241, 247.
HOWARD V. BARTON, 28 Minn. 116, 9 N. W. 584.
Appeal and Error, 553.
Conversion of Personal Property, 26.
Followed in Hardin v. Palmerlee, 28 Minn. 453.
HOWARD V. MANDERFIELD, 31 Minn. 337, 17 N. W.
946.
Attachment, 30.
Sheriffs and Constables, 37, 43.
Distinguished in Welsh v. Wilson, 34 Minn. 93.
Cited in Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 499.
HOWARD V. RUGLAND, 35 Minn. 388, 29 N. W. 63.
Exemptions, 32, 33, 36.
HOWARD V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn.
214, 20 N. W. 93.
Evidence, 250.
Railroad Companies, 188, 210.
Words and Phrases, 420.
Cited in Eldridge v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 255; Bolinger v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., 36 Minn. 419.
HOWE V. COCHRAN, 47 Minn. 403, 50 N. W. 368.
Appeal and Error, 613.
Chattel Mortgages, 44.
Evidence, 248.
HOWE V. FREIDHEIM, 27 Minn. 294, 7 N. W. 143.
Bonds, 6.
HowE v. KINDRED, 42 Minn. 433, 44 N. W. 311.
Mechanics' Liens, 121, 122.
Followed in St. Paul Labor Exchange Co. v.
Eden, 50 N. W. 921, 922.
HOWES, IN RE, (Peck, In re,) 38 Minn. 403, 38 N.
W. 104.
Constitutional Law, 140.
Words and Phrases, 98.
Applied in Re Harrison, 46 Minn. 335. Cited in
Smith v. Bean, 46 Minn. 139.
Howes V. GILLETT, 10 Minn. 397, (Gil. 316.)
HOWES
Appeal and Error, 97.
New Trial, 88.
Changed by statute, see Davidson v. Lamprey,
16 Minn. 449, (Gil. 404.) Cited in Knight v.
Valentine, 35 Minn. 368.
HOWES V. GILLETT, 23 Minn. 231.
Taxation, 280.
Distinguished in Re Jefferson's Estate, 35 Minn.
217.
HowES v. RELIANCE WIRE-WORKS Co., 46 Minn.
44, 48 N. W. 448.
Mechanics' Liens, 15, 51, 117.
Words and Phrases, 135, 320.
Applied in Burns v. Sewell, 51 N. W. 225.
2461
2462
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HOWLAND V. FULLER, 8 Minn. 50, (Gil. 30.)
Evidence, SS.
Pleading, 290.
Cited in Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn. 46.
HOXSIE V. EMPIRE LUMBER Co., 41 Minn. 548, 43 N.
W. 476.
Conversion of Personal Property, 36.
Damages, 69.
Evidence, 160, 254.
HOYE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 46 Minn.
269, 48 N. W. 1117.
Damages, 70.
New Trial, 53.
Railroad Companies, 312.
Witness, $9.
HOYT V. BRADEN, 27 Minn. 490, 8 N. W. 591.
Railroad Companies, 74, 80.
HOYT V. MCNEIL, 13 Minn. 390, (Gil. 362.)
Evidence, 6.
Limitation of Actions, 48, 83.
Followed in Davenport v. Short, 17 Minn. 25,
(Gil. 9.) Cited in Trebby v. Simmons, 38
Minn. 509; Aiken v. Franklin, 42 Minn. 92;
Smith v. Glover, 44 Minn. 265.
HOYT V. MARTIN, 47 Minn. 278, 50 N. W. 130.
Constitutional Law, 56.
Municipal Corporations, 313.
HOYT V. SANFORD, 1 Minn. 211, (Gil. 185.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
HUBBARD V. WILLIAMS, 1 Minn. 54, (Gil. 37.)
Garnishment, 7.
Words and Phrases, 607.
Cited in Groh v. Bassett, 7 Minn. 328, (Gil. 257.)
HUBBARD SPECIALTY & MANUF'G Co. v. MINNEAPO-
LIS WOOD-DESIGNING Co., 47 Minn. 393, 50 N.
W. 349.
Damages, 105.
HUDSON V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Rr. Co., 44 Minn.
52, 46 N. W. 314.
Trial, 113.
Followed in Reilly v. Bader, 46 Minn. 214.
HUEY V. PINNEY, 5 Minn. 310, (Gil. 246.)
Principal and Surety, 15, 28.
HULETT V. MATTESON, 12 Minn. 349, (Gil. 227.)
Appeal and Error, 55.
Cited in McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 367,
(Gil. 244;) Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 513,
(Gil. 386;) Minnesota Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson,
31 Minn. 43.
HULL V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 41 Minn.
510, 43 N. W. 391.
Carriers, 53.
Cited in Boehl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
44 Minn. 192, 195.
HULL V. EQUITABLE ACC. Ass'n, 41 Minn. 231, 42
N. W. 936.
Insurance, 149.
HULL V. KING, 38 Minn. 349, 37 N. W. 792.
Mortgages, 256, 285.
Newspapers, 2.
Words and Phrases, 491, 492.
Followed in Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 222.
Applied in Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9, 11.
Distinguished in Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn.
15.
HUMPHREY V. BUISSON, 19 Minn. 221, (Gil. 182.)
Guardian and Ward, 23.
Mortgages, 107, 108.
HUMPHREY V. CARPENTER, 39 Minn. 115, 39 N. W,
67.
Limitation of Actions, 81.
Practice in Civil Cases, 20.
Words and Phrases, 10.
Cited in Burk v. Western Land Ass'n, 40 Minn.
507; Marcotte v. Hartman, 46 Minn. 203.
HUMPHREY V. HAVENS, 9 Minn. 318, (Gil. 301.)
Appeal and Error, 5, 98, 137.
New Trial, 74.
Overruling Furiong v. Griffin, 3 Minn. 207, (Gil.
138.) Distinguished in McArdle v. McArdle,
12 Minn. 124, (Gil. 71.) Cited in Humphrey v.
Havens, 13 Minn. 151, (Gil. 136;) Washburn v.
Sharpe, 15 Minn. 65, (Gil. 46;) Thompson v.
Bickford, 19 Minn. 27, (Gil. 9;) Hostetter v.
Alexander, 22 Minn. 560; Exley v. Berryhill,
36 Minn. 121.
Cited in Benedict v. Olson, 37 Minn. 432; Bard- HUMPHREY V. HAVENS, 12 Minn. 298, (Gil. 196.)
well v. Witt, 42 Minn. 470.
HUFF V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 11 Minn. 180,
(Gil. 114.)
Corporations, 14.
Followed in Hilbert v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
11 Minn. 258, (Gil. 168.) Cited in State v. Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 317; Minnesota
Cent. Ry. Co. v. Melvin, 21 Minn. 339.
HUFFMAN V. LONG, 40 Minn. 473, 42 N. W. 355.
Vendor and Purchaser, 8.
HUGHES V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 137,
6 N. W. 553.
Master and Servant, 112.
Distinguished in Sherman v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 260, 261. Cited in Gates
v. Southern Minnesota Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 112;
Wilson v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.. 37 Minn.
328; Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 120; Doyle v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
42 Minn. 83; Smith v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
42 Minn. 89; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47
Minn. 364; Bengtson v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 487.
Appeal and Error, 501, 502.
Principal and Agent, 13, 14, 19, 36, 48, 53.
Followed in State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 111, (Gil.
50;) Brisbin, v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 229, (Gil.
201;) Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 497, (Gil. 473;)
Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 126, (Gil. 111;)
Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn. 306, (Gil.
276;) Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408, 409;
McLachlan v. Branch, 39 Minn. 101. Cited in
Humphrey v. Havens, 13 Minn. 151, (Gil. 136:)
Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 129, (Gil. 116;)
Egan v. Faendel, 19 Minn. 233, (Gil. 193;) Bry-
ant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 404, (Gil. 347;) Le Clair
v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 20 Minn.
13, (Gil. 5;) Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 294;
Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. SS; Jackson
v. Badger, 35 Minn. 54.
HUMPHREY V. HAVENS, 13 Minn. 150, (Gil. 135.)
Judgment, 251.
HUMPHREY V. HEZLEP, 1 Minn. 239, (Gil. 190.)
Appeal and Error, 71.
Cited in Davidson v. Owens, 5 Minn. 70, (Gil.
51.)
2463
2461
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HUMPHREY V. MERRIAM, 32. Minn. 197, 20 N. W. 138. | HURLBERT v. NEW ULM BASKET-Works, 47 Minn
Appeal and Error, 299.
Deceit, 20.
Distinguished in Bullitt v. Farrar, 43 Minn. 10,
11. Cited in Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn.
321; Haven v. Neal, 43 Minn. 316; Humphrey
v. Merriam, 46 Minn. 415.
HUMPHREY V. MERRIAM, 37 Minn. 502, 35 N. W. 365.
Action, 28.
Cited in Humphrey v. Merriam, 46 Minn. 416.
HUMPOREY V. MERRIAM, 46 Minn. 413, 49 N. W. 199.
Sale, 62, 72.
HUMPHREYS v. JACOBY, 41 Minn. 226, 42 N. W. 1059.
Attorney and Client, 24.
HUNGERFORD V. CHICAGO, M. & Sr. P. Ry. Co., 41
Minn. 444. 43 N. W. 324.
Master and Servant, 49.
Hungerford v. O'BRIEN, 37 Minn. 306, 34 N. W.
161.
Negotiable Instruments, 109, 110.
HUNSDEN V. CHURCHILL, 20 Minn. 403, (Gil. 360.)
Practice in Civil Cases, 3.
HUNT V. CONRAD, 47 Minn. 557, 50 N. W. 614.
Assignment, 4.
Judgment, 226.
HUNTER V. CLEVELAND CO-OPERATIVE STOVE Co.,
31 Minn. 505, 18 N. W. 645.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 81.
Cited in Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn. 534;
Mueller v. Reimer, 46 Minn. 315.
HUNTER V. FROST, 47 Minn. 1, 49 N. W. 327.
Landlord and Tenant, 48, 54.
Words and Phrases, 739.
Overruling Smith v. Bell, 44 Minn. 524.
in Grace v. Michaud, 52 N. W. 391.
Finch v. Moore, 52 N. W. 384.
HUNTER V. JONES, 13 Minn. 307, (Gil. 282.)
Appeal and Error, 382.
Highways, 24, 61.
Cited in State v. Leslie, 30 Minn. 537.
Applied
Cited in
HUNTSMAN, IN RE. See Brown v. Huntsman.
HUNTSMAN V. FISH, 36 Minn. 148, 30 N. W. 455.
Guardian and Ward, 9, 10, 13.
Cited in Davenport v. Ladd, 38 Minn.
Guthrie v. Olson, 44 Minn. 406.
547;
HUNTSMAN V. HENDRICKS, 44 Minn. 423, 46 N. W.
910.
Covenants, 44.
HUNTSMAN V. HOOPER, 32 Minn. 163, 20 N. W. 127.
Executors and Administrators, 23.
81, 49 N. W. 521.
Mechanics' Liens, 71, 79, 146.
HURLBERT V. WEAVER, 24 Minn. 30.
Estoppel, 10.
HURLBURT V. SCHULENBURG, 17 Minn. 22, (Gil. 5.
Conversion of Personal Property, 18.
Pleading, 216.
Cited in Perry v. Reynolds, 40 Minn. 500.
HURLEY V. HAMILTON, 37 Minn. 160, 33 N. W. 912.
Partition, 1.
Applied in Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 239.
HURLEY V. LAMOREAUX, 29 Minn. 138, 12 N. W. 447
Usage, 2.
Cited in Crosby v. Horne & Danz Co., 45 Minn.
250.
HURLEY V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 34
Minn. 143, 24 N. W. 917.
Dedication, 18, 19.
Cited in Borer v. Lange, 44 Minn. 285.
HURSH V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 17
Minn. 439, (Gil. 417.)
Eminent Domain, 50, 80, 251, 252.
Words and Phrases, 257.
Distinguished in Greve v. First Division St. P.
& P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 67. Cited in Simmons v.
St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 18 Minn. 188, 190, (Gil.
172, 173;) Warren v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 18 Minn. 396, (Gil. 358;) Sherwood v.
St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 126; Warren v.
First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 425;
Leber v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 29
Minn. 260; Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co., 30 Minn. 481; Lamm v. Chicago, St.
P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 77.
HURT V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 485,
40 N. W. 613.
Railroad Companies, 50.
Words and Phrases, 789.
HUTCHINS V. COUNTY COM'RS CARVER COUNTY, 18
Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Appeal and Error, 129.
Execution, 14, 39, 40, 105, 106, 110, 114.
Distinguished in Crosby v. Farmer, 39 Minn. 306.
Cited in Ashton v. Slater, 19 Minn. 351, (Gil.
304;) Duford v. Lewis, 43 Minn. 28.
HUTCHINS V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 44 Minn.
5, 46 N. W. 79.
Death by Wrongful Act, 20.
Executors and Administrators, 1.
Words and Phrases, 53.
Cited in Gunderson v. Northwestern Elevator
Co., 47 Minn. 164.
Hror v. McGOVERN, (Huot v. McGowen,) 27 Minn. | HUTCHINSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co.,
84, 6 N. W. 426.
Appeal and Error, 572.
HUOT V. WISE, 27 Minn. 68, 6 N. W. 425.
Judgment, 69.
Witness, 4.
HURD V. SIMONTON, 10 Minn. 423, (Gil. 340.)
Appeal and Error, 403.
Pleading, 299.
Replevin, 38.
Followed in Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 206.
Cited in Fay v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 300, (Gil.
277;) Jensen v. Crevier, 33 Minn. 373.
37 Minn. 524, 35 N. W. 433.
Carriers, 39, 45.
Contracts, 12.
HUTCHINSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn.
398, 21 N. W. 212.
Railroad Companies, 189.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M.
& O. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 172. Cited in Hanson
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 357;
Barbo v. Bassett, 35 Minn. 486.
Hur v. GRISWOLD, 19 Minn. 114, (Gil. 83.)
Specific Performance, 94.
2465
2466
JASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
HYDE V. WEITZNER, (Weitzner v. Hyde,) 45 Minn. | HYPOPHOSPHITES AND BORAX CASES. See State v.
35, 47 N. W. 311.
Donaldson.
Insolvency, 31.
I.
IDE V. HARWOOD, 30 Minn. 191, 14 N. W. 884.
Garnishment, 31.
[LLINGWORTH V. GREENLEAF, 11 Minn. 235, (Gil. 154.)
Appeal and Error, 548, 582.
Conversion of Personal Property, 40.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 13.
Cited in Cole v. Maxfield, 13 Minn. 239, (Gil.
222;) Yale v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 203, (Gil.
147) Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
32 Minn. 426.
ILTIS V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 40 Minn.
273, 41 N. W. 1040.
Custom and Usage, 12.
Pleading, 174.
Railroad Companies, 229.
Trial, 141.
IRVINE V. MARSHALL, 1 Minn. 340, (Gil. 257.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
IRVINE V. MARSHALL, 3 Minn. 72, (Gil. 33.)
Appeal and Error, 662.
Courts, 3.
IRVINE v. MARSHALL, 7 Minn. 286, (Gil. 216.)
Public Lands, 148, 149.
Trusts, 15.
Distinguished in German Land Ass'n v. Scholler,
10 Minn. 339, (Gil. 266.) Cited in Sanborn v.
Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 206, (Gil. 180.)
IRVINE V. MYERS, 4 Minn. 229, (Gil. 164.)
Partnership, 27, 96, 98.
Pleading, 82.
Followed in Fetz v. Clark, 7 Minn. 222, (Gil. 163.)
INGALLS V.ADAMS EXP. CO.,44 Minn. 128, 46 N.W.325. IRVINE V. MYERS, 6 Minn. 558, (Gil. 394.)
Negligence, 30.
INGALLS V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 39 Minn.
479, 40 N. W. 524.
Fixtures, 9, 10.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 1, 9.
Practice in Civil Cases, 38.
Cited in Goodrich v. Hopkins, 10 Miun. 166, (Gil.
134.)
INGERSOLL V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 10 Minn. 396, (Gil. IRVINE v. MYERS, 6 Minn. 562, (Gil. 398.)
315.)
Garnishment, 49.
INGERSOLL V. RANDALL, 14 Minn. 400, (Gil. 304.)
Contracts, 36.
Distinguished in Gunnaldson v. Nyhus, 27 Minn.
441. Cited in Bisbee v. McAllen, 39 Minn. 145.
INGRAM v. CONWAY, 36 Minn. 129, 30 N. W. 447.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 63.
INNIS V. MAXWELL, 42 Minn. 371, 44 N. W. 1151.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
IRISH V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. Rr. Co., 19 Minn.
376, (Gil. 323.)
Carriers, 36, 57.
Cited in Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 398.
IRVINE V. Armstrong, 31 Minn. 216, 17 N. W. 343.
Appeal and Error, 507.
Specific Performance, 26.
IRVINE V. IRVINE, 5 Minn. 61, (Gil. 44.)
Infancy, 17, 30.
Applied in Pinney v. Fridley, 9 Minn. 38, (Gil. 27.)
V.2M.DIG.-78
Judgment, 222-224, 282.
IRVINE V. THE HAMBURG, 3 Minn. 192, (Gil. 124.)
Shipping, 7.
Distinguished in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 357,
(Gil. 331.)
IRWIN V. PIERRO, 44 Minn. 490, 47 N. W. 154.
Constitutional Law, 129.
Taxation, 122.
Words and Phrases, 242.
ISAACSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 27
Minn. 463, 8 N. W. 600.
Trial, 48.
Cited in Thoreson v. Minneapolis Harvester
Works, 29 Minn. 346.
IVERSON V. DUBAY, 39 Minn. 325, 40 N. W. 159.
Pleading, 173.
Sale, 161.
IVES V. PHELPS, 16 Minn. 451, (Gil. 407.)
Appeal and Error, 130.
Judgment, 210, 217.
Cited in Woodford v. Reynolds, 36 Minn. 155.
2437
2468
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
JACKSON V. BADGER, 35 Minn. 52, 26 N. W. 908.
Factors and Brokers, 6, 7, 12.
Distinguished in Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn.
102.
JACKSON V. BUTLER, 8 Minn. 117, (Gil. 92.)
Civil Rights, 1.
J.
JAGGAR V. LOOBY, (Jaggar v. Wood.) See John
Martin Lumber Co. v. Wood.
JAGGAR V. WINSLOW, 30 Minn. 263, 15 N. W. 26.
Negotiable Instruments, 12, 29.
JAGGAR V. Woon, (Jaggar v. Looby.) See John
Martin Lumber Co. v. Wood.
JACKSON V. HOLBROOK, 36 Minn. 494, 32 N. W. 852. JAGGER V. DAVIDSON. See Ness v. Davidson.
Equity, 79.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 65-67.
Cited in Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 141.
JAMES V. JORDAN, 37 Minn. 43, 33 N. W. 5.
Appeal and Error, 507.
JACKSON V. KANSAS CITY PACKING CO., 42 Minn. JAMES V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 46 Minn. 168, 48
382, 44 N. W. 126.
Money Received, 17, 18.
JACKSON V. TRAVIS, 42 Minn. 438, 44 N. W. 316.
Usury, 9.
JACOBS V. BEETON, 41 Minn. 210, 42 N. W. 1136
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
JACOBS V. CROSS, 19 Minn. 523, (Gil. 454.)
Malpractice, 3, 4.
Witness, 15.
JACOBS V. FOUSE, 23 Minn. 51.
Guardian and Ward, 14, 16, 22.
Followed in State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 148.
Cited
in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 34; Huntsman v.
Fish, 36 Minn. 149.
JACOBS V. HOOVER, 9 Minn. 204, (Gil. 189.)
Assault and Battery, 1, 9.
JACOBSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 41 Minn. 206,
42 N. W. 932.
Railroad Companies, 213.
JACOBSON V. WILLIAMS, 34 Minn. 22, 24 N. W. 296.
Appeal and Error, 527.
JACOBUS V. ST. PAUL & C. R. Co., 20 Minn. 125,
(Gil. 110.)
Carriers, 86-88, 115.
Cited in Fleming v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27
Minn. 114; Opsahl v. Judd, 30 Minn. 129; Gra-
din v. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 225; Jones
v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 43 Minn.
282; Olson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 45 Minn.
539.
JACOBY V. CROWE, 36 Minn. £3, 30 N. W 441.
Mortgages, 47, 443.
Trusts, 9.
Cited in Stewart v. Smith, 36 Minn. 83.
JACOBY V. DREW, 11 Minn. 408, (Gil. 301.)
Attachment, 34.
N. W. 783.
Master and Servant, 54, 138, 161.
JAMES V. WILDER, 25 Minn. 305.
Appeal and Error, 650.
Counties, 66.
Estoppel, 6.
Homestead, 65.
Pleading, 233.
Words and Phrases, 621, 776.
Followed in Harrington v. Town of Plainview,
27 Minn. 226. Overruled in Shepard v. Murray
County, 33 Minn. 520. Cited in Baldwin v. Can-
field, 26 Minn. 59; Borough of Henderson v.
Sibley County, 28 Minn. 519; Cooper v. Finke,
38 Minn. 6.
Janney v. Bord, 30 Minn. 319, 15 N. W. 308.
Custom and Usage, 14.
Pleading, 256.
Cited in Taylor v. Mueller, 30 Minn. 349; Pevey
v. Schulenburg & Boeckeler Lumber Co., 33
Minn. 47; Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
100; Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 429; Bowe v. Hyland, 44 Minn. 89;
Tallboys v. Boston, 46 Minn. 145.
JANNEY V. SLEEPER, 30 Minn. 473, 16 N. W. 365.
Sale, 35.
Venue in Civil Cases, 12.
Cited in Kessler v. Smith, 42 Minn. 495.
JASPERS V. LANO, 17 Minn. 296, (Gil. 273.)
Appeal and Error, 189, 421.
Trial, 73, 129.
Witness, 40, 103.
JEFFERSON V. CHURCH OF ST. MATTHEW, 41 Minn.
392, 43 N. W. 74.
Payment, 41, 42.
Followed in Miller v. Shepard, 52 N. W. 895.
JEFFERSON V. MCCARTHY, 44 Minn. 26, 46 N. W.
140.
Estoppel, 8.
Cited in Hicks v. Mendenhall, 17 Minn. 481, (Gil. JEFFERSON'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Washington County
458.)
JACOBY V. PARKLAND DISTILLING CO., 41 Minn. 227,
43 N. W. 52.
Homestead, 6, 7, 20.
Cited in Neumaier v. Vincent, 41 Minn. 483.
JAEGER V. HARTMAN, 13 Minn. 55, (Gil. 50.)
Negotiable Instruments, 176.
Partnership, 89.
(Gil. 78.)
v. Jefferson's Estate,) 35 Minn. 215, 28 N. W.
256.
Executors and Administrators, 43, 63.
Taxation, 25, 62.
JEFFERSON'S EX'RS v. WASHINGTON COUNTY. See
Washington County v. Jefferson's Estate.
JELINEK V. STEPAN, 41 Minn. 412, 43 N. W. 90.
Homestead, 12.
Followed in Birdsall v. Fischer, 17 Minn. 101. JELLETT V. RHODE, 43 Minn. 166, 45 N. W. 13.
Frauds, Statute of, 8.
2400
2470
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
JELLETT V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 30 Minn. | JEWELL V. WRIGHT, (Wright v. Jewell,) 33 Minn.
265, 15 N. W. 237.
Carriers, 11.
Cited in Adamson v. Petersen, 35 Minn. 531;
Chamberlain v. West, 37 Minn. 55; Torp v.
Gulseth, 37 Minn. 136; Beyersdorf v. Sump,
39 Minn. 499; Riddell v. Munro, 52 N. W. 142.
JELLISON V. HALLORAN, 40 Minn. 485, 42 N. W.
392.
Adverse Claim, 26, 27.
JELLISON V. HALLORAN, 44 Minn. 199, 46 N. W.
332.
Adverse Possession, 37.
Mortgages, 61.
Subrogation, 10.
Cited in Russell v. H. C. Akeley Lumber Co.,4 5
Minn. 379; Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 224.
JENICKE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 27
Minn. 359, 7 N. W. 363.
Railroad Companies, 264.
JENKS V. LUDDEN, 34 Minn. 482, 27 N. W. 188.
Conflict of Laws, 5.
Cited in Daniels v. Palmer, 35 Mina. 349.
JENNESS V. SCHOOL DIST. No. 31, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, 12 Minn. 448, (Gil. 337.)
Schools and School Districts, 43.
Followed in Ryan v. School-District No. 13 of
Dakota County, 27 Minn. 434. Cited in School-
District No. 10 v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 334.
JENNINGS V. IRON BAY CO., 47 Minn. 111, 49 N. W.
685.
Master and Servant, 38.
505, 24 N. W. 299.
Pleading, 209.
Cited in City Bank v. Doll, 33 Minn. 507; Smith
v. Betcher, 34 Minn. 219.
JoпN MARTIN LUMBER Co. v. WOOD, (John Martin
Lumber Co. v. Davidson,) 42 Minn. 433, 44 N.
W. 315.
Mechanics' Liens, 30, 31.
JOHNSON V. AMERICAN INS. Co., 41 Minn. 396, 43 N.
W. 59.
Insurance, 68, 91.
Cited in Gasser v. Sun Fire Office, 42 Minn. 320;
Goldin v. Northern Assurance Co., 46 Minn.
474.
JOHNSON V. AVERY, 41 Minn. 485, 43 N. W. 340.
Pleading, 296.
JOHNSON V. BERG. See Berg v. Johnson.
JOHNSON V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS, (Johnston v.
Becker County,) 27 Minn. 64, 6 N. W. 411.
Counties, 74.
Words and Phrases, 550.
JOHNSON V. BRAY, 35 Minn. 248, 28 N. W. 504.
Insolvency, 16, 39, 40.
Cited in Fairbanks v. Whitney, 36 Minn. 306.
JOHNSON V. CARPENTER, 7 Minn. 176, (Gil. 120.)
Evidence, 22.
Mortgages, 112.
Approved in Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 245, 246.
Applied in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Mirn. 285, 286.
Followed in Hostetter v. Alexander, 22 Minn.
560, 561. Cited in Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 29
Minn. 178; Scott v. Austin, 36 Minn. 461.
JENSEN V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 37 Minn. JOHNSON V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 37 Minn.
383, 34 N. W. 743.
Deed, 61.
JENSEN V. CREVIER, 33 Minn. 372, 23 N. W. 541.
Appeal and Error, 403.
Summons, 55.
Applied in Gray v. Hays, 41 Minn. 13. Cited in
Coles v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 58; Stevens v. Mc-
Millin, 37 Minn. 512; Crosby v. Farmer, 39
Minn. 306, 307.
JENSEN V. WEIDE, 42 Minn. 59, 43 N. W. 688.
Principal and Agent, 6.
Vendor and Purchaser, 112.
JESMER V. RINES, 37 Minn. 477, 35 N. W. 180.
Sale, 18.
JESPERSON V. PHILLIPS, 46 Minn. 147, 48. N. W. 770.
Negligence, 22.
JESURUN V. KENT, 45 Minn. 222, 47 N. W. 784.
Warehousemen, 6, 7.
JEWELL V. GRAND LODGE A. O. U. W., 41 Minn. 405,
43 N. W. SS.
Insurance, 157.
Cited in Scheufler v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W.,
45 Minn. 258; Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn. 73.
JEWELL V. TRUIIN, 38 Minn. 433, 38 N. W. 106.
Taxation, 224, 303.
Cited in Windom v. Schuppel, 39 Minn. 38; Cum-
mings v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 526; Marcotte v.
Hartman, 46 Minn. 204.
JEWELL V. WEED, 18 Minn. 272, (Gil. 247.)
Counties, 12.
519, 35 N. W. 433.
Eminent Domain, 109, 211.
Trial, 51.
Cited in Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39
Minn. 289: Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42
Minn. 140; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 409.
JOHNSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
425, 13 N. W. 673.
Constitutional Law, 73.
Railroad Companies, 271.
Cited in Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
31 Minn. 16; Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 94; Schimmele v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 217; Moser v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 42 Minn. 481; Graves v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 430;
State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 N. W.
112.
JOHNSON V. CHICAGO, M. & Sr. P. Rr. Co., 31 Minn.
57, 16 N. W. 488.
Negligence, 41, 42.
Railroad Companies, 289.
Applied in Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32
Minn. 311. Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 333, 334; Hayes v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 20.
JOHNSON V. Cоскs, 37 Minn. 530, 35 N. W. 436.
Mortgages, 214, 222, 288, 305.
JOHNSON V. COLES, 21 Minn. 108.
New Trial, 55.
Witness, 23, 53.
Words and Phrases, 46.
2471
2472
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
JOHNSON V. CORSER, 34 Minn. 353, 5 N. W.799.
JOHNSON v. Lewis-Continued.
Corporations, 139, 140.
Partnership, 11.
JOHNSON V. FISCHER, 30 Minn. 173, 14 N. W. 799.
Corporations, 157.
Applied in Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 88,
91. Explained in Merchants' Nat. Bank V.
Bailey Manuf'g Co., 34 Minn. 325. Cited in
Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co., 40 Minn. 347;
Arthur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 413; McKusick v.
Seymour, Sabin & Co., 50 N. W. 1115.
JOHNSON V. GARRETT, 23 Minn. 565.
Partnership, 57.
Receivers, 10.
JOHNSON V. GILFILLAN, 8 Minn. 395, (Gil. 352.)
Custom and Usage, 9, 11.
Limitation of Actions, 30.
Public Lands, 119.
Cited in Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Prince, 52 N. W.
132.
JOHNSON V. GOLD, 32 Minn. 535, 21 N. W. 719.
Mechanics' Liens, 103.
JOHNSON V. HAGBERG, 50 N. W. 1037.
Justices of the Peace, 56.
JOHNSON V. HARRISON, 47 Minn. 575, 50 N. W. 923.
Statutes, 39.
Words and Phrases, 117, 592, 593.
Cited in State v. Starkey, 52 N. W. 26.
JOHNSON V. HILLSTROM, 37 Minn. 122, 33 N. W. 547.
Sale, 114, 140.
Trial, 120.
Cited in Rosby v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 37
Minn. 172; Harrow v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43
Minn. 72.
JOHNSON V. HOWARD, 20 Minn. 370, (Gil. 322.)
Contracts, 152.
Cited in Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 488; Biron
v. Board of Water Com'rs of St. Paul, 41 Minn.
520; Shaw v. First Baptist Church of Winona,
44 Minn. 24.
JOHNSON V. HOWARD, 25 Minn. 558.
Appeal and Error, 227.
Cited in Dols v. Baumhoefer, 28 Minn. 388.
JOHNSON V. HYDE, 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 379.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
JOHNSON V. JACOBS, 42 Minn. 168, 44 N. W. 6.
Sale, 2.
JOHNSON V. JOHNSON, 16 Minn. 512, (Gil. 462.)
Trusts, 18.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 279.
JOHNSON V. JOHNSON, 32 Minn. 513, 21 N. W. 725.
Wills, 63.
Cited in Re Rausch, 35 Minn. 293.
JOHNSON V. KNOBLAUCH, 14 Minn. 16, (Gil. 4.)
Appearance, 9.
Justices of the Peace, 63.
Distinguished in Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn.
44.
JOHNSON V. KRASSIN, 25 Minn. 117.
Money Paid, 1.
Applied in McClure v. Bradford, 39 Minn. 119.
Cited in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 337; La
Du-King Manuf'g Co. v. La Du, 36 Minn. 476.
JOHNSON V. LEWIS, 13 Minn. 364, (Gil. 337.)
Action, 41.
Mortgages, 106.
Followed in Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 353, (Gil.
271;) Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 31, (Gil. 18.)
JOHNSON V. LOUGH, 22 Minn. 203.
Judgment, 67, 260.
Cited in Dillon v. Porter, 36 Minn. 342.
JOHNSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Ry. Co., 43
Minn. 207, 45 N. W. 152.
Railroad Companies, 273.
JOHNSON V. NORTHERN PAC., F. F. & B. H. Rr. Co.,
39 Minn. 30, 38 N. W. 804.
Appeal and Error, 48.
JOHNSON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 47 Minn. 430,
50 N. W. 473.
Damages, 55.
Evidence, 176.
JOHNSON V. NORTHWESTERN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
Co., 51 N. W. 225.
Negligence, 49.
JOHNSON V. ORIENT INS. Co., 41 Minn. 400, 43 N.
W. 1151.
Insurance, 91.
JOHNSON V. OSWALD, 38 Minn. 550, 38 N. W. 630.
Conversion of Personal Property, 32.
Cited in Mullen v. Noonan, 44 Minn. 542; Adam-
son v. Wiggins, 45 Minn. 44).
JOHNSON V. ROBINSON, 20 Minn. 170, (Gil. 153.).
Lis Pendens, 2.
Practice in Civil Cases, 16.
Quieting Title, 20.
Cited in Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158; Jack-
son v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 502; Windom v.
Schuppel, 39 Minn. 37: Northwestern Pave-
ment Co. v. Norwegian Seminary, 43 Minn. 453.
JOHNSON V. ROBINSON, 20 Minn. 189, (Gil. 169.)
Deed, 15, 97.
Judgment, 186.
Quieting Title, 23.
Cited in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 279.
JOHNSON V. RUMSEY, 28 Minn. 531, 11 N. W. 69.
Novation, 1.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 228.
JOHNSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 43 Minn.
53, 44 N. W. 884.
Master and Servant, 45, 126.
JOHNSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 31 Minn. 283,
17 N. W. 622.
Death by Wrongful Act, 10.
Negligence, 79.
Cited in Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 327.
JOHNSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222, 45
N. W. 156.
Master and Servant, 105,
Applied in Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 47 Minn. 10; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey
County, 51 N. W. 113. Distinguished in Smith
v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 44 Minn. 19. Cited in
Steffenson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45
Minn. 356.
JOHNSON V. SANDHOFF, 30 Minn. 197, 14 N. W. 889
Mortgages, 61, 315.
Applied in Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 192.
Cited in Coles v. Washington County, 35 Minn.
128; Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 281; Rogers v.
Benton, 39 Minn. 42; Holbrook v. Sims, 39
Minn. 123: Dobbin v. Cordiner, 41 Minn. 168:
2473
2474
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
"
JOINSON V. SANDHOFF-Continued.
Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175; Jellison v.
Halloran, 44 Minn. 202; Backus v. Burke, 51
N. W. 286.
JOHNSON V. SHERWOOD, 45 Minn. 9, 47 N. W. 262.
Appeal and Error, 302.
JOHNSON V. SKILLMAN, 29 Minn. 95, 12 N. W. 149.
License, 2.
Specific Performance, 29.
Words and Phrases, 439,
Cited in Little v. Willford, 31 Minn. 179; Olson
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 482.
JOHNSON V. STOUT, 42 Minn. 514, 44 N. W. 534.
Mechanics' Liens, 87.
Distinguished in Knauft v. Miller, 45 Minn. 64.
JOHNSON V. TRAVIS, 33 Minn. 231, 22 N. W. 624.
Breach of Marriage Contract, 2, 5-7.
JOHNSON V. TRUESDALE, 46 Minn. 345, 48 N. W.
1136.
Railroad Companies, 215, 224.
JOHNSTON V. PAUL-Continued.
Sheffield v. Mullin, 28 Minn. 254; Stewart v.
Duncan, 40 Minn. 411.
JOHNSTON V. PIPER, 4 Minn. 192, (Gil. 133,)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 50, 92, 93, 96.
JOHNSTON HARVESTER Co. v. CLARK, 30 Minn. 308,
15 N. W. 252.
Contracts, 39.
Corporations, 83.
Pleading, 161, 269.
Followed in Harris Manuf'g Co. v. Anfinson, 31
Minn. 183. Cited in Jewell v. Grand Lodge A.
O. U. W., 41 Minn. 406.
JOHNSTON HARVESTER CO. v. CLARK, 31 Minn. 165,
17 N. W. 111.
Appeal and Error, 601.
Sale, 105, 106.
Trial, 92.
Applied in Merrick v. Wiltse, 37 Minn. 42; C.
Aultman & Co. v. Falkum, 47 Minn. 417.
Cited in Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N. JONES, IN RE, 33 Minn. 405, 23 N. W. 835.
W. 116.
JOHNSON V. WALLOWER, 15 Minn. 472, (Gil. 387.)
Sale, 104, 183–187.
Cited in Johnson v. Wallower, 18 Minn. 290, 292,
(Gil. 262, 264.)
JOHNSON V. WALLOWER, 18 Minn. 288, (Gil. 262.)
Appeal and Error, 492.
Deceit, 15, 38, 42.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408.
JOHNSON V. WILLIAMS, 4 Minn. 230, (Gil. 183.)
Mortgages, 120, 137, 263, 264.
Applied in Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn. 102.
Distinguished in Misener v. Gould, 11 Minn.
172, (Gil. 107, 108.) Cited in Richards v. Spi-
cer, 23 Minn. 214; Benton v. Nicoll, 24 Minn.
232; Lalor v. McCarthy, 21 Minn. 420; Abbott
v. Peck, 35 Minn. 501; Willard v. Finnegan,
42 Minn. 477.
Insolvency, 37, 44.
Cited in Re St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 34 Minn.
229; In re Kollman, 34 Minn. 234; Bean v.
Schmidt, 43 Minn. 506.
JONES V. ALLEY, 17 Minn. 292, (Gil. 269.)
Evidence, 322.
Pleading, 260.
Followed in Thompson v. Libby, 34 Minn. 378,
379.
JONES V. BLAKE, 33 Minn. 362, 23 N. W. 538.
Mortgages, 12.
JONES V. BLISS, 51 N. W. 375.
Estoppel, 74.
JONES V. CHICAGO, M. & Sr. P. Rr. Co., 42 Minn.
183, 43 N. W. 1114.
Carriers, 105, 125.
New Trial, 55.
Cited in Sahlgaard v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 51
N. W. 112.
JOHNSON V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 11 Minn. JONES V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 43
296, (Gil. 204.)
Carriers, 106, 124.
Cited in Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 96,
(Gil. 67;) Spencer v. Tozer, 15 Minn. 147, (Gil.
113;) Eich v. Taylor, 17 Minn. 175, (Gil. 148;)
Smith v. St. Paul Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 6.
JOHNSTON V. BECKER COUNTY, (Johnson v. Board
County Com'rs,) 27 Minn. 64, 6 N. W. 411.
Counties, 74.
Words and Phrases, 550.
JOHNSTON V. HIGGINS, 15 Minn. 486, (Gil. 400.)
Practice in Civil Cases, 32.
Cited in Commissioners Mille Lacs County v.
Morrison, 22 Minn. 179.
JOHNSTON V. JOHNSON, 43 Minn. 5, 44 N. W. 668.
Vendor and Purchaser, 39.
JOHNSTON V. KIRCHOFF, 31 Minn. 451, 18 N. W.
315.
Animals, 6, 7.
JOHNSTON V. PAUL, 22 Minn. 17.
Arbitration and Award, 7, 11.
JOHNSTON V. PAUL, 23 Minn. 46.
Arbitration and Award, 16, 17.
Followed in Wieland v. Shillock, 23 Minn. 228;
Wieland v. Shillock, 24 Mina. 347. Cited in
Minn. 279, 45 N. W. 444.
Carriers, 122, 123.
Evidence, 175, 182.
JONES V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 20 Minn. 491, (Gil.
444.)
Appeal and Error, 16.
Eminent Domain, 228.
JONES V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 31 Minn. 230, 17 N.
W. 377.
Municipal Corporations, 187.
JONES V. COOPER, 8 Minn. 334, (Gil. 294.)
Mortgages, 201.
JONES V. EVANS, 33 Minn. 402, 23 N. W. 545.
Appeal and Error, 489.
JONES V. EWING, 22 Minn. 157.
Mortgages, 170.
Pleading, 51.
JONES V. KING, 30 Minn. 368, 15 N. W. 670.
Trial, 135.
Cited in Moriarty v. McDevitt, 46 Minn. 137.
JONES V. MORRISON, 31 Minn. 140, 16 N. W. 854.
Conspiracy, 2.
Corporations, 36, 37, 103, 105, 106, 119.
Applied in Curric v. School District, 35 Minn.
2175
2476
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
JONES V. MORRISON-Continued.
164, 167. Cited in Deane v. Hodge, 35 Min.
151; Rothwell v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 2.
JONES V. RADATZ, 27 Minn. 240, 6 N. W. 800.
Negotiable Instruments, 15.
Applied in Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 120.
Cited in Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30
Minn. 31; P. P. Mast & Co. v. Matthews, 30
Minn. 442: Smith v. Crane, 33 Minn. 146.
JONES V. RAHILLY, 16 Minn. 177, (Gil. 155.)
Appeal and Error, 104.
JONES V. RAHILLY, 16 Minn. 320, (Gil. 283.)
Conversion of Personal Property, 16, 17,
31, 44.
Evidence, 270.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 62, 69, 70.
Cited in Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 520; Liv-
ingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 69: Harrington v.
Samples, 36 Minn. 202; Johnson v. Oswald, 38
Minn. 551; King v. Lacrosse, 42 Minn. 489.
JONES V. RIGBY, 41 Minn. 530, 43 N. W. 390.
Landlord and Tenant, 4.
Mortgages, 101.
JONES V. SCHNEIDER, 22 Minn. 279.
Sale, 37, 165.
JONES V. TAINTER, 15 Minn. 512, (Gil. 423.)
Homestead, 50.
Mortgages, 160, 230.
Public Lands, 143.
Words and Phrases, 559.
Overruling McCue v. Smith, 9 Minn. 952, (Gil.
237;) Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 338, (Gil.
272;) Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 341, (Gil.
274.) Cited in Nash v. Tousley, 28 Minn. 6;
Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 30; Stewart v.
Smith, 36 Minn. 83; Jacoby v. Crowe, 36 Minn.
96; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 16s.
JONES V. TOWN, 26 Minn. 172, 2 N. W. 473.
Appeal and Error, 489.
Execution, 57.
Trial, 86.
Cited in Bailey v. Chandler, 27 Minn. 174; Ohl-
son v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 393.
JONES V. WILDER, 28 Minn. 238, 9 N. W. 707.
Appeal and Error, 180.
Trial, 192.
Cited in Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 481; Abbott v. Morrissette, 46 Minn. 12.
JORDAN V. BAILEY, (State v. Bailey,) 37 Minn. 174,
33 N. W. 778.
Judge, 4, 5.
JORDAN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TAYLOR'S
FALLS, 39 Minn. 298, 39 N. W. 801.
Mechanics' Liens, 13.
JORDAN V. HUMPHREY-Continued.
Lewis v. Willoughby, 43 Minn. 310; Nye v.
Swan, 52 N. W. 41.
JORDAN V. HUMPHREY, 32 Minn. 522, 21 N. W. 71.
Appeal and Error, 668.
Words and Phrases, 404.
JORDAN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 42 Minn.
172, 43 N. W. 849.
Surface Water, 4.
Trial, 154.
Cited in Beach v. Gaylord, 43 Minn. 477.
JORDAN V. SECOMBE, 33 Minn, 220, 22 N. W. 383.
Appeal and Error, 512.
Guardian and Ward, 29, 47.
Words and Phrases, 531.
Cited in Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
JORDAN V. WHITE, 20 Minn. 91, (Gil. 77.)
Rules of Court, 3.
Trial. 166.
Trusts, 27.
Followed in Healy v. Young, 21 Minn. 391; Keith
v. Briggs, 32 Minn. 187. Explained in Bruns
v. Schreiber, 43 Minn. 472. Cited in McMillan
v. Ames, 33 Minn. 260; Pray v. Rhodes, 42
Minn. 96; Bretto v. Levine, 52 N. W. 525.
JORGENSEN V. BOEHMER, 9 Minn. 181, (Gil. 166.)
Appeal and Error, 475.
Cited in White v. Culver, 10 Minn. 198, (Gil.
159;) Barker v. Keith, 11 Minn. 69, (Gil. 40;)
Reagan v. Madden, 17 Minn. 403, (Gil. 380;)
Baxter v. Chute, 52 N. W. 389.
JORGENSEN V. GRIFFIN, 14 Minn. 464, (Gil. 346.)
Judgment, 78, 80, 252.
Cited in Hotchkiss v. Cutting, 14 Minn. 542, (Gil.
412;) Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn. 29, (Gil.
11;) Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn. 463, (Gil.
405;) Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158.
JORGENSEN V. TAIT, 26 Minn. 327, 4 N. W. 44.
Conversion of Personal Property, 21.
JORGENSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 25
Minn. 206.
Lis Pendens, 5, 6.
Cited in Windom v. Schuppel, 39 Minn. 37.
Jorgenson v. SMITH, 32 Minn. 79, 19 N. W. 388.
Master and Servant, 139.
JOSLYN V. ATHENS COACH & CAR Co., 43 Minn. 53-4,
46 N. W. 77.
Receivers, 11.
JOSLYN V. ST. PAUL DISTILLING Co., 44 Minn. 183,
46 N. W. 337.
Corporations, 115.
Cited in Lund v. Wheaton Roller Mill Co., 52 N.
W. 269.
Distinguished in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 440. JOY v. MORGAN, 35 Minn. 184, 28 N. W. 237.
JORDAN V. HENRY, 22 Minn. 245.
Justices of the Peace, 33.
JORDAN V. HUMPHREY, 31 Minn. 495, 18 N. W. 450.
Appeal and Error, 350.
Mortgages, 319.
Usury, 11, 12, 25, 36.
Words and Phrases, 334.
Followed in Strait v. Frary, 33 Minn. 195. Ex-
plained in Jordan v. Humphrey, 32 Minn. 522,
523. Cited in Bannon v. Bowler, 34 Minn. 419;
Nelson v. Central Land Co., 35 Minn. 412; Exley
v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 184; Lukens v. Hazlett,
37 Minn. 1-2; Hass v. Camp, 40 Minn. 331;
Attorney and Client, 19.
JOYSLIN V. KENT, 47 Minn. 271, 50 N. W. 1110.
Negotiable Instruments, 10.
Judd v. ARNOLD, 31 Minn. 430, 18 N. W. 151.
Estoppel, 64.
Frauds, Statute of, 48.
Landlord and Tenant, 84, 87.
Principal and Agent, 56.
Cited in Bagley v. Sternberg, 34 Minn. 471.
JUDD v. DIKE, 30 Minn. 380, 15 N. W. 672.
Constitutional Law, 131.
Trusts, 43, 44.
2477
2478
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
JUDD V. DIKE-Coutinued.
Cited in Swain v. Knapp, 32 Minn. 431; State v.
Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 218.
JUDD V. RANDALL, 33 Minn. 12, 29 N. W. 589.
Covenants, 1.
Public Lands, 10.
JUDD V. SKIDMORE, 33 Minn. 140, 22 N. W. 183.
Vendor and Purchaser, 43, 48.
Cited in Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 319.
JUDSON V. REARDON, 16 Minn. 431, (Gil. 387.)
Constitutional Law, 158.
False Imprisonment, 2-4, 8, 10.
Cited in Simmons v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 18
Minn. 192, (Gil. 176;) Ferson v. Wilcox, 19
Minn. 451, (Ġil. 392.)
JUERGENS V. THOм, 39 Minn. 458, 40 N. W. 559.
Appeal and Error, 578.
K.
KAILLEN V. NORTHWESTERN BEDDING Co., 46 Minn. | KARSEN V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. Rr. Co.-Contin-
187, 48 N. W. 779.
Master and Servant, 63,
KAISER V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn.
149.
Eminent Domain, 57.
Applied in Carli v. Stillwater, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 375. Cited in Lamm v.
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 75.
KANNE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
423, 15 N. W. 871.
Appeal and Error, 345.
Eininent Domain, 157.
Cited in Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 420.
KANNE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 33
Minn. 419, 23 N. W. 854.
¡
Eminent Domain, 238–240.
Words and Phrases, 518.
Cited in Bennett v. Denny, 33 Minn. 533; God-
frey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 338; Maylóne v.
City of St. Paul, 40 Minn. 407.
KANSEL V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'N, (Kausal v. Minnesota Farmers' Mut.
Fire Ins. Ass'n,) 31 Minn. 17, 16 N. W. 430.
Insurance, 50–53, 127.
KARNS V. KUNKLE, 2 Minn. 313, (Gil. 268.)
Appeal and Error, 30.
Judgment, 286.
Words and Phrases, 407.
Followed in Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn. 321, (Gil.
275;) Kennedy v. Williams, 11 Minn. 318, (Gil.
222.) Overruled in Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn.
178. Cited in Hawke v. Banning, 3 Minn. 71,
(Gil. 33;) Babcock v. Sanborn, 3 Minn. 145, 146,
(Gil. 89;) Sullivan v. La Crosse & M. Packet
Co., 10 Minn. 392, (Gil. 314;) Cooper v. Breck-
enridge, 11 Minn. 345, (Gil. 245;) Smith v.
Dennett, 15 Minn. 86, (Gil. 63.)
KARSEN V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
12, 11 N. W. 122.
Railroad Companies, 283, 287, 299, 304.
Followed in Sibilrud v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 60, 61. Cited in Cleland v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 171; John-
son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn.
60; Smith v. St. C. Paul Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 6; Sib-
ley v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 32 Minn. 526, 527;
Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn. 101;
Clarke v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 360; Nelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
ued.
Co., 35 Minn. 172; Dean v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 414; Hoffman v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 60, 61; Daly v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 322;
Hoffman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 43
Minn. 335; Cantlon v. Eastern Ry. Co., 45
Minn. 482.
KARST V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn. 118.
Damages, 58, 59.
Eminent Domain, 279.
Municipal Corporations, 129, 130.
Followed in Baldwin v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 354, 355. Distinguished in Carli
v. Union Depot St. Railway & Transfer Co.,
32 Minn. 103. Cited in Karst v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 23 Minn. 402; Henderson v. City
of Minneapolis, 32 Minn. 322; Barnett v. St.
Anthony Falls Water-Power Co., 33 Minn. 268;
Hayes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45
Minn. 20.
KARST V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 23 Minn. 401.
Damages, 60.
Distinguished in Carli v. Union Depot St. Rail-
way & Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 103. Cited in
Barnett v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.,
33 Minn. 268; Ziebarth v. Nye, 42 Minn. 547.
KASER V. HAAS, 27 Minn. 406, 7 N. W. 824.
Homestead, 24, 28.
KATES
Words and Phrases, 348.
V. THOMAS, 14 Minu. 460, (Gil. 343.)
Appeal and Error, 755.
Replevin, 79.
Cited in Anderson v. Hanson, 28 Minn. 404.
KAUSAL V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'N, (Kansel v. Minnesota Farmers' Mut.
Fire Ins. Ass'n,) 31 Minn. 17, 16 N. W. 430.
Insurance, 50-53, 127.
KAY V. VISCHERS, 9 Minn. 270, (Gil. 254.)
Execution, 149.
Followed in Flint v. Webb, 25 Minn. 234.
KEAN V. CONNELLY, 25 Minn. 222.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
17, 18.
Followed in Hause v. Hause, 29 Minn. 253. Cit-
ed in Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn. 129, 121; Rus-
sell v. Merchants' Bank of Lake City, 47 Mina.
283.
2479
2480
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KEATING V. BROWN, 30 Minn. 9, 13 N. W. 909.
Negligence, 78.
Trial, 18.
KEATOR V. GLASPIE, 44 Minn. 448, 47 N. W. 52.
Practice in Civil Cases, 8.
Cited in Boyle v. Adams, 52 N. W. 860.
KEAVY V. THUETT, 47 Minn. 266, 50 N. W. 126.
Custom and Usage, 8.
KEEGAN V. PETERSON, 24 Minn. 1.
Appeal and Error, 90, 219.
Exemptions, 10.
Followed in Brown v. Brown, 28 Minn. 503.
KEENAN V. STIMSON, 32 Minn. 377, 20 N. W. 364.
Chattel Mortgages, 65, 78.
Cited in Miller v. McCormick Harvesting Mach.
Co., 35 Minn. 400.
KEFFE V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. RY. Co., 21 Minn.
207.
Negligence, 9.
Applied in O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 291; Haesley v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 46 Minn. 235. Explained in Twist v.
Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 166-163.
Limited in Kolsti v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 133; Emerson v. Peteler, 35
Minn. 484.
KEIGHER V. DOWLAN, 47 Minn. 574, 50 N. W. 823.
Judgment, 70.
KEIGHER V. MCCORMICK, 11 Minn. 545, (Gil. 420.)
Attachment, 17, 18.
KEIL V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 47 Minn, 288, 50 N. W.
83.
Eminent Domain, 277.
KEITH V. BRIGGS, 32 Minn. 185, 20 N. W. 91.
Appeal and Error, 590.
Evidence, 331.
New Trial, 72.
Venue in Civil Cases, 18.
Cited in Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
34 Minn. 54; Fredericksen v. Singer Manuf'g
Co., 38 Minn. 357.
KEITH V. HAYDEN, 26 Minn. 212, 2 N. W. 495.
Taxation, 148.
Applied in Knight v. Alexander, 3S Minn. 388.
Cited in Williams v. Central Land Co., 32 Minn.
443.
KELLER V. CARR, 40 Minn. 428, 42 N. W. 292.
Attachment, 5.
Words and Phrases, 496, 661.
KELLER V. STRUCK, 31 Minn. 446, 18 N. W. 280.
Homestead, 38.
Mechanics' Liens, 148.
Cited in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 441.
KELLEY V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 35
Minn. 490, 29 N. W. 173.
Master and Servant, 148.
KELLEY V. SEELEY, (Kelly v. Seely,) 27 Minn. 385,
7 N. W. 821.
Liens, 2.
Distinguished in Nash v. Brewster, 39 Minn. 533,
534. Cited in Wallace v. Palmer, 36 Minn. 127;
Smith v. Roberts, 43 Minn. 343; Warder-
Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Minnesota & D.
Elevator Co., 44 Minn. 391.
KELLEY V. WALLACE, 14 Minn. 236, (Gil. 173.)
Pleading, 3.
Public Lands, 3, 124.
KELLEY V. WEST, 36 Minn. 520, 32 N. W. 620.
Vendor and Purchaser, 100.
KELLOGG V. ANDERSON, 40 Minn. 207, 41 N. W. 1045.
Chattel Mortgages, 13.
Replevin, 8.
KELLOGG V. OLSON, 34 Minn. 103, 24 N. W. 364.
Chattel Mortgages, 50.
Partnership, 23.
Replevin, 14-16.
Cited in Tancre v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 478; Hunts-
man v. Fish, 33 Minn. 149; Ellingboe v. Brak-
ken, 36 Minn. 158; Ormund v. Hobart, 36 Minn.
308; Parr v. Johnson, 37 Minn. 458; Davenport
v. Ladd, 38 Minn. 547; Townshend v. Good fel-
low, 40 Minn. 313; Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn.
212; Guthrie v. Olson, 44 Minn. 406.
Kellogg V. VILLAGE OF JANESVILLE, 34 Minn. 132,
24 N. W. 359.
Municipal Corporations, 150, 167, 185.
Trial, 81.
KELLY V. BAKER, 10 Minn. 154, (Gil. 124.)
Homestead, 17.
Words and Phrases, 347.
Applied in Umland v. Holcombe, 26 Minn. 237.
Cited in Kresin v. Mau, 15 Minn. 118, (Gil. 89 ;)
Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 302; Talbot v. Bar-
ager, 37 Minn. 210; Jacoby v. Parkland Dis-
tilling Co., 41 Minn. 230; Quehl v. Peterson, 47
Minn. 16.
KELLY V. BRONSON, 26 Minn. 359, 4 N. W. 607.
Orders, 1, 2.
Distinguished in Lawson v. Adlard, 46 Minn. KELLY V. CLOW REAPER MANUF'G Co., 20 Minn. 88,
244, 247, 248.
KELLER V. HOULIHAN, 32 Minn. 486, 21 N. W. 729.
Mechanics' Liens, 73, 76.
Followed in Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 174.
Cited in Smith v. Headley, 33 Minn. 388; Dye
v. Forbes, 34 Minn. 17; Merriman v. Bartlett,
34 Minn. 525; Gilfillan v. Hobart, 35 Minn. 186;
Morrison v. Philippi, 35 Minn. 193; McGlauflin
v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411; Conter v. Farrington,
(Gil. 74.)
Appeal and Error, 196.
Sale, 60.
KELLY v. DILL, 23 Minn. 435.
Homestead, 14, 15.
Followed in Liebetrau v. Goodsell, 26 Minn. 418.
Distinguished in Neumaier v. Vincent, 41
Minn. 482. Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47
Minn. 16.
46 Minn. 337; Hulbert v. New Ulm Basket KELLY V. ERIE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE Co., 34
Works, 47 Minn. 83; Fleming v. St. Paul City
Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 126.
KELLER V. SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co., 27 Minn.
178, 6 N. W. 486.
Carriers, 107.
Evidence, 109.
Minn. 321, 25 N. W. 706.
Master and Servant, 73.
Witness, 44.
Distinguished in Jennings v. Iron Bay Co., 47
Minn. 114. Cited in Fraser v. Red River Lum-
ber Co., 42 Minn. 521.
2481
2482
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KENNEY V. GOERGEN-Continued.
KELLY V. ROGERS, 21 Minn. 146.
Appeal and Error, 352.
Deceit, 6, 47.
Pleading. 32.
Co., 29 Minn. 200.
Followed in Bryne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Cited in Spencer v. St. Paul
& S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 33; Frost v. Jordan, 37
Minn. 546; McAllister v. Welker, 39 Minn.
536.
KELLY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 29 Minn. 1,
11 N. W. 67.
Railroad Companies, 169, 196.
Cited in Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29
Minn. 467; Bolinger v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
36 Minn. 420; Beanstrom v. Northern Pac. R.
Co., 46 Minn. 195.
KELLY V. SEELY, (Kelley v. Seeley,) 27 Minn. 385,
7 N. W. 821.
Liens, 2.
Distinguished in Nash v. Brewster, 39 Minn. 533,
534. Cited in Wallace v. Palmer, 36 Minn. 127;
Smith v. Roberts, 43 Minn. 343; Warder-Bush-
nell & Glessner Co. v. Minnesota & D. Ele-
vator Co., 44 Minn. 391.
KELLY V. SOUTHERN MINNESOTA RY. Co., 28 Minn.
98, 9 N. W. 583.
Evidence, 135.
Negligence, 90, 95, 97.
Railroad Companies, 154, 155.
Followed in Morse v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 471; Kolsti v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 134. Applied in McKen-
zie v. City of Northfield, 30 Minn. 456. Over-
ruled in Morse v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 468. Cited in Nichols v. City of Min-
neapolis, 33 Minn. 432; Phelps v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 487; Doyle v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 82; Armstrong v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 87;
Bergguist v. Chandler Iron Co., 52 N. W. 137.
KEMMITT V. ADAMSON, 44 Minn. 121, 46 N. W. 327.
Damages, 19.
Usury, 17.
KEMPFER V. FOGELBERG, 31 Minn. 347, 17 N. W. 949.
Contracts, 3.
KENNEDY V. LE VAN, 23 Minn. 513.
Highways, 4, 7, 8.
Cited in Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry Co.,
29 Minn. 42; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 37.
KENNEDY V. RAUGHT, 6 Minn. 235, (Gil. 155.)
Office and Officer, 11.
Qui Tam and Penal Actions.
Trial, 122.
KENNEDY V. WILLIAMS, 11 Minn. 314, (Gil. 219.)
Appeal and Error, 30.
Husband and Wife, 85.
Limitation of Actions, 75, 76.
Followed in Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 12 Minn. 143, (Gil. 81;) Davenport
v. Short, 17 Minn. 25, (Gil. 9.) Cited in Wood
v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 397, (Gil. 368;) Millette v.
Mehmke, 26 Minn. 307; Trebby v. Simmons,
38 Minn. 509; Humphrey v. Carpenter, 39 Minn.
117.
KENNEY V. GOERGEN, 36 Minn. 190, 31 N. W. 210.
Attachment, 20.
Office and Officer, 2.
Sheriffs and Constables, 27.
Applied in Johnson v. Oswald, 38 Minn. 551.
Cited in Cousins v. Alworth, 44 Minn. 507;
Mullen v. Noonan, 44 Minn. 542.
KENRICK V. ROGERS, 26 Minn. 344, 4 N. W. 46.
Conversion of Personal Property, 15.
KENT V. Bown, 3 Minn. 347, (Gil. 246.)
Appeal and Error, 218, 399, 402.
Interest of Money, 12.
Cited in Newell v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 24; Jensen
v. Crevier, 33 Minn. 373; Holbrook v. Sims, 39
Minn. 124.
KENYON V. SEMON, 43 Minn. 180, 45 N. W. 10.
Parties, 23.
KEOUGH V. MCNITT, 6 Minn. 513, (Gil. 357.)
Evidence, 262, 281, 282.
New Trial, 75.
Payment, 5.
Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 75, 76,
(Gil. 60;) Geib v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 335.
KEOUGH V. MCNITT, 7 Minn. 29, (Gil. 15.)
Parties, 40.
KEOUGH V. McNITT, 7 Minn. 30, (Gil. 16.)
Civil Rights, 1.
KERLINGER V. BARNES, 14 Minn. 526, (Gil. 303.,
Appeal and Error, 142.
Statutes, 16, 17, 58.
Cited in Ames v. Lake Superior & M. R. Co., 21
Minn. 262; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 279,
283.
KERN
V. CHALFANT, 7 Minn. 487, (Gil. 393.)
Appeal and Error, 29.
Estoppel, 1.
Judgment, 5, 6, 10, 11, 259.
Trusts, 38.
Cited in Cleveland Co-Operative Stove Co. v.
Douglas, 27 Minn. 178; Wells v. Gieseke, 27
Minn. 483; Atwater v. Manchester Savings
Bank, 45 Minn. 351.
KERN V. VON PHUL, 7 Minn. 426, (Gil. 341.)
Evidence, 317.
Negotiable Instruments, 130-132.
Cited in First Nat. Bank v. National Marine
Bank, 20 Minn. 69, (Gil. 54;) Barnard v. Gas-
lin, 23 Minn. 196; Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 38
Minn. 353; Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45
Minn. 497.
Kerr v. Kipp, 37 Minn. 25, 33 N. W. 116.
Taxation, 169.
KERR V. MINNESOTA MUT. BEN. ASS'N, 39 Minn.
174, 39 N. W. 312.
Insurance, 77, 78, 174.
Words and Phrases, 187.
Applied in Hesinger v. Home Benefit Ass'n, 41
Minn. 517. Cited in Bentz v. Northwestern
Aid Ass'n, 40 Minn. 204.
KERRICK v. G. W. VAN DUSEN & Co., 32 Minn. 317,
20 N. W. 228.
Evidence, 347.
Sale, 71.
Words and Phrases, 154.
KESSLER V. SMITH, 42 Minn. 494, 44 N. W. 794.
Evidence, 306.
Frauds, Statute of, 42.
Sale, 41.
Cited in American Manuf'g Co. v. Klarquist, 47
Minn. 346.
2483
2484
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KETTLE RIVER R. Co. v. EASTERN RY. Co. OF MIN- | KING V. LACROSSE, 42 Minn. 488, 44 N. W. 517.
NESOTA, 41 Minn. 461, 43 N. W. 469.
Covenants, 29, 30.
Eminent Domain, 17.
Railroad Companies, 20, 31.
Words and Phrases, 622.
Cited in Miller v. Fasler, 42 Minn. 367; Chicago,
B. & N. R. Co. v. Porter. 43 Minn. 530; Jellison
v. Halloran, 44 Minn. 203.
KEYES V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 42 Minn. 467, 44
N. W. 529.
Eminent Domain, 146.
KEYES V. CLARE, 40 Minn. 84, 41 N. W. 453.
Appeal and Error, 283.
Practice in Civil Cases, 54.
Replevin, 46.
KING V. MEIGHEN, 20 Minn. 264, (Gil. 237.)
Mortgages, 450.
Cited in Archambau v. Green, 21 Minn. 524; Par-
sons v. Noggle, 23 Minn. 330-332; Fisk v. Stew-
art, 26 Minn. 372; Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn.
61; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 45.
1
KING V. MERRIMAN, 38 Minn. 47, 35 N. W. 570.
Contracts, 80.
Damages, 67, 68.
Evidence, 300.
Distinguished in Mathews v. Mulvey, 38 Minn.
343, 314; Hoxsie v. Empire Lumber Co., 41
Minn. 550.
KEYES V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 36 Minn. KING v. MINNEAPOLIS UNION RY. Co., 32 Minn.
290, 30 N. W. 888.
Damages, 52, 74.
Highways, 54.
Pleading, 291.
Words and Phrases, 469.
KIDDER V. SIBLEY, 3 Minn. 406, (Gil. 300.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 2, 14,
91.
Garnishment, 2, 43.
KIEFER V. ROGERS, 19 Minn. 32, (Gil. 14.)
Deed, 14, 16.
Frauds, 5.
Husband and Wife, 71.
Vendor and Purchaser, 85-89.
Cited in Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 152; Carlton
v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055; Redding v. Wright, 51
N. W. 1056.
KIMBALL V. BRYANT, 25 Minn. 496.
Covenants, 21, 28, 40.
Applied in Shaber v. St. Paul Water Co., 30
Minn. 184; Hawthorne v. City Bank of Minne-
apolis, 34 Minn. 384; Ogden v. Ball, 38 Minn.
238. Cited in Lowry v. Tilleny, 31 Minn. 501;
Huntsman v. Hendricks, 44 Minn. 425; Allen v.
Allen, 51 N. W. 473.
KIMBALL V. JONES, 41 Minn. 318, 43 N. W. 74.
Exemptions, 8.
Words and Phrases, 801.
KIMBALL
Kimball v. PalmERLEE, 29 Minn. 302, 13 N. W. 129.
New Trial, 5.
Followed in Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97.
Cited in Collins v. Bowen, 45 Minn. 188..
KIMBALL Co. v. Coon.
Coon.
See W. W. Kimball Co. v.
KIMMEL V. LowE, 28 Minn. 265. 9 N. W. 764.
Principal and Surety, 29.
KING V. FROST, 28 Minn. 417, 10 N. W. 423.
Evidence, 94.
Cited in Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 63.
KING V. HARTLEY, (King v. Kindred,) 38 Minn.
354, 37 N. W. 794.
Ejectment, 34.
KING V. KELLY, 25 Minn. 522.
Logs and Logging, 1.
Words and Phrases, 140, 424.
Cited in Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn. 71.
KING V. KINDRED, (King v. Hartley,) 38 Minn. 354,
37 N. W. 794.
Ejectment, 34.
224, 20 N. W. 135.
Eminent Domain, 76, 95.
Cited in Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 213.
KING V. REMINGTON, 36 Minn. 15, 29 N. W. 359.
Bankruptcy, 6, 7, 17.
Partnership, 19a.
Trusts, 40.
Distinguished in Lewis v. Prendergast, 45 Minn.
536. Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Randall, 38
Minn. 383; Marshall v. Thompson, 39 Minn.
142; Williams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 253; At-
water v. Manchester Savings Bank, 45 Minn.
344; Kinney v. Sharvey, 50 N. W. 1026; In re
Shotwell, 51 N. W. 910.
v.
KING V. SMITH, 42 Minn. 236, 44 N. W. 65.
Mechanics' Liens, 24-25.
Followed in Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 416. Cited
in Johnson v. Stout, 42 Minn. 515.
KING V. WRIGHT, 36 Minn. 123, 30 N. W. 448.
Chattel Mortgages, 59.
KINGMAN V. BARTON, 24 Minn. 295.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 59, 60.
Applied in Strong v. Brown, 41 Minn. 305. Dis-
tinguished in Swart v. Thomas, 26 Minn. 143.
Cited in Re Mann, 32 Minn. 63; Fairbanks v.
Whitney, 36 Minn. 306; Thompson v. Winona
Harvester Works, 41 Minn. 437; Second Nat.
KINGSLEY V. GILMAN, 12 Minn. 515, (Gil. 425.)
Bank v. Schranck, 43 Minn. 40.
Pleading, 65, 87.
Followed in Leyde v. Martin, 16 Minn. 42, (Gil.
27;) Fogle v. Schaeffer, 23 Minn. 305. Cited in
Jellison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 487.
KINGSLEY V. GILMAN, 15 Minn. 59, (Gil. 40.)
Husband and Wife, 38, 40.
Words and Phrases, 145.
Cited in Merrill v. Nelson, 18 Minn. 374, (Gil. 337
Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer, 51 N. W.380.
KINNEY V. CAY, 39 Minn. 210, 33 N. W. 140.
Sale, 199.
KINNEY V. SHARVEY, 50 N. W. 1025.
Husband and Wife, 57.
Words and Phrases, 192.
KINTON V. WOпLFORD, 17 Minn. 239, (Gil. 215.)
Negotiable Instruments, 90.
KIPP V. BULLARD, 30 Minn. 84, 14 N. W. 364.
Ejectment, 23.
Homestead, 31.
Distinguished in Bottineau v. Etna Life Ins. Co.,
2485
2486
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KIPP V. BULLARD-Continued.
•
31 Minn. 128. Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 31 Minn.
214.
KIPP V. COLLINS, 33 Minn. 394, 23 N. W. 554.
Taxation, 143, 157, 165, 215, 270.
Followed in Gilfillan v. Hobart, 34 Minn. 68.
Cited in Hersey v. Walsh, 38 Minn. 522; God-
frey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 505.
KIPP v. Cooк, 46 Minn. 535, 49 N. W. 257.
Venue in Civil Cases, 5.
KIPP V. COOK, 49 N. W. 258.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
KIPP V. DAWSON, 31 Minn. 373, 17 N. W. 961, 18 N.
W. 96.
Taxation, 87, 96, 107, 116, 163, 216.
Followed in Coffin v. Estes, 32 Minn. 368, 370.
Applied in Faribault Water Works Co. v.
Rice County, 44 Minn. 14. Cited in Stewart v.
Colter, 31 Minn. 389; Wass v. Smith, 34 Minn.
306; Gutches v. Todd County, 44 Minn. 385;
Godfrey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 504; McQuade
v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 330; Benedict v. Grand
Lodge A. Ó. U. W., 51 N. W. 372.
KIPP V. FERNHOLD, 37 Minn. 132, 33 N. W. 697.
Taxation, 127, 128.
Cited in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 329; Smith
v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
KIPP v. FULLERTON, 4 Minn. 473, (Gil. 366.)
Judgment, 19, 192.
Followed in Cone v. Hooper, 18 Minn. 535, 536,
(Gil. 479, 480:) Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn.
457, 463, (Gil. 398, 405;) State v. Macdonald,
24 Minn. 59; Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 14.
Distinguished in Ullman v. Lion, 8 Minn. 385,
(Gil. 342.) Cited in Hotchkiss v. Cutting, 14
Minn. 542, (Gil. 412;) Commissioners Mille
Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 179; Dillon
v. Porter, 36 Minn. 342; Burr v. Seymour, 43
Minn. 402; Bennett v. Blatz, 44 Minn. 59.
KIPP V. HILL, 40 Minn. 188, 41 N. W. 970.
Taxation, 209.
KIPP V. JOHNSON, 31 Minn. 360, 17 N. W. 957.
Taxation, 263.
Followed in Bonham v. Weymouth, 39 Minn. 97,
98. Cited in Gates v. Shugrue, 35 Minn. 393;
Morrison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 437; Abbott v.
Nash, 35 Minn. 451; Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn.
340; Flynn v. Lemieux, 46 Minn. 460.
KIRKPATRICK V. LEWIS, 46 Minn. 164, 47 N. W. 970,
48 N. W. 783.
Mortgages, 213, 223.
KLIMPLE V. BOELTER, 44 Minn. 172, 46 N. W. 306.
Trial, 71.
KLING V. CHILDS, 30 Minn. 366, 15 N. W. 673.
Attachment, 42.
Cited in Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank,
45 Minn. 350.
KNAPHEIDE V. EASTMAN, 20 Minn. 478, (Gil. 432.)
Trespass, 7, 8.
Approved in Hannem v. Pence, 40 Minn. 131.
KNAPPEN V. FREEMAN, 47 Minn. 491, 50 N. W. 533.
Equity, 39, 48, 73.
Judgment, 234.
Principal and Agent, 76.
Vendor and Purchaser, 81, 92.
Cited in Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055; Nye
v. Swan, 52 N. W. 41.
KNAPPEN V. SWENSEN, 40 Minn. 171, 41 N. W.
Appeal and Error, 528.
KNAUFT V. MILLER, 45 Minn. 61, 47 N. W. 313.
Mechanics' Liens, 41, 93.
948.
...
KNAUFT V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn.
173.
Appeal and Error, 333.
Eminent Domain, 169, 179, 180, 182, 222.
Followed in Wilkin v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Co., 22 Minn. 177; Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M.
R. Co., 23 Minn. 21. Cited in Brisbine v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 128; City of
Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 146; Bennett
v. Minneapolis & P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 246.
KNIGHT V. ALEXANDER, 38 Minn. 384, 37 N. W. 796.
Adverse Claim, S.
Taxation, 103, 129.
Cited in Sperry v. Goodwin, 44 Minn. 212.
KNIGHT V. ELLIOTT, 22 Minn. 551.
Affidavit, 3.
Appeal and Error, 709.
Distinguished in Bandy v. Chicago, St. P., M.
& O. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 381. Cited in Colinan
v. Goodnow, 3; Minn. 11; Stolt v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
KNIGHT V. NASH, 22 Minn. 452.
Appeal and Error, 133.
Execution, 150-152.
Distinguished in Roeller v. Ames, 33 Minn. 135.
KNIGHT V. NORRIS, 13 Minn. 473, (Gil. 438.)
Mechanics' Liens, 43, 82, 96.
Words and Phrases, 423.
Cited in Groff v. National Bank of Commerce, KNIGHT V. VALENTINE, 34 Minn. 26, 24 N. W. 295.
52 N. W. 935.
Taxation, 66, 67, 172, 271.
KITTSON'S ESTATE, IN RE, (St. Paul Trust Co. v. KNIGHT V. VALENTINE, 35 Minn. 367, 29 N. W. 3.
Hill,) 45 Minn. 197, 48 N. W. 419.
Executors and Administrators, 80.
Words and Phrases, 163.
KLASON V. RIEGER, 22 Minn. 59.
Infancy, 32, 33.
Cited in Clague v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 376;
Hawkins v. Sauby, 50 N. W. 1016.
KLEIN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 30 Minn. 451,
16 N. W. 265.
Eminent Domain, 165.
Followed in Schwede v. Town of Burnstown, 35
Minn. 468, 469.
New Trial, 92.
Words and Phrases, 12.
KNOBLAUCH V. CROSSMAN, (Knoblauch v. Fogle-
song.) 38 Minn. 352, 37 N. W. 586.
Evidence, 318.
Negotiable Instruments, 72.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn.
497.
KNOBLAUCH V. FOGLESONG, 37 Minn. 320, 33 N. W.
$65.
Subrogation, 16.
Cited in Barton v. Moore, 45 Minn. 99.
2487
2488
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KNOBLAUCH V. FOGLESONG, (Knoblauch v. Cross- | KOBE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co.—Continued.
man,) 38 Minn. 352, 37 N. W. 586.
Evidence, 318.
Negotiable Instruments, 72.
Minneapolis, S. S. M. & A. R. Co., 41 Minn. 103;
La Paul v. Truesdale, 44 Minn. 277.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. KOBS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 22 Minn. 159.
497.
KNOBLAUCH V. FOGLESONG, 38 Minn. 459, 38 N. W.
366.
Pleading, 114.
Subrogation, 5.
KNOBLAUCH V. KRONSCHNABEL, 18 Minn. 300, (Gil.
272.)
Appeal and Error, 509.
Evidence, 342.
New Trial, 64.
Sale, 44, 136.
Approved in Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Bonnallie, 29 Minn. 374. Cited in Kronschna-
ble v. Knoblauch, 21 Minn. 57; Thoreson v.
Minneapolis Harvester Works, 29 Minn. 344;
Turnbull v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 31 Minn.
197; James v. Jordan, 37 Minn. 44; State v.
Barrett, 40 Minn. 76; Close v. Crossland, 47
Minn. 502.
KNOBLOCH V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 402, 18 N. W. 106.
Municipal Corporations, 48.
Cited in Weyl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
40 Minn. 351; City of Duluth v. Mallett, 43
Minn. 205; Evison v. Chicago, M. & O. Ry.
Co., 45 Minn. 373.
KNOPF V. HANSEN, 37 Minn. 215, 33 N. W. 781.
Escrow, 1a, 3, 4.
KNOWLES V. VAN GORDER, 23 Minn. 197.
Appeal and Error, 358, 466.
Cited in Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 409.
KNOWLTON V. MCMAHON, 13 Minn. 386, (Gil. 358.)
Trial, 158.
Followed in Gardner v. Minea, 47 Minn. 297.
Cited in State v. Stokeley, 16 Minn. 292, (Gil.
256;) State v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
KNOX V. HAUG, 50 N. W. 934.
Insanity, 5.
KNOX V. RANDALL, 24 Minn. 479.
Attorney and Client, 4.
Execution, 2, 39, 46, 68.
Trusts, 46.
Municipal Corporations, 92, 192–194.
Distinguished in Alden v. City of Minneapolis,
24 Minn. 263; O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25
Minn. 333; Bryant v. City of St. Paul, 33 Minn.
294. Cited in Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn.
375; Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 176.
KOCH V. ST. PAUL CITY Rr. Co., 45 Minn. 407, 48
N. W. 191.
Horse and Street Railroads, 8.
KOEHLER V. CLEARY, 23 Minn. 325.
New Trial, 27, 23.
Followed in Oswald v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 6.
KOEMPEL V. SHAW, 13 Minn. 488, (Gil. 451.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 48, 49.
Cited in Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 509, 510,
(Gil. 420, 421;) Paine v. Sherwood, 19 Minn.
323, (Gil. 277;) Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn.
486.
KONIG V. WINONA COUNTY, 10 Minn. 238, (Gil. 188.)
Highways, 33.
KOERPER V. ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. Co., 40 Minn.
132, 41 N. W. 656.
Deed, 69.
Practice in Civil Cases, 5.
KOERPER V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., 42 Minn.
340, 44 N. W. 195.
Eminent Domain, 86.
KOETHE V. O'BRIEN, 32 Minn. 78, 19 N. W. 388.
Appeal and Error, 270.
Followed in Boright v. Springfield Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co., 34 Minn. 354.
KOETKE V. RINGER, 46 Minn. 259, 48 N. W. 917.
Appeal and Error, 696.
KOHN V. FANDEL, 29 Minn. 470, 13 N. W. 901.
Appeal and Error, 515.
Cited in Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 469.
Koнn v. TedFORD, 46 Minn. 146, 48 N. W. 686.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Cited in Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 370; KOKTAN V. KNIGHT, 14 Minn. 304, 46 N. W. 354.
Duford v. Lewis, 43 Minn. 28.
KNOX V. STARKS, 4 Minn. 20, (Gil. 7.)
Mechanics' Liens, 109, 145.
Parties, 21.
Approved in McCarty v. Van Etten, 4 Minn. 466,
(Gil. 361.) Distinguished in North Star Iron
Works Co. v. Strong, 33 Minn. 5.
KNUDSON V. CURLEY, 30 Minn. 433, 15 N. W. 873.
Quieting Title, 24, 26.
Taxation, 96, 126.
Trial, 187.
Cited in Kipp v. Dawson, 31 Minn. 380. Farn-
ham v. Jones, 32 Minn. 11; Feller v. Clark, 36
Minn. 339.
KORE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 36 Minn. 518, 32
N. W. 783.
Railroad Companies, 235.
Distinguished in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 486. Cited in Smith v. Minneap-
olis & St. L. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 104; Cox v.
Appeal and Error, 534.
KOLFF V. ST. PAUL FUEL EXCHANGE, 50 N. W. 1036.,
Corporations, 20.
Estoppel, 73.
KOLLMANN, IN RE, (Lindeke, In re,) 34 Minn. 282,
25 N. W. 602.
Insolvency, 29.
KOLSTI V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 32 Minn.
133, 19 N. W. 655.
Evidence, 167.
Negligence, 10, 91.
Trial, 97.
Applied in O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
43 Minn. 292. Cited in Emerson v. Peteler, 35
Minn. 484; Phelps v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
37 Minn. 487; Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 168; Doyle v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 42 Minn. 82; Armstrong v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 87; Haesley v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 46 Minn. 236.
2489
2490
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
KOPP V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 41 Minn. 310, 43 N. | KROSHUS V. HOUSTON COUNTY COM'RS, 46 Minn.
W. 73.
Adjoining Land-Owners, 3, 4.
Evidence, 372.
New Trial, 39.
KRAEMER V. DEUSTERMANN, 37 Minn. 469, 35 N. W.
276.
Action, 27.
Duress, 8.
Trusts, 22.
Words and Phrases, 248.
Cited in Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W. 902.
KRAEMER V. DEUSTERMANN, 40 Minn. 469, 42 N. W.
297.
Appeal and Error, 541.
KRASSIN V. SHEARAN, 24 Minn. 355.
New Trial, 70.
KRAUS V. MURPHY, 38 Minn. 422, 38 N. W. 112.
Mechanics' Liens, 129.
KRAUS V. THOMPSON, 20 Minn. 64, 14 N. W. 266.
Sale, 133.
Cited in Crooks v. Nippolt, 44 Minn. 240.
Kresin v. MAU, 15 Minn. 116, (Gil. 87.)
Homestead, 23, 54.
Words and Phrases, 347, 538.
Followed in Liebetrau v. Goodsell, 26 Minn. 418.
Cited in Merrill v. Nelson, 15 Minn. 379, (Gil.
341;) Kelly v. Dill, 23 Minn. 437; Quehl v.
Peterson, 47 Minn. 16.
KRIGER V. LEPPEL, 42 Minn. 6, 43 N. W. 484.
Work and Labor, 1.
KRIPPNER V. BIEBL, 28 Minn. 139, 9 N. W. 671.
Damages, 109.
Evidence, 152.
Negligence, 39, 40.
Applied in Davidson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 34 Minn. 55. Cited in Armstrong v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 88.
KROGSTAD V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 46 Minn. 18,
48 N. W. 409.
Master and Servant, 55.
KRONSCHNABLE V. KNOBLAUCH, 21 Minn. 56.
Attorney and Client, 12, 13.
Conversion of Personal Property, 14.
Evidence, 169.
7
162, 48 N. W. 770.
Costs, 46.
KRUEGER V. FERRANT. 29 Minn. 385, 13 N. W. 158.
Landlord and Tenant, 10.
KRUSE V. THOMPSON, 26 Minn. 424, 4 N. W. S14.
Liens, 9.
Cited in Schilling v. Carter, 35 Minn. 288; Olson
v. Pennington, 37 Minn. 300; Liljengren v.
Ege, 46 Minn. 490.
KRYGER V. RAILWAY TRACK CLEANER MANUF'g
Co., 46 Minn. 500, 49 N. W. 255.
Corporations, 85.
KUMLER V. BRANDENBURG, 39 Minn. 59, 38 N. W.
704.
Sheriffs and Constables, 12.
KUMLER V. FERGUSON, 7 Minn. 442, (Gil. 351.)
Appeal and Error, 500.
Evidence, 329, 361.
Approved in Miller v. Lamb, 22 Minn. 44. Dis-
tinguished in Rollins v. Wibye, 40 Minn. 152.
Cited in Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn.
306, (Gil. 276;) Roles v. Mintzer, 27 Minn. 32;
Woodcock v. Johnson, 36 Minn. 219; Smith v.
Barringer, 37 Minn. 95.
KUMLER V. FERGUSON, 22 Minn. 117.
Appeal and Error, 291.
Execution, 70.
Cited in Jackson v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 498.
KUNKLE V. TOWN OF FRANKLIN, 13 Minn. 127,
(Gil. 119.)
Bounties, 1.
Cited in Comer v. Folsom, 13 Minn. 221, (Gil.
209;) Wilson v. Buckman, 13 Minn. 442, (Gil.
406.)
KURTZ V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 221.
Guardian and Ward, 4.
KUSCHKE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 45 Minn. 225, 47 N.
W. 786.
Easements, 10.
Eminent Domain, 130, 133, 148.
Municipal Corporations, 218.
LACE V. FIXEN, 39 Minn. 46, 38 N. W. 762.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 42.
Jury, 41.
L.
Cited in Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177; Peter-
son v. Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 116.
LA CROSSE NAT. BANK V. THOMPSON, 37 Minn. 126,
33 N. W. 907.
Mortgages, 344, 345.
LA CROSSE & M. STEAM PACKET Co. v. REYNOLDS,
12 Minn. 213, (Gil. 135.)
Appeal and Error, 637, 6SO.
Judgment, 92.
Words and Phrases, 650.
LA CROSSE & M. STEAM PACKET CO. V. ROBERTSON,
13 Minn. 291, (Gil. 269.)
Replevin, 63.
Cited in Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 120, (Gil.
112;) Wheaton v. Thompson, 20 Minn. 201, (Gil.
181) Becker v. Dunham, 27 Minn. 35; Jellett
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 267.
LADD V. NEWELL, 34 Minn. 107, 24 N. W. 366.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 113.
Replevin, 71.
Sheriffs and Constables, 3.
Trial, 97.
Witness, 94.
2491
2492
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LADD V. NEWELL—Continued.
Cited in Leonard v. Green, 34 Minn. 142; Laib v.
Brandenburg, 34 Minn. 369.
LA DUE V. FIRST NAT. BANK, (Le Due v. First Nat.
Bank,) 31 Minn. 33, 16 N. W. 426.
Negotiable Instruments, 104-106.
Words and Phrases, 532.
Cited in Tuttle v. Wilson, 33 Minn. 423.
LAMB V. MCCANNA-Continued.
192, (Gil. 146, 147;) Searles v. Thompson, 18
Minn. 320, (Gil. 289;) Ryan v. Kranz, 25 Minn.
362; Thorp v. Lorenz, 34 Minn. 350. Applied
in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317. Cited in Lock-
wood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 74.
LAMB V. SHAW, 43 Minn. 507, 45 N. W. 1134.
Injunction, 34.
LA DU-KING MANUF'G Co. v. La Du, 36 Minn. 473, LAMBERT V. SLINGERLAND, 25 Minn. 457.
31 N. W. 938.
Frauds, Statute of, 10.
Cited in Kriger v. Leppel, 42 Minn. 7.
LA GRANGE MILL Co. v. BENNEWITZ, 28 Minn. 62, 9
N. W. 80.
Corporations, 73.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 228.
Cited in Monson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
34 Minn. 269; Perkins v. Merrill, 37 Minn. 41;
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Brackett,
37 Minn. 60.
LAHMERS V. SCHMIDT, 35 Minn. 434, 29 N. W. 169.
Assignment, 15.
Cited in Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 520.
Limitation of Actions, 9.
Taxation, 262.
LAMBERT V. STEES, 47 Minn. 141, 49 N. W. 662.
Adverse Possession, 13.
Trusts, 25.
LAMBERTON V. BOGART, 46 Minn. 409, 49 N. W. 230.
Insurance, 105.
LAMBERTON V. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. Co.,
129, 39 N. W. 76.
Insurance, 117.
39 Minn.
Followed in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.
Parsons, 47 Minn. 356. Cited in Wilkins v.
State Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 178; Massachusetts
Loan & Trust Co. v. Welch, 47 Minn. 186.
LAIB V. BRANDENBURG, 34 Minn. 367, 25 N. W. 803. LAMBERTON V. MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK, 24 Minn.
Appeal and Error, 588.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 111, 114.
Cited in Houston v. Nord, 39 Minn. 492; Chad-
bourn v. Williams, 45 Minn. 297.
LAING V. NELSON, 41 Minn. 521, 43 N. W. 476.
Trespass, 4.
LAIRD V. MOONAN, 32 Minn. 358, 20 N. W. 354.
Mechanics' Liens, 1, 55.
Words and Phrases, 786.
Applied in Hill v. Gill, 40 Minn. 444; Bardwell
v. Mann, 46 Minn. 288, 289. Cited in Smith v.
Stevens, 36 Minn. 304; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39
Minn. 442; Glass v. Freeberg, 52 N. W. 900.
LAKE V. ALBERT, 37 Minn. 453, 35 N. W. 177.
Contracts, 59.
Executors and Administrators, 70–72.
Words and Phrases, 38, 169.
LAKE CITY FLOURING-MILL Co. v. McVean, 32
Minn. 301, 20 N. W. 233.
281.
Deed, 81.
Execution, 74.
Applied in Willard v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 478.
Cited in Butman v. James, 34 Minn. 551; Dyer
v. Thorstad, 35 Minn. 536; Baker v. Thompson,
36 Minn. 315; Wilkins v. Bevier, 43 Minn. 215;
Wilcox v. Leominster Nat. Bank, 43 Minn. 542;
Groff v.State Bank of Minneapolis, 52 N. W. 651.
LAMBERTON V. RAYMOND, 22 Minn. 129.
Justices of the Peace, 20.
Cited in Anderson v. Hanson, 28 Minu. 402;
Wagner v. Nagel, 33 Minn. 351.
LAMBERTON V. WINDOM, 12 Minn. 232, (Gil. 151.)
Negotiable Instruments, 218.
Pledge, 8.
Distinguished in Cooper v. Simpson, 41 Minn. 48.
Cited in Lamberton v. Windom, 18 Minn. 512,
514, (Gil. 457, 460;) St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Can-
non, 46 Minn. 97.
LAKE SUPERIOR LAND CO. v. EMERSON, 38 Minn. LAMBERTON V. WINDOM, 18 Minn. 506, (Gil. 455.)
Factors and Brokers, 17.
406, 38 N. W. 200.
Riparian Rights, 7.
Overruled in Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
43 Minn. 109, 111, 120. Cited in Miller v. Men-
denhall, 43 Minn. 103.
Deposition, 22.
Evidence, 240.
Pledge, 9.
Distinguished in Brackett v. Rich, 23 Minn. 490,
491.
LAKE SUPERIOR & M. R. Co. v. GREVE, 17 Minn. LAMM V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 45
322, (Gil. 299.)
Appeal and Error, 421, 540.
Eminent Domain, 68, 106, 200, 212, 231.
Trial, 86.
Cited in Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 125.
Minn. 71, 47 N. W. 455.
Easements, 5.
Eminent Domain, 274, 275, 286–289.
Estoppel, 37.
Highways, 79.
Municipal Corporations, 17.
Public Lands, 45.
LAKKIE V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 44 LAMMERS v. BRENNAN, (Brennan v. Lammers,) 46
Minn. 438, 46 N. W. 912.
Eminent Domain, 276.
LALOR V. MCCARTHY, 24 Minn. 417.
Mortgages, 261, 287.
LAMB V. MCCANNA, 14 Minn. 513, (Gil. 385.)
Appeal and Error, 36.
Followed in Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 515,
(Gil. 387;) Hodgins v. Heaney, 15 Minn. 191,
Minn. 209, 48 N. W. 766.
Navigable Waters, 8.
LAMPREY V. DAVIDSON, 16 Minn. 480, (Gil. 435.)
Execution, 6.
Judgment, 179, 180, 182.
Distinguished in Hanson v. Johnson, 20 Minn,
195, (Gil. 174.) Cited in Erickson v. Johnson.
22 Minn. 384; Sherburne v. Rippe, 35 Minn. 541.
2493
2494
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LAMPREY V. HENK, 16 Minn. 405, (Gil. 382.)
Appeal and Error, 23.
LANGEVIN, IN RE, 45 Minn. 429, 47 N. W. 1133.
Wills, 35.
LAMPREY V. LAMPREY, 29 Minn. 151, 12 N. W. 514. LANGEVIN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 51 N. W. 817.
Equity, 66.
Gifts, 3.
Cited in Copley v. Hyland, 46 Minn. 206.
LAMPREY V. LANGEVIN, 25 Minn. 122.
Attorney and Client, 43.
LAMPREY V. MUNCH, 21 Minn. 379.
Witness, 42.
LAMPREY V. NELSON, 24 Minn. 301.
Logs and Logging, 22, 23.
LAMPSEN V. BRANDER, 28 Minn. 526, 11 N. W. 94.
Appeal and Error, 472.
Conversion of Personal Property, 35.
Execution, 56.
Cited in Peterson v. Faust, 30 Minn. 23; Austin
v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 352; Sco-
field v. Walrath, 35 Minn. 356; Peck v. Small,
35 Minn. 467; Cirkell v. Croswell, 36 Minn. 325;
State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 77; Jones v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 186; Hove
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 273.
LANDIS V. OLDS, 9 Minn. 90, (Gil. 79.)
Abatement and Revival, 21, 23, 24.
Mortgages, 289.
Practice in Civil Cases, 35.
LANDRU V. LUND, 38 Minn. 538, 3S N. W. 699.
Negligence, 3.
LANE V. INNES, 43 Minn. 137, 45 N. W. 4.
Bankruptcy, 16.
Courts, 21.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 120.
Parties, 28.
Summons, 30, 51.
Cited in Shepherd v. Ware, 46 Minn. 177; Crom-
bie v. Little, 47 Minn. 588.
LANE V. LANFEST, 40 Minn. 375, 42 N. W. S4.
Partnership, 85.
Trial, 143.
Cited in Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins.
Co., 45 Minn. 444.
LANG V. MOREY, 40 Minn. 396, 42 N. W. 88.
Public Lands, 145.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, 47
Minn. 46.
LANGDON V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'N, 22 Minn. 193.
Insurance, 60.
Cited in Plath v. Minnesota Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n,
23 Minn. 482.
LANGDON V. NORTHFIELD, 42 Minn. 464, 44 N. W.
984.
Contracts, 86, 95.
LANGDON V. THOMPSON, 25 Minn. 509.
Action, 34.
Payment, 33.
LANGFORD V. COUNTY COM'RS RAMSEY COUNTY,
16 Minn. 375, (Gil. 333.)
Eminent Domain, 38-40.
Distinguished in Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Co., 18 Minn. 171, (Gil. 153;) Ames v. Lake
Superior & M. R. Co., 21 Minn. 292; Brugger-
man v. True, 25 Minn. 125; State v. Messen-
ger, 27 Minn. 125. Cited in Raymond v.
v. Commissioners Stearns County, 18 Minn. 61,
(Gil. 41;) State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 36 Minn. 404; City of St. Paul v. Nicke,
42 Minn. 264.
LANIER V. IRVINE, 21 Minn. 447.
Executors and Administrators, 13.
Words and Phrases, 16.
Cited in Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 162; Hunts-
man v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 166.
LANIER V. IRVINE, 24 Minn. 116.
Abatement and Revival, 17.
Constitutional Law, 114.
Executors and Administrators, 15, 75-77.
Limitation, 45.
Limited in Litchfield v. McDonald, 35 Minn. 169.
LANKTON V. STEWART, (Lankton v. Lamoreaux,)
27 Minn. 346, 7 N. W. 360.
Mortgages, 142.
Specific Performance, 25.
LANPHER V. GLENN, 37 Minn. 4, 33 N. W. 10.
Landlord and Tenant, 15, 16, 23.
LANWARD PUB. Co. v. CYCLONE STEAM SNOW-
PLOW CO. See Northwestern Railroader v.
Cyclone Steam Snow-Plow Co.
LANZ V. MCLAUGHLIN, 14 Minn. 72, (Gil. 55.)
Frauds, Statute of, 53.
Specific Performance, 15, 44.
Distinguished in Wemple v. Knopf, 15 Minn.
444, (Gil. 35S.) Cited in Hamlin v. Wistar, 31
Minn. 418; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn.
363.
LA PAUL V. TRUESDALE, 44 Minn. 275, 46 N. W.363.
Railroad Companies, 234.
LARAMY V. RUSCHKE, 46 Minn. 125, 48 N. W. 561.
Appeal and Error, 505.
Ejectment, 31.
LA RIVIERE V. PEMBERTON, 46 Minn./5, 48 N. W. 406.
Negligence, 63.
LARRABEE v. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 36 Minn.
141, 30 N. W. 462.
Libel and Slander, 16a, 44, 87, 96.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 5, 6, LARRABEE V. MORRISON, 15 Minn. 196, (Gil. 151.)
77, 78.
Garnishment, 34.
Words and Phrases, 718.
Applied in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 318. Cited
in Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn. 247.
LANGELLIER v. SCHAEFER, 36 Minn. 361, 31 N. W.
690.
Specific Performance, 12, 13.
LANGEMOE v. SLINGERLAND. See Lambert v.
Slingerland.
Appeal and Error, 704, 718.
Cited in Klein v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 459; Stolt v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
LARSON V. CHASE, 47 Minn. 307, 50 N. W. 238.
Damages, 56.
Torts, 2.
LARSON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 33 Minn. 20, 21
N. W. 836.
Appeal and Error, 260.
2495
2496
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LARSON V. RING, (Larson v. Tobin,) 43 Minn. 88, | LAW v. BUTLER, 44 Minn. 482, 47 N. W. 53.
44 N. W. 1078.
Negligence, 88, 89.
LARSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 34 Minn.
477, 26 N. W. 604.
Master and Servant, 75.
Estoppel, 66.
Homestead, 69, 70.
Vendor and Purchaser, 125.
LAWRENCE V. BUCKLEN, 45 Minn. 195, 47 N. W. 655.
Appeal and Error, 369.
LARSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. LAWRENCE V. WILLOUGHBY, 1 Minn. 87, (Gil. 65.)
423, 45 N. W. 722.
Master and Servant, 68, 132.
Judgment, 291.
LARSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 488, 45 LAWRENCE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 15 Minn.
N. W. 1096.
Master and Servant, 155.
LARSON V. SCHMAUS, 31 Minn. 410, 18 N. W. 273.
Contracts, 84, 145.
LARSON V. TOBIN, (Larson v. Ring,) 43 Minn. 88,
44 N. W. 1078.
Negligence, 88, 89.
LASH V. EDGERTON, 13 Minn. 210, (Gil. 197.)
Mortgages, 78.
Payment, 36.
Explained in Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 92.
LASH V. LAMBERT, 15 Minn. 416, (Gil. 336.)
Interest of Money, 13, 27.
Mortgages, 457.
Cited in Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. S8.
LASH V. MCCORMICK, 14 Minn. 482, (Gil. 359.)
Injunction, 20.
Mortgages, 191.
Words and Phrases, 115.
LASH V. MCCORMICK, 17 Minn. 403, (Gil. 381.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 5.
Mortgages, 192.
Cited in Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 41.
LATHAM V. BAUSMAN, 39 Minn. 57, 38 N. W. 776.
Sale, 79.
LATHROP V. CLAYTON, 45 Minn. 124, 47 N. W. 544.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 7, 46.
LATHROP V. O'BRIEN, 44 Minn. 15, 46 N. W. 147.
Contracts, 154.
Damages, 33.
LATHROP V. O'BRIEN, 47 Minn. 428, 50 N. W. 530.
Judgment, 46.
LAUDENSCHLager v. NorTHWESTERN ENDOWMENT
& LEGACY Ass'n, 36 Minn. 131, 30 N. W. 447.
Insurance, 178.
LAUREL v. STATE NAT. BANK, 25 Minn. 48.
Banks and Banking, 9.
New Trial, 65.
LAUTENSCHLAGER V. HUNTER, 22 Minn. 267.
Pleading, 251, 259.
Witness, 33.
Cited in St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co. v. Bradbury,
42 Minn. 228; Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 417;
Rothschild v. Burritt, 47 Minn. 30.
LAVALLEE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 Minn.
249, 41 N. W. 974.
Master and Servant, 104.
Applied in Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 47 Minn. 10. Distinguished in Smith v. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., 44 Minn. 18. Cited in
Schneider v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 42 Minn.
72; Johnson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn.
223, 225; Steffenson v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 356; State v. Sheriff of Ram-
sey County, 51 N. W. 113; Steffenson v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 611.
390, (Gil. 313.)
Carriers, 58, 59.
Principal and Agent, 16.
Cited in Pinney v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 19 Minn. 257, (Gil. 217:) Irish v. Milwau-
kee & St. P. Ry. Co., 19 Minn. 378, 382, (Gil.
325, 328;) Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 398; Shaw v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
40 Minn. 145.
LAWSON V. ADLARD, 46 Minn. 243, 48 N. W. 1019.
Attachment, 6.
Words and Phrases, 659, 660.
LAWVER V. SLINGERLAND, 11 Minn. 447, (Gil. 330.)
Homestead, 73.
LAX V. PETERSON, 42 Minn. 214, 44 N. W. 3.
Mechanics' Liens, 39, 40, 78.
Words and Phrases, 450.
Cited in Glass v. St. Paul P. C. & S. Co., 43
Minn. 229, 230; Reilly v. Williams, 47 Minn.
593, 594.
LAY V. SHAUBвHUT, 6 Minn. 273, (Gil. 182.)
Execution, 141.
Approved in First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 22 Minn.
231. Cited in Shaubhut v. Hilton, 7 Minn. 509,
(Gil. 416.)
LAYMAN'S WILL, IN RE, 40 Minn. 371, 42 N. W. 286.
Wills, 1.
Witness, 12.
LEARY V. GRAEFF, (Graeff, In re,) 30 Minn. 358, 16
N. W. 395.
Insolvency, 36.
Cited in Re Jones, 33 Minn. 406; Brown v. Min-
nesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 44 Minn. 323.
LEARY V. GRAEFF, (Graeff, In re,) 30 Minn. 476, 16
N. W. 363.
Insolvency, 33.
LEBANON SAV. BANK V. HOLLENBECK, 29 Minn. 323,
13 N. W. 145.
·
Banks and Banking, 29.
Mortgages, 35, 75.
Principal and Agent, 78.
Cited in Campion v. Whitney, 30 Minn. 178;
Bowers v. Mayo, 32 Minn. 243; Wilson v. Min-
nesota Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Minn.
113; Coles v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 57; Trentor
v. Pothen, 46 Minn. 300; Hersey v. Lambert,
52 N. W. 964.
LEBANON SAV. BANK V. PENNEY, 44 Minn. 214, 46 N.
W. 331.
Negotiable Instruments, 202.
LEBER V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
256, 13 N. W. 31.
Eminent Domain, 63, 253, 254.
Trespass, 14.
Cited in Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 420; Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 134.
2497
2498
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LE CLAIR V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 20 LEEDS V. LITTLE, 42 Minn. 414, 44 N. W. 309.
Minn. 9, (Gil. 1.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
Master and Servant, 32, 116, 167.
Trial, 73.
LE DUC V. CITY OF HASTINGS, 39 Minn. 110, 38 N.
W. 803.
Taxation, 15, 16.
Cited in State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 235.
LE DUE V. FIRST NAT. BANK, (La Due v. First Nat.
Bank,) 31 Minn. 33, 16 N. W. 426.
Negotiable Instruments, 104-106.
Words and Phrases, 532.
Cited in Tuttle v. Wilson, 33 Minn. 423.
LEE, EX PARTE, 1 Minn. 60, (Gil. 44.)
Courts, 14.
Habeas Corpus, 1.
Cited in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 33.
LEE V. BANGS, (Sole Leather Over Manuf'g Co. v.
Bangs,) 43 Minn. 23, 44 N. W. 671.
Sale, 47, 49.
Cited in Rosenfield v. Swenson, 45 Minn. 191.
LEE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 22 Minn. 13.
Municipal Corporations, 235.
Applied in Henderson v. City of Minneapolis, 32
Minn. 322, 324. Distinguished in O'Brien v.
City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333. Cited in Alden
v. City of Minneapolis, 24 Minn. 262; Pye v.
City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 375; Jordan v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 175; Beach v.
Gaylord, 43 Minn. 477.
LEE V. EMERY, 10 Minn. 187, (Gil. 151.)
Negligence, 76.
Pleading, 41, 303.
LEE V. FLETCHER, 46 Minn. 49, 48 N. W. 456.
Mortgages, 29.
New Trial, 82.
Cited in Cable v. Minneapolis Stock-Yards &
Packing Co., 47 Minn. 420.
LEE V. MACFEE, 45 Minn. 33, 47 N. W. 309.
Summons, 18.
LEE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 34 Minn.
225, 25 N. W. 399.
Pleading, 223.
Words and Phrases, 207.
Followed in Todd v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 37 Minn. 359.
LEE V. O'SHAUGHNESSY, 20 Minn. 173, (Gil. 157.)
Abatement and Revival, 19, 20, 25.
Cited
Applied in Magin v. Lamb, 43 Minn. 82.
in Heffner v. Gunz, 29 Minn. 110; Magin v.
Lamb, 43 Minn. 81.
LEE V. PARRETT, 25 Minn. 128.
Appeal and Error, 303, 697.
LEECH V. RAUCH, 3 Minn. 448, (Gil. 332.)
Public Lands, 20-22, 25, 115.
Followed in Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn. 251, (Gil.
190.) Cited in Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 90,
(Gil. 64;) State v. Batchelder, 5 Minn. 241, (Gil.
188;) Castner v. Gunther, 6 Minn. 128, (Gil.
73;) Carson v. Smith, 12 Minn. 563, (Gil. 477;)
Coy v. Coy, 15 Minn. 123, 126, 127, 129, (Gil. 92,
94, 95, 97:) Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 17 Minn. 223, (Gil. 200;) Village of Man-
kato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 272, 275, 276, 280, (Gil.
248, 249, 252, 256;) Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 69,
v.2M.DIG.—79
Contracts, 116.
Mechanics' Liens, 86.
Words and Phrases, 717.
Followed in Johnson v. Stout, 42 Minn. 515. Cit-
ed in Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 360; Peter-
son v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 470; Madden v. Oes-
trich, 46 Minn. 539.
LEFTWICII V. DAY, 32 Minn. 512, 21 N. W. 731.
Malicious Prosecution, 44.
Trial, 124.
Cited in Moriarty v. McDevitt, 46 Minn. 137.
LEHMICKE V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn.
464, (Gil. 406.)
Appeal and Error, 229.
Eminent Domain, 101, 194, 203, 206.
Venue in Civil Cases, 10.
Followed in Wilson v. Richards, 28 Minn. 339.
Distinguished in Stinson v. Chicago, St. P. &
M. Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 239. Cited in Curtis v.
St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn. 31;
(Gil. 25;) Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21
Minn. 129; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 228; Stillman v. Northern Pac.
F. & B. H. R. Co., 34 Minn. 422; Emmons v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 134;
Minnesota Belt Line Ry. Co. v. Gluek, 45
Minn. 465.
LEHNERTZ V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 31
Minn. 219, 17 N. W. 376.
Appeal and Error, 448.
Pleading, 222.
LEIGHTON V. GRANT, 20 Minn. 345, (Gil. 298.)
Contracts, 44.
Fraud, 9.
Logs and Logging, 39.
Negotiable Instruments, 47.
Pleading, 275.
Statutes, 62.
Distinguished in Torinus v. Buckham, 29 Minn.
131.
LEIGHTON V. HEAGERTY, 21 Minn. 42.
Garnishment, 1, 40.
Cited in Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Wells,
23 Minn. 477.
LEIGHTON V. SHELDON, 16 Minn. 243, (Gil. 214.)
Husband and Wife, 15, 82.
Marriage, 7.
Words and Phrases, 84.
LEITHAUSER V. Baumeister, 47 Minn. 151, 49 N. W.
660.
Principal and Surety, 19.
LEMAY V. BIBEAU, 2 Minn. 291, (Gil. 251.)
LE
Fraudulent Conveyances, 64.
Followed in Scott v. Edes, 3 Minn. 388, (Gil. 281;)
Richards v. White, 7 Minn. 349, (Gil. 275.) Cit
ed in Rohrer v. Turrell, 4 Minn. 410, (Gil. 313;)
Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 67, (Gil. 33;) Hath-
away v. Brown, 22 Minn. 217.
MERE V. MCHALE, 30 Minn. 410, 15 N. W. 682.
Witness, 114, 117.
Words and Phrases, 271.
LEMONT V. DODGE COUNTY, (Lemont v. County
Com'rs,) 39 Minn. 385, 40 N. W. 359.
Certiorari, 5.
Cited in Christlieb v. Hennepin County, 41 Minn.
143; Moede v. Stearns County, 43 Minn. 313.
2499
2500
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LENNON V. BRAINARD, 36 Minn. 330, 31 N. W. 172. | LEVERING V. WASHINGTON, 3 Minn. 323, (Gil. 227.)
Negotiable Instruments, 60.
LENTHOLD V. YOUNG, (Leuthold v. Young,) 32
Minn. 122, 19 N. W. 652.
Abatement and Revival, 6.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 48.
Pleading, 125, 139.
Cited in Alworth v. Seymour, 42 Minn. 529.
LEO V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 438, 15
N. W. 872.
Carriers, 19, 62.
Leonard v. GREEN, 30 Minu. 496, 16 N. W. 399.
Appeal and Error, 452.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 32.
Witness, 5.
Cited in Leonard v. Green, 34 Minn. 140; Keyes
v. Clare, 40 Minn. 86.
LEONARD V. GREEN, 34 Minn. 137, 24 N. W. 915.
Appeal and Error, 618.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 33, 57, 85, 126.
Cited in Laib v. Brandenburg, 34 Minn. 369; Wol-
ford v. Farnham, 44 Minn. 162.
Constitutional Law, 93.
Negotiable Instruments, 75, 133.
Cited in Kern v. Von Phul. 7 Minn. 430, (Gil,
346;) First Nat. Bank v. National Marine
Bank, 20 Minn, 69, (Gil. 54;) Barnard v. Gas-
lin, 23 Minn. 196; Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn.
106; Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 33 Minn. 353.
LEVY V. MILLER, 38 Minn. 526, 38 N. W. 700.
Garnishment, 67.
LEWIS V. BARTLESON, 39 Minn. 89, 38 N. W. 707.
Taxation, 269.
LEWIS V. BUCK, 7 Minn. 104, (Gil. 71.)
Courts, 31.
Followed in Talbott v. Gere, 8 Minn. 85, (Gil. 61.)
Explained in Buck v. Colbath, 7 Minn. 313,
(Gil. 241, 242.) Cited in Berthold v. Holman,
12 Minn. 347, (Gil. 226.)
LEWIS V. BUSH, (Lewis v. Lawrence,) 30 Minn. 244,
15 N. W. 113.
Conflict of Laws, 2.
Cited in Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 486.
LEONARD V. MAGINNIS, 34 Minn. 506, 26 N. W. 733. LEWIS V. HARWOOD, (Lewis v. Lewis,) 28 Minn.
Execution, 57.
Replevin, 72.
Sheriffs and Constables, 20, 42.
Venue in Civil Cases, 3.
Cited in Hinds v. Backus, 45 Minn. 173.
LEPPLA V. MACKEY, 31 Minn. 75, 16 N. W. 470.
Landlord and Tenant, 27.
LEPPLA V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 35 Minn. 310,
29 N. W. 127.
Witness, 10.
Words and Phrases, 124, 586.
LESHER V. BEESMEIRE, 30 Minn. 106, 14 N. W. 461,
Appeal and Error, 489.
LESHER V. GETMAN, 28 Minn. 93, 9 N. W. 585.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 30, 31.
Cited in Simon v. Mann, 33 Minn. 414, 415.
LESHER V. GETMAN, 30 Minn. 321, 15 N. W. 309.
Attachment, 44.
Parties, 36.
Sheriffs and Constables, 46.
Cited in Hedderly v. Downs, 31 Minn. 186.
LEUTHOLD V. FAIRCHILD, 35 Minn. 99, 27 N. W. 503,
28 N. W. 218.
Conversion of Personal Property, 13.
Discovery.
Principal and Agent, 96.
Warehousemen, 18.
Cited in Fern v. Leuthold, 39 Minn. 214, 217, 218;
Hall v. Pillsbury, 43 Minn. 35.
LEUTHOLD V. YOUNG, (Lenthold v. Young,) 32
Minn. 122, 19 N. W. 652.
Abatement and Revival, 6.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 48.
Pleading, 125, 139.
Cited in Alworth v. Seymour, 42 Minn. 529.
LEVERING V. LANGLEY, 8 Minn. 107, (Gil. 82.)
Evidence, 320.
Trial, 47.
Cited in C. Aultman & Co. v. Kennedy, 33 Minn.
340.
428, 10 N. W. 586.
Attachment, 84.
Applied in Becker v. North way, 44 Minn. 64.
Cited in Wohlwend v. J. I. Case Threshing-
Mach. Co., 42 Minn. 502.
LEWIS V. LAWRENCE, (Lewis v. Traders' Bank,) 30
Minn. 134, 14 N. W. 587.
Assignment, 9.
LEWIS V. LAWRENCE, (Lewis v. Bush,) 30 Minn.
244, 15 N. W. 113.
Conflict of Laws, 2.
Cited in Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 486.
LEWIS V. LEWIS, (Lewis v. Harwood,) 28 Minn. 428,
10 N. W. 586.
Attachment, 84.
Applied in Becker v. Northway, 44 Minn. 64.
Cited in Wohlwend v. J. I. Case Threshing-
Mach. Co., 42 Minn. 502.
LEWIS V. LEWIS, 44 Minn. 124, 46 N. W. 323.
Marriage, 9, 10.
Words and Phrases, 379, 421.
LEWIS V. PRATT, 11 Minn. 57, (Gil. 31.)
Attachment, 4.
LEWIS V. PRENDERGAST, 39 Minn. 301, 39 N. W. 802.
Limitation of Actions, 19, 39.
Cited in Nye v. Swan, 52 N. W、 41.
、
LEWIS V. PRENDERGAST, 45 Minn. 533, 48 N. W. 439.
Bankruptcy, 15.
LEWIS V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 20 Minn. 260,
(Gil. 234.)
New Trial, 85.
Warehousemen, 12.
Cited in Hurt v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39
Minn. 487.
LEWIS V. STEELE, 1 Minn. 88, (Gil. 67.)
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 8, 14.
LEWIS V. TRADERS' BANK, (Lewis v. Lawrence,) 30
Minn. 134, 14 N. W. 587.
Assignment, 9.
2501
2502
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LEWIS V. WELCH, 47 Minn. 193, 48 N. W. 608.
Equity, 80.
Executors and Administrators, 30, 66, 92,
93.
Limitation of Actions, 41.
LIEBETRAU V. GOODSELL, 26 Minn. 417, 4 N. W. 813.
Homestead, 27.
Distinguished in Neumaier v. Vincent, 41 Minn.
482. Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 16.
Followed in Barber v. Bowen, 47 Minn. 118, 121, LIENAU V. MORAN, 5 Minn. 482, (Gil. 386.)
122. Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 910.
LEWIS V. WETHERELL, 36 Minn. 386, 31 N. W. 356.
Public Lands, 145.
Cited in Lang v. Morey, 40 Minn. 396.
LEWIS V. WILLIAMS, 3 Minn. 151, (Gil. 95.)
Mechanics' Liens, 172, 173.
Parties, 19.
Pleading, 130.
Followed in Nichols v. Randall, 5 Minn. 309, (Gil.
245;) Mitchell v. Bank of St. Paul, 7 Minn. 256,
(Gil. 195.) Cited in Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn.
188; Clark v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 121.
LEWIS V. WILLOUGHBY, 43 Minn. 307, 45 N. W. 439.
Evidence, 349.
Principal and Agent, 34.
Cited in Kemmitt v. Adamson, 44 Minn. 122;
Stein v. Swensen, 44 Minu. 222; Adamson v.
Wiggins, 45 Minn. 451; Hawkins v. Sauby, 50
N. W. 1016.
LEYDE V. MARTIN, 16 Minn. 38, (Gil. 24.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off,.44.
Interest of Money, 24.
Judgment, 58, 88, 89.
Practice in Civil Cases, 42.
Reference, 15, 16.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Parker, 17 Minn. 474,
(Gil. 452.) Cited in Young v. Young, 18 Minn.
95, (Gil. 78;) Heinrich v. Englund, 34 Minn.
397; Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 463; Fall
v. Moore, 45 Minn. 518.
LEYDE V. SILVIS, 47 Minn. 412, 50 N. W. 361.
Vendor and Purchaser, 3.
LIBBY V. ANOKA COUNTY, (Libby v. Board County
Com'rs,) 38 Minn. 448, 38 N. W. 205.
Counties, 58.
Chattel Mortgages, 66, 75.
Approved in Eddy v. Caldwell, 7 Minn. 230,
(Gil. 172.)
LIGGET V. HIMLE, 38 Minn. 421, 38 N. W. 201.
Mortgages, 148.
Lightbody v. TRUELSEN, 39 Minn. 310, 40 N. W. 67.
Landlord and Tenant, 1.
LILJENGREN v. EGE, 46 Minn. 488, 49 N. W. 250.
Sheriffs and Constables, 16.
LILJENGREN FURNITURE & LUMBER Co. V. MEAD,
42 Minn. 420, 44 N. W. 306.
Contracts, 102.
Damages, 50.
Followed in Hitchcock v. Turnbull, 44 Minn.
478.
LINCOLN V. HAUGAN, 45 Minn. 451, 48 N. W. 196.
Statutes, 2.
LINCOLN PARK, IN RE, (Godfrey v. District Court
of Ramsey County,) 44 Minn. 299, 46 N. W.
355.
Eminent Domain, 48.
LINDAUER V. YOUNGLOVE, 47 Minn. 62, 49 N. W.
384.
Mortgages, 65.
LINDEKE, IN RE, (Kollmann, In re,) 34 Minn. 282.
25 N. W. 602.
Insolvency, 29.
LINDEKE v. CLARK, (Clark v. Lindeke,) 43 Minn.
463, 45 N. W. 863.
Insolvency, 80, 81.
Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 912.
LINDEKUGEL V. ANGELHOFER, 24 Minn. 324.
Justices of the Peace, 26, 27.
LINDERSMITH V. SCHWISO, 17 Minn. 26, (Gil. 10.)
Public Lands, 139, 140.
Cited in Gerken v. Sibley County, 39 Minn. 434. LINDHJEN V. MUELLER, 42 Minn. 307,44 N. W. 203.
LIBBY V. HUSBY, 28 Minn. 40. 8 N. W. 903.
Appeal and Error, 237, 623, 768.
Negotiable Instruments, 184.
Applied in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 512.
LIBBY V. JOHNSON, 37 Minn. 220, 33 N. W. 783.
Money Received, 10.
LIBBY V. MIKELBORG, 28 Minn. 38, S N. W. 903.
Appeal and Error, 623.
Negotiable Instruments, 184.
Followed in Libby v. Husby, 28 Minn. 40. Cited
in Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158; Herrick v.
Englund, 34 Minn. 397; Webb v. Paxton, 36
Minn. 533; Hersey v. Walsh, 38 Minn. 522.
LIBBY V. TOWN OF WEST ST. PAUL, 14 Minn. 248,
(Gil. 181.)
Certiorari, 24.
Taxation, 78.
Distinguished in Sinclair v. Commissioners Wi-
nona County, 23 Minn. 407.
LIEBERMAN V. ISAACS, 43 Minn. 186, 45 N. W. 8.
Sale, 173.
Evidence, 98.
LINDHOLM V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 19 Minn. 245, (Gil.
204.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
Damages, 96.
Municipal Corporations, 137, 138, 168, 179.
Cited in Furnell v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn.
124, (Gil. 108;) O'Leary v. City of Mankato, 21
Minn. 68; Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33
Minn. 200; Treise v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn.
527.
LINDLEY V. CROMBIE, 31 Minn. 232, 17 N. W. 372.
Execution, 94.
Cited in Cooper v. Finke, 38 Minn. 6; Buchanan
v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175.
LINDLEY V. GROFF, 37 Minn. 338, 34 N. W. 26.
Contracts, 66.
Escrow, 2.
Limitation of Actions, 13.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 3.
Followed in Lindley v. Groff, 42 Minn. 347.
LINDLEY V. GROFF, 42 Minn. 346, 44 N. W. 196.
Descent and Distribution, 1.
2503
2504
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LINDSAY V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 29 Minn. 411, LOCKE V. FIRST DIVISION St. P. & P. R. Co., 15
13 N. W. 191.
Property, 1, 2.
Railroad Companies, 305.
Distinguished in Carner v. Chicago, St. P., M.
& O. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 376. Cited in Herford
v. Schulte, 37 Minn. 389; Woodcock v. Carl-
son, 41 Minn. 546.
LINDSLEY V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 36
Minn. 539, 33 N. W. 7.
Carriers, 38, 40.
Evidence, 140, 397.
Cited in Boehl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
44 Minn. 192.
LINDVALL V. Woons, 41 Minn. 212, 42 N. W. 1020.
Master and Servant, 77, 78.
Affirmed in Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
52 N. W. 379. Cited in Bergquist v. City of
Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 472; Fraser v. Red
River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 237, 238; Marsh
v. Herman, 47 Minn. 539; Corneilson v. East-
ern Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 225.
LINEER V. GIRRBACH, 34 Minn. 410, 26 N. W. 229.
Negotiable Instruments, 222.
LINN V. RUGG, 19 Minn. 181, (Gil. 145.)
Appeal and Error, 490.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 4, 38.
Cited in La Due v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Minn. 37;
Curtiss v. Livingston, 36 Minn. 313.
LINNE V. STOUT, 41 Minn. 483, 43 N. W. 377.
Mechanics' Liens, 158.
LINNE V. STOUT, 44 Minn. 110, 46 N. W. 319.
Judgment, 158.
Litchfield v. McDonald, 35 Minn. 167, 28 N. W.
191.
Limitation of Actions, 46.
Sheriffs and Constables, 57.
LITTLE V. LEIGHTON, 46 Minn. 201, 48 N. W. 778.
Appeal and Error, 102.
LITTLE V. REES, 34 Minn. 277, 26 N. W. 7.
Contracts, 129.
LITTLE V. SIMONDS, 46 Minn. 380, 49 N. W. 186.
Partnership, 61.
LITTLE V. WILLFORD, 31 Minn. 173, 17 N. W. 282.
License, 1.
Trusts, 1.
Minn. 350, (Gil. 283.)
Animals, 3.
Negligence, 36.
Railroad Companies, 174-176, 253-256, 280.
Words and Phrases, 202, 672.
Cited in Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.,
22 Minn. 172. Followed in Witherell v. Mil
waukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 414; O'Con-
nor v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Minn.
168. Distinguished in Watier v. Chicago, St
P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 92. Cited in
Scheffler v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 521; Hooper v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
R. Co. 37 Minn. 53; Palmer v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., 37 Minn. 224; Stacey v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 160; Hepfel v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 1050.
LOCKWOOD V. BIGELOW, 11 Minn. 113, (Gil. 70.)
Execution, 39.
Pleading, 17, 136, 148.
Followed in Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 496. Dis-
tinguished in Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 117,
(Gil. 109.) Cited in Armstrong v. Vroman, 11
Minn. 223, (Gil. 144;) Adams v. City of Minne-
apolis, 20 Minn. 457, (Gil. 441;) First Division
St. P. & P. R. Co. v., Rice, 25 Minn. 291; Leu-
thold v. Young, 32 Minn. 125; Bausman v.
Woodman, 33 Minn. 514; Spencer v. Haug, 45
Minn. 234.
LOCKWOOD V. Восk, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458.
Appeal and Error, 42.
LOHMAN V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn.
174, (Gil. 157.)
Eminent Domain, 129, 261.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Union Depot St.
Railway & Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 295. Cited
in Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co.,
30 Minn. 479; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Kanne, 32 Minn. 175.
LOMMELAND V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 35
Minn. 412, 29 N. W. 119.
Damages, 71.
Evidence, 145.
Cited in Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 213.
LONG V. CITY OF DULUTH, 51 N. W. 913.
Municipal Corporations, 102, 103.
LONG V. MILLER, 46 Minn. 13, 48 N. W. 409
Vendor and Purchaser, 33.
Applied in Ingalls v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
39 Minn. 480. Cited in Althen v. Tarbox, 50 LONG v. WEBB, 24 Minn. 380.
N. W. 1019.
LIVINGSTON v. Ives, 35 Minn. 55, 27 N. W. 74.
Mortgages, 19, 20.
Applied in Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 37.
Cited in Farnham v. Murch, 36 Minn. 330; Pay-
ette v. Day, 37 Minn. 368; Gaffney v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 112; Marshall v.
Thompson, 39 Minn. 142; Devlin v. Quigg, 44
Minn. 535; Hall v. Northwestern Endowment
& Legacy Ass'n, 47 Minn. 88.
LIVINGSTONE v. BROWN, 18 Minn. 308, (Gil. 278.)
Pleading, 239.
LOBDELL V. GEIB, 18 Minn. 106, (Gil. 86.)
Evidence, 385.
Judgment, 135.
LOOMIS V. YOULE, 1 Minn. 175, (Gil. 150.)
Pleading, 118, 265.
Replevin, 26, 34, 37.
Cited in Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11 Minn. 116, (Gil.
73.)
LORD V. CITY OF ANOKA, 36 Minn. 176, 30 N. W.
550.
Municipal Corporations, 86.
LORD V. DEARING, 24 Minn. 110.
Ejectment, 36.
Cited in Pierro v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 37
Minn. 315
2505
2506
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LORD V. HAWKINS, 39 Minn. 73, 38 N. W. 689.
Adverse Claim, 49.
Judgment, 33.
Words and Phrases, 328,
Cited in Welch v. Marks, 39 Minn. 483; Nye v.
Swan, 42 Minn. 245; Boeing v. McKinley, 44
Minn. 394; Drew v. City of St. Paul, 44 Minn.
503; Waite v. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 161; Baus-
man v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 67.
LORD V. MEACHEM, 32 Minn. 66, 19 N. W. 346.
Garnishment, 14, 36.
Cited in North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Lovejoy,
33 Minn. 231; Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 485;
Second Nat. Bank v. Schranck, 43 Minn. 40.
LORIMER V. ST. PAUL CITY Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 125.
Master and Servant, 44, 166.
LOTTO V. DAVENPORT, 42 Minn. 395, 44 N. W. 311.
Libel and Slander, 14.
LOVEJOY V. STEWART, 23 Minn. 94.
Specific Performance, 75.
Tender, 4.
LOVELL V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 10 Minn. 290; (Gil. 229.)
Municipal Corporations, 306.
LOVELL V. SEEBACK, 45 Minn. 465, 48 N. W. 23.
Constitutional Law, 174.
Words and Phrases, 243.
LOVELL V. WHEATON, 11 Minn. 92, (Gil 57.)
Arbitration and Award, 5, 6, 15.
Internal Revenue, 6.
Words and Phrases, 465, 466.
Cited in Heglund v. Allen, 30 Minn. 41.
LOVERIDGE V. OMODT, 38 Minn. 1, 35 N. W. 564.
Boundaries, 15.
LOWE V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. Co., 37 Minn. 283,
34 N. W. 33.
Trial, 64.
LOUCKS V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. LOWELL v. DOE, 44 Minn. 144, 46 N. W. 297.
526, 18 N. W. 651.
Appeal and Error, 468.
Evidence, 151, 184.
Negligence, 56.
Railroad Companies, 178, 179, 197.
Trial, 97.
Followed in Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 213. Applied in Hutchinson
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 402.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 172. Cited in State
v. Reid, 39 Minn. 282; Watson v. St. Paul City
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 48.
LOUDY V. CLARKE, 45 Minn. 477, 48 N. W. 25.
Appeal and Error, 364.
Damages, 9.
Trial, 127.
LOUGEE V. BRAY, 42 Minn. 323, 44 N. W. 194
Deposition, 26.
LOUGH V. BRAGG, 18 Minn. 121, (Gil. 106.)
Judgment, 64.
Negotiable Instruments, 43.
Cited in Lough v. Thornton, 17 Minn. 256, (Gil.
232;) Gaffney v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 112.
LOUGH V. BRAGG, 19 Minn. 357, (Gil. 309.)
Appeal and Error, 676.
Cited in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 511.
LOUGH V. FLAHERTY, 29 Minn. 295, 13 N. W. 181.
Executors and Administrators, 138.
LOUGH V. PITMAN, 25 Minn. 120.
Abatement and Revival, 18.
Executors and Administrators, 129.
LOUGHI V. PITMAN, 26 Minn. 345, 4 N. W. 229.
Judgment, 216.
LOUGH V. THORNTON, 17 Minn. 253, (Gil. 230.)
Appeal and Error, 332.
Judgment, 61, 62.
Principal and Agent, 20, 88.
LOVEJOY V. GASKILL, 30 Minn. 137, 14 N. W. 583.
Deed, 37.
LOVEJOY V. ITASKA LUMBER Co., 46 Minn. 216, 48
N. W. 911.
Logs and Logging, 45.
LOVEJOY V. MORRISON, 10 Minn. 136, (Gil. 108.)
Damages, 103.
Receivers, 1, 2.
LOWELL V. NORTH, 4 Minn. 32, (Gil. 15.)
Mortgages, 231, 250, 284, 302, 303.
Statutes, 9.
Trial, 175.
Cited in Folsom v. Lockwood, 6 Minn. 191, (Gil.
122;) Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 48, (Gil. 35;)
Lane v. Lenfest, 40 Minn. 377.
LOWRY
V. HARRIS, 12 Minn. 255, (Gil. 166.)
Appeal and Error, 577.
Deed, 12.
Deposition, 7, 23.
Evidence, 29, 75, 128, 201, 202.
Pleading, 182, 183, 278.
Powers, 21.
Quieting Title, 27.
Summons, 3.
Cited in Cole v. Maxfield, 13 Minn. 239, (Gil.
222;) Shatto v. Latham, 33 Minn. 38; In re
Smith, 34 Minn. 438; Ortt v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 399; Meyer v. Berlandi,
39 Minn. 448.
LOWRY V. HURD, 7 Minn. 356, (Gil. 282.)
LOWRY V. HURD, 7 Minn. 356, (Gil. 282.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 10.
Distinguished in Lough v. Bragg, 18 Minn. 123,
(Gil. 108.)
LOWRY V. MAYO, 41 Minn. 388, 43 N. W. 78.
Estoppel, 35.
Mortgages, 174, 380.
Cited in Stuart v. Lowry, 42 Minn. 474, 475;
Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
LOWRY V. TILLENY, 31 Minn. 500, 18 N. W. 452.
Covenants, 27.
Executors and Administrators, 136.
Mortgages, 271, 311.
Cited in Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 341; Schoch
v. Birdsall, 51 N. W. 383.
LOWRY V. VEDDER, 40 Minn. 475, 42 N. W. 542.
Libel and Slander, 23, 40.
LOY V. HOME INS. Co., 24 Minn. 315.
Insurance, 61.
Mortgages, 266.
Words and Phrases, 102, 409, 435, 746.
Cited in Lindsay v. Crombie, 31 Minn. 233; Car-
gill v. Millers' & Manuf'rs' Mut. Ins. Co., 33
Minn. 93; Olsen v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 35 Minn. 433; De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co.,
38 Minn. 503; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 44.
2507
2508
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
LUCY V. WILKINS, 33 Minn. 21, 21 N. W. 849.
Landlord and Tenant, 68.
LUCY V. WILKINS, 33 Minn. 441, 23 N. W. 861.
Landlord and Tenant, 34, 71.
Trial, 8.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 280.
LUDLUM V. ROTHSCHILD, 41 Minn. 218, 43 N. W. 137.
Chattel Mortgages, 21, 61, 93.
Followed in Ambuehl v. Matthews, 41 Minn. 540.
Cited in Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping
Mach. Co. v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co.,
51 N. W. 379.
LUDWIG V. PILLSBURY, 35 Minn. 256, 28 N. W. 505.
Negligence, 66.
Cited in Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39
Minn. 169.
LUKENS V. HAZLETT, 37 Minn. 441, 35 N. W. 265.
Usury, 8.
Witness, 37.
Cited in Hass v. Camp, 40 Minn. 330; Jackson v.
Travis, 42 Minn. 439; Lewis v. Willoughby, 43
Minn. 309.
LUND V. ANDERSON, 42 Minn. 201, 44 N. W. 6.
Appeal and Error, 348.
LUND V. DAVIES, 47 Minn. 290, 50 N. W. 79.
Payment, 23.
LUND V. RICE, 9 Minn. 230, (Gil. 215.)
Evidence, 220.
LUNDBERG v. NORTHWESTERN ELEVATOR CO., 42
Minn. 37, 43 N. W. 685.
Chattel Mortgages, 71.
Evidence, 101.
Negotiable Instruments, 35.
Parties, 1.
Warehousemen, 4.
LUSK V. BELOTE, 22 Minn. 468.
Innkeepers, 1, 2, 4, 10, 11.
Words and Phrases, 759.
Cited in Olson v. Crossman, 31 Minn. 223; Ross
v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 422.
LYBERG V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 39 Minn. 15, 38
N. W. 632.
Master and Servant, 146.
LYDIARD V. CHUTE, 45 Minn. 277, 47 N. W. 967.
Deed, 103.
Summons, 31.
LYMAN V. RASMUSSEN, 27 Minn. 384, 7 N. W. 687.
Action, 37.
LIND V. PICKET, 7 Minn. 184, (Gil. 128.)
Cited in Wheaton v. Wheeler, 27 Minn. 466.
Appeal and Error, 250, 421, 454, 541, 589.
Damages, 15, 92.
Exemptions, 35.
Pleading, 76, 235.
Sheriffs and Constables, 23, 40, 41.
Trial, 18.
Followed in Seeman v. Feeney, 19 Minn. 82, 83,
(Gil. 55, 56;) McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn.
91; Cronfeldt v. Arrol, 52 N. W. 858. Applied
in Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 121; Cole-
man v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 132; Gardner v. Minea,
47 Minn. 297. Explained in Howard v. Rug-
land, 35 Minn. 391. Cited in Vose v. Stickney,
8 Minn. 81, (Gil. 57;) Dean v. Leonard, 9 Minn.
193, (Gil. 179;) Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn.
520, (Gil. 429;) Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn.
294, (Gil. 225;) Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 52,
(Gil. 39;) Pottgieser v. Dorn, 16 Minn. 209,
(Gil. 183;) Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 206,
(Gil. 180;) Boetcher v. Staples, 27 Minn. 308;
Carli v. Union Depot, St. Railway & Transfer
Co., 32 Minn. 104.
LYON V. GLEASON, 40 Minn. 434, 42 N. W. 286.
Vendor and Purchaser, 158.
Wills, 41.
Followed in Wolch v. Ketcham, 51 N. W. 114.
LUNDBERG V. SHARVEY, 46 Minn. 350, 49 N. W. 60. LYON COUNTY V. MURRAY COUNTY, 29 Minn. 240, 13
Homestead, 22.
Words and Phrases, 448.
N. W. 43.
Poor and Poor-Laws, 1.
LUNDBERG V. SINGLE MEN'S ENDOWMENT ASS'N, LYONS, IN RE, 42 Minn. 19, 43 N. W. 568.
41 Minn. 508, 43 N. W. 394.
Appeal and Error, 406.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 11.
Insolvency, 100.
Cited in Scott v. Minneapolis. St. P. & S. S. M. LYONS V. RAFFERTY, 30 Minn. 526, 16 N. W. 420.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 180.
Criminal Law, 28.
2509
2510
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MCABE V. THOMPSON, 27 Minn. 134, 6 N. W. 479.
Exemptions, 12, 28.
Words and Phrases, 703.
M.
Cited in Howard v. Rugland, 35 Minn. 391; Hill-
yer v. Remore, 42 Minn. 256.
MCALISTER V. OSBORNE, 43 Minn. 401, 45 N. W. 711.
Husband and Wife, 1.
MCALLISTER V. WELKER, 39 Minn. 535, 41 N. W.
107.
Factors and Brokers, 46, 48, 55–57.
Pleading, 101, 233.
Cited in Northwestern Pavement Co. v. Norwe-
gian Seminary, 43 Minn. 452.
MCALPINE V. FOLEY, 34 Minn. 251, 25 N. W. 452.
Sale, 12.
Trial, 35.
MCARDLE V. MCARDLE, 12 Minn. 98, (Gil. 53.)
Limitation of Actions, 77-79.
Payment, 16.
Pleading, 97.
Witness, 73,
Followed in Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Wa-
ter Power Co., 12 Minn. 143, (Gil. 81.) Cited
in Hoyt v. McNeil, 13 Minn. 391, (Gil. 362;)
Wood v. Cullen, 13 Minn. 397, (Gil. 368;) Smith
v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 86, (Gil. 63;) Davenport v.
Short, 17 Minn. 25, (Gil. 9;) State v. McCartey,
17 Minn. 84, (Gil. 62;) Hoag v. Mendenhall, 19
Minn. 338, (Gil. 291) Cochrane v. Quacken-
bush, 29 Minn. 378; Williams v. Mathews, 30
Minn. 131; Treby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 509;
Humphrey v. Carpenter, 39 Minn. 117.
MCARDLE V. MCARDLE, 12 Minn. 122, (Gil. 70.)
Appeal and Error, 638.
Cited in Millette v. Mehmke, 26 Minn. 307;
Briggs v. Shea, 50 N. W. 1037.
MCARTHUR v. CRAIGIE, 22 Minn. 351.
Appeal and Error, 592, 593.
Trial, 60.
Words and Phrases, 581.
MCARTHUR V. MARTIN, 23 Minn. 74.
Equity, 12.
Subrogation, 2, 11.
Cited in Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 521; Torp v.
Gulseth, 37 Minn. 136; Horton v. Kelly, 40
Minn. 194; Miller v. McCarty, 47 Minn. 324.
MCARTHUR V. TIMES PRINTING CO., 51 N. W. 216.
Frauds, Statute of, 6.
Words and Phrases, 20, 629.
MCCALL V. BUSHNELL, 41 Minn. 37, 42 N. W. 545.
Equity, 47.
Release and Discharge, 7.
Cited in Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 152;
Michaud v. Eisenmenger, 46 Minn. 408.
MCCARTHY V. COUCH, 37 Minn. 124, 33 N. W. 777.
Specific Performance, 9.
Cited in Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn.
315.
MCCARTHY V. GRACE, 23 Minn. 182.
Chattel Mortgages, 29, 52, 82.
Applied in Thomas Manuf'g Co. v. Foote, 46
Minn. 242. Cited in Braley v. Byrnes, 25 Minn.
298; Bank of Farmington v. Ellis, 30 Minn. 272;
Baker v. Pottle, 51 N. W. 384.
MCCARTHY V. GROFF, 51 N. W. 218.
Mechanics' Liens, 101.
MCCARTHY V. LEHIGH VAL. TRANSP. Co., 51 N. W.
480.
Master and Servant, 159.
MCCARTHY V. NASH, 14 Minn. 127, (Gil. 95.)
Frauds, Statutes of, 46.
Partnership. 17.
Cited in Gaslin v. Pinney, 24 Minn. 323; Ortloff
v. Klitzke, 43 Minn. 155,
MCCARTHY V. NISKERN, 22 Minn. 90.
Damages, 90, 112.
Innkeepers, 12.
Followed in Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 468;
Peck v. Small, 35 Minn. 466. Applied in Wood-
ward v. Glidden, 33 Minn. 110. Cited in
Boetcher v. Staples, 27 Minn. 308; Cronfeldt v.
Arrol, 52 N. W. 858.
MCCARTHY V. VAN DER MEY, 42 Minn. 189, 44 N.
W. 53.
Homestead, 83.
Cited in Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank,
45 Minn. 346; McGowan v. Baldwin, 46 Minn.
480.
MCCARTHY'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Peel v. McCarthy,)
38 Minn. 451, 38 N. W. 205.
Guardian and Ward, 15.
MCCARTY V. BARRETT, 12 Minn. 494, (Gil. 398.)
Libel and Slander, 1, 6, 74, 92.
Words and Phrases, 674, 675.
Cited in Simmons v. Holster, 13 Minn. 252, (Gil.
234.)
MCCARTY
McCarty v. St. Paul, M. & M. RY. Co., 31 Minn.
278, 17 N. W. 616.
Eminent Domain, 64, 249.
Applied in Radke v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
MCCARTY V. VAN ETTEN, 4 Minn. 461, (Gil. 358.)
Mechanics' Liens, 90.
Distinguished in North Star Iron Works Co. v.
Strong, 33 Minn. 5. Cited in Griffin v. Chad-
bourne, 32 Minn. 128.
MCCARTHY V. CALDWELL, 43 Minn. 442, 45 N. W. McCAULEY V. DAVIDSON, 10 Minn. 418, (Gil. 335.)
723.
Mechanics' Liens, 156.
MCCARTHY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 22 Minn. 527.
Action, 17.
Municipal Corporations, 228, 229, 231, 232.
Cited in Taylor v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 129.
Carriers, 3, 21, 34.
•
Followed in McCauley v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 165,
(Gil. 153.) Cited in Johnson v. St. Paul & D.
R. Co., 31 Minn. 284.
MCCAULEY V. DAVIDSON, 13 Minn. 162, (Gil. 150.)
Carriers, 9, 21.
2511
2512
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MCCLANE V. WHITE, 5 Minn. 178, (Gil. 139.)
Ejectment, 4, 9, 13, 20-22.
Evidence, 263.
Specific Performance, 1.
Followed in Wells v. Masterson, 6 Minn. 567,
(Gil. 402;) Armstrong v. Hinds, 8 Minn. 257,
(Gil. 224;) Russell v. Schurmeier, 9 Minn. 33,
(Gil. 22;) Williams v. Murphy, 21 Minn. 536.
Limited in Belote v. Morrison, 8 Minn. 92,
(Gil. 67, 68.) Cited in Curtiss v. Livingston,
36 Minn. 381.
MCCLAY V. CLARK, 42 Minn. 363, 44 N. W. 255.
Fences, 8, 9.
MCCLAY V. GLUCK, 41 Minn. 193, 42 N. W. 875.
Contracts, 133.
MCCLELLAND V. NICHOLS, 24 Minn. 176.
Conversion of Personal Property, 5, 33.
Cited in Torp v. Gulseth, 37 Minn. 136; Johnson
v. Oswald, 38 Minn. 551.
MCCLUNG V. BERGFELD, 4 Minn. 148, (Gil. 99.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 10.
Pleading, 73.
Replevin, 39.
Words and Phrases, 142.
Bank v.
Disapproved in German-American
White, 38 Minn. 474. Cited in Derby v. Gallup,
5 Minn. 133, (Gil. 97;) Scott v. King, 7 Minn.
495, 501, (Gil. 402, 408;) Lampsen v. Brander,
28 Minn. 528; Perkins v. Morse, 30 Minn. 16.
MCCLUNG V. CAPEHART, 24 Minn 17.
Limitation of Actions, 18, 28.
Partnership, 62.
MCCLUNG V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 14 Minn. 420, (Gil.
315.)
Militia, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 623.
MCCLUNG V. CONDIT, 27 Minn. 45, 6 N. W. 399.
Judgment, 137.
Cited in Boom v. St. Paul Foundry & Manuf'g
Co., 33 Minn. 256.
MCCLUNG V. MANSON, 25 Minn. 374.
Appeal and Error, 699.
Followed in State v. Hanft, 26 Minn. 266.
MCCLURE V. BRADFORD, 39 Minn. 118, 38 N. W. 753.
Money Received, 12.
MCCLURE V. BRUCK, 43 Minn. 305, 45 N. W. 438.
Judgment, 227.
Applied in Nell v. Dayton, 47 Minn. 259.
MCCLURE V. CITY OF RED WING, 28 Minn. 186, 9 N.
W. 767.
Constitutional Law, 152.
Municipal Corporations, 196.
Cited in City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn.
143; Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 374, 375;
Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41 Minn.
387.
MCCOMB V. BELL, 2 Minn. 295, (Gil. 256.)
Municipal Corporations, 241, 295, 303.
Followed in Weller v. City of St. Paul, 5 Minn.
104, (Gil. 79.) Distinguished in Griggs v.
City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 311, (Gil. 217.) Cited
in Stinson v. Smith, 8 Minn. 371, (Gil. 330;)
Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 201;
State v. District Court of Hennepin County, 33
Minn. 244.
MCCOMB V. THOMPSON, 2 Minn. 139, (Gil. 114.)
Negotiable Instruments, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77.
Followed in Marienthal v. Taylor, 2 Minn. 150,
(Gil. 126, 128;) Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 430,
(Gil. 345;) Peckham v. Gilman, 7 Minn. 447,
(Gil. 356;) Robinson v. Bartlett, 11 Minn. 414,
(Gil. 303;) Coon v. Pruden, 25 Minn. 106. Dis-
tinguished in Levering v. Washington, 3 Minn.
330, (Gil. 230.) Cited in Stein v. Passmore, 25
Minn. 257.
MCCONNELL V. RAKNESS, 41 Minn. 3, 42 N. W. 539.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 16.
Garnishment, 57.
MCCORD V. WESTERN UNION TEL. Co., 39 Minn.
181, 39 N. W. 315.
Telegraph Companies, 3.
Cited in Dean v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 41
Minn. 362; National Bank of Commerce v.
Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 234.
MCCORMICK V. DONNELLY, 32 Minn. 412, 21 N. W.
471.
Appeal and Error, 489.
MCCORMICK V. FITCH, 14 Minn. 252, (Gil. 185.)
Appeal and Error, 329.
Counties, 46, 47.
Taxation, 2, 5, 34. 50.
Words and Phrases, 161.
Cited in Herrick v. Baldwin, 17 Minn. 214, (Gil.
187.)
MCCORMICK V. KELLY, 28 Minn. 135, 9 N. W. 675.
Principal and Agent, 31.
Sale, 92.
Trial, 108.
Cited in Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
101; Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 34 Minn.
456; Maxwell v. Lee, 34 Minn. 515; Boynton
Furnace Co. v. Clark, 42 Minn. 339.
McCORMICK V. MILLER, 19 Minn. 443, (Gil. 384.)
New Trial, 1, 11.
Reference, 5.
Witness, 41.
Cited in Volmer v. Stagerman, 25 Minn. 245;
Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 158.
MCCORMICK V. VILLAGE OF WEST DULUTH, 47 Minn.
272, 50 N. W. 128.
Constitutional Law, 56.
Municipal Corporations, 313.
Followed in Hoyt v. Martin, 47 Minn. 278.
MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. Co. v. CHESROWN,
33 Minn. 32, 21 N. W. 846.
Appeal and Error, 516.
Sale, 77.
Cited in Smith v. Crane, 33 Minn. 147; Rosen-
field v. Swenson, 45 Minn. 191.
v.
MCCORMICK HARVESTING-MACH. Co. V. THOMPSON,
46 Minn. 15, 48 N. W. 415.
Evidence, 313.
McCORMICK HARVESTING-MACH. Co. v. WILSON, 39
Minn. 467, 40 N. W. 571.
Account Stated, 11.
Evidence, 312.
MCCUE V. SMITH, 9 Minn. 252, (Gil. 237.)
Frauds, Statute of, 4.
Public Lands, 129, 132.
Followed in Woodbury v. Dorman, 15 Minn. 339,
(Gil. 273.) Overruled in Jones v. Tainter, 15
Minn. 514, 515. (Gil. 424, 425.) Cited in Chaun-
cey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 29.
2513
2514
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MCCUTCHEN v. Town of FREEDOM, 15 Minn. 217, | MCGINTY V. WARNER, 17 Minn. 41, (Gil. 23.)
(Gil. 169.)
Bounties, 2.
Interest of Money, 5.
MCDERMID V. MCGREGOR, 21 Minn. 111.
Appeal and Error, 256.
Specific Performance, 61, 62, 72–74.
Cited in Simpson v. Atkinson, 39 Minn. 239;
Holingreen v. Piete, 52 N. W. 266.
MCDERMOTT v. CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. Ry.
Co. See Shoemaker v. Cedar Rapids, I. F. &
N. W. Ry. Co.
Justices of the Peace, 40-43, 79, 80.
Cited in Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 220, (Gil
200;) Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207.
MCGLAUFLIN v. BEEDEN, 41 Minn. 408, 43 N. W. 86.
Mechanics' Liens, 75.
MCGOWAN V. BALDWIN, 46 Minn. 477, 49 N. W. 251.
Descent and Distribution, 7.
Executors and Administrators, 29.
Homestead, 48, 49.
MCGRATH V. O'BRIEN, 42 Minn. 13, 43 N. W. 486.
Justices of the Peace, 62.
MCDERMOTT V. DEITHER, 40 Minn. 86, 41 N. W. McGUINESS V. SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 10, 39 Minn. 499, 41
544.
Pleading, 213.
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr.
Co., 41 Minn. 439, 43 N. W. 380.
Master and Servant, 172.
N. W. 103.
Evidence, 59.
Schools and School Districts, 46.
MCILRATH V. SNURE, 22 Minn. 391.
Railroad Companies, 149.
MCDONALD V. CITY OF RED WING, 13 Minn. 38, MCINTOSH V. LYTLE, 26 Minn. 336, 3 N. W. 983.
(Gil. 25.)
Eminent Domain, 9.
Municipal Corporations, 97.
Negotiable Instruments, 156.
MCKEE V. METRAW, 31 Minn. 429, 18 N. W. 148.
Justices of the Peace, 7.
MACDONALD V. FIRST NAT. BANK OF CORUNNA, 47 MCKEE V. VINCENT, 33 Minn. 508, 24 N. W. 253.
Minn. 67, 49 N. W. 395.
Insolvency, 63.
MACDONALD V. KNEELAND, 5 Minn. 352, (Gil. 283.)
Assignment, 12, 17, 21, 26.
Cited in Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 246.
MCDONALD V. MINNEAPOLIS LUMBER Co., 28 Minn.
262, 9 N. W. 765.
Mechanics' Liens, 35.
Words and Phrases, 40.
Master and Servant, 13.
MCKEEN V. HASELTINE, 46 Minn. 426, 49 N. W. 195.
Mechanics' Liens, 50, 119, 120.
Mortgages, 51.
MCKEEN V. WALDRON, 25 Minn. 466.
Executors and Administrators, 45, 46.
Cited in Auerbach v. Gloyd, 34 Minn. 502, 505.
MACKELLAR V. ANCHOR MANUF'G Co., 51 N. W. 616.
Principal and Agent, 98.
MCDONALD V. PEACOCK, 37 Minn. 512, 35 N. W. 370. MACKELLAR V. BOOTH. See Mackellar v. Pillsbury.
Sale, 10.
Trial, 11, 29.
MCDONALD V. RYAN, 39 Minn. 341, 40 N. W. 158.
Mechanics' Liens, 100.
MCDOUGAL V. SUPERVISORS HENNEPIN COUNTY, 4.
Minn. 184, (Gil. 130.)
Garnishment, 3.
Cited in Roeller v. Ames, 33 Minn. 133.
McEvoy v. Bock, 37 Minn. 102, 34 N. W. 740.
Appeal and Error, 444.
Judgment, 153.
Partnership, 14.
MCFARLAND v. BUTLER, 8 Minn. 116, (Gil. 91.)
Civil Rights, 1.
MCFARLAND V. BUTLER, 11 Minn. 72, (Gil. 42.)
Appeal and Error, 742, 751.
Cited in Larrabee v. Morrison, 15 Minn. 197, 198,
(Gil. 152, 153;) Knight v. Elliott, 22 Minn. 551;
Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207; Stolt v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
MCFARLAND v. BUTLER, 11 Minn. 77, (Gil. 44.)
Appeal and Error, 742, 751.
Attorney and Client, 5.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 11, 51.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 47.
Sale, 31.
MACKELLAR V. PILLSBURY, 51 N. W. 222.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 11, 51.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 47.
Sale, 31.
MCKENZIE V. CITY OF NORTHFIELD, 30 Minn. 456,
16 N. W. 264.
Municipal Corporations, 182.
Cited in Nichols v. City of Minneapolis, 33, Minn.
432; Kellogg v. Janesville, 34 Minn. 133.
MCKENZIE V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co., 29
Minn. 288, 13 N. W. 123.
Eminent Domain, 248.
Words and Phrases, 729.
Distinguished in Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co., 42 Mina. 537.
MACKEY V. AMES, 31 Minn. 103, 16 N. W. 541.
Vendor and Purchaser, 29.
Words and Phrases, 793.
Cited in Dana v. St. Paul Invest. Co., 42 Minn. 196.
MACKEY V. FISHER, 36 Minn. 347, 31 N. W. 363.
Judgment, 120.
MCFARLAND V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., MACKEY V. HARMON, 34 Minn. 163, 24 N. W. 702.
46 Minn. 519, 49 N. W. 253.
Insurance, 80.
MACFEE V. HORAN, 40 Minn. 30, 41 N. W. 239.
Factors and Brokers, 49.
MACFEE V. HORAN, 45 Minn. 519, 48 N. W. 405.
Factors and Brokers, 20.
Covenants, 11, 38.
Words and Phrases, 249, 367, 368.
MACKEY V. PETERSON, 29 Minn. 298, 13 N. W. 132.
Negotiable Instruments, 99.
Cited in C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 34 Minn.
453; Kemmitt v. Adamson, 44 Minn. 122.
2515
2516
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MACKEY V. POTTER, 34 Minn. 510, 26 N. W. 906.
Frauds, Statute of, 7.
MACKEY V. WINKLER, 35 Minn. 513, 29 N. W. 337.
Usury, 14.
Cited in Lewis v. Willoughby, 43 Minn. 310.
MCKINNEY V. BODE, 32 Minn. 228, 20 N. W. 94.
Public Lands, 96.
MCKINNEY v. BODE, 33 Minn. 450, 23 N. W. 851.
Public Lands, 97.
Applied in Murphy v. Burke, 47 Minn. 101. Cited
in Minnesota Land & Invest. Co. v. Davis, 40
Minn. 458; Murphy v. Burke, 47 Minn. 102, 103.
MCKINNEY V. HARVIE, 38 Minn. 18, 35 N. W. 668.
Evidence, 341.
Factors and Brokers, 4.
Money Received, 11.
Applied in McClure v. Bradford, 39 Minn. 119.
MCLEAN V. BURBANK, 11 Minn. 277, (Gil. 189.)
Carriers, 101-103, 114.
Ferry, 4.
Words and Phrases, 215.
Cited in McLean v. Burbank, 12 Minn. 531, 534,
537, (Gil. 441, 444, 446;) Jacobus v. St. Paul &
C. R. Co., 20 Minn. 128, (Gil. 112;) Fay v. Da-
vidson, 13 Minn. 537, (Gil. 503;) Blakeley v. Le
Duc, 19 Minn. 190, 198, (Gil. 154, 162;) Wilson
v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 26 Minn. 280; Flem-
ing v. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 114.
MCLEAN v. BURBANK, 12 Minn. 530, (Gil. 438.)
Carriers, 101, 104, 112.
Death by Wrongful Act, 1.
Ferry, 4.
Trial, 140.
Words and Phrases, 813.
MCLEAN V. NICOL, 43 Minn. 169, 45 N. W. 15.
Landlord and Tenant, 28.
MCKINNEY V. SCHOOL DIST. No. 45, DAKOTA COUN-MCLELLAN V. OMODT, 37 Minn. 157, 33 N. W. 326.
TY, 20 Minn. 72, (Gil. 57.)
Schools and School Districts, 44.
Ejectment, 44, 48.
Words and Phrases, 119.
MOKNIGHT V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 44 MCLEOD V. CAPEHART, 51 N. W. 923.
Minn. 141, 46 N. W. 294.
Trial, 75.
MACKUBIN V. CLARKSON, 5 Minn. 247, (Gil. 193.)
Continuance, 1.
Frauds, Statute of, 3.
Master and Servant, 4, 15.
MACKUBIN V. SMITH, 5 Minn. 367, (Gil. 296.)
Judgment, 261.
Summons, 34.
Words and Phrases, 35.
Followed in Lee v. O'Shaughnessy, 20 Minn. 178,
(Gil. 162.) Applied in Harrington v. Loomis,
10 Minn. 368, (Gil. 294.) Distinguished in Gem-
mell v. Rice, 13 Minn. 406, (Gil. 375.) Cited in
State v. Stokely, 16 Minn. 288, (Gil. 253;) Heff-
ner v. Gunz, 29 Minn. 110.
MCKUSICK V. CITY OF STILLWATER, 44 Minn. 372,
46 N. W. 769.
Eminent Domain, 121, 122.
Municipal Corporations, 113, 273, 274, 292.
Cited in Godfrey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 505.
MOKUSICK v. COUNTY COM'RS WASHINGTON COUN-
TY, 16 Minn. 151, (Gil. 135.)
Deed, 99.
Evidence, 266, 330.
Trusts, 17.
Applied in Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 35.
MOKUSICK V. SEYMOUR, SABIN & Co., 50 N. W. 1114.
Corporations, 135, 161.
Applied in Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf'g &
Car Co., 50 N. W. 1118. Cited in Willis v. St.
Paul Sanitation Co., 50 N. W. 1110.
MCKUSICK V. SEYMOUR, SABIN & Co., 50 N. W. 1116.
Corporations, 162.
Appeal dismissed in Meagher v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 12 S. Ct. 876.
MCLACHLAN v. BRANCH, 39 Minn. 101, 38 N. W. 703.
Appeal and Error, 503.
MACLAREN V. COCHRAN, 44 Minn. 255, 46 N. W. 408.
Evidence, 148.
Negotiable Instruments, 33.
MCLAREN V. WILLISTON, 51 N. W. 373.
Master and Servant, 136.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Cited in McLeod v. Capehart, 52 N. W. 381.
MCMAHON V. AUSTIN, (McMahon v. Merrick,) 33
Minn. 262, 22 N. W. 543.
Garnishment, 68, 71.
MCMAHON V. DAVIDSON, 12 Minn. 357, (Gil. 232.)
Appeal and Error, 75, 87.
Deposition, 8.
Evidence, 26.
Master and Servant, 1, 93, 96.
Negligence, 17, 48.
Shipping, 4.
Applied in Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32
Minn. 311; Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 333. Cited in Carroll v.
Minnesota Valley R. Co., 13 Minn. 34, (Gil.
21;) Fay v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 525, 536, 537,
(Gil. 492, 503, 504;) Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14
Minn. 94, (Gil. 65;) Connolly v. Davidson, 15
Minn. 529, (Gil. 435;) Wilson v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 26 Minn. 280; Johnson v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 61; National Al-
bany Exch. Bank v. Cargill, 39 Minn. 478.
MCMAHON V. MERRICK, (McMahon v. Austin,) 33
Minn. 262, 22 N. W. 543.
Garnishment, 68, 71.
MOMANUS V. BLACKMARR, 47 Minn. 331, 50 N. W. 230.
Vendor and Purchaser, 34.
MCMARTIN V. CONTINENTAL INS. Co., 41 Minn. 198,
42 N. W. 934.
Insurance, 81.
MCMATH V. PARSONS, 26 Minn. 246, 2 N. W. 703.
Pleading, 159.
Words and Phrases, 128.
MCMILLAN V. Ames, 33 Minn. 257, 22 N. W. 612.
Contracts, 32.
Cited in Pray v. Rhodes, 42 Minn. 96.
MCMILLAN v. CHEENEY, 30 Minn. 519, 16 N. W. 404.
Husband and Wife, 69.
Limitation of Actions, 22, 86.
MCMURPHY V. WALKER, 20 Minn. 382, (Gil. 334.)
Evidence, 265, 350.
Pleading, 70.
Reference, 8, 12, 20.
2517
2518
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MCMURRAN V. MEEK, 47 Minn. 245, 49 N. W. 983.
Judgment, 32.
MCNAB V. STEWART, 12 Minn. 407, (Gil. 291.)
Contracts, 1.
Limitation of Actions, 60.
Witness, 31.
MONAIR V. TOLER, 5 Minn. 435, (Gil. 356.)
Evidence, 284.
Words and Phrases, 547.
Cited in McNair v. Toler, 21 Minn. 183.
MCNAIR V. TOLER, 21 Minn. 175.
Action, 44.
Aliens, 1, 2.
Judgment, 267, 268.
MCNALLY V. WELD, 30 Minn. 209, 14 N. W. 895.
Appeal and Error, 386.
Executors and Administrators, 42.
Husband and Wife, 73.
Cited in Dampier v. St. Paul Trust Co., 46 Minn.
527.
MCNAMARA V. EUSTIS, 46 Minn. 311, 48 N. W. 1123.
Partnership, 16.
Venue in Civil Cases, 19.
MCNAMARA V. MINNESOTA CENT. RY. Co., 12 Minn.
388, (Gil. 269.)
Appeal and Error, 3, 109.
Eminent Domain, 225.
Statutes, 48.
Words and Phrases, 295.
Cited in Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co. v. McNamara,
13 Minn. 510, (Gil. 473;) Minnesota Valley R.
Co. v. Doran, 15 Minn. 234, (Gil. 181;) Warren
v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 18 Minn.
388, (Gil. 350;) Conter v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 314; Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn.
71.
MCNAUGHTON V. CARLETON COLLEGE, 28 Minn. 285,
9 N. W. 805.
Mortgages, 309.
MCNEIL V. FINNEGAN, 33 Minn. 375, 23 N. W. 540.
Chattel Mortgages, 80.
MONULTY V. STEWART, 12 Minn. 434, (Gil. 319.)
New Trial, 25.
MCOMBER V. BALOW, 40 Minn. 388, 42 N. W. 83.
Appeal and Error, 738.
MCPHEE V. STAPLES, 27 Minn. 307, 7 N. W. 268.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
MCPHERSON V. RUNYON, 41 Minn. 524, 43 N. W. 392.
Malicious Prosecution, 1, 2.
MCVEETY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 45 Minn
268, 47 N. W. 809.
Carriers, 82.
MACY V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 35 Minn. 200, 28 N.
W. 249.
Appeal and Error, 525.
Damages, 82.
Evidence, 388.
Master and Servant, 72.
Trial, 86.
MADDEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
453, 16 N. W. 263.
Appeal and Error, 448.
Pleading, 221.
Cited in Lehnertz v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 31 Minn. 220; Orth v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 210.
MADDEN V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 32
Minn. 303, 20 N. W. 317.
Master and Servant, 30, 171.
Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co,
32 Minn. 335.
MADDEN V. OESTRICH, 46 Minn. 538, 49 N. W. 301.
Contracts, 118.
MADIGAN V. DE GRAFF, 17 Minn. 52, (Gil. 34.)
Account Stated, 14.
Appeal and Error, 551.
Evidence, 243.
Witness, 54-56.
MADIGAN V. MEAD, 31 Minn. 94, 16 N. W. 539.
Appeal and Error, 182.
Mortgages, 10.
Cited in Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 31; Ran-
dall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 336; Niggeler v.
Maurin, 34 Minn. 121; Marshall v. Thompson,
39 Minn. 140, 142.
MADLAND V. BENLAND, 24 Minn. 372.
Constitutional Law, 161-163.
Taxation, 237, 246-249.
Followed in Bonham v. Weymouth, 39 Minn. 97.
Distinguished in O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 27 Minn.
452. Cited in State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 353.
MAGIN V. LAMB, (Magin v. Pitts,) 43 Minn. 80, 44-
N. W. 675.
Judgment, 274a, 284.
MAGOON V. MINNESOTA PACKING CO., 34 Minn. 434,
26 N. W. 235.
Contracts, 8.
Cited in Griffin v. Bristle, 39 Minn. 457.
MCQUADE V. JAFFRAY, 47 Minn. 326, 50 N. W. 233. MAHAN V. UNION DEPOT, ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER
Taxation, 120, 123, 133, 211.
MCROBERTS v. SOUTHERN MINN. R. Co., 18 Minn.
108, (Gil. 91.)
Pleading, 278.
Railroad Companies, 4-6, 22.
Words and Phrases, 256.
Cited in Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 59.
MCROBERTS v. WASHBURNE, 10 Minn. 23, (Gil. 8.)
Constitutional Law, 61, 108.
Ferry, 2, 3.
Injunction, 17, 23, 24.
Statutes, 69.
Cited in Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 227, (Gil. 204;) Ames v. Lake Supe-
rior & M. R. Co., 21 Minn. 258; Stees v.
Kranz, 32 Minn. 317.
Co., 34 Minn. 29, 24 N. W. 293.
Railroad Companies, 162, 163.
MAHER V. STATE, 3 Minn. 444, (Gil. 329.)
Criminal Law, 116.
Grand Jury, 6.
Jury, 22.
Followed in State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 141, (Gil.
127.) Cited in State v. Hinckley, 4 Minn. 364,
(Gil. 272.)
MAHER V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 401,
18 N. W. 105.
New Trial, 86.
Railroad Companies, 266.
Applied in Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32
Minn. 311. Cited in Savage v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 420.
2519
2520
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MAHONEY V. MCLEAN, 26 Minn. 415, 4 N. W. 784.
Action, 5.
MAHONEY V. MCLEAN, (Mahony v. Stevenson,) 28
Minn. 63, 9 N. W. 76.
Costs, 1.
Garnishment, 53.
MAHONEY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 35 Minn..
361, 29 N. W. 6.
Railroad Companies, 282.
MANN V. FLOWER, 25 Minn. 500.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 67.
Bankruptcy, 10, 11, 18.
Chattel Mortgages, 26.
Parties, 15.
Distinguished in Smith v. Deidrick, 30 Minn. 63.
Cited in Mann v. Flower, 26 Minn. 480;
Fletcher v. Neudeck, 30 Minn. 126; Lane v.
Innes, 43 Minu. 141; Gallagher v. Rosenfield,
47 Minn. 509.
MAHONY V. STEVENSON, (Mahoney v. McLean,) MANN V. FLOWER, 26 Minn. 479, 5 N. W. 365.
28 Minn. 63, 9 N. W. 76.
Costs, 1.
Garnishment, 53.
MAIER V. JOSLIN, 46 Minn. 228, 48 N. W. 909.
Deed, 24.
MAIN V. OIEN, 47 Minn. 89, 49 N. W. 523.
Factors and Brokers, 15, 16.
Trial, 116.
MAINE TRUST & BANKING Co. v. BUTLER, 45 Minn.
506, 48 N. W. 333.
Negotiable Instruments, 61.
MAIR V. JANUARY, 4 Minn. 239, (Gil. 169.)
Deposition, 14.
MAJERUS V. HOSCHEID, 11 Minn. 243, (Gil. 160.)
Abatement and Revival, 3.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 14.
Injunction, 6.
Parties, 37.
Cited in Lewis v. Harwood, 28 Minn. 436, 438;
Hunter v. Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co.,
31 Minn. 511.
MANNY V. GRISWOLD, 21 Minn. 506.
Appeal and Error, 385.
Cited in Varco v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 22.
MANOR V. SHEEHAN, (Minor v. Sheehan,) 30 Minn.
419, 15 N. W. 687.
Chattel Mortgages, 6, 54, 85.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 19.
Cited in Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 32; Har-
rington v. Samples, 36 Minn. 202; Nazro v.
Ware, 38 Minn. 447.
MALLORY V. PIONEER PRESS CO., 34 Minn. 521, 26 MANSFIELD V. FLECK, 23 Minn. 61.
N. W. 904.
Libel and Slander, 8, 36, 89.
MALONE V. MINNESOTA STONE Co., 36 Minn. 325, 31
N. W. 170.
Sale, 23, 139, 159.
Cited in McAllister v. Welker, 39 Minn. 536.
MALONEY V. FINNEGAN, 38 Minn. 70, 35 N. W. 723.
Quieting Title, 13, 14, 25.
Cited in Mogan v. Carter, 51 N. W. 614.
MALONEY V. FINNEGAN, 40 Minn. 281, 41 N. W. 979,
Abatement and Revival, 31.
Judgment, 127.
Cited in King v. Smith, 42 Minn. 289.
MANCHESTER LOCOMOTIVE WORKS V. TRUESDALE,
44 Minn. 115; 46 N. W. 301.
Railroad Companies, 150.
Sale, 141.
MANDEL V. BUTTLES, 21 Minn. 391.
Sale, 91.
Cited in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Bon-
nallie, 29 Minn. 374; Tunell v. D. M. Osborne
& Co., 31 Minn. 347; Scott v. Raymond, 31
Minn. 438; Cosgrove v. Bennett, 32 Minn. 374;
Maxwell v. Lee, 34 Minn. 515; D. M. Osborne
& Co. v. Carpenter, 37 Minn. 333; Fitzpatrick
v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 52 N. W. 862.
MANN, IN RE, 32 Minn. 60, 19 N. W. 347.
Garnishment, 14.
Insolvency, 13, 14.
Followed in Simon v. Mann, 32 Minn. 65; Simon
v. Mann, 33 Minn. 414, 415; Bennett v. Denny,
33 Minn. 532. Cited in Lord v. Meachem, 32
Minn. 67; North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Love-
joy, 33 Minn. 231: Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn.
485; National German-American Bank v. Wild-
er, 35 Minn. 97; Daniels v. Palmer, 35 Minn.
349; Fairbanks v. Whitney, 36 Minn. 306; Sec-
ond Nat. Bank v. Schranck, 43 Minn. 40.
Judgment, 59.
Mansfield v. STEVENS, 31 Minn. 40, 16 N. W. 455.
Garnishment, 21, 46.
MANSON v. Grand Lodge, 30 Minn. 509, 16 N. W.
395.
Insurance, 171.
MANTEL v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 33 Minn.
62, 21 N. W. 853.
Evidence, 132.
Railroad Companies, 203.
Applied in Sweeney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 156; Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn.
209. Cited in Rheiner v. Chicago, St. P., M. &
O. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 172; Marty v. Chicago,
St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 110.
MANUEL V. FABYANSKI, 44 Minn. 71, 46 N. W. 208.
Public Lands, 120.
MAPES V. COMMISSIONERS OLMSTED COUNty, 11
Minn. 367, (Gil. 264.)
Register of Deeds, 3.
Distinguished in Nordin v.
Commissioners
Kandiyohi County, 23 Minn. 171. Cited in
Taylor v. Parker, 17 Minn. 472, (Gil. 450;) Gas-
ton v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 276.
MARCHAND V. TOWN OF MAPLE GROVE, 51 N. W. 606.
Highways, 10, 11.
MARCOTTE V. BEAUPRE, 15 Minn. 152, (Gil. 117.)
Contracts, 167.
Evidence, 120.
Work and Labor, 4, 5.
MARCOTTE V. FITZGERALD, 45 Minn. 51, 47 N. W.
316.
Appeal and Error, 721.
MARCOTTE V. HARTMAN, 46 Minn. 202, 48 N. W. 767.
Mortgages, 291.
Cited in Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 225.
2521
2522
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MARIENTHAL V. TAYLOR, 2 Minn. 147, (Gil. 123.)
Negotiable Instruments, 68.
Approved in Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 430, (Gil.
345.) Distinguished in Levering v. Washing-
ton, 3 Minn. 330. (Gil. 230.) Cited in McComb
v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 145, (Gil. 121;) Peckham
v. Gilman, 7 Minn. 447, (Gil. 356;) Robinson v.
Bartlett, 11 Minn. 414, (Gil. 303;) Priedman v.
Johnson, 21 Minn. 14; Stein v. Passmore, 25
Minn. 257.
MARINI NAT. BANK V. WHITEMAN PAPER MILLS, 51
N. W. 665.
Garnishment, 16, 17.
MARK V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 30 Minn. 493,
16 N. W. 367.
Railroad Companies, 226.
Distinguished in Rogstad v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 210. Cited in Beanstrom v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., 46 Minn. 196.
MARSHALL V. HART, 4 Minn. 450, (Gil. 352.)
Statutes, 67.
Cited in Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 493, 494.
MARSHALL V. ROBERT, 22 Minn. 49.
Action, 10.
MARSHALL V. ROBERTS, 18 Minn. 405, (Gil. 365.)
Deed, 97, 101.
Distinguished in Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 143.
Cited in Gesner v. Burdell, 18 Minn. 503, (Gil,
451;) Johnson v. Robinson, 20 Minn. 193, (Gil.
451;) Strong v. Lynn, 33 Minn. 317.
MARSHALL V. THOMPSON, 39 Minn. 137, 39 N. W. 309.
Mortgages, 13.
MARSILE V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. R. Co., 23 Minn. 4.
Appeal and Error, 701.
Cited in Schwede v. Town of Burnstown, 35
Minn. 469; Stolt v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
MARK V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 32 Minn. 208, MARSTON V. WILLIAMS, 45 Minn. 116, 47 N. W. 644.
20 N. W. 131.
Jury, 50.
Railroad Companies, 227.
Words and Phrases, 420.
MARKS V. BAKER, 28 Minn. 162, 9 N. W. 678.
Libel and Slander, 34, 43, 85.
Words and Phrases, 203, 587.
MARONEY V. STATE, 8 Minn. 218, (Gil. 188.)
Burglary, 1.
MARRIER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., (Morier v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 31 Minn. 351, 17 N.
W. 952.
Master and Servant, 18.
Distinguished in Mulvehill v. Bates, 31 Minn.
366.
MARSH V. ARMSTRONG, 20 Minn. 81, (Gil. 66.)
Bankruptcy, 3, 19.
Chattel Mortgages, 62, 63.
Courts, 35.
Cited in Braley v. Byrnes, 25 Minn. 298.
MARSH V. HERMAN, 47 Minn. 537, 50 N. W. 611
Master and Servant, 81.
MARSH V. SMITH, 22 Minn. 46.
Justices of the Peace, 2.
Words and Phrases, 269.
MARSH V. WEBBER, 13 Minn. 109, (Gil. 99.)
Appeal and Error, 464, 542.
Deceit, 2.
Pleading, 50, 301.
Sale, 52.
Applied in Fox v. Burke, 29 Minn. 173. Followed
in Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294. Cited in
Adams v. Hastings & D. R. Co., 18 Minn. 262,
(Gil. 258;) Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 530;
Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co., 51 N. W. 1105.
MARSH V. WEBBER, 16 Minn. 418, (Gil. 375.)
Negligence, 31.
Sale, 180-182.
Trial, 41.
Cited in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 480.
MARSHALL V. BAKER, 3 Minn. 320, (Gil. 224.)
Negotiable Instruments, 129.
Cited in Wilson v. Richards, 28 Minn. 342.
MARSHALL V. GILMAN, 47 Minn. 131, 49 N. W. 688.
Jury, 47.
Vendor and Purchaser, 91.
Mortgages, 73, 122.
MARTIN V. BALDWIN, (Martin v. Bovey,) 30 Minn.
537, 16 N. W. 449.
Judgment, 174.
Mortgages, 202, 442.
Cited in Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 11; Rich--
ards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 209; Backus v.
Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
MARTIN V. BROWN, 4 Minn. 282, (Gil. 201.)
Appeal and Error, 502, 508.
Deed, 97.
Vendor and Purchaser, 138, 148.
Words and Phrases, 430.
Followed in Kumler v. Ferguson, 7 Minn. 445,
(Gil. 355.) Disapproved in Humphrey v. Ha-
vens, 12 Minn. 307, (Gil. 197, 198.) Čited in
Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 457, (Gil. 314;)
Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 32, (Gil. 18;) Knob-
lauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn. 306, (Gil. 276;)
Marshall v. Roberts, 18 Minn. 408, (Gil. 366,
367;) James v. Jordan, 37 Minn. 44.
MARTIN V. CHUTE, (State v. Chute,) 34 Minn. 135,
24 N. W. 353.
Corporations, 121.
MARTIN V. ELWOOD, 35 Minn. 309, 29 N. W. 135.
Schools and School-Districts, 47.
Words and Phrases, 641.
MARTIN V. FRIDLEY, 23 Minn. 13.
Mortgages, 376, 377, 393.
Cited in Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175; Foster
v. Johnson, 44 Minn. 292; Banning v. Sabin.
45 Minn. 434.
MARTIN V. HILL, 41 Minn. 337, 43 N. W. 337.
Equity, 54-57.
Cited in MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 258.
MARTIN V. HURLBUT, 9 Minn. 142, (Gil. 132.)
Sale, 21.
Cited in Thompson v. Libby, 35 Minn. 445; Rail
v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 425.
MARTIN V. LENNON, 19 Minn. 67, (Gil. 45.)
Mortgages, 425.
Usury, 24.
Overruling Whittacre v. Fuller, 5 Minn. 508, (Gil,
401.) Explained and distinguished in Simpson.
v. Evans, 44 Miun. 421. Cited in Nopson v.
Horton, 20 Minn. 272, (Gil. 243.)
2523
2524
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MARTIN V. NORTH STAR IRON WORKS, 31 Minn. | MASON V. CALLENDER—Continued.
407, 18 N. W. 109.
Negligence, 61.
Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
32 Minn. 334; Mahan v. Union Depot St. Rail-
way & Transfer Co., 34 Minn. 31; McCord v.
Western Union Tel. Co., 39 Minn. 186.
MARTIN V. PARKER, 14 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Partition, 8.
MARTIN V. PILLSBURY, 23 Minn. 175.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 80.
Cited in La Due v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Minn. 37;
Webb v. Michener, 32 Minn. 51.
MARTIN V. SPRAGUE, 29 Minn. 53, 11 N. W. 143.
Mortgages, 437, 438.
Cited in O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 138.
MARTIN V. WAKEFIELD, 42 Minn. 176, 43 N. W. 966.
Logs and Logging, 2, 3.
Words and Phrases, 460.
MARTIN COUNty v. Drake, 40 Minn. 137, 41 N. W.
942.
Railroad Companies, 134.
MARTIN LUMBER Co. v. WOOD, (Martin Lumber
Co. v. Davidson.) See John Martin Lumber
Co. v. Wood.
MARTY V. AHL, 5 Minn. 27, (Gil. 14.)
Appeal and Error, 103.
Practice in Civil Cases, 30, 31, 40.
Words and Phrases, 95.
Cited in Goodrich v. Hopkins, 10 Minn. 166, (Gil.
134.)
MARTY V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 38
Minn. 108, 35 N. W. 670.
Railroad Companies, 199.
Minn. 389, (Gil. 313;) Allen v. Jones, 8 Minn.
205, (Gil. 175;) Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 73,
(Gil. 47;) C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 34 Minn.
452.
MASON V. CAMPBELL, 27 Minn. 54, 6 N. W. 405.
Accord and Satisfaction, 4.
Distinguished in Higgins v. Dale, 28 Minn. 127.
MASON V. GOODNOW, 41 Minn. 9, 42 N. W. 482.
Mortgages, 209.
Followed in Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 223,
224. Distinguished in Vawter v. Crafts, 41
Minn. 15.
MASON V. HEYWARD, 3 Minn. 182, (Gil. 116.)
Dis-
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 48, 54.
Followed by Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 133, (Gil.
97;) Smith v. Dukes, 5 Minn. 377, (Gil. 305;)
Whalon v. Aldrich, 8 Minn. 348, (Gil. 308;)
Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 486. Overruled
in Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237, 238.
tinguished in Toledo Novelty Works v. Bern-
heimer, 8 Minn. 123, (Gil. 95;) Koempel v.
Shaw, 13 Minn. 492, (Gil. 453;) Steele v. Eth-
eridge, 15 Minn. 510, (Gil. 421;) Paine v. Sher-
wood, 19 Minn. 322, (Gil. 277;) Paine v. Sher-
wood, 21 Minn. 230. Cited in Mapes v. Com-
missioners Olmsted County, 11 Minn. 370,
(Gil. 267;) Nelichka v. Esterly, 29 Minn. 146.
MASON V. HEYWARD, 5 Minn. 74, (Gil. 55.)
Mechanics' Liens, 4, 163.
Words and Phrases, 116.
Cited in Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 40, (Gil.
22.)
MASON V. TAYLOR, 38 Minn. 32, 35 N. W. 474.
Principal and Agent, 22.
Cited in Heffinger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. MASONIC TEMPLE ASS'N OF MINNEAPOLIS V. CHAN-
Co., 43 Minn. 504.
MARVIN V. DUTCHER, 26 Minn. 391, 4 N. W. 685.
Appeal and Error, 495, 533.
Evidence, 107, 386.
Judgment, 167.
Witness, 17.
Followed in Re Pinney's Will, 27 Minn. 281; Nig-
geler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 120. Applied in Dar-
win v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 65, 66. Cited in Ash-
ton v. Thompson, 28 Minn. 335; Harrington v.
Samples, 36 Minn. 202; State v. Eisele, 37
Minn. 257; Segelbaum v. Segelbaum, 39 Minn.
260; Woolsey v. Bohn, 41 Minn. 237; Perine v.
Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 50 N. W. 1024.
MASON V. ALDRICH, 36 Minn. 283, 30 N. W. 884.
Attachment, 38.
Words and Phrases, 204.
MASON V. CALLENDER, 2 Minn. 350, (Gil. 302.)
Damages, 11.
Interest of Money, 4, 9, 10, 17.
Words and Phrases, 392.
NELL, 43 Minn. 353, 45 N. W. 716.
Corporations, 93.
Evidence, 261.
Explained in Arthur v. Clark, 46 Minn. 493.
MASSACHUSETTS LOAN & TRUST Co. v. WELCH, 47
Minn. 183, 49 N. W. 740.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 26.
Sale, 76, 90.
Cited in Rugland v. Thompson, 51 N. W. 605.
MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. Co. v. ELLIOT'S
ESTATE, 24 Minn. 134.
Executors and Administrators, 56–58, 62.
Distinguished in State v. Probate Court of Hen-
nepin County, 28 Minn. 382; In re Mills, 34
Minn. 298. Cited in St. Croix Boom Corp. v.
Brown, 47 Minn. 284.
MASSEY V. GORTON, (Gorton v. Massey,) 12 Minn.
145, (Gil. 83.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 79.
Vendor and Purchaser, 123.
Applied in Overmire v. Haworth, 51 N. W. 122.
Cited in Matthews v. Torinus, 22 Minn.
Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 520.
134;
MASTERSON V. LE CLAIRE, 4 Minn. 163, (Gil. 108.)
Appeal and Error, 123, 304.
Evidence, 15.
Summons, 27, 28.
Followed in Bailey v. Weller, 2 Minn. 384, (Gil.
339;) Daniels v. Ward, 4 Minn. 169, (Gil. 114;)
Dyar v. Slingerland, 24 Minn. 268. Overruled
in Talcott v. Marston, 3 Minn. 343, (Gil. 243;)
Daniels v. Bradley, 4 Minn. 161, (Gil. 106;)
Hollinshead v. Von Glahn, 4 Minn. 190, (Gil.
132;) Newell v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 23-25. `Ex-
plained in Bidwell v. Whitney, 4 Minn. 80-82, MAST & Co. v. EASTON. See P. P. Mast & Co. v.
(Gil. 48-51.) Cited in Kent v. Bown, 3 Minn.
351, (Gil. 248, 249;) Culbertson v. Lennon, 4
Minn. 57, (Gil. 28;) Cooper v. Reaney, 4 Minn.
533, (Gil. 417;) Nutting v. McCutcheon, 5
Easton.
MAST & Co. v. MATTHEWS. See P. P. Mast & Co.
v. Matthews.
2525
2526
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MATHEWS V. HENNEPIN COUNTY SAV. BANK, 44 | MAY v. WALKER-Continued.
Minn. 442, 46 N. W. 913.
Abatement and Revival, 4.
MATHEWS V. MULVEY, 38 Minn. 342, 37 N. W. 794.
Contracts, 106.
Mathews v. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 434,
(Gil. 392.)
Eminent Domain, 27, 245.
Railroad Companies, 269.
MATHEWS V. TAAFFE, 44 Minn. 400, 46 N. W. 850.
Practice in Civil Cases, 7.
Cited in Mathews v. Hennepin County Sav.
Bank, 44 Minn. 443.
MATTESON V. ROBINSON, 42 Minn. 379, 44 N. W.
1151.
Memorandum decision. No opinion,
MATTHEWS V. TORINUS, 22 Minn. 132.
Appeal and Error, 322.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 30.
MATTICE V. LITCHERDING, 14 Minn. 142, (Gil. 110.)
Justices of the Peace, 51, 60.
Followed in Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn. 47.
Cited in O'Brien v. Pomroy, 22 Minn. 131;
Universalist General Convention v. Bottineau,
42 Minn. 37; Johnson v. Hagberg, 50 N. W.
1038.
MATTISON V. FARNHAM, 44 Minn. 95, 46 N. W. 347.
Partnership, 83.
Cited in Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 486.
in Security Bank v. Beebe, 37 Minn. 527; Han-
son v. Metcalf, 46 Minn. 29. Cited in Re Walk-
er, 37 Minn. 244; Security Bank v. Beebe, 87
Minn. 529; McConnell v. Raknes, 41 Minn. 5;
Thompson v. Winona Harvester Works, 41
Minn. 437.
MAYALL V. BURKE, 10 Minn. 285, (Gil. 224.)
Appeal and Error, 57, 166.
Distinguished in Ashton v. Thompson, 28 Minn.
333.
W. 170.
MAYALL V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 30 Minn. 294, 15 N.
Municipal Corporations, 256, 265.
Quieting Title, 10.
Followed in Armstrong v. City of St. Paul, 30
Minn. 300. Overruled in Albrecht v. City of
St. Paul, 47 Minn. 531, 533. Cited in State v.
District Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn.
302.
W. 88.
MAYLONE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 40 Minn. 406, 42 N.
Municipal Corporations, 320.
Words and Phrases, 519.
MEACHAM v. COOPER, 36 Minn. 227, 30 N. W. 669.
Sale, 120.
MEAD V. BILLINGS, 40 Minn. 505, 42 N. W. 472.
Appeal and Error, 424.
Applied in Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn.
499. Cited in Mead v. Billings, 43 Minn. 240.
MAURIN V. FOGELBERG, 37 Minn. 23, 32 N. W. 858. MEAD V. BILLINGS, 43 Minn. 239, 45 N. W. 228.
Frauds, Statute of, 25.
MAXFIELD V. BIERBAUER, S Minn. 413, (Gil. 367.)
Specific Performance, 36.
MAXFIELD V. BIERBAUR, 7 Minn. 511, (Gil. 418.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
MAXFIELD V. EDWARDS, (Maxfield v. Wilkins,) 38
Minn. 539, 38 N. W. 701.
Insolvency, 30.
Cited in Thompson v. Winona, 41 Minn. 438.
MAXFIELD V. SCHWARTZ, 43 Minn. 221, 45 N. W.
429.
Novation, 4.
Cited in Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150.
MAXFIELD V. SCHWARTZ, 45 Minn. 150, 47 N. W.
448.
Contracts, 55.
Cited in C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum, 47 Minn.
416, Redding v. Wright, 51 N. W. 1056; Seabury
v. Schwartz, 52 N. W. 222.
Practice in Civil Cases, 23, 25.
MEAD V. CONSTANS, 5 Minn. 171, (Gil. 134.)
New Trial, 51, 59.
Cited in Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 367, (Gil. 326;)
State v. Wagner, 23 Minn. 545; Peterson v.
Faust, 30 Minn. 23; Peck v. Small, 35 Minn.
467; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 77.
MEALEY V. FINNEGAN, 46 Minn. 507, 49 N. W. 207.
Exchange of Property, 7.
Practice in Civil Cases, 50.
Specific Performance, 91, 104. .
MEALEY V. NICKERSON, 44 Minn. 430, 46 N. W. 911.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 35.
MEARKLE V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS HENNEPIN
COUNTY, 44 Minn. 546, 47 N. W. 165.
Payment, 26.
Explained in Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W.
902. Cited in De Graff v. Ramsey County, 46
Minn. 320; Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W. 217, 218.
MAXFIELD V. WILKINS, (Maxfield v. Edwards,) 38 MEIGHEN V. KING, 31 Minn. 115, 16 N. W. 702.
Minn. 539, 38 N. W. 701.
Insolvency, 30.
Cited in Thompson v. Winona, 41 Minn. 438.
MAXWELL V. LEE, 34 Minn. 511, 27 N. W. 196.
Sale, 88.
Cited in Thompson v. Libby, 35 Minn. 446.
MAY V. FIRST DIV. ST. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 74,
1 N. W. 584.
Ejectment, 19.
MAY V. WALKER, 35 Minn. 194, 28 N. W. 252.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 12,
13, 97.
Insolvency, 18.
Followed in Re Allen, 41 Minn. 433, 431. Applied
in Olson v. O'Brien, 46 Minn. 90. Distinguishd
Mortgages, 15.
Cited in Jones v. Blake, 33 Minn. 364; Niggeler
v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 124; Livingston v. Ives,
35 Minn. 61; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 45.
MEIGHEN V. STRONG, 6 Minn. 177, (Gil. 111.)
Adverse Claim, 3, 43.
Deed, 9, 11.
Trial. 133.
534 3
Distinguished in Morris v. Keil, 20 Minn. 534,
(Gil. 477.) Explained in Hamilton v. Batlin, 8
Minn. 405, (Gil. 360.) Cited in Bidwell v.
Webb, 10 Minn. 62, (Gil. 44;) Eastman v.
Lamprey, 12 Minn. 155, (Gil. 91;) Murphy v.
Hinds, 15 Minn. 183, (Gil. 140;) Walton v. Per-
kins, 28 Minn. 415; Lane v. Lenfest, 40 Minn.
377.
2527
2528
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MELBY V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 33 Minn. 492, 24 | MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK V. HANSON, 33 Minn. 40, 21
N. W. 253.
Evidence, 23.
Principal and Agent, 32.
Sale, 109.
Cited in D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Huntington, 37
Minn. 276; Wyckoff v. Horan, 39 Minn. 430;
Hoxsie v. Empire Lumber Co., 41 Minn. 551.
MELBY V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 35 Minn. 387, 29
N. W. 58.
Evidence, 114.
MELIN V. REYNOLDS, 32 Minn. 52, 19 N. W. 81.
Chattel Mortgages, 7, 57.
MELLER V. HODSDON, 33 Minn. 366, 23 N. W. 543.
Taxation, 52.
MEMMER V. CAREY, (Memurer v. Carey,) 30 Minn.
.458, 15 N. W. 877.
Action, 35.
Cited in Pierro v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 39
Minn. 453.
MENAGE V. BURKE, 43 Minn. 211, 45 N. W. 155.
Mortgages, 30.
MENAGE V. JONES, 40 Minn. 254, 41 N. W. 972.
Guardian and Ward, 24-26, 44.
Distinguished in Burrell v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 365. Cited in Lyon v. Glea-
son, 40 Minn. 435.
MENAGE V. LUSTFIELD, 30 Minn. 487, 16 N. W. 398.
Appeal and Error, 119.
Execution, 158.
N. W. 849.
Banks and Banking, 35.
Negotiable Instruments, 96.
Overruling First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 24 Minn.
140. Cited in Baker v. Northwestern Guar-
anty Loan Co., 36 Minn. 188.
MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK V. NORTHWESTERN MAN-
UF'G & CAR Co., 51 N. W. 117.
Corporations, 50.
Words and Phrases, 552.
MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK V. NORTHWESTERN MAN-
UF'G & CAR Co., 51 N. W. 119.
Corporations, 156.
MERRIAM V. AMES, (Merriman v. Ames,) 26 Minn.
384, 4 N. W. 620.
Appeal and Error, 458.
MERRIAM V. BAKER, 9 Minn. 40, (Gil. 28.)
Abatement and Revival, 13.
Cited in Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 186;
Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 275; Radley v.
O'Leary, 36 Minn. 174.
MERRIAM V. PINE CITY LUMBER CO., 23 Minn. 314.
Appeal and Error, 312, 489, 589.
Contracts, 64.
Damages, 42.
Deceit, 13, 39.
Evidence, 384.
Cited in Clark v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 121; Bullitt
v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 12; Carlton v. Hulett, 51
N. W. 1054
MENAGE V. NEWCOMB, 33 Minn. 143, 22 N. W. 182. MERRIAM V. SWENSEN, 42 Minn. 383, 45 N. W. 960.
Appeal and Error, 767.
MENARD V. CROWE, 20 Minn. 448, (Gil. 402.)
Mortgages, 198, 200, 208, 216, 241.
Distinguished in Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn.
209. Explained in Martin v. Baldwin, 30 Minn.
539. Cited in Thorwarth v. Armstrong, 20
Minn. 467, (Gil. 423;) Bowers v. Hechtman, 45
Minn. 241; Kipp v. Cook, 46 Minn. 537.
MERCHANT V. WOODS, 27 Minn. 396, 7 N. W. 826.
Mortgages, 151, 308.
Words and Phrases, 149.
Applied in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 285;
Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 417. Distinguished
in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 498. Ex-
plained in Bausman v. Eads, 46 Minn. 154.
Cited in Strong v. Lynn, 38 Minn. 317.
MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE BANK V. LUCKOW, 37
Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434.
Negotiable Instruments, 108.
Distinguished in McCormick Harvesting-Ma-
chine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 469. Cited in
MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 256.
MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK V. BAILEY MANUF'g Co.,
34 Minn. 323, 25 N. W. 639.
Corporations, 154.
Applied in Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 87;
Arthur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 412. Cited in
Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf'g & Car Co.,
41 Minn. 257; First Nat. Bank v. Gustin, etc.,
Mining Co., 42 Minn. 329; McKusick v. Sey-
mour, Sabin & Co., 50 N. W. 1115.
MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK V. GASLIN, 41 Minn. 552,
43 N. W. 483.
Banks and Banking, 42, 43.
Evidence, 105.
MERRICK V. WILTSE, 37 Minn. 41, 33 N. W. 3.
Sale, 121, 122.
MERRILL V. DEARING, 22 Minn. 376.
Ejectment, 17.
Pleading, 36.
MERRILL V. DEARING, 24 Minn. 179.
Appeal and Error, 652.
Cited in Schleuder v. Corey, 30 Minn. 502.
MERRILL V. DEARING, 32 Minn. 479, 21 N. W. 721.
Taxation, 176, 183.
Followed in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 281.
Cited in Nelson v. Central Land Co., 35 Minn.
411; State v. Smith, 36 Minn. 457; Wakefield
v. Day, 41 Minn. 348, 349.
MERRILL V. DEARING, 47 Minn. 137, 49 N. W. 693.
Ejectment, 18.
Cited in Stuart v. Lowry, 51 N. W. 663.
MERRILL V. NELSON, 18 Minn. 366. (Gil. 335.)
Deed, 3.
Husband and Wife, 41, 46.
Mortgages, 219, 237, 255, 262, 267, 275.
Followed in Clague v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 374.
Distinguished in Gregg v. Owens, 37 Minn. 62.
MERRILL V. RESSLER, 37 Minn. 82, 33 N. W. 117.
Chattel Mortgages, 5u.
Insolvency, 64.
Cited in Smith v. Pearson, 44 Minn. 399; Cham-
berlain v. O'Brien, 46′ Minn. 81; Thomas
Manuf'g Co. v. Foote, 46 Minn. 242; Gallagher
v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 511.
MERRILL V. SHAW, 1 Minn. 287, (Gil. 223.)
Venue in Civil Cases, 7.
2529
2530
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MERRILL V. SHAW, 5 Minn. i48, (Gil. 113.)
Venue in Civil Cases, 7.
Words and Phrases, 478, 601.
MEYENBERG v. ELDRED, 37 Minn. 508, 35 N. W. 371.
Appeal and Error, 574.
Infancy, 31.
Cited in Nininger v. Commissioners Carver MEYER V. BERLANDI, 39 Minn. 438, 49 N. W. 513.
County, 10 Minn. 134, (Gil. 107;) In re Bar-MEYER
nard, 30 Minn. 514.
MERRIMAN V. AMES, (Merriam v. Ames,) 26 Minn.
384, 4 N. W. 620.
Appeal and Error, 458.
MERRIMAN V. BARTLETT, (Merriman v. Headley,) 34
Minn. 524, 26 N. W. 728.
Mechanics' Lieus, 77.
Cited in McGlauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411.
MERRIMAN V. BOWEN, 33 Minn. 455, 23 N. W. 843.
Logs and Logging, 11.
Words and Phrases, 300.
Followed in Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 325, 328,
329.
MERRIMAN V. BOWEN, 35 Minn. 297, 28 N. W. 921.
Costs, 23.
MERRIMAN V. HEADLEY, (Merriman v. Bartlett,) 34
Minn. 524, 26 N. W. 728.
Mechanics' Liens, 77.
Cited in McGlauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 411.
MERRIMAN V. JONES, 43 Minn. 29, 44 N. W. 526.
Mechanics' Liens, 54.
Words and Phrases, 714.
Cited in Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W. 217.
MERRIMAN V. KNIGHT, 43 Minn. 493, 45 N. W. 1098.
Taxation, 106.
MERRITT V. BYERS, 46 Minn. 74, 48 N. W. 417.
Estoppel, 9.
Cited in Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer, 51 N.
W. 381; National Investment Co. v. Nordin,
52 N. W. 900.
Constitutional Law, 12, 38, 165.
Homestead, 39.
Mechanics' Liens, 2, 56.
Pleading, 185.
Followed in St. Paul Foundry Co. v. Wegmann,
40 Minn. 420. Applied in McGlauflin v. Beeden,
41 Minn. 411. Cited in Hill v. Gill, 40 Minn.
443; Wheaton v. Berg, 52 N. W. 929; Glass v.
Freeberg, 52 N. W. 900.
MEYER V. GERMAN EVANGELICAL L. E. CHURCH,
37 Minn. 241, 33 N. W. 786.
Religious Societies, 1.
MICHAELIS V. MICHAELIS, 43 Minn. 123, 44 N. W.
1149.
Damages, 21.
Public Lands, 5–7.
MICHAUD V. EISENMENGER, 46 Minn. 405, 49 N. W.
202.
Vendor and Purchaser, 90.
MICHAUD V. LAGARDE, 4 Mina. 43, (Gil. 21.)
Negotiable Instruments, 141, 149, 183.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn.
499.
MIDDLETON V. WHARTON, 41 Minn. 266, 43 N. W. 4.
Dedication, 22.
Executors and Administrators, 105.
MILBURN WAGON Co. v. EVANS, 30 Minn. 89, 14 N.
W. 271.
Principal and Agent, 58.
MILES V. WANN, (Miles v. Von Deyn,) 27 Minn. 56,
6 N. W. 417.
Partnership, 5, 93.
Cited in Keigher v. Dowlan, 47 Minn. 575.
Merritt v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 223, (Gil. MILLE LACS IMPROVEMENT Co. v. Bassett, 32 Minn.
MERRITT
145.
Attachment, 99, 103, 104.
Distinguished in Braley v. Byrnes, 20 Minn. 441,
(Gil. 393.)
MERRITT V. KNIFE FALLS BOOM CORP., 34 Minn.
245, 25 N. W. 403.
Constitutional Law, 75.
375, 20 N. W. 363.
Logs and Logging, 25.
BASSETT,
MILLER, IN RE, (Miller v. Tarbox,) 42 Minn. 96,
43 N. W. 840.
Insolvency, 101.
Applied in Re Shotwell, 43 Minn. 392.
Cited in State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 MILLER V. ADAMSON, 45 Minn. 99, 47 N. W. 452.
N. W. 113.
MERRITT V. PUTNAM, 7 Minn. 493, (Gil. 399.)
Appeal and Error, 475.
Judgment, 266.
Followed in Jorgensen v. Boehmer, 9 Minn. 182,
(Gil. 168;) Whitcomb v. Shaffer, 11 Minn. 234,
(Gil. 153.)
MESSERSCHMIDT V. BAKER, 22 Minn. 81.
Adverse Claim, 24.
Appeal and Error, 679.
Execution, 132–135.
Followed in Gilfillan v. Ryder, 22 Minn. 87. Cited
in Wincna & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Randall, 29 Minn.
286.
METZNER V. BALDWIN, 11 Minn. 150, (Gil. 92.)
Evidence, 323.
Partnership, 72.
Pleading, 56.
Cited in First Division St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Rice,
25 Minn. 291; Canty v. Lattener, 31 Minn. 241;
Leuthold v. Young, 32 Minn. 125.
v.2M.DIG.-80
New Trial, 81.
Replevin, 16, 44.
Words and Phrases, 534.
MILLER V. CHAPEL, (Miller v. McCormick Harvest-
ing Mach. Co.,) 35 Minn. 399, 29 N. W. 52.
Chattel Mortgages, 1, 70.
Cited in Ludlum v. Rothschild, 41 Minn. 221;
Close v. Hodges, 44 Minn. 205.
MILLER V. CHATTERTON, 46 Minn. 338, 48 N. W. 1109.
Logs and Logging, 19, 27, 28.
Cited in Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
MILLER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 38 Minn. 134, 36 N.
W. 271.
Municipal Corporations, 157, 159, 174.
MILLER V. DARLING, 22 Minn. 303.
Replevin, 6, 41.
Followed in Melin v. Reynolds, 32 Minn. 53.
Cited in Allis v. Ware, 28 Minn. 171.
MILLER V. EISELE, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N. W. 257.
Mortgages, 80.
2531
2532
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MILLER V. TOWNS OF BEAVER AND LE Roy, 37 Minn.
203, 33 N. W. 559.
MILLER V. FASLER, 42 Minn. 366, 44 N. W. 256.
Mortgages, 80.
MILLER V. HOBERG, 22 Minn. 249.
Ejectment, 15.
Executors and Administrators, 33.
Applied in Jordan v. Secombe, 33 Minn. 224.
Cited in Noon v. Finnegan, 29 Minn. 424.
MILLER V. IRISH CATHOLIC COLONIZATION Ass'n, 36
Minn. 357, 31 N. W. 215.
Appeal and Error, 562.
Deed, 55, 60.
Vendor and Purchaser, 114.
MILLER V. LAMB, 22 Minn. 43.
Sale, 166.
Followed in Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 344.
Cited in Roles v. Mintzer, 27 Minn. 32; Wins-
low v. Dakota Lumber Co., 32 Minn. 240; Wood-
cock v. Johnson, 36 Minn. 219; Smith v. Bar-
ringer, 37 Minn. 95.
MILLER V. MCCARTY, 47 Minn. 321, 50 N. W. 235.
Exemptions, 37, 38.
Payment, 9.
MILLER V. MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. Co.,
(Miller v. Chapel,) 35 Minn. 399, 29 N. W. 52.
Chattel Mortgages, 1, 70.
Cited in Ludlum v. Rothschild, 41 Minn. 221;
Close v. Hodges, 44 Minn. 205.
MILLER V. MENDENHALL, 43 Miun. 95, 44 N. W.
1141.
Riparian Rights, 3, 11.
Cited in Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43
Minn. 120.
MILLER V. MILLER, 39 Minn. 376, 40 N. W. 261.
Summons, 14.
MILLER V. MILLER, 47 Minn. 546, 50 N. W: 612.
Equity, 69.
Trial, 177.
Vendor and Purchaser, 10, 80.
MILLER V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 36 Minn. 296, 30
N. W. 892.
Railroad Companies, 248, 279.
MILLER V. ROUSE, 8 Minn. 124, (Gil. 97.)
Action, 8.
Eminent Domain, 119.
MILLER V. TRAVELERS' INS. Co., 39 Minn. 548, 40 N.
W. 839.
Insurance, 150.
MILLER V. TROOST, 14 Minn. 365, (Gil. 282.)
Eminent Domain, 10.
Waters and Water-Courses, 15, 16.
Cited in Warren v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 18 Minn. 391, (Gil. 353;) Watson v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 326.
MILLETTE V. MEHмKE, 26 Minn. 306, 3 N. W. 700.
Pleading, 46.
Summons, 10.
Overruling Tuller v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 117, (Gil.
67.) Cited in Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 509.
MILLIS V. LOMBARD, 32 Minn. 259, 20 N. W. 187.
Execution, 18, 19, 88, 92.
Cited in Duford v. Lewis, 43 Minn. 28; Spencer
v. Haug, 45 Minn. 234.
MILLS, IN RE, (Mollison v. Mills,) 34 Minn. 296, 25
N. W. 631.
Executors and Administrators, 59.
MILLS V. KELLOGG, 7 Minn. 469, (Gil. 377.)
Mortgages, 132.
Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 77, (Gil.
60, 61;) Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 73, (Gil.
47, 48.)
MILLS V. REBSTOCK, 29 Minn. 380, 13 N. W. 162.
Insurance, 154, 164.
Cited in Kerr v. Minnesota Mut. Ben. Ass'n, 39
Minn. 175; Scheufler v. Grand Lodge A. O. U.
W., 45 Miun. 259.
MILNER V. NORRIS, 13 Minn. 455, (Gil. 424.)
Mechanics' Liens, 110, 111, 168.
Cited in Freeman v. Carson, 27 Minn. 518.
MILWAIN V. SANFORD, 3 Minn. 147, (Gil. 92.)
Appeal and Error, 31, 398.
Mechanics' Liens, 118.
Cited in Dennis v. Smith, 33 Minn. 497; McKeen
v. Haseltine, 46 Minn. 431.
MILWAUKEE, THE. See Boutiller v. The Mil-
waukee.
MILLER V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 42 Minn. 454, 44 MILWAUKEE HARVESTER Co. v. FINNEGAN, 43
N. W. 533.
Horse and Street Railroads, 9.
MILLER V. SAWBRIDGE, 29 Minn. 442, 13 N. W. 671.
Equity, 67.
Cited in Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 53; Max-
field v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 151.
MILLER V. SMITH, 26 Minn. 248, 2 N. W. 942.
Infancy, 7, 10.
Followed in Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 390.
MILLER V. SMITH, 44 Minn. 127, 46 N. W. 324.
Mortgages, 447.
MILLER V. TARBOX, (Miller, In re,) 42 Minn. 96, 43
N. W. 840.
Insolvency, 101.
Applied in Re Shotwell, 43 Minn. 392.
Minn. 183, 45 N. W. 9.
Partnership, 47.
MILWAUKEE & ST. P. RY. Co. v. CITY OF FARI-
BAULT, 23 Minn. 167.
Municipal Corporations, 211, 212.
Followed in St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of
St. Paul, 30 Minn. 362, 363. Distinguished in
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City of Minneap-
olis, 35 Minn. 143. Cited in Fairchild v. City
of St. Paul, 46 Minn. 543.
MIMS V. STATE, 26 Minn. 494, 5 N. W. 369.
Criminal Law, 128, 132, 159, 191.
Fines, 1.
Words and Phrases, 576.
Distinguished in State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 149.
Cited in State v. Framness, 43 Minn. 492.
MILLER V. TOWN of Corinna, 42 Minn. 391, 44 N. MIMS V. STATE, 26 Minn. 498, 5 N. W. 374.
W. 127.
Constitutional Law, 168.
Highways, 53.
Cited in Stapp v. The Clyde, 43 Minn. 195.
Criminal Law, 130, 131.
MINNEAPOLIS GAS LIGHT Co. v. CITY OF MINNE-
APOLIS, 36 Minn. 159, 30 N. W. 450.
Municipal Corporations, 80.
2533
2534
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MINNEAPOLIS HARVESTER WORKS V. BONNALLIE, | MINNEAPOLIS TRUST Co. v. EASTMAN, 47 Minn. 301,
29 Minn. 373, 13 N. W. 149.
Interest of Money, 6.
Sale, 137, 154.
Cited in Merrick v. Wiltse, 37 Minn. 42.
MINNEAPOLIS HARVESTER WORKS V. HALLY, 27
Minn. 495, 8 N. W. 597.
Sale, 149.
Distinguished in Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co., 32
Minn. 91. Questioned, etc., in C. Aultman &
Co. v. Olson, 43 Minn. 403.
MINNEAPOLIS
Minn. 327.
HARVESTER WORKS V. LIBBY, 24
Corporations, 97, 98.
Pleading, 123.
Cited in Marson v. Deither, 52 N. W. 38.
MINNEAPOLIS HARVESTER WORKS V. SMITH, 30
Minn. 399, 16 N. W. 462.
Action, 13.
Principal and Agent, 59.
Cited in Plano Manuf'g Co. v. Buxton, 36 Minn.
205; Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462.
50 N. W. 82, 930.
Appeal and Error, 215.
Estoppel, 72.
Judgment, 145.
Riparian Rights, 15.
MINNEAPOLIS & N. ELEVATOR Co. v. BETCHER, 429
Minn. 210, 44 N. W. 5.
Pledge, 7, 15.
MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. R. Co. v. WOODWORTH, 32
Minn. 452, 21 N. W. 476.
Eminent Domain, 155.
Words and Phrases, 293.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. C. Rr. Co., IN RE, 39 Minn.
162, 39 N. W. 65.
Railroad Companies, 29.
Cited in Winona & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 658.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. C. Rr. Co. v. DULUTH & W. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 104, 47 N. W. 464.
Public Lands, 73-75, 91.
Words and Phrases, 305, 306.
MINNEAPOLIS INDUSTRIAL EXPOSITION V. BROWN, 43 MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., IN RE, (Minneap-
Minn. 77, 44 N. W. 674.
Specific Performance, 64.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. V. BASSETT, 31 Minn. 390, 18
N. W. 100.
Riparian Rights, 6.
Specific Performance, 2.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. v. GOODNOW, 40 Minn. 497,
42 N. W. 356.
Contracts, 20.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. v. HOBART, 26 Minn. 37, 1
N. W. 45.
Waters and Water-Courses, 1.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.
Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 330, 48 N. W. 1132.
Dedication, 50.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. v. TIFFANY, 22 Minn. 463.
Estates, 1.
Nuisance, 3.
MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co. v. WHEELER, 31 Minn. 121,
16 N. W. 698.
Negligence, 28.
MINNEAPOLIS MUT. FIRE INS. Co., IN RE, 51 N. W.
921.
Insurance, 151, 152.
MINNEAPOLIS RY. TERMINAL Co., IN RE, (Minne-
apolis Ry. Terminal Co. v. Minneapolis Union
Ry. Co.,) 38 Minn. 157, 36 N. W. 105.
Eminent Domain, 25, 127, 152, 167.
Practice in Civil Cases, 37.
MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. Co. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.
Rr. Co. See Mantel v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co.
MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING-MACH. Co. v. CREVIER, 39
Minn. 417, 40 N. W. 507.
Corporations, 96.
olis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Kanne,) 32 Minn. 174,
19 N. W. 975.
Eminent Domain, 142, 143.
Cited in Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 420.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., IN RE, (Minneap-
olis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. R.
Co.,) 36 Minn. 481, 32 N. W. 556.
Eminent Domain, 22.
Railroad Companies, 25-27.
Cited in Winona & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 658.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co. v. Bassett, 20
Minn. 535, (Gil. 478.)
Corporations, 101.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co. v. BOARD OF RAIL-
ROAD COM'RS, (Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Railroad & Warehouse Commission,) 44 Minn.
336, 46 N. W. 559.
Railroad Companies, 18.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co. v. KANNE, (Minne-
apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., In re,) 32 Minn. 174, 19
N. W. 975.
Eminent Domain, 142, 143.
Cited in Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 420.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co. v. MORRISON, 23
Minn. 308.
Corporations, 72, 94, 95.
Cited in Goetz v. School District No. 59, 31
Minn. 164; Glass v. St. Paul, P. C. & S. Co., 43
Minn. 230.
MINNEAPOLIS & St. L. Rr. Co. v. RAILROAD &
WAREHOUSE COMMISSION, (Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs,) 44
Minn. 336, 46 N. W. 559.
Railroad Companies, 18.
MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING-MACH. Co. v. DAVIS, 40 MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co. v. RAILROAD &
Minn. 110, 41 N. W. 1026.
Corporations, $8-90.
Words and Phrases, 711.
WAREHOUSE COMMISSION, 39 Minn. 231, 39 N.
W. 150. See Railway Transfer Co. v. Railroad
& Warehouse Commission.
MINNEAPOLIS TRUST Co. v. CLARK, 47 Minn. 108, MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co. v. ST. PAUL, M. &
49 N. W. 386.
Corporations, 57.
M. Rr. Co., 35 Minn. 265, 28 N. W. 705.
Railroad Companies, 95, 96.
2535
2536
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co. v. ST. PAUL, M. & | MINNESOTA LINSEED OIL Co. v. MAGINNIS-CON-
M. RY. Co., (Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., In
re,) 36 Minn. 481, 32 Ñ. W. 556.
Eminent Domain, 22.
Railroad Companies, 25-27.
tinued.
mandin v. Mackey, 38 Min. 417; Close v.
Hodges, 44 Minn. 203.
Cited in Winona & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M. MINNESOTA LINSEED OIL Co. v. PALMER, 20 Minn.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 657.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co. v. WILSON, 25 Minn.
382.
Vendor and Purchaser, 52.
Followed in Welles v. Baldwin, 25 Minn. 410;
Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 30 Minn. 428.
MINNESOTA BELT-LINE RAILWAY & TRANsfer Co.
v. GLUEK, 45 Minn. 463, 48 N. W. 194.
Eminent Domain, 189, 207, 208.
468, (Gil. 424.)
Equity, 7.
Municipal Corporations, 269, 270.
Quieting Title, 9.
Followed in Ankeny v. Palmer, 20 Minn. 477,
(Gil. 431.) Applied in Mayall v. City of St.
Paul, 30 Minn. 298. Distinguished in Albrecht
v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 532. Cited in
Sewall v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 525, (Gil.
470;) State v. District Court of Hennepin Coun-
ty, 52 N. W. 223.
MINNESOTA CENT. R. Co. v. DONALDSON, 38 Minn. MINNESOTA Loan & Trust Co. v. BEEBE, 40 Minn.
115, 35 N. W. 725.
Railroad Companies, 125.
MINNESOTA CENT. R. Co. v. MCNAMARA, 13 Minn.
508, (Gil. 468.)
Certiorari, 31.
Eminent Domain, 114.
Distinguished and limited in State v. Noonan,
24 Minn. 127. Cited in State v. Milner, 16 Minn.
56, (Gil. 44;) Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 95,
(Gil. 85;) City of St. Paul v. Marvin, 16 Minn.
104, (Gil. 95;) Minnesota Valley R. Co. v.
Doran, 17 Minn. 194, (Gil. 168;) St. Paul & S.
C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 504, (Gil. 436;)
Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21 Minn.
131; Wass v. Atwater, 33 Minn. S5; Dowlan
v. Sibley County, 36 Minn. 433.
MINNESOTA CENT. RY. Co. v. MELVIN, 21 Minn. 339.
Corporations, 169.
Railroad Companies, 138.
Explained and applied in Minnesota Cent. Ry.
Co. v. Donaldson, 38 Minn. 116. Cited in State
v. Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 258, 260;
Stevens County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 470.
MINNESOTA CENT. RY. Co. v. PETERSON, 31 Minn.
42, 16 N. W. 456.
Appeal and Error, 116.
MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS. Ass'n v. OL-
SON, 43 Minn. 21, 44 N. W. 672.
Insurance, 58.
MINNESOTA GAS-LIGHT ECONOMIZER Co. v. DENS-
LOW, 46 Minn. 171, 48 N. W. 771.
Corporations, 27, 28.
Cited in Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46
Minn. 465.
7, 41 N. W. 232.
Constitutional Law, 53.
Insanity, 3, 4.
Statutes, 21.
Words and Phrases, 727.
Cited in Allen v. Pioneer-Press Co., 40 Minn. 119;
Lyon v. Gleason, 40 Minn. 435.
MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOC. V. SWANSON,
51 N. W. 117.
Appeal and Error, 589.
MINNESOTA THRESHER MANUK'G Co. V. LANGdon,
44 Minn. 37, 46 N. W. 310.
Receivers, 8, 12.
Words and Phrases, 54.
Followed in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. North-
western Manuf'g & Car Co., 51 N. W. 119, 120.
Cited in McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.,
50 N. W. 1116; Hospes v.
v. Northwestern
Manuf'g & Car Co., 50 Ñ. W. 1118.
MINNESOTA THRESHER MANUF'G Co. v. LOWRY.
See Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co. v. Lang-
don.
MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co. v. DORAN, 15 Minn. 230,
(Gil. 179.)
Appeal and Error, 110.
Eminent Domain, 84, 215.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Matthews, 16
Minn. 344, 351, (Gil. 305, 312;) Minnesota Val-
ley R. Co. v. Doran, 17 Minn. 190, (Gil. 164;)
City of St. Paul v. Rogers, 22 Minn. 493; Coch-
ran v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 61; State v. Severance,
29 Minn. 270; Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. R.
Co., 35 Minn. 441, 442; Cameron v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 76.
MINNESOTA LAND & INVESTMENT Co., in re. See MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co. v. DORAN, 15 Minn. 240,
St. Paul, S. & G. F. R. Co., In re.
MINNESOTA LAND & INVESTMENT Co. v. Davis, 40
Minn. 455, 42 N. W. 299.
Public Lands, 69.
Cited in Weeks v. Bridgman, 41 Minn. 355; Bur-
fenning v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 46
Minn. 20.
MINNESOTA LINSEED OIL Co. v. MAGINNIS, 32 Minn.
193, 20 N. W. 85.
Chattel Mortgages, 1, 5, 51.
Pleading, 245.
Followed in Prince v. Farrell, 32 Minn. 293; Mil-
ler v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 35
Minn. 399. Explained in Ludlum v. Rothschild,
41 Minn. 221. Cited in Miller v. McCormick
Harvesting Mach. Co., 35 Minn. 400; Nor-
(Gil. 186.)
Appeal and Error, 675.
MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co. v. Doran, 17 Minn. 188,
(Gil. 162.)
Eminent Domain, 99, 100, 116, 181, 214.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19
Minn. 517, (Gil. 448;) Sherwood v. St. Paul &
C. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 129.
MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co. v. FLYNN, 14 Minn. 552,
(Gil. 421.)
Appeal and Error, 67.
Followed in Closen v. Allen, 29 Minn. 87.
MINNESOTA & N. W. R. Co. v. RICE, 1 Minn, 358,
(Gil. 267.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
2537
2538
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MINNESOTA & P. R. Co. v. SIBLEY, 2 Minn. 13, | MITCHELL v. MCFARLAND, 47 Minn. 535, 50 N. W.
(Gil. 1.)
Constitutional Law, 5-7.
Railroad Companies, 144.
Words and Phrases, 298.
Cited in Chamberlain v. Sibley, 4 Minn. 312, (Gil.
229;) Crowell v. Lambert, 9 Minn. 292, (Gil.
276.)
610.
Adverse Claim, 30.
Taxation, 198, 222.
MITCHELL V. MINNESOTA FIRE ASS'N, 51 N. W. 608.
Principal and Agent, 47.
Words and Phrases, 630.
MINOR V. SHEEHAN, (Manor v. Sheehan,) 30 Minn. MITCHELL V. MITCHELL, (Mitchell's Estate, In re,)
419, 15 N. W. 687.
Chattel Mortgages, 6, 54, 85.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 19.
Cited in Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 32; Har-
rington v. Samples, 36 Minn. 202; Nazro v.
Ware, 38 Minn. 447.
MINOR V. WILLOUGHBY, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 154.)
Appeal and Error, 392, 663.
Deed, 75, 76.
Factors and Brokers, 5, 10,
Specific Performance, 88.
Vendor and Purchaser, 5, 130, 131, 140, 167.
Cited in Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 429, (Gil.
331;) Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11 Minn. 117, (Gil.
74;) Marsh v. Armstrong, 20 Minn. 83, (Gil. 70 ;)
Dickerman v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 539; Judd v.
Arnold, 31 Minn. 432; Jordan v. Humphrey, 31
Minn. 497; Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 53;
Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 38.
MINSTER V. HOLBERT, 32 Minn. 533, 21 N. W. 718.
Evidence, 95.
MINTZER, IN RE, 33 Minn. 470, 23 N. W. 845.
Executors and Administrators, 78.
MINTZER V. ST. PAUL TRUST Co., 45 Minn. 323, 47
N. W. 973.
Appeal and Error, 682.
Homestead, 18, 62.
MISENER V. GOULD, 11 Minn. 166, (Gil. 105.)
Mortgages, 183.
MISSISSIPPI RAFTING Co. v. ANKENY, 18 Minn. 17,
(Gil. 1.)
Logs and Logging, 29.
MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co. v. PRINCE, 34 Minn.
71, 24 N. W. 344.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 43.
Damages, 30, 31, 113.
Cited in Lommeland v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 414; Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn.
177.
MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co. v. PRINCE, 34 Minn.
79, 24 N. W. 361.
Corporations, 10, 41.
Logs and Logging, 32.
Statutes, 22.
Cited in Boyle v. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 32; City
of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 437.
MITCHELL V. BANK OF ST. PAUL, 7 Minn. 252, (Gil.
192.)
Parties, 5, 6.
Pleading, 132.
Applied in Jones v. Morrison, 31 Minn. 146.
MITCHELL V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS ST. LOUIS
COUNTY, 24 Minn. 459.
Counties, 21.
Office and Officer, 12.
MITCHELL V. EASTON, (Mitchell v. Wilkins,) 37
Minn. 335, 33 N. W. 910.
Banks and Banking, 8.
43 Minn. 73, 44 N. W. 885.
Wills, 11, 16.
Words and Phrases, 769.
Cited in Graham v. Burch, 47 Minn. 176; Schmidt
v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 457; In re Hess' Will, 51
N. W. 615.
MITCHELL V. MITCHELL, 45 Mina. 50, 47 N. W. 308.
Assault and Battery, 2.
MITCHELL V. WILKINS, (Mitchell v. Easton,) 37
Minn. 335, 33 N. W. 910.
Banks and Banking, 8.
MITCHELL'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Mitchell v. Mitchell,)
43 Minn. 73, 44 N. W. SS5.
Wills, 11, 16.
Words and Phrases, 769.
Cited in Graham v. Burch, 47 Minn. 176; Schmidt
v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 457; In re Hess' Will, 51
N. W. 615.
MJONES V. YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY BANK, 45
Minn. 335, 47 N. W. 1072.
Mortgages, 165, 306.
MOEDE V. STEARNS COUNTY, (Moode v. Board
County Com'rs.) 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435.
Appeal and Error, 117.
Certiorari, 5.
Schools and School-Districts, 2.
MOEN V. ELDRED, 22 Minn. 538.
Pleading, 63.
MOFFATT V. TUTTLE, 35 Minn. 301, 28 N. W. 509.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 91.
Applied in Overmire v. Haworth, 51 N. W. 122.
MOGAN V. CARTER, 51 N. W. 614.
Quieting Title, 6.
MOHAN V. SMITH, 30 Minn. 259, 15 N. W. 118.
Homestead, 32.
Distinguished in Bottineau v. Etna Life Ins.
Co., 31 Minn. 128, 129.
MOHN V. BARTON, (Molm v. Barton,) 27 Minn. 530,
8 N. W. 765.
Conversion of Personal Property, 7.
Evidence, 49.
Cited in Lathrop v. Clayton, 45 Minn. 127; Mac-
kellar v. Pillsbury, 51 N. W. 223.
MOHR V. MIESEN, 47 Minn. 228, 49 N. W. 862.
Contracts, 51.
Gaming, 2, 5, 6.
MOHR v. MINNESOTA EL. Co., 40 Minn. 343, 41 N.
W. 1074.
Corporations, 136.
Insolvency, 111.
Words and Phrases, 166.
Applied in Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 121; Ar-
thur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 415; Willis v. St.
Paul Sanitation Co., 50 N. W. 1113.
MOLINE-MILBURN Co. V. FRANKLIN, 37 Minn. 137,
33 N. W. 323.
Evidence, 390.
Sale, 131, 132.
2533
2540
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MOLITOR V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 14] MOODY V. STEPHENSON, 1 Minn. 401, (Gil. 289.)
Minn. 285, (Gil. 212.)
Eminent Domain, 5, 29, 31, 255.
MOLLISON V. EATON, 16 Minn. 426, (Gil. 383.)
Courts, 33.
Execution, 13, 17.
Words and Phrases, 400.
Applied in Gowan v. Fountain, 52 N. W. 863.
Cited in Marsh v. Armstrong, 20 Minn. 84, (Gil.
71.)
Appeal and Error, 4, 24, 653.
Followed in Hawke v. Deuel, 2 Minn. 60, (Gil.
48;) Karns v. Kunkle, 2 Minn. 316, (Gil. 270.)
Cited in State v. Small, 29 Minn. 218.
MOODY V. THWING, 46 Minn. 511, 49 N. W. 229.
Account Stated, 13.
MOON v. AVERY, 42 Minn. 405, 44 N. W. 257.
Trespass, 2.
MOLLISON V. MILLS, (Mills, In re,) 34 Minn. 296, 25 MOON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 46 Minn. 106, 48
N. W. 631.
Executors and Administrators, 59.
MOLM V. BARTON, (Mohn v. Barton,) 27 Minn. 530,
8 N. W. 765.
Conversion of Personal Property, 7.
Evidence, 49.
Cited in Lathrop v. Clayton, 45 Minn. 127; Mac-
kellar v. Pillsbury, 51 N. W. 223.
MONETTE V. CRATT, 7 Minn. 234, (Gil. 176.)
Appeal and Error, 323.
Pleading, 134, 135.
Public Lands, 117.
MONSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 34 Minn.
269, 25 N. W. 595.
Corporations, 80.
MONTGOMERY v. CHASE, 30 Minn. 132, 14 N. W. 586.
Chattel Mortgages, 20.
MONTGOMERY v. MCEWEN, 7 Minn. 351, (Gil. 276.)
Action, 22.
Vendor and Purchaser, 22.
Words and Phrases, 434.
Followed in First Division St. P. & P. R. Co. v.
Rice, 25 Minn. 292.
MONTGOMERY v. MCEWEN, 9 Minn. 103, (Gil. 93.)
Mortgages, 159, 187, 188.
Disapproved and distinguished in Conkey v.
Dike, 17 Minn. 463, (Gil. 442.)
MONTGOMERY V. WITBECK, 23 Minn. 172.
Infancy, 11.
MONTOUR V. PURDY, 11 Minn. 384, (Gil. 278.)
Ejectment, 8.
Guardian and Ward, 27, 30, 35.
Pleading, 66.
Words and Phrases, 414, 415, 603.
Followed in Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn. 517,
(Gil. 426;) Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 118,
(Gil. 110) Rumrill v. First. Nat. Bank, 28
Minn. 204; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 33, 39.
Applied in Hugo v. Miller, 52 N. W. 383. Cit-
ed in Spencer v. Sheehan, 19 Minn. 341, 343,
(Gil. 293, 295;) City of Faribault v. Misener, 20
Minn. 403, (Gil. 354;) Hartley v. Croze, 38
Minn. 334; Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 255.
MOODE V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS, (Moede v.
(Moede v.
Stearns County,) 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435.
Appeal and Error, 117.
Certiorari, 5.
Schools and School Districts, 2.
MOODY V. RATHBURN, 7 Minn. 89, (Gil. 58.)
Partnership, 1.
MOODY V. STEPHENSON, 1 Minn. 396, (Gil. 289.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
N. W. 679.
Master and Servant, 29, 71.
Words and Phrases, 91.
Cited in Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co., 51 N. W.
1105.
MOOR V. FOLSOM, 14 Minn. 340, (Gil. 260.)
Frauds, Statute of, 27.
Guaranty, 2.
Negotiable Instruments, 66.
Cited in Buck v. Hutchins, 45 Minn. 272.
MOORE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 19 Minn. 300, (Gil.
258.)
Municipal Corporations, 136, 169, 170.
Applied in Bohen v. City of Waseca, 32 Minn. 179;
Young v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 197.
Cited in Lindhom v. City of St. Paul, 19 Minn.
249, (Gil. 209;) Furnell v. City of St. Paul, 20
Minn. 118, 121, 124, (Gil. 103, 105, 108;) Taylor
v. City of Austin, 32 Minn. 248; Noonan v.
City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 200.
MOORE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 43 Minn. 41, 45
N. W. 719.
License, 4, 5.
Cited in Moore v. City of St. Paul, 51 N. W. 220;
State v. Harris, 52 N. W. 389.
MOORE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 51 N. W. 219.
Municipal Corporations, 53.
MOORE V. FRANKENFIELD, 25 Minn. 540.
Covenants, 12, 14, 36.
MOORE V. HAYES, 35 Minn. 205, 28 N. W. 238.
Insolvency, 70, 73.
Cited in Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 163.
MOORE V. NORMAN, 43 Minn. 428, 45 N. W. 857.
Tender, 11.
Cited in Bank of Benson v. Hove, 45 Minn. 42.
MOORE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 37 Minn. 147,
33 N. W. 334.
Malicious Prosecution, 13, 37.
Cited in Gilbertson v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 415.
MOORE V. RUGG, 44 Minn. 28, 46 N. W. 141.
Photographers.
MORAN V. EASTERN RY. Co. OF MINNESOTA, 50 N.
W. 930.
1
Master and Servant, 59, 60, 107, 111.
Words and Phrases, 488.
MORAN V. MACKEY, 32 Minn. 266, 20 N. W. 159.
Judgment, 51, 57.
MOREHOUSE V. BOWEN, 9 Minn. 314, (Gil. 297.)
Municipal Corporations, 287.
Taxation, 158, 159, 166, 207.
2541
2542
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MORELAND V. LAWRENCE, 23 Minn. 84.
Executors and Administrators, 4, 5.
Mortgages, 28.
Witness, 77.
Followed in Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 424.
Cited in Pick v. Strong, 26 Minn. 305; Davis
v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 38; Minnesota Loan &
Trust Co. v. Beebe, 40 Minn. 11; State v. Bar-
rett, 40 Minn. 71.
MOREY V. ENKE, 5 Minn. 392, (Gil. 316.)
Contracts, 104, 105.
MOREY V. MOREY, 27 Minn. 265, 6 N. W. 783.
Judgment, 207.
Cited in Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337.
MORGAN V. SMITH, 4 Minn. 104, (Gil. 64.)
Taxation, 60.
MORRILL V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co.-Continued.
D. R. Co., 43 Miun. 113. Cited in Lake Supe-
rior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38 Minn. 408; St.
Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. City of
Minneapolis, 41 Minn. 277; Eastman v. St. An-
thony Falls Water Power Co., 43 Minn. 63;
Pinney v. Luce, 44 Minn. 370.
MORRIS V. KEIL, 20 Minn. 531, (Gil. 474.)
Corporations, 34, 62.
Cited in Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 Minn. 242.
MORRIS V. MCCLARY, 43 Minn. 346, 46 N. W. 238.
Adverse Claim, 22.
Adverse Possession, 20, 25.
Cited in O'Mulcahey v. Gragg, 45 Minn. 114;
Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 416.
MORIARTY V. ASHWORTH, 43 Minn. 1, 44 N. W. 531. MORRIS V. ST. PAUL & C. RY. Co., 19 Minn. 528,
Waste, 2.
MORIARTY V. GULLICKSON, 22 Minn. 39.
Chattel Mortgages, 68, 73.
Cited in Bannon v. Bowler. 34 Minn. 419; Well-
come v. Town of Monticello, 41 Minn. 138.
MORIARTY V. MCDEVITT, 46 Minn. 136, 48 N. W. 684.
Trial, 136.
MORIER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Marrier v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 31 Minn. 351, 17 N.
W 952.
Master and Servant, 18.
Distinguished in Mulvehill v. Bates, 31 Minn. 366.
MORIN V. MARTZ, 13 Minn. 191, (Gil. 180.)
Frauds, Statute of, 41.
Words and Phrases, 545.
Followed in Wemple v. Knopf, 15 Minn. 444,
(Gil. 357.)
MORIN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 100,
14 N. W. 460.
Eminent Domain, 243, 244.
(Gil. 459.)
Railroad Companies, 7.
MORRIS V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 21 Minn. 91.
Appeal and Error, 489.
Evidence, 338.
Release and Discharge, 1.
Cited in St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v.
Eastman, 20 Minn. 312, (Gil. 270;) Cummings
v. Baars, 36 Minn. 353; Elsbarg v. Myrman,
41 Minn. 541.
MORRIS V. WATSON, 15 Minn. 212, (Gil. 165.)
Estoppel, 2.
Powers, 1.
Public Lands, 43.
MORRISON V. ABBOTT, 27 Minn. 116, 6 N. W. 455.
Homestead, 80.
Followed in Ferguson v. Kumler, 27 Minn. 162;
Furman v. Tenny, 23 Minn. 79. Cited in Bald-
win v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 548.
MORRISON V. BASSETT, 26 Minn. 235, 2 N. W. S51.
Landlord and Tenant, 8.
MORIN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 33 Minn. 176, MORRISON V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 5 Minn. 108, (Gil. 83.)
22 N. W. 251.
Judgment, 203.
MORIN V. THE F. SIGEL, 10 Minn. 250, (Gil. 195.)
Admiralty, 1.
Shipping, 8.
MORISH V. MOUNTAIN, 22 Minn. 564.
Appeal and Error, 602.
Conversion of Personal Property, 12, 20.
Followed in Howard v. Barton, 28 Minn. 117.
Applied in Hardin v. Palmerlee, 28 Minn. 453.
MORRILL V. LITTLE FALLS MANUF'G Co., 46 Minn.
260, 48 N. W. 1124.
Corporations, 130.
Judgment, 144.
MORRILL V. MADDEN, 35 Minn. 493, 29 N. W. 193.
Deceit, 24.
Followed in Morrill v. Madden, 37 Minn. 282.
Cited in Dole v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 332, 333;
Cobb v. Wright, 43 Minn. 85.
MORRILL V. MADDEN, 37 Minn. 282, 34 N. W. 25.
Deceit, 24.
MORRILL V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
Co., 26 Minn. 222, 2 N. W. 842.
Injunction, 12.
Navigable Waters, 7.
Waters and Water Courses, 25.
Followed in State v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 26
Minn. 231. Applied in Hanford v. St. Paul &
Municipal Corporations, 247, 285, 286, 304.
Quieting Title, 7.
MORRISON V. LOVEJOY, 6 Minn. 183, (Gil. 117.)
Attachment, 1, 21, 58.
Followed in Guerin v. Hunt, 8 Minn. 487, (Gil.
432;) Hinds v. Fagebank, 9 Minn. 71, (Gil. 61;)
Merrit v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 231, (Gil.
152;) Jacoby v. Drew, 11 Minn. 409, (Gil. 301.)
Distinguished in Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls
Water Power Co., 9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 49;) Braley
v. Byrnes, 20 Minn. 441, (Gil. 393.) Cited in
Feikert v. Wilson, 38 Minn. 342.
MORRISON V. LOVEJOY, 6 Minn. 319, (Gil. 224.)
Appeal and Error, 443.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 2.
Damages, 28, 29.
Evidence, 258.
Jury, 30, 34, 38.
Pleading, 175.
Words and Phrases, 498-500.
Followed in Lowry v. Hurd, 7 Minn. 364, (Gil.
286.) Distinguished in Montgomery v. McEw-
en, 9 Minn. 106, (Gil. 95;) Lovejoy v. Morrison,
10 Minn. 138, (Gil. 109.) Cited in Bidwell v.
Madison, 10 Minn. 22, (Gil. 7:) Steele v. Ether-
idge, 15 Minn. 510, (Gil. 421;) Stone v. Harman,
31 Minn. 516; Fairchild v. Rogers, 32 Minn.
271; Pevey v. Schulenburg & Boeckeler Co.,
33 Minn. 49.
2543
2544
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MORRISON V. MARCH, 4 Minn. 422, (Gil. 325.)
Appeal and Error, 173, 174.
Mortgages, 44.
Vendor and Purchaser, 140, 141.
Followed in Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 57, (Gil.
35;) Palmer v. Bates, 22 Minn. 534; Siebert v.
Rosser, 24 Minn. 161; New v. Wheaton, 24
Minn. 409; Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408.
Explained in Irvine v. Meyers, 6 Minn. 560, (Gil.
396.) Cited in Carleton College v. McNaugh-
ton, 26 Minn. 199; Wilkins v. Bevier, 43 Minn.
216; Wolf v. Zabel, 44 Minn. 92.
MORRISON V. MENDENHALL, 18 Minn. 232, (Gil. 212.)
Mortgages, 103, 176, 177.
Applied in Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W. 286. Dis-
tinguished in Foster v. Johnson, 39 Minn. 379.
Explained in Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
Cited in Thorwarth v. Armstrong, 20 Minn.
466, 467, (Gil. 422, 423:) Thorp v. Merrill, 21
Minn. 338; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 211; Gille
v. Hunt, 35 Minn. 359, 360; Menage v. Burke,
43 Minn. 212.
MORRISON V. PHILIPPI, 35 Minn. 192, 28 N. W. 239.
Mechanics' Liens, 69.
MORRISON V. PORTER, 35 Minn. 425, 29 N. W. 54.
Deed, 102.
Evidence, 255.
Cited in Hall v. Lamb, 52 N. W. 268.
MORRISON V. RICE, 35 Minn. 436, 29 N. W. 168.
Dower, 5.
Words and Phrases, 229.
Followed in Roach v. Dion, 39 Minn. 449. Cited
in Wistar v. Foster, 46 Minn. 436.
MORRISON COUNTY V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co.,
42 Minn. 451, 44 N. W. 982.
Taxation, 23, 154.
Followed in State v. St. Croix Boom Corp., 52 N.
W.44.
MORSE V. BARROWS, 37 Minn. 239, 33 N. W. 706.
Parties, 27.
MORTON V. JACKSON-Continued.
son Lumber Co. v. Pelan, 31 Minn. 244. Cited
in Conway v. Wharton, 13 Minn. 160, 161, (Gil.
148, 149;) Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 173, (Gil.
164;) Wright v. Jewell, 33 Minn. 506; Perry v.
Reynolds, 40 Minn. 500.
MORTON V. LELAND, 27 Minn. 35, 6 N. W. 378.
Deed, 13, 79.
Vendor and Purchaser, 136.
Cited in Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 199; Con-
lan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 281; Holbrook v. Sims,
39 Minn. 123; Dobbin v. Cordiner, 41 Minn.
168.
MORTON V. POWER, 33 Minn. 521, 24 N. W. 194.
Constitutional Law, 62.
Municipal Corporations, 119, 120.
Distinguished in State Bank of Duluth v. Heney,
40 Minn. 148. Cited in Breen v.
Cited in Breen v. Kelly, 45
Minn. 353.
MORTON V. STONE, 39 Minn. 275, 39 N. W. 496.
Frauds, Statute of, 59..
W. 530.
MOSER V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 42 Minn. 480, 44 N.
Railroad Companies, 238, 272, 277.
MOSES V. IRVINE, 1 Minn. 417, (Gil. 302.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Moss v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 21 Minn. 421.
Insurance, 189, 190.
Statutes, 63.
Cited in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 283; State
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 360.
MOSS V. PETTINGILL, 3 Minn. 217, (Gil. 145.)
Injunction, 25, 27.
Principal and Surety, 20, 21.
Cited in Pettingill v. Moss, 3 Minn 224, (Gil.
152;) Schalck v. Harmon, 6 Minn. 271, (Gil.
181;) Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 368, (Gil.
253;) Armstrong v. Sanford, 7 Minn. 52, (Gil.
36;) Conkey v. Dike, 17 Minn. 460, (Gil. 439;)
Pineo v. Heffelfinger, 29 Minn. 184.
MORSE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 30 Minn. MoSSEAU'S ESTATE, IN RE.
465, 16 N. W. 358.
Master and Servant, 130.
Negligence, 92, 93, 98.
Overruling Kelly v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 28
Minn. 98; Phelps v. City of Mankato, 23 Minn.
276. Cited in Clapp v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 7; Phelps v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 37 Minn. 487; Doyle v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 82.
MORSE V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INs. Co., 21
Minn. 407.
Insurance, 108.
MORSE V. ZEIZE, 34 Minn. 35, 24 N. W. 287.
Highways, 1.
Applied in Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 341. Cited
in Skjeggerud v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 60; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City
of Minneapolis, 4+ Minn. 150.
seau.
See Moussean v. Mous-
MOULTON V. DORAN, 10 Minn. 67, (Gil. 49 )
Pleading, 13.
Taxation, 170, 175, 203.
MOULTON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co, 31 Minn.
85, 16 N. W. 497.
Carriers, 51.
Cited in Lindsley v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 36 Minn. 542; Boehl v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 192, 193.
MOULTON V. THOMPSON, 26 Miun. 120, 1 N. W. 836.
Execution, 57.
Pleading, 77.
Overruled in German-American Bank v.
White,
38 Minn. 471. Cited in Bailey v. Chandler, 27
Minn. 174; Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn.
393; Jellett v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 269.
MORTON V. HAGERMAN, 39 Minn. 277, 39 N. W. 497. | MOUSSEAU V. MOUSSEAU, (Mousseau's Estate, In
Frauds, Statute of, 59.
MORTON V. JACKSON, 2 Minn. 219, (Gil. 180.)
Negotiable Instruments, 188, 189, 191.
Pleading, 194, 200, 201, 214, 215.
Words and Phrases, 316, 397, 695.
Overruled in C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Rich-
ardson, 31 Minn. 267. Explained in C. N. Nel-
re,) 40 Minn. 236, 41 N. W. 977.
Specific Performance, 6.
Cited in Mousseau v. Mousseau, 42 Minn. 212.
MOUSSEAU V. MOUSSEAU, (Mosseau's Estate, In re,)
42 Minn. 212, 44 N. W. 193.
Appeal and Error, 342.
Vendor and Purchaser, 96.
2545
2546
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MOUSSEAU'S WILL, 30 Minn. 202, 14 N. W. 887.
Wills, 36.
Applied in Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 162. Dis-
tinguished in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn.
231.
MOWER V. HANFORD, 6 Minn. 535, (Gil. 372.)
Appeal and Error, 184, 224, 225.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 26,
94, 955.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 121.
Cited in Mayall v. Burke, 10 Minn. 286, (Gil. 225;)
Benton v. Snyder, 22 Minn. 248.
MOWER V. STAPLES, 32 Minn. 284, 20 N. W. 225.
Corporations, 9.
Words and Phrases, 457.
MOWER V. STICKNEY, 5 Minn. 397, (Gil. 321.)
Execution, 32, 33, 51.
Pleading, 83.
Pledge, 11.
Followed in Mower v. Stickney, 5 Minn. 407,
(Gil. 330;) State v. Sherwood, 15 Minn. 229,
(Gil. 178.)
MOWER V. STICKNEY, 5 Minn. 407, (Gil. 330.)
Execution, 32.
Pleading, 83.
Pledge, 11.
MOWER COUNTY V. WILLIAMS, 27 Minn. 25, 6 N. W.
377.
Counties, 54.
MOYER V. CANTIENY, 41 Minn. 242, 42 N. W. 1060.
Attorney and Client, 25-27.
MUELLER 7. FRUEN, 36 Minn. 273, 30 N. W. 886.
Easements, 8.
Nuisance, 12.
MUELLER V. JACKSON, 39 Minn. 431, 40 N. W. 565.
Adverse Claim, 39.
Taxation, 199, 233.
Trial, 7.
MUELLER V. REIMER, 46 Minn. 314, 48 N. W. 1120.
Judgment, 270.
MULCAHY V. FLORER, (O'Mulcahey v. Florer,) 27
Minn. 449, S N. W. 166.
Taxation, 238, 265, 302.
Cited in Bower v. O'Donnall, 29 Minn. 137; Per-
kins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 242; Wheeler v. Mer-
riman, 30 Minn. 377; McLellan v. OModt, 37
Minn. 158; Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 38 Minn.
336.
MURCHIE V. MCINTIRE, 40 Minn. 331, 42 N. W. 348.
Composition with Creditors, 3, 4.
MURPHIN V. SCOVELL, 41 Minn. 262, 43 N. W. 1.
Vendor and Purchaser, 24, 111.
Cited in Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530; Mc-
Manus v. Blackmarr, 47 Minn. 335.
MURPHIN V. SCOVELL, 44 Minn. 530, 47 N. W. 256.
Vendor and Purchaser, 113.
MURPHY V. BURKE, 47 Minn. 99, 49 N. W. 387.
Public Lands, 98.
Taxation, 258.
MURPHY V. COUNTY COM'RS STEELE COUNTY, 14
Minn. 67, (Gil. 51.)
Counties, 81.
Followed in Gutches v. Todd County, 44 Minn.
387. Cited in Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20
Minn. 80, (Gil. 66.)
MURPHY V. DOYLE, 37 Minn. 113, 33 N. W. 220.
Adverse Possession, 9, 16, 17, 32.
MURPHY V. HINDS, 15 Minn. 182, (Gil. 139.)
Adverse Claim, 6.
Cited in Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 460, 461,
(Gil. 413;) Byrne v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 523, (Gil.
470.)
MURPHY V. MCGUIRE, 47 Minn. 103, 49 N. W. 388.
Public Lands, 98.
Taxation, 258.
MURPHY V. PURDY, 13 Minn. 422, (Gil. 390.)
Attachment, 22.
Followed in Ely v. Titus, 14 Minn. 125, 126, (Gil
94.) Cited in Feikert v. Wilson, 38 Minn. 342.
MURPHY V. SHERMAN, 25 Minn. 196.
Attachment, 105.
Sheriffs and Constables, 23, 28, 39.
Cited in Varco v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 22; Howard v. Rugland, 35 Minn. 391.
MURRAY V. JOHNSON, 1 Minn. 222, 224, (Gil. 186.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
Cited in Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 186, (Gil,
119;) Hinds v. Fagebank, 9 Minn. 71, (Gil. 61.)
MURRAY COUNTY V. MINNESOTA LAND & INVEST.
Co. See Martin County v. Drake.
MUSSER v. MCRAE, 38 Minn. 409, 38 N. W. 103.
Public Lands, 84, 110.
Distinguished in Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber
Co., 44 Minn. 352.
Cited in Musser v. McRae, 44 Minn. 344.
MULLAN V. WISCONSIN CENT. Co., 46 Minn. 474, 49 MUSSER V. MCRAE, 44 Minn. 343 46 N. W. 673.
N. W 249.
Carriers, 111.
MULLEN V. NOONAN, 44 Minn. 541, 47 N. W. 164.
Replevin, 47.
MULVEHILL v. BATES, 31 Minn. 364, 17 N. W. 959.
Action, 29.
Master and Servant, 19.
MULVEY V. TOZER, 40 Minn. 384, 42 N. W. 387.
Taxation, 173,
Words and Phrases, 773.
MUMFORD V. HALL, 25 Minn. 347.
Executors and Administrators, 6.
MURCH V. SWENSEN, 40 Minn. 421, 42 N. W. 290.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 43, 44, 107.
Words and Phrases, 103, 167.
Cited in Hopkins v. Swensen, 41 Minn. 293;
Chickering & Sons v. White, 42 Minn. 461.
Public Lands, 85, 86.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, 47
Minn. 44.
MUUS V. MUUS, 29 Minn. 115, 12 N. W. 343.
Husband and Wife, 18.
Limitation of Actions, 24.
MYERS V. IRVINE, 4 Minn. 553, (Gil. 435.)
Costs, 13, 38.
MYKLEBY V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 39
Minn. 54, 38 N. W. 763.
Carriers, 136.
Cited in Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462; Mykle-
by v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 52 Ñ. W.
213.
MYRICK V. BRAWLEY, (Myrick v. La Moure,) 33
Minn. 377, 23 N. W. 549.
Constitutional Law, 110.
2547
2548
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
MYRICK V. COMSALLE, 32 Minn. 153, 19 N. W. 736.
Adverse Claim, 46.
MYRICK V. LA MOURE, (Myrick v. Brawley,) 33
Minn. 377, 23 N. W. 549.
Constitutional Law, 110.
Guardian and Ward, 39.
Cited in Herrick v. Churchill, 35 Minn. 320; Jel- MYRICK V. PIERCE, 5 Minn. 65, (Gil. 47.)
lison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 488.
MYRICK V. DOLE, 1 Minn. 320, (Gil. 250.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
MYRICK V. EDMUNDSON, 2 Minn. 259, (Gil. 221.)
Equity, 75.
Appeal and Error, 96, 475.
Words and Phrases, 761.
Followed in Groh v. Bassett, 7 Minn. 330, (Gil.
259;) Merritt v. Putnam, 7 Minn. 493, (Gil. 400;)
Jorgensen v. Boehmer, 9 Minn. 182, (Gil. 168;)
Reagan v. Madden, 17 Minn. 403, (Gil. 380.
Cited in Mayall v. Burke, 10 Minn. 286, (Gil. 225.)
N.
NAPA VAL. WINE Co. v. BOSTON BLOCK Co., 44 | NATIONAL ALBANY EXCH. BANK V. CARGILL, 39
Minn. 130, 46 N. W. 239.
Injunction, 14.
NASH V. BREWSTER, 39 Minn. 530, 41 N. W. 105.
Liens, 3, 7.
Sale, 38.
Cited in Smith v. Roberts, 43 Minn. 343; Warder-
Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Minnesota & D. El-
evator Co., 44 Minn. 391; Rail v. Little Falls
Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 425; Mackellar v. Pills-
bury, 51 N. W. 224.
NASH V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 8 Minn. 172, (Gil. 143.)
Municipal Corporations, 108.
Cited in Griggs v. City of St. Paul, 9 Minn. 248,
(Gil. 234;) Nash v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn.
178, (Gil. 112;) Newbery v. Fox, 37 Minn. 143.
NASH V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 11 Minn. 174, (Gil. 110.)
Municipal Corporations, 107.
Pleading, 42.
Words and Phrases, 486.
Nash v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 23 Minn. 132.
Municipal Corporations, 109, 117, 221.
NASH V. GALE, 2 Minn. 310, (Gil. 265.)
Garnishment, 18.
Nash v. Lowry, 37 Minn. 261, 33 N. W. 787.
Horse and Street Railroads, 1, 2.
Cited in Long v. City of Duluth, 51 N. W. 914.
NASH V. MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co., 24 Minn. 501.
Landlord and Tenant, 11.
Negligence, 1.
Distinguished in Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Wheeler,
31 Minn. 123, 124. Cited in Trask v. Shotwell,
41 Minn. 68.
NASH V. MURNAN, 6 Minn. 577, (Gil. 411.)
Work and Labor, 11.
NASH V. SULLIVAN, 29 Minn. 206, 12 N. W. 698.
Public Lands, 54, 63, 65.
Cited in Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 264.
Nash v. SULLIVAN, 32 Minn. 189, 20 N. W. 144.
Ejectment, 38.
Words and Phrases, 472.
NASH V. TOUSLEY, 28 Minn. 5, 8 N. W. 875.
Death by Wrongful Act, 6.
Cited in Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386;
Scheffler v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 126.
Minn. 477, 40 N. W. 570.
Appeal and Error, 83.
NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 44
Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560.
Carriers, 7, 8.
Sale, 127.
Words and Phrases, 482.
NATIONAL BANK V. LINDEKE, See Shotwell, In re.
NATIONAL BANK V. MALLAN, 37 Minu. 404, 34 N. W.
901.
Negotiable Instruments, 59.
NATIONAL BANK V. MEADER, 40 Minn. 325, 41 N. W.
1043.
Evidence, 247.
Partnership, 40, 48.
NATIONAL BANK V. WISCONSIN CENT. RY. Co. See
National Bank v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.
NATIONAL BEN. Co. v. UNION HOSPITAL CO., 45
Minn. 272, 47 N. W. 806.
Contracts, 48.
NATIONAL CAR & LOCOMOTIVE BUILDER V. CYCLONE
STEAM SNOW-PLOW CO., 51 N. W. 658.
Contracts, 97.
Evidence, 278.
Sale, 6.
Followed in Northwestern Railroader v. Cyclone
Steam Snow Plow Co., 51 N. W. 658.
NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK V. WILDER, 34 Minn.
149, 24 N. W. 699.
Warehousemen, 15, 16.
Followed in Eggers v. National Bank of Com-
merce, 40 Minn. 183. Cited in Tripp v. North-
western Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 402; Hall v. Pills-
bury, 43 Minn. 36.
NATIONAL GAS-LIGHT & FUEL Co. v. BIXBY, 51 N.
W. 217.
Evidence, 295.
NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN BANK V. WILDER, 35
Minn. 94, 27 N. W. 201.
Insolvency, 106, 107.
Cited in Re Walker, 37 Minn. 246; W. W. Kim-
ball Co. v. Coon, 45 Minn. 46.
NATIONAL PROTECTIVE ASS'N V. PRENTICE BROWN
STONE CO., 51 N. W. 916.
Insurance, 1.
2549
2550
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
NAUER V. BENHAM, 45 Minn. 252., 47 N. W. 796.
Judgment, 274.
NELSON V. MUNCH, 30 Minn. 132, 14 N. W. 578.
Costs, 45.
Cited in Kipp v. Cook, 46 Minn. 537.
Nazro v. WARE, 38 Minn. 443, 38 N. W. 359.
Mortgages, 2911, 33, 34.
Cited in Lee v. Fletcher, 46 Minn. 52, 53.
NEIBLES V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 37
Minn. 151, 33 N. W. 332.
Compromise, 3.
Principal and Agent, 4.
NELSON V. ROBSON, 17 Minn. 234, (Gil. 260.)
Evidence, 296.
Tender, 6, 7.
Cited in Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn.
307, (Gil. 277;) Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 434.
NELSON V. ROGERS, 47 Minn. 103, 49 N. W. 526.
Mortgages, 125, 126.
NELICHKA V. ESTERLY, 29 Minn. 146, 12 N. W. 457. NELSON V. SYKES, 44 Minn. 68, 46 N. W. 207.
Master and Servant, 14.
Cited in Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 469.
NELL V. DAYTON, 43 Minn. 242, 45 N. W. 229.
Husband and Wife, 53, 59.
Cited in Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank,
45 Minn. 342; Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1018.
NELL V. DAYTON, 47 Minn. 257, 49 N. W. 981
Judgment, 232, 233.
NELSON V. CENTRAL LAND Co., 35 Minn. 408, 29 N.
W. 121.
Appeal and Error, 595.
Evidence, 53.
Mortgages, 281.
Taxation, 183, 226.
Words and Phrases, 738.
Applied in Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 348. Cit-
ed in State v. Smith, 36 Minn. 457; Pigott V.
O'Halloran, 37 Minn. 417; Jewell v. Truhn, 38
Minn. 436; Mueller v. Jackson, 39 Minn. 432.
NELSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
74, 14 N. W. 360.
Railroad Companies, 265.
Followed in Maher v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
31 Minn. 401. Applied in Campbell v. City of
Stillwater, 32 Minn. 311; Ransier v. Minneap-
olis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 334. Cited in
Swinfin v. Lowry, 37 Minn. 347.
NELSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 35 Minn.
170, 28 N. W. 215.
Appeal and Error, 347.
Railroad Companies, 286.
NELSON V. FLANDRAU. See Nelson v. Rogers.
NELSON V. GIBBS, 18 Minn. 541, (Gil. 485.)
Attachment, 91.
Followed in Drought v. Collins, 20 Minn. 375,
(Gil. 326.)
NELSON V. HANSON, 45 Minn. 543, 48 N. W. 410.
Equity, 68.
NELSON V. JOHNSON, 38 Minn. 255, 36 N. W. 863.
Good-Will, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 216.
NELSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 41 Minn.
131, 42 N. W. 788.
Railroad Companies, 53, 54.
Words and Phrases, 651.
Followed in Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 41 Minn. 133. Applied in Finch v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 252.
NELSON V. MUNCH, 23 Minn. 229.
Attachment, 26, 93.
NELSON V. MUNCH, 28 Minn. 314, 9 N. W. 863.
Appeal and Error, 641.
Principal and Surety, 23.
Cited in Hungerford v. O'Brien, 37 Minn. 309;
Grueber v. Lindenmeier, 42 Minn. 102.
Mechanics' Liens, 7.
Applied in Hill v. Lovell, 47 Minn. 294. Ex-
plained in Tell v. Woodruff, 45 Minn. 11. Cited
În Bardwell v. Mann, 46 Minn. 286; Nystrom v.
London & N. A. Mortgage Co., 47 Minn. 32.
NELSON V. THOMPSON, 23 Minn. 508.
Appeal and Error, 326, 612.
Landlord and Tenant, 29, 30.
Cited in Dayton v. Craik, 26 Minn. 136; Smith v.
Pendergast, 26 Minn. 321; Lucy v. Wilkins, 33
Minn. 442.
NELSON LUMBER Co. v. PELAN. See C. N. Nelson
Lumber Co. v. Pelan.
NELSON LUMBER Co. v. RICHARDSON. See C. N.
Nelson Lumber Co. v. Richardson.
NELSON'S ADDITION, IN RE, (Hennepin County v.
Brotherhood of Gethsemane,) 27 Minn. 460, 8
N. W. 595.
Taxation, 41.
Words and Phrases, 505, 614, 616.
NELSON'S WILL, IN RE, (Stockton v. Thorn,) 39
Minn. 204, 39 N. W. 143.
Wills, 10, 17.
Words and Phrases, 767, 768.
Cited in Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 457; Im
re Hess' Will, 51 N. W. 615, 616.
NERSKIN
v. NORTHWESTERN ENDOWMENT AND
LEGACY ASS'N, (Neskern v. Northwestern En-
dowment and Legacy Ass'n,) 30 Minn. 406, 15
N. W. 683.
Insurance, 177, 181.
Words and Phrases, 141.
NESBITT V. ROBBINS, 34 Minn. 380, 25 N. W. 802.
Appeal and Error, 511.
NESBITT V. ST. PAUL LUMBER Co., 21 Minn. 491.
Damages, 65.
Followed in Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn. 482.
Applied in Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn.
201; King v. Merriman, 38 Minn. 54. Distin-
guished in Hinman v. Heyderstadt, 32 Minn.
252. Cited in Lindsay v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 29 Minn. 413; Varco v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 22; Jellett v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 268.
NESKERN V. NORTHWESTERN
NORTHWESTERN ENDOWMENT AND
LEGACY ASS'N, (Nerskin v. Northwestern
Endowment and Legacy Ass'n,) 30 Minn. 406,
15 N. W. 683.
Insurance, 177, 181.
Words and Phrases, 141.
NESS V. DAVIDSON, 45 Minn. 424, 48 N. W. 10.
Powers, 5.
Wills, 59, 60.
Cited in Ness v. Davidson, 52 N. W. 46.
2551
2552
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
NESS V. WOOD, 42 Minn. 427, 41 N. W. 313.
Mechanics' Liens, 30, 31.
Cited in Ness v. Davidson, 52 N. W. 46.
NEUMAIER V. VINCENT, 41 Minn. 481, 43 N. W. 376.
Homestead, 29.
Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 16.
NEW V. WHEATON, 24 Minn. 406.
Appeal and Error, 643.
Mortgages, 45.
Vendor and Purchaser, 141.
Applied in Groff v. State Bank of Minneapolis,
52 N. W. 652. Cited in Baker v. Thompson, 36
Minn. 315.
NEWBERY V. Fox, 37 Minn. 141, 33 N. W. 333.
Municipal Corporations, 101, 104.
NEWTON V. VAN DUSEN, 47 Minn. 437, 50 N. W. 820.
Pledge, 6.
NEW YORK & M. GOLD MINING Co. v. MARTIN, 13
Minn. 417, (Gil. 386.)
Corporations, 86, 87.
Words and Phrases, 134.
NICHOLS V. ALLEN, 23 Minn. 542.
Frauds, Statute of, 29, 30.
NICHOLS V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 36
Minn. 452, 32 N. W. 176.
Evidence, 146.
Parties, 35.
Cited in Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 43
Minn. 520.
Distinguished in Bradley v. Village of West Du- NICHOLS V. CITY OF DULUTH, 40 Minn. 389, 42 N.
luth, 45 Minn. 8.
NEWELL V. BROWN. See Noyes v. Gill.
NEWELL V. COCHRAN, 41 Minn. 374, 43 N. W. 84.
Deeds, 63.
Frauds, Statute of, 50.
Trusts, 32, 33.
NEWELL V. DART, 28 Minn. 248, 9 N. W. 732.
Judgment, 177.
Applied in Dole v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 333; Spen-
cer v. Haug, 45 Minn. 232.
Wilson, 39 Minn. 332.
NEWELL V. HOULTON, 22 Minn. 19.
Appeal and Error, 437.
Evidence, 232.
Interest of Money, 14.
Payment, 40.
Trial, 150.
Cited in Dole v.
Followed in White v. Iltis, 24 Minn. 47. Cited in
Beebe v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 551; Schmitt v.
Schmitt, 31 Minn. 108; Smith v. Crane, 33
Minn. 146; Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 124;
Howe v. Cochran, 47 Minn. 404.
NEWELL V. How, 31 Minn. 235, 17 N. W. 383.
Libel and Slander, 21, 22, 66.
NEWELL V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn.
112, 27 N. W. 839.
Eminent Domain, 265, 266.
NEWELL V. RANDALL, 32 Minn. 171, 19 N. W. 972.
Sale, 130.
Cited in Emmert v. Thompson, 52 N. W. 32.
NEWELL V. REIMER. See Mueller v. Reimer.
W. 84.
Municipal Corporations, 234.
NICHOLS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 30 Minn. 545, 16
N. W. 410.
Constitutional Law, 72.
Municipal Corporations, 323.
Words and Phrases, 377.
Applied in Harder v. City of Minneapolis, 40
Minn. 447. Distinguished in Eisenmenger_v.
St. Paul Water Board, 44 Minn. 459. Ex-
plained in Harder v. City of Minneapolis, 40
Minn. 447. Cited in Ray v. City of St. Paul, 44
Minn. 341.
NICHOLS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 33 Minn. 430, 23
N. W. 868.
Municipal Corporations, 166, 182.
Negligence, 13.
NICHOLS V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 44 Minn. 494, 47 N.
W. 168.
Municipal Corporations, 133, 134.
NICHOLS V. Howe, 43 Minn. 181, 45 N. W. 14.
Evidence, 37.
NICHOLS V. KNOWLES, 31 Minn. 489, 18 N. W. 413.
Sale, 74, 102.
Cited in Nichols, Shepard & Co.. v. Root, 35 Minn
364.
NICHOLS V. RANDALL, 5 Minn. 304, (Gil. 240.)
Mortgages, 335.
Parties, 19.
Followed in Mitchell v. Bank of St. Paul, 7 Minn.
256, (Gil. 196.)
NEWMAN V. HOME INS. Co., 20 Minn. 422, (Gil. 378.) NICHOLS V. STATE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS, 45 Minn.
Equity, 29.
Words and Phrases, 588.
Cited in McNair v. Toler, 21 Minn. 181; Banning
v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 311.
NEWMAN V. SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INS. Co.,
17 Minn. 123, (Gil. 98.)
Insurance, 31, 36, 39, 43, 83, 86, 107, 125, 126,
132, 134, 138-140, 142, 144.
Principal and Agent, 105.
NEWTON V. NEWELL, 26 Minn. 529, 6 N. W. 346.
Elections and Voters, 22, 23, 40, 47, 50.
Applied in O'Gorman v. Richter, 31 Minn. 30, 31.
Cited in Stemper v. Higgins, 38 Minn. 227.
NEWTON V. NEWTON, 46 Minn. 33, 48 N. W. 450.
Equity, 8.
Injunction, 16.
Sale, 195.
Wills, 67.
102, 47 N. W. 462.
Abatement and Revival, 9.
Cited in Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1020.
NICHOLS V. WALTER, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N. W. 800.
Constitutional Law, 57, 58.
Followed in Weber v. Timlin, 37 Minn. 274. Ap-
plied in Lavallee v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
40 Minn. 252. Cited in Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn.
482; Todd v. Rustad, 43 Minn. 502: McCor-
mick v. Village of West Duluth, 47 Minn. 275;
State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 N. W.
113.
NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co. v. ALLEN, 22 Minn. 283.
Frauds, Statute of, 28.
Guaranty, 6.
Explained in Wilson v. Hentges, 29 Minn. 105.
Cited in Sheldon v. Butler, 24 Minn. 516; D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Baker, 34 Minn. 308; Crane
v. Wheeler, 50 N. W. 1033.
2553
2554
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co. v. Root, 35 Minn. 363, 29 | NOBLES COUNTY V. HAMLINE UNIVERSITY, (State
N. W. 160.
v. Hamline University,) 46 Minn. 316, 48 N. W.
1119.
Sale, 73.
NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co. v. WADSWORTII, 40 Minn.
547, 42 N. W. 541.
Principal and Agent, 61, 65.
Trial, 152.
NICOLIN V. SCHNEIDERHAN, 37 Minn. 63, 33 N. W. 33.
Boundaries, 10.
Followed in Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 462.
NICOLLET NAT. BANK V. CITY BANK, 38 Minn. 85,
35 N. W. 577.
Banks and Banking, 24.
Corporations, 109-111.
Statutes, 52.
Applied in Joslyn v. St. Paul Distilling Co., 44
Minn. 187.
NIGGELER V. MAURIN, 34 Minn.. 118, 24 N. W. 369.
Mortgages, 11, 446.
Trial, 172.
Cited in Marshall v. Thompson, 39 Minn. 140,
142; Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 205; King
v. McCarthy, 52 N. W. 649.
NININGER V. BANNING, 7 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
Conversion of Personal Property, 50.
Negotiable Instruments, 83.
Pleading, 236.
Distinguished in City of Winona v. Minnesota
Ry. Construction Co., 29 Minn. 76.
Taxation, 36, 37.
Words and Phrases, 384.
NOBLES COUNTY V. SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co.,
(Nobles County v. Certain Pieces of Land,) 26
Minn. 294, 3 N. W. 701.
Railroad Companies, 139.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 17: Stevens
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn.
470.
NOBLET V. ST. JOHN, 29 Minn. 180, 12 N. W. 527.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 56.
NOLAN V. HAZEN, 44 Minn. 478, 47 N. W. 155.
Corporations, 155.
NOLANDER V. BURNS, 50 N. W. 1016.
Mechanics' Liens, 151.
Words and Phrases, 304.
Cited in Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1019; Hill
v. Aldrich, 50 N. W. 1020.
NOON V. FINNEGAN, 29 Minn. 418, 13 N. W. 197.
Executors and Administrators, 34, 35.
Words and Phrases, 45.
Cited in Noon v. Finnegan, 32 Minn. 82; Sloggy
v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 183; Hill v. Townley, 45
Minn. 168.
NoON V. FINNEGAN, 32 Minn. 81, 19 N. W. 391.
Executors and Administrators, 36.
NININGER V. COMMISSIONERS OF CARVER COUNTY, NOONAN V. CITY OF STILLWATER, 33 Minn. 198, 22
10 Minn. 133, (Gil. 106.)
Bonds, 11.
Husband and Wife, 80, 81.
Pleading, 121.
Followed in Cushman v. Commissioners Carver
County, 19 Minn. 296, (Gil. 254.) Applied in
Collom v. Bixby, 33 inn. 52. Cited in Ken-
nedy v. Williams, 11 Minn. 319, (Gil. 223;)
Wiley v. Board of Education, 11 Minn. 379,
381, (Gil. 274, 276;) Rich v. Rich, 12 Minn. 473,
(Gil. 376.)
NININGER V. KNOX, 8 Minn. 140, (Gil. 110.)
Appeal and Error, 552.
Banks and Banking, 18.
Evidence, 118, 355.
New Trial, 55, 56, 67, 68.
Principal and Agent, 12.
Trial, 74, 128.
Cited in Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 143, (Gil.
127;) Johnson v. Coles, 21 Minn. 111; Burr v.
Willson, 22 Minn. 211; State v. Wagner, 23
Minn. 545; Broat v. Moor, 44 Minn. 470; Loudy
v. Clarke, 45 Minn. 480.
NIPPOLT V. KAMMON, 39 Minn. 372, 40 N. W. 266.
Specific Performance, 20.
Distinguished in Burgon v. Cabanne, 42 Minn.
269.
NJUS V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 47 Minn. 92,
49 N. W. 527.
Conflict of Laws, 6.
NOBLES COUNTY V. CERTAIN PIECES OF LAND,
(Nobles County v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co.,)
26 Minn. 294, 3 N. W. 701.
Railroad Companies, 139.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 17; Ste-
vens County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 470.
N. W. 444.
Municipal Corporations, 163.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 33 Minn. 244, 245; State v. District
Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn. 306; State
v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 530; Hennepin
County v. Bartleson, 37 Minn. 343, 345; Young
v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 196.
NOPSON V. HORTON, 20 Minn. 268, (Gil. 239.)
Mortgages, 392, 420, 424, 426.
Cited in Brown v. Crookston Agricultural Ass'n,
34 Minn. 547.
NORDIN V. ARCTANDER, (Arctander, In re,) 26
Minn. 25, 1 N. W. 43.
Attorney and Client, 22.
NORDIN V. COMMISSIONERS KANDIYOHI COUNTY, 23-
Minn. 171.
Register of Deeds, 4.
Followed in Rasmusson v. Clay County, 41 Minn.
284.
NORMANDIN V. MACKEY, 38 Minn. 417, 37 N. W. 954.
Injunction, 9.
NORRELL V. VOGEL, 39 Minn. 107, 38 N. W. 705.
Malicious Prosecution, 12, 16.
NORRIS V. CLARK, 33 Minn. 476, 24 N. W. 128.
Contracts, 79.
Trial, 35.
NORTH V. BRADWAY, 9 Minn. 183, (Gil. 169.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 83.
Parties, 14.
Applied in Jones v. Morrison, 31 Minn. 146.
Cited in Fish v. Berkey, 10 Minn. 205, (Gil.
166;) Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 116, (Gil. 87.)
NORTH V. WEBSTER, 36 Minn. 99, 30 N. W. 429.
Pleading, 171.
2555
2556
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
NORTHERN LINE PACKET Co. v. PLATT, 22 Minn. NORTHWESTERN RAILROADER V. CYCLONE STEAM
413.
SNOW-PLOW Co., 51 N. W. 658.
Cited in McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v.
Account Stated, 8, 9.
Wilson, 39 Minn. 468.
Contracts, 97.
Evidence, 278.
Sale, 6.
NORTHRUP V STEVENS, 39 Minn. 105, 38 N. W. 810. NORTON V. BAXTER, 41 Minn. 146, 42 N. W. 865.
Specific Performance, 77.
NORTH STAR BOOT & SHOE Co. v. LADD, 32 Minn.
381, 20 N. W. 334.
Garnishment. 64, 70.
Explained in Coykendall v. Ladd, 32 Minn. 530.
NORTH STAR BOOT & SHOE Co. v. LOVEJOY, 33
Minn. 229, 22 N. W. 358.
Insolvency, 8.
NORTH STAR IRON WORKS Co. v. STRONG, 33 Minn.
1, 21 N. W. 740.
Mechanics' Liens, 61, 62, 162.
Words and Phrases, 449.
Overruling Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 145, (Gil.
113.) Followed in Smith v. Headley, 33 Minn.
387. Cited in Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn.
174; Talbot v. Barager, 37 Minn. 210; Boyd v.
Blake, 42 Minn. 4; Northwestern Pavement
Co. v. Norwegian Seminary, 43 Minn. 451;
Fleming v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 126.
NORTHWESTERN CEMENT & CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Co. v. NORWEGIAN DANISH EVANGELICAL LU-
THERAN AUGSBURG SEMINARY, 43 Minn. 449,
45 W. N. 868.
Mechanics' Liens, 64, 143.
Cited in Arthur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 414; Ny-
strom v. London & N. A. Mortg. Co., 47 Minn.
32; Fleming v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 47 Minn.
126.
NORTHWESTERN EXP. Co. v. LANDES, 6 Minn. 564,
(Gil. 400.)
Appeal and Error, 153, 628.
Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 13 Minn. 410,
(Gil. 379.)
NORTHWESTERN FUEL Co. v. MAHLER, 36 Minn.
166, 30 N. W. 756.
Evidence, 377.
NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. Co. v. ALLIS, 23
Minn. 337.
Action, 39, 40.
Equity, 13.
Husband and Wife, 22.
Mortgages, 355.
Cited in Fowler v. Woodward, 26 Minn. 349;
Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer, 51 N. W.
380.
NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. Co. v. BROWN,
(Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Stone,) 36
Minn. 108, 31 N. W. 54.
Corporations, 176.
NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK V. SEELEY, 41 Minn.
404, 43 N. W. 1152.
Insolvency, 24
Pledge, 4, 5, 16.
Cited in Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 430, 433.
NORTON V. HAUGE, 47 Minn. 405, 50 N. W. 368.
Affidavit, 7.
NORWOOD V. HOLDEN, (State v. Holden,) 45 Minn.
313, 47 N. W. 971.
Counties, 7, 8.
NOURSE V. SUPERVISORS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3
Minn. 62, (Gil. 28.)
District and Prosecuting Attorneys, 1.
NOWAK V. KNIGHT, 44 Minn. 241, 46 N. W. 348.
Judgment, 129.
Cited in Nowak v. Knight, 47 Minn. 298.
NOWAK V. KNIGHT, 47 Minn. 293, 50 N. W. 79.
Contracts, 76.
NOYES V. BEAUPRE, 32 Minn. 496, 21 N. W. 728.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 45, 82.
Cited in Noyes v. Beaupre, 36 Minn. 51.
NOYES V. BEAUPRE, 36 Minn. 49, 30 N. W. 126.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 32, 47,
93.
Affirmed in Beaupre v. Noyes, 11 Sup. Ct. 296,
138 U. S. 397, 402, case presenting no federal
question.
NOYES V. GILL, 35 Minn. 289, 28 N. W. 711.
Appeal and Error, 597.
Cited in Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 168.
NUDD V. HOME INS. & B. Co., 25 Minn. 100.
Appeal and Error, 269, 327.
New Trial, 46.
Cited in Farnham v. Jones, 32 Minn. 10.
NUNNEMACKER V. JOHNSON, 38 Minn. 390, 38 N. W.
351.
Negotiable Instruments, 154, 195.
Pleading, 68.
NUTTING V. MCCUTCHEON, 5 Minn. 382, (Gil. 310.)
Duress, 1.
Usury, 32.
Cited in Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 72, 73, (Gil.
47, 48.)
NYE v. SWAN, 42 Minn. 243, 44 N. W. 9.
Judgment, 45, 95.
NYSTROM V. HAMM, 47 Minn. 33, 49 N. W. 394.
Limitation of Actions, 10.
Mechanics' Liens, 67.
NYSTROM V. LONDON & N. W. A. MORtg. Co., 47
Minn. 31, 49 N. W. 394.
Limitation of Actions, 10.
Mechanics' Liens, 67.
2557
2558
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
OAKES V. ROGERS, 47 Minn. 38, 49 N. W. 330.
Contracts, 137.
0.
OAKLAND CEMETERY ASS'N V. CITY OF ST. PAUL,
(State v. City of St. Paul,) 36 Minn. 523, 32 N.
W. 781.
Municipal Corporations, 264.
Words and Phrases, 52, 737.
O'BRIEN, IN RE, (Gragg, In re,) 32 Minn. 142, 19
N. W. 651.
Executors and Administrators, 79.
Judgment, 244.
O'CONNELL V. STATE, 6 Minn. 279, (Gil. 190.)
Indictment, 19.
Rape, 3, 4, 15, 23.
Words and Phrases, 282, 631.
Cited in State v. Bagan, 41 Minn. 287.
O'Connor v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 27
Minn. 166, 6 N. W. 481.
Appeal and Error, 379.
Evidence, 108.
Applied in State v. Horan, 32 Minn. 396, 397.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 280.
Distinguished in State v. Probate Court of Sib- O'CONNOR v. HUGHES, 35 Minn. 446, 29 N. W. 152.
ley County, 33 Minn. 95.
O'BRIEN V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 22 Minn. 378.
Jury, 48.
Followed in Kobs v. City of Minneapolis, 22
Minn. 161. Distinguished in O'Brien v. City
of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333. Cited in Mark v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 213.
O'BRIEN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 18 Minn. 176, (Gil.
163.)
Nuisance, 2, 18, 25.
Distinguished in O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25
Minn. 333. Cited in Pye v. City of Mankato,
36 Minn. 375.
O'BRIEN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 25 Minn. 331.
Municipal Corporations, 239.
Surface Water, 5, 6.
Followed in Dyer v. City of St. Paul, 27 Minn.
458. Applied in Henderson v. City of Minne-
apolis, 32 Minn. 222, 224; Follmann v. City of
Mankato, 45 Minu. 457. Explained in Hogen-
son v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 226.
Cited in McClure v. City of Redwing, 28 Minn.
193, 195; Peters v. Town of Fergus Falls, 35
Minn. 552; Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn.
374, 375; Nichols v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn.
390; Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41
Minn. 386; Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 42 Minn. 175, 176; Yanish v. City of St.
Paul, 52 N. W. 925.
O'BRIEN V. FINDEISEN, 50 N. W. 1035.
Estoppel, 18.
Liens, 6.
+
O'BRIEN V. KRENZ, 36 Minn. 136, 30 N. W. 458.
Constitutional Law, 11, 99, 103.
Homestead, 26.
Mortgages, 402.
Cited in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 447; Lowry
v. Mayo, 41 Minn. 390; Stolz v. Thompson, 44
Minn. 275.
O'BRIEN V. OSWALD, 45 Minn. 59, 47 N. W. 316.
Mortgages, 194, 195.
Words and Phrases, 354.
O'BRIEN V. POMROY, 22 Minn. 130.
Justices of the Peace, 49, 52.
Cited in Thompson v. Killian, 25 Minn. 113;
Universalist General Convention v. Bottineau,
42 Minn. 37,
Vendor and Purchaser, 63.
Cited in Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 319.
O'CONNOR V. JEFFERSON, 45 Minn. 162, 47 N. W.
538.
Conspiracy, 3.
O'CONNOR V. MEEHAN, 47 Minn. 247, 49 N. W. 982.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 15.
O'DEA V. CITY OF WINONA, 41 Minn. 424, 43 N. W.
97.
Contracts, 115.
Municipal Corporations, 114-116.
ODEGAARD V. CITY OF ALBERT LEA, 33 Minn. 351,
23 N. W. 526.
Poor and Poor Laws, 3.
Words and Phrases, 750.
Cited in Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, 41
Minn. 138.
OERTLE, IN RE, 34 Minn. 173, 24 N. W. 924.
Estates, 5.
Wills, 52.
Words and Phrases, 433.
O'FARRELL V. HEARD, 22 Minn. 189.
Attachment, 49, 63.
O'FERRALL V. COLBY, 2 Minn. 180, (Gil. 148.)
Elections and Voters, 27.
Mandamus, 13.
Followed in Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 112, (Gil.
84;) State v. Common Council St. Paul, 25
Minn. 110. Distinguished in Clark v. Buchan-
an, 2 Minn. 348, (Gil. 301.)
OFFICER V. SIMPSON, 27 Minn. 147, 6 N. W. 488.
Powers, 4.
OFSTIE V. KELLY, 33 Minn. 440, 23 N. W. 863.
Nuisance, 8.
OGDEN V. BALL, 38 Minn. 237, 36 N. W. 344.
Covenants, 35.
Cited in Ogden v. Ball, 40 Minn. 98; Huntsman
v. Hendricks, 44 Minn. 425; Crosby v. Horne
& Danz Co., 45 Minn. 249.
OGDEN V. BALL, 40 Minn. 94, 41 N. W. 453.
Covenants, 16–19, 33.
Cited in Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer, 51
N. W. 381.
O'GO
O'GORMAN V. LINDEKE, 26 Minn. 93, 1 N. W. 841.
Executors and Administrators, 18-20.
Followed in Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 439.
Cited in Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 161.
1
2559
2560
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
O'GORMAN V. RICHTER, 31 Minn. 25, 16 N. W. 416.
Elections and Voters, 29, 42, 51.
OLMSTED COUNTY V. SEDGWICK.
v.
County v. Barber.
See Olmsted
O'GORMAN V. VILLAGE OF MORRIS, 26 Minn. 267,3 OLSEN V. JODON, 38 Minn. 466, 38 N. W. 485.
N. W. 349.
Pleading, 43.
Municipal Corporations, 155.
Distinguished in Altnow v. Town of Sibley, 30 | OLSON V. CREMER, 43 Minn. 232, 45 N. W. 616.
Minn. 190.
Payment, 4.
OHLSON V. MANDERFELD, 28 Minn. 390, 10 N. W. 418. OLSON V. CROSSMAN, 31 Minn. 222, 17 N. W. 375.
Appeal and Error, 525.
Execution, 56, 59.
Cited in Lesher v. Getman, 30 Minn. 325; John-
son v. Bray, 35 Minn. 250; Bishop v. Corbitt, 40
Minn. 201; Granning v. Swenson, 52 N. W. 31.
O'KEEFE V. LENFEST, 35 Minn. 237, 28 N. W. 260.
New Trial, 42.
Cited in People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 52 N. W,
219.
OLDENBERG v. DEVINE, 40 Minn. 409, 42 N. W. 88.
Appeal and Error, 404.
Cited in Scott v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 180.
O'LEARY V. CITY OF MANKATO, 21 Minn. 65.
Municipal Corporations, 165, 184.
Trial, 97.
Followed in Kelly v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co.,
28 Minn. 100; Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 28 Minn. 109. Overruled in Morse v. Min-
neapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 468.
O'LEARY V. STEWARD, 46 Minn. 126, 48 N. W. 603.
Clerk of Court, 1, 2.
OLESON V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 38 Minn. 412,
38 N. W. 353.
Master and Servant, 162.
OLESON V. JOURNAL PRINTING CO., 47 Minn. 300, 50
N. W. 80.
Libel and Slander, 71.
OLESON V. NEWELL, 12 Minn. 186, (Gil. 114.)
Pleading, 181.
Replevin, 77, 78.
Cited in Leonard v. Maginnis, 34 Minn. 509.
OLIVER V. DAVY, (Oliver v. Peterson,) 34 Minn. 292,
25 N. W. 629.
Mortgages, 74.
Cited in Schoch v. Birdsall, 51 N. W. 382; Miller
v. Stoddard, 52 N. W. 896.
OLIVER V. HEDDERLY, 32 Minn. 455, 21 N. W. 478.
Oliver v.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 5.
OLIVER V. PETERSON, (Oliver v. Davy,) 34 Minn.
292, 25 N. W. 629.
Mortgages, 74.
Cited in Schoch v. Birdsall, 51 N. W. 382; Miller
v. Stoddard, 52 N. W. 896.
OLIVIER V. GURNEY, 43 Minn. 69, 44 N. W. 887.
Taxation, 130.
Cited in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 329.
OLMSTEAD V. OLMSTEAD, 41 Minn. 297, 43 N. W. 67.
Divorce, 26,
Innkeepers, 8, 9.
OLSON V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 30 Minn. 444, 15 N.
W. 876.
Venue in Civil Cases, 4.
OLSON V. ERICKSON, 42 Minn. 440, 44 N. W. 317
Equity, 19, 27.
Specific Performance, 22.
OLSON V. GJERTSEN, 42 Minn. 407, 44 N. W. 306.
Appeal and Error, 467.
Attorney and Client, 41.
Evidence, 185.
OLSON V. HEATH LUMBER MANUF'G Co., (Olson v.
Pennington,) 37 Minn. 298, 33 N. W. 791.
Mechanics' Liens, 65, 97, 98.
OLSON V. HURLEY, 33 Minn. 39, 21 N. W. 842.
Pleading, 240.
OLSON V. JOHNSON, 23 Minn. 301.
Bastardy, 18.
OLSON V. MCMULLEN, 34 Minn. 94, 24 N. W. 318.
Master and Servant, 114.
Cited in Pederson v. City of Rushford, 41 Minn.
290; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn.
364.
OLSON V. NELSON, 3 Minn. 53, (Gil. 22.)
Contracts, 50.
Homestead, 71.
Words and Phrases, 644.
OLSON V. O'BRIEN, 46 Minn. 87, 48 N. W. 453.
Insolvency, 17.
OLSON V. ORTON, 28 Minn. 36, 8 N. W. 878.
Deceit, 18.
Public Lands, 4.
Cited in Redding v. Wright, 51 N. W. 1056.
OLSON V. PENNINGTON, (Olson v. Heath Lumber
Manuf'g Co.,) 37 Minn. 298, 33 N. W. 791.
Mechanics' Liens, 65, 97, 98.
OLSON V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INs. Co., 35
Minn. 432, 29 N. W. 125.
Insurance, 72.
Words and Phrases, 137.
Cited in De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn.
503; Pettit v. State Ins. Co., 41 Minn. 303.
OLSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 34 Minn. 477,
26 N. W. 605.
Master and Servant, 75.
OLMSTED COUNTY v. Barber, (Barber, In re,) 31 OLSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 38 Minn. 117,
Minn. 256, 17 N. W. 473.
Estoppel, 7.
Taxation, 64, 95, 156, 273, 301.
Cited in Coles v. Washington County, 35 Minn.
128, 129; Hartman v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 224;
Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,
40 Minn. 517, 519; Bloom v. Moy, 43 Minn, 397;
Schoonover v. Galarnault, 45 Minn. 176.
35 N. W. 866.
Master and Servant, 84, 131.
Followed in Larson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
43 Minn. 423, 424. Applied in Lindvall v.
Woods, 41 Minn. 216. Distinguished in Oleson
v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 38 Minn. 413.
Cited in Corneilson v. Eastern Ry. Co., 52 N.
W. 225.
2561
2562
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
OLSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 419, { O'NEIL ▼. ST. OLAF'S SCHOOL-Continued.
37 N. W. 953.
Eminent Domain, 16.
Cited in Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 480; Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 42 Minn. 176.
OLSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 479,
38 N. W. 490.
Appeal and Error, 426.
Surface Water, 3.
OLSON V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 45 Minn. 536, 48
N. W. 445.
Carriers, 85.
OLSON V. TVETE, 46 Minn. 225, 48 N. W. 914.
Malicious Prosecution, 6, 7, 18.
Hill v. Gill, 40 Minn. 443; Glass v. Freeberg,
52 N. W. 900.
OPEN V. PAULSON (State v. Paulsen.) See Nor-
wood v. Holden.
OPSAHL V. JUDD, 30 Minn. 126, 14 N. W. 575.
Courts, 4.
Death by Wrongful Act, 3, 12.
Evidence, 110.
Cited in Sheffler v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
32 Minn. 520; Phelps v. Winona & St. P. Ř. Co.,
37 Minn. 487.
ORCUTT V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 45 Minn. 368, 47
N. W. 1068.
Carriers, 84.
O'MALLEY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 43 Minn. ORMUND V. HOBART, 36 Minn. 306, N. W. 213.
289, 45 N. W. 440.
Negligence, 11, 50.
Pleading, 261.
Cited in Armstrong v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 45 Minn. 87; Haesley v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 46 Minn. 236; Gunderson v. North-
western Elevator Co., 47 Minn. 164.
O'MULCAHEY V. GRAGG, (Gragg's Estate, In re,) 45
Minn. 112, 47 N. W. 543.
Executors and Administrators, 54.
Cited in Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 383.
Usury, 23.
Cited in Davenport v. Ladd, 38 Minn. 547; Guth-
rie v. Olson, 44 Minn. 406.
ORR v. Box, 22 Minn. 485,
Execution, 1.
Exemptions, 27.
ORTH V. BAUER, 39 Minn. 31, 38 N. W. 758.
Sale, 27.
ORTH V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 43 Minn. 208,
45 N. W. 151.
Pleading, 225.
O'MULCAHY V. FLORER, (Mulcahy v. Florer,) 27 ORTH V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 47 Minn. 384,
Minn. 449, 8 N. W. 166.
Taxation, 238, 265, 302.
Cited in Bower v. O'Donnall, 29 Minn. 137; Per-
kins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 242; Wheeler v. Merri-
man, 30 Minn. 377; McLellan v. Omodt, 37
Minn. 158; Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 38 Minn. 336.
O'MULCAHY V. HOLLEY, (O'Mulcahy v. Knapp,) 28
Minn. 31, 8 N. W. 906.
Estoppel, 62.
Mortgages, 113.
O'NEIL V. ANDERSON, (O'Neil v. St. Olaf's School,)
26 Minn. 329, 4 N. W. 47.
Mechanics' Liens, 5, 73, 147.
Followed in Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 360, 363;
Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 174. Distin-
guished in Wheaton v. Berg, 52 N. W. 927.
Cited in Bohn v. McCarthy, 29 Minn. 26; Kel-
ler v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 489; Smith v. Barnes,
88 Minn. 242; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 442;
Hill v. Gill, 40 Minn. 443; Glass v. Freeberg,
52 N. W. 900.
O'NEIL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 33 Minn.
4c9, 24 N. W. 192.
Infancy, 5.
Pleading, 293.
Cited in Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 58; Payette
v. Day, 37 Minn. 367; Schoonover v. Sparrow,
38 Minn. 394.
O'NEIL V. O'NEIL, 30 Minn. 33, 14 N. W. 59.
Equity, 58.
50 N. W. 363.
Master and Servant, 41.
ORTLOFF V. KLITZKE, 43 Minn. 154, 44 N. W. 1085.
Frauds, Statute of, 46.
ORTT V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 36 Minn.
396, 31 N. W. 519.
Carriers, 46, 56, 60, 63.
Evidence, 260.
OSBORNE V. C. N. NELSON LUMBER Co., 33 Minn.
285, 22 N. W. 540.
Logs and Logging, 13-16, 18.
Cited in St. Louis Dalles Improvement Co. v. C.
N. Nelson Lumber Co., 43 Minn. 134; Globe
Milling Co. v. Minneapolis El. Co., 44 Minn. 158;
Lovejoy v. Itasca Lumber Co., 46 Minn. 219.
OSBORNE V. KNIFE FALLS BOOM CORP., 32 Minn.
412, 21 N. W. 704.
Logs and Logging, 30, 31.
Words and Phrases, 314.
Applied in Osborne v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co.,
33 Minn. 288, 289. Cited in Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co. v Prince, 34 Minn. 83; Green v.
Knife Falls Boom Corp., 35 Minn. 156; St. Louis
Dalles Improvement Co. v. C. N. Nelson Lum-
ber Co., 43 Minn. 134.
OSBORNE V. MCMASTERS, 40 Minn. 103, 41 N. W.
543.
Master and Servant, 22.
Poison.
O'NEIL V. ST. OLAF'S SCHOOL (O'Neil v. Ander- OSBORNE & Co. v. BAKER. See D. M. Osborne &
son,) 26 Minn. 329, 4 N. W. 47.
Mechanics' Liens, 5, 73, 147.
V
Followed in Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 360, 363;
Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 174. Distin
guished in Wheaton v. Berg, 52 N. W. 927.
Cited in Bohn v. McCarthy, 29 Minn. 26; Kel-
ler v. Houlihen, 32 Minn. 489; Smith v. Barnes,
38 Minn. 242; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 442;
v.2M.DIG.-81
Co. v. Baker.
OSBORNE & Co. v. CARPENTER. See D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Carpenter.
OSBORNE & Co. v. CARR. See D. M. Osborne &
Co. v. Carr.
OSBORNE & Co. v. DOHERTY. See D. M. Osborne
& Co. v. Doherty.
2563
2564
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
OSBORNE & Co. v. GRAY. See D. M. Osborne & | OSWALD V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. Rr. Co., 29
Co. v. Gray.
OSBORNE & Co. v. HUNTINGTON. See D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Huntington.
Minn. 5, 11 N. W. 112.
New Trial, 23.
Applied in Helmbrecht v. Helmbrecht, 31 Minn.
505.
OSBORNE & Co. v. JOHNSON. See D. M. Osborne & OSWALD V. O'BRIEN, 51 N. W. 220.
Co. v. Johnson.
Chattel Mortgages, 100.
Osborne & Co. v. MARKS. See D. M. Osborne & OTTER, THE. See Griswold v. The Otter.
Co. v. Marks.
OTTER TAIL COUNTY V. BATCHELDER, 47 Minn. 512,
50 N. W. 536.
Taxation, 141.
OSBORNE & Co. v. PAULSON. See D. M. Osborne &
Co. v. Paulson.
OSBORNE & Co. v. POKET. See D. M. Osborne & OVERMANN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 39 Minn. 120, 39 N.
Co. v. Poket.
W. 66.
Municipal Corporations, 224, 233.
OSBORNE & Co. v. STONE. See D. M. Osborne & OVERMIRE V. HAWORTH, 51 N. W. 121.
Co. v. Stone.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 80.
OSBORNE & Co. v. THOMPSON. See D. M. Osborne OVIATT V. DAKOTA CENT. Rr. Co., 43 Minn. 300, 45
& Co. v. Thompson.
OSBORNE & Co. v. WILLIAMS.
& Co. v. Williams.
See D. M. Osborne
OSBORNE & Co. v. WILSON. See D. M. Osborne &
Co. v. Wilson.
OSGOOD V. SUTHERLAND, 36 Minn. 243, 31 N. W.
211.
Deposition, 4, 19, 33.
OSTER V. MICKLEY, 35 Minn. 245, 28 N. W. 710.
Chattel Mortgages, 64.
Principal and Agent, 30.
Cited in Scott v. Austin, 36 Minn. 461; Boynton
Furnace Co. v. Clark, 42 Minn. 339.
OSTRANDER V. EVEREST, 44 Minn. 419, 47 N. W. 54.
Appeal and Error, 489.
OSWALD V. FRATENBURGH, 36 Minn. 270, 31 N. W.
173.
Landlord and Tenant, 67.
N. W. 436.
Carriers, 96.
OWINGS V. FREEMAN, 51 N. W. 476.
Boundaries, 6.
Cited in Yanish v. Tarbox, 51 N. W. 1051.
OWSLEY V. GREENWOOD, 18 Minn. 429, (Gil. 386.)
Appeal and Error, 429.
Evidence, 207.
Interest of Money, 16.
Internal Revenue, 8.
Negotiable Instruments, 39.
OXBOROUGH V. BOESSER, 30 Minn. 1, 13 N. W. 906.
Fences, 3-7.
OZMUN V. REYNOLDS, 11 Minn. 459, (Gil. 341.)
Limitation of Actions, 14.
Followed in Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Wa-
ter Power Co., 12 Minn. 143, 144, (Gil. 81, 82;)
McClung v. Capehart, 24 Minn. 19. Cited in
Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 521; Mueller v.
Fuen, 36 Minn. 275.
PACE V. CHADDERDON, 4 Minn. 499, (Gil. 390.)
Mortgages, 97.
Cited in Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 353, (Gil. 271;)
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 200; Rogers v.
Benton, 39 Minn. 43.
P.
PADDOCK V. KAPPAHAN, (Paddock v. Kingsley,) 41
Minn. 528, 43 N. W. 393.
Witness, 83.
PADDOCK V. ST. CROIX BOOм CORP., 8 Minn. 277,
(Gil. 243.)
Eminent Domain, 163.
Distinguished in Tierney v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 169,
(Gil. 156.)
PAGE V. MITCHELL, 37 Minn. 368, 34 N. W. 896.
Abatement and Revival, 8.
Pleading, 60.
Cited in Nichols v. State Bank, 45 Minn. 103;
Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1020.
PAIGE & SEXSMITH LUMBER Co., IN RE, 31 Minn.
136, 16 N. W. 700.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 43.
PAINE V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 14
Minn. 65, (Gil. 49.)
Executors and Administrators, 32.
Quieting Title, 18.
Cited in Noon v. Finnegan, 29 Minn. 420.
PAINE V. HARRISON, 38 Minn. 346, 37 N. W. 588.
Vendor and Purchaser, 67.
PAINE V. SHERWOOD, 19 Minn. 315, (Gil. 270.)
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 45.
Damages, 24.
Evidence, 35.
Criticised in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 230.
Cited in Beaupre v. Pacific & A. Tel. Co., 21
Minn. 158; Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 486;
Mississippi & R. R. Boon Co. v. Prince, 34
Minn. 76.
2565
2566
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PAINE V. SHERWOOD, 21 Minn. 225.
Contracts, 119.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 48.
Damages, 25, 48.
Evidence, 230, 231.
Applied in Wilson v. Reedy, 32 Minn. 257. Dis-
tinguished in Webb v. Michener, 32 Minn. 50.
Cited in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 481;
Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 486; Mississippi
& R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 76; Lil-
jengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42
Minn. 422.
PAINE V. SMITH, 33 Minn. 495, 24 N. W. 305.
Appeal and Error, 453.
Contracts, 53.
Custom and Usage, 15.
Negotiable Instruments, 57.
Sale, 163.
Words and Phrases, 374, 375.
Applied in C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum, 47 Minn.
415. Cited in Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis
El. Co., 44 Minn. 158; Buck v. Hutchins, 45
Minn. 271.
PAINE LUMBER Co. v. BETCHER, 34 Minn. 480, 26
N. W. 606.
Sale, 16.
PALMER V. BATES, 22 Minn. 532.
Mortgages, 150, 307.
Words and Phrases, 148.
Applied in Merchant v. Woods, 27 Minn. 398, 399;
Redin v. Bran han, 43 Minn. 285. Cited in New
v. Wheaton, 24 Minn. 409; Carleton College v.
McNaughton, 26 Minn. 199; Dutton v. McReyn-
olds, 31 Minn. 68.
PALMER V. BREEN, 34 Minn. 39, 24 N. W. 322.
Contracts, 100.
Sale, 126.
Cited in Canney v. Brown, 40 Minn. 462; Liljen-
gren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42
Minu. 424.
PALMER V. MARCH, 34 Minn. 127, 24 N. W. 374.
Damages, 45.
Public Lands, 14.
PALMER V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 37 Minn. 223, 33
N. W. 707.
Railroad Companies, 261.
Cited in Stacey v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42
Minn. 160.
PALMER V. POLLOCK, 26 Minn. 433, 4 N. W. 1113.
Appeal and Error, 686.
Executors and Administrators, 24.
Cited in Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 161.
PALMER V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 38 Minn. 415, 38
N. W. 100.
Appeal and Error, 728.
Railroad Companies, 262.
PALMER V SMITH, 21 Minn. 419.
Libel and Slander, 37, 38.
Pleading, 189.
PALMER V. TYLER, 15 Minn. 106, (Gil. 81.)
Action, 31.
Partnership, 63, 64.
Applied in Jones v. Morrison, 31 Minn. 146.
PAMPERIN V. SCANLAN, 28 Minn. 345, 9 N. W. 868.
Mortgages, 389.
Followed in Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 173.
Applied in Parke v. Hush, 29 Minn. 435, 437,
439. Cited in Sprague v. Martin, 29 Minn. 231.
PAPKE V. PAPKE, 30 Minn. 260, 15 N. W. 117.
Appeal and Error, 120, 235.
Contempt, 5.
PAPOOSHEK V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 44 Minn.
195, 46 N. W. 329.
Evidence, 161.
Cited in Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins.
Co., 45 Minn. 443.
PAQUIN V. BRALEY, 10 Minn. 379, (Gil. 304.)
Mortgages, 254, 320.
Cited in Abbott v. Peck, 35 Minn. 501; Willard
v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 477.
PARKE V. HUSH, 29 Minn. 434, 13 N. W. 668.
Execution, 125.
Applied in Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 173, 176.
Explained in Lowry v. Akers, 52 N. W. 923.
PARKER V. BRANCH, 42 Minn. 155, 43 N. W. 907.
Taxation, 188.
Applied in Scott County v. Hinds, 52 N. W. 524.
PARKER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 47 Minn. 317, 50 N.
W. 247.
Easements, 11, 12.
PARKER V. MAXWELL, 45 Minn. 1, 47 N. W. 161.
Witness, .29.
PARKER V. SUPERVISORS DAKOTA COUNTY, 4 Minn.
59, (Gil. 30.)
Counties, 20.
Office and Officer, 8.
PARKINSON V. BrandenbuRG, 35 Minn. 294, 28 N.
W. 919.
Statutes, 56, 58.
Words and Phrases, 317, 318.
Cited in Whiteman v. Severance, 46 Minn. 497.
PARR V. JOHNSON, 37 Minn. 457, 35 N. W. 176.
Contracts, 141, 142.
PARRET V. SHAUBHUT, 5 Minn. 323, (Gil. 258.)
Deed, 75, 76.
Mortgages, 60.
Followed in Meighen v. Strong, 6 Minn. 180,
(Gil. 114;) Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 295,
(Gil. 202;) Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 441,
443, (Gil. 324, 326.) Cited in Whittacre v. Ful-
ler, 5 Minn. 515, (Gil. 409;) Baze v. Arper, 6
Minn. 234, (Gil. 154;) Gardner v. McClure, 6
Minn. 262, (Gil. 174;)" Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn.
322.
PARSONS V. GEORGE, 44 Minn. 151, 46 N. W. 325.
Insolvency, 59.
PARSONS V. NOGGLE, 23 Minn. 328.
Mortgages, 445, 449, 451.
Cited in Fisk v. Stewart, 26 Minn. 372; Living-
ston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 61; Rogers v. Benton,
39 Minn. 45; Miller v. Smith, 44 Minn. 128.
PARTRIDGE V. BLANCHARD, 23 Minn. 69.
Sale, 176.
PATTERSON V. CITY OF DULUTH, 21 Minn. 493.
Easements, 7.
Nuisance, 4.
PATTERSON V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co.,
25 Minn. 324.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
2567
2568
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PATTERSON V. STEWART, (Patterson v. Minnesota | PECK V. MCLEAN, 36 Minn. 228, 30 N. W. 759.
Manuf'g Co.,) 41 Minn. 84, 42 N. W. 926.
Corporations, 44-49.
Words and Phrases, 48.
Questioned in Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co.
v. Langdon, 44 Minn. 40. Cited in McKusick
v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 50 N. W. 1116; Mer-
chants' Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Manuf'g
& Car Co., 51 N. W. 118.
PAUL V. NAMPLE, 44 Minn. 453, 47 N. W. 51.
Mechanics' Liens, 107.
PAULSON V. CLOUGH, 40 Minn. 494, 42 N. W. 398.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 34.
Words and Phrases, 153.
PAULSON V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 35 Minn. 90, 27
N. W. 203.
Sale, 80, 110, 111, 178.
Affirmed in Paulson v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 37
Minn. 19. Cited in Juergens v. Thom, 39 Minn.
461.
PAULSON V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 37 Minn. 19, 33
N. W. 2.
Sale, 81.
Execution, 102.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 27.
Cited in Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 461.
PECK V. SMALL, 35 Minn. 465, 29 N. W. 69.
Evidence, 125.
Malicious Prosecution, 33.
New Trial, 58.
Approved in Gilmore v. Brost, 39 Minn. 191.
Cited in Cirkel v. Croswell, 36 Minn. 325;
State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 76, 77; Hoye v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 273.
PECK V. SNOw, 47 Minn. 398, 50 N. W. 470.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 33.
Evidence, 62.
PECK V. STRONG, (Pick v. Strong,) 26 Minn. 303,
3 N. W. 697.
Death, 2.
Executors and Administrators, 7.
Distinguished in Morin v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 179, 180. Cited in Davis v. Hud-
son, 29 Minn. 38; Minnesota Loan & Trust Co.
v. Beebe, 40 Minn. 11; Lyon v. Gleason, 40
Minn. 435.
PAVING OF SEVENTH ST., IN RE. See State v. PECK V. SUPERIOR SHORT LINE RY. Co., 36 Minn.
District Court of Ramsey County.
PAYETTE V. DAY, 37 Minn. 366, 34 N. W. 592.
Pleading, 294.
Cited in Woolsey v. Bohn, 41 Minn. 237.
PAYNE V. PAYNE, 46 Minn. 467, 49 N. W. 230.
Divorce, 2, 3.
Words and Phrases, 357.
PAYSON V. EVERETT, 12 Minn. 216, (Gil. 137.)
Certiorari, 29.
Costs, 20.
Evidence, 147, 226, 381.
Justices of the Peace, 76, S3.
Distinguished in Hinds v. American Exp. Co.,
24 Minn. 96. Cited in Smith v. Force, 31 Minn.
121.
PEARCE V. MCGOWAN, 35 Minn. 507, 29 N. W. 176.
Appeal and Error, 275.
Contracts, 9.
343, 31 N. W. 217.
Eminent Domain, S8.
Cited in Cameron v. Chicago, M. & St. P Ry.
Co., 42 Minn. 76, 77; Koerper v. St. Paul & Ñ.
P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 340, 341.
PECKHAM V. GILMAN, 7 Minn. 446, (Gil. 355.)
Negotiable Instruments, 74.
Cited in Kern v. Von Phul, Minn. 430, (Gil.
346;) Robinson v. Bartlett, 11 Minn. 414, (Gil.
303.)
PEDERSON V. CITY OF RUSHFORD, 41 Minn. 289, 42
N. W. 1063.
Master and Servant, 115.
Cited in Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn.
364.
PEEL V. MCCARTHY, (McCarthy's Estate, Iu re,) 38
Minn. 451, 38 N. W. 205.
Guardian and Ward, 15.
PEARSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. PEET V. SHERWOOD, 43 Minn. 447, 45 N. W. 859.
9, 49 N. W. 302.
Master and Servant, 110.
Factors and Brokers, 44.
Cited in Gauthier v. West, 45 Minn. 193; Peet v.
Sherwood, 47 Minn. 347.
PEARSON V. CITY OF DULUTH, 40 Minn. 438, 42 N. PEET V. SHERWOOD, 47 Minn. 347, 50 N. W. 241, 929.
W. 394.
Municipal Corporations, 200.
PEASE V. RUSH, 2 Minn. 107, (Gil. 89.)
Negotiable Instruments, 82, 84.
Partnership, 55, 78.
Applied in Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Minn.
88. Distinguished in Van Eman v. Stanch-
field, 10 Minn. 262, (Gil. 204.) Cited in Arnold
v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 368, (Gil. 253;) Foster
v. Berkey, 8 Minn. 359, (Gil. 318;) Tullis v.
Fridley, 9 Minn. 85, (Gil. 74;) White v. Phelps,
14 Minn. 34, (Gil. 26;) State v. Loomis, 27
Minn. 528; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hanson,
33 Minn. 43.
PECK, IN RE, (Howes, In re,) 38 Minn. 403, 38 N. W.
104.
Constitutional Law, 140.
Words and Phrases, 98.
Applied in Re Harrison, 46 Minn. 335. Cited in
Smith v. Bean, 46 Minn. 139.
Evidence, 63.
Factors and Brokers, 32, 51, 60.
PEEVY V. SCHULENBURG-BOECKELER LUMBER Co.,
(Pevey v. Schulenburg & Boeckeler Lumber
Co.,) 33 Minn. 45, 21 N. W. 844.
Appeal and Error, 438, 609.
Custom and Usage, 3.
Cited in Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 35 Minu. 429; Dunn v. Barton, 40 Minn. 416.
PENCE V. ARBUCKLE, 22 Minn. 417.
Estoppel, 27, 39.
Followed in Hawkins v. Methodist Episcopal
Church, 23 Minn. 258; Shillock v. Gilbert, 23
Minn. 394; James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 312
Distinguished in New v. Wheaton, 24 Minn.
409; Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 417; Cox v.
Manvel, 52 N. W. 274. Cited in Coleman v.
Pearce, 26 Minn. 129, 130; Smith v. Pender-
gast, 26 Minn. 321; Sutton v. Wood, 27 Minn.
363; Beebe v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 551; Berkey
2569
2570
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PENCE V. ARBUCKLE-Continued.
v. Judd, 34 Minn. 394; Townsend v. Johnson,
34 Minn. 415; Dobbin v. Cordiner, 41 Minn.
167; Hodge v. Ludlum, 45 Minn. 292; Stevens
v. Ludlum, 46 Minn. 161.
PENCE V. GALE, 20 Minn. 257, (Gil. 231.)
Appeal and Error, 611.-
Principal and Surety, 22.
Cited in Rollins v. St. Paul Lumber Co., 21
Minn. 9.
PENCE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., (State v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 28 Minn. 488, 11 N.
W. 80.
Landlord and Tenant, 45.
Railroad Companies, 93.
PENFIELD V. WHEELER, 27 Minn. 358, 7 N. W. 364.
Parties, 8.
PENNEY V. MAHONEY, (State v. Mahoney.) See
Jordan v. Bailey.
PENNIMAN, IN RE, 20 Minn. 245, (Gil. 220.)
Appeal and Error, 26.
Wills, 25-28.
PENNSYLVANIA INS. Co. v. MURPHY, 5 Minn. 36,
(Gil. 22.)
Evidence, 251.
PERKINS V. ZARRACHER, 32 Minn. 71, 19 N. W. 385.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 33, 62.
Sheriffs and Constables, 32.
Applied in Strong v. Brown, 41 Minn. 306.
PERRIN V. OLIVER, 1 Minn. 202, (Gil. 176.)
Appeal and Error, 474.
Constitutional Law, 109.
Contempt, 1.
Ferry, 1.
Injunction, 30.
PERRY V. REYNOLDS, 40 Minn. 499, 42 N. W. 471.
Mortgages, 301.
Pleading, 216.
PERSON V. WILSON, 25 Minn. 189.
Partnership, 20.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
10, 11.
Cited in Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn. 121.
PETERS V. HASTINGS & D. Ry. Co., 19 Minn. 260,
(Gil. 220.)
Eminent Domain, 168.
PETERS V. TOWN OF FERGUS FALLS, 35 Minn. 549,
29 N. W. 586.
Highways, 59.
Cited in Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44
Minn. 537.
PEORIA M. & F. Ins. Co. v. WILSON, 5 Minn. 53, PETERS V. TUNELL, 43 Minn. 473, 45 N. W. 867.
(Gil. 37.)
Insurance, 97.
PEPARD V. LEWIS, (Peppard v. House,) 37 Minn.
280, 33 N. W. 790.
Vendor and Purchaser, 137.
Vendor and Purchaser, 121, 122.
PETERSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 36
Minn. 399, 31 N. W. 515.
Release and Discharge, 6.
Cited in Peterson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 38 Minn. 513.
PERINE V. GRAND LODGE A. O. U. W., 50 N. W. PETERSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 38
1022.
Minn. 511, 39 N. W. 485.
Corporations, 25.
Guardian and Ward, 7, 8.
Insurance, 153, 184.
Parties, 39.
Witness, 22.
Words and Phrases, 394.
Evidence, 181a.
Release and Discharge, 4, 5.
Trial, 107.
PETERSON V. CHRISTENSEN, 26 Minn. 377, 4 N. W.
623.
Contracts, 49.
PERKINS V. FRINKA, (Perkins v. Trinka,) 30 Minn. PETERSON V. FAUST, 30 Minn. 22, 14 N. W. 64.
251, 15 N. W. 115.
Duress, 5.
Negotiable Instruments, 28, 223.
Applied in Schramm v. Haupt, 38 Minn. 380, 381.
Cited in Neibles v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 37 Minn. 152; Hall v. Wheeler, 37 Minn.
523; Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 463; Bemis v.
Bridgman, 42 Minn. 497.
PERKINS V. MERRILL, 37 Minn. 40, 33 N. W. 3.
Negotiable Instruments, 185.
PERKINS V. MORSE, 30 Minn. 11, 13 N. W. 911, 14 N.
W. 879.
Adverse Claim, 40, 44.
Trial, 38.
Cited in Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn. 248; Morrill
v. Little Falls Manuf'g Co., 46 Minn. 262.
PERKINS V. TRINKA, (Perkins v. Frinka,) 30 Minn.
241, 15 N. W. 1.5.
Duress, 5.
Negotiable Instruments, 28, 223.
Applied in Schramm v. Haupt, 38 Minn. 3S0, 381.
Cited in Neibles v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 37 Minn. 152: Hall v. Wheeler, 37 Minn. 523;
Erkens, v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 463; Bemis v.
Bridgman, 42 Minn. 497.
Appeal and Error, 472.
Cited in Eldridge v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 256; Tierney v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 318; Austin v. North-
ern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 352; Cirkel v. Cros-
well, 36 Minn. 325; Jones v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 186.
PETERSON V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 27
Minn. 218, 6 N. W. 615.
Public Lands, 125, 126.
Words and Phrases, 694.
PETERSON V. HOMAN, 44 Minn. 166, 46 N. W. 303.
Guaranty, 1.
Cited in Brunswick-Balke Collender Co. v. Bou-
tell, 45 Minn. 22, 23; Souhegan Nat. Bank v.
Boardman, 46 Minn. 296; Hayes v. Crane, 50
N. W. 926.
PETERSON V. MAYER, 46 Minn. 468, 49 N. W. 245.
Master and Servant, 11.
PETERSON V. NELSON, 41 Minn. 506, 43 N. W. 967.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
PETERSON v. RUHNKE, 46 Minn. 115, 48 N. W. 768.
Jury, 46.
Pleading, 106.
2571
2572
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PETERSON V. WEBBER, 46 Minn. 372, 49 N. W. 125.
Mortgages, 435.
PETROSKY V. FLANAGAN, 38 Minn. 26, 35 N. W. 665.
Costs, 7.
PETSCH V. BIGGS, 31 Minn. 392, 18 N. W. 101.
Landlord and Tenant, 55, 85.
Cited in Steele v. Bond, 32 Minn. 19; Finch v.
Moore, 52 N. W. 384.
PHENIX V. GARDNER, 13 Minn. 430, (Gil. 396.)
Appeal and Error, 311.
Mortgages, 25-27.
Cited in Jones v. Rahilly, 16 Minn. 324, (Gil. 286 ;)
Madigan v. Mead, 31 Minn. 96; Marston v.
Williams, 45 Minn. 120.
PHENIX INS. Co. v. PRATT, 36 Minn. 409, 31 N. W.
454.
Insurance, 123.
PETSCH V. DISPATCH PRINTING CO., 40 Minn. 291, 41 PHENIX INS. Co. v. TAYLOR, 5 Minn. 492, (Gil. 393.)
N. W. 1034.
Libel and Slander, 61, 63.
Pleading, 117.
Cited in Carlson v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 47
Minn. 340.
PETTINGILL V. DONNELLY, 27 Minn. 332, 7 N. W.
360.
Appeal and Error, 702.
Cited in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207; Stolt v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
PETTINGILL V. Moss, 3 Minn. 222, (Gil. 151.)
Execution, 44, 45, 67, 98.
Cited in Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn. 23; Plum-
mer v. Whitney, 33 Minn. 428.
PETTIT V. STATE INS. Co., 41 Minn. 299, 43 N. W.
378.
Insurance, 20.
PEVEY V. SCHULENBURG & BOECKELER LUMBER CO.,
(Peevy v. Schulenburg-Boeckeler Lumber
Co.,) 33 Minn. 45, 21 N. W. 844.
Appeal and Error, 438, 609.
Custom and Usage, 3.
Cited in Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 429; Dunn v. Barton, 40 Minn.
416.
PFIFFNER V. STILLWATER & ST. P. R. Co., 23 Minn.
343.
Specific Performance, 48.
PFLEGAR V. HASTINGS & D. Rr. Co., 28 Minn. 510,
11 N. W. 72.
Eminent Domain, 105.
PHELPS V. CITY OF MANKATO, 23 Minn. 276.
Municipal Corporations, 141.
Followed in Kennedy v. Le Van, 23 Minn. 516;
Kelly v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 28 Minn.
100; Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28
Minn. 109. Overruled in Morse v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 468. Cited in Taylor
v. City of Austin, 32 Minn. 248; Phelps v. Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 487; Doyle v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 82.
PHELPS V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 485,
35 N. W. 273.
Abatement and Revival, 7.
Death by Wrongful Act, 11.
Evidence, 380.
Judgment, 101.
PHILBROOK V. SMITH, 40 Minn. 100, 41 N. W. 545.
Taxation, 228, 229.
Cited in Vanderlinde v. Canfield, 40 Minn. 542.
PHIPPS V. MCFARLANE, 3 Minn. 109, (Gil. 61.)
Frauds, Statute of, 1, 37.
PHENIX V. GARDNER, 13 Minn. 294, (Gil. 272.)
Appeal and Error, 186, 233.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 3, 4.
Cited in Chesley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom
Co., 39 Minn. 85.
Contracts, 69.
Evidence, 38.
Insurance, 74, 75, 84, 85.
Words and Phrases, 710.
Distinguished in Russell v. Manufacturers' &
Builders' Fire Ins. Co., 52 N. W. 907. Cited in
Broadwater v. Lion Fire Ins. Co., 34 Minn.
469; McFarland v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 46 Minn. 521.
PICK V. STRONG, (Peck v. Strong,) 26 Minn. 303,
3 N. W. 697.
Death, 2.
Executors and Administrators, 7.
Distinguished in Morin v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 179, 180. Cited in Davis v. Hud-
son, 29 Minn. 38; Minnesota Loan & Trust Co.
v. Beebe, 40 Minn. 11; Lyon v. Gleason, 40
Minn. 435.
PICKETT V. PICKETT, 27 Minn. 299, 7 N. W. 144.
Divorce, 4.
Words and Phrases, 21.
PIERCE V. HUDDLESTON, 10 Minn. 131, (Gil. 105.)
Internal Revenue, 4.
PIERCE V. WAGNER, 29 Minn. 355, 13 N. W. 170.
Nuisance, 27, 28.
PIERRO v. ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. Co., 37 Minn, 314,
34 N. W. 38.
Judgment, 165, 202.
Cited in Pierro v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 39
Minn. 451, 452.
PIERRO V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 451,
40 N. W. 520.
Judgment, 146, 150, 150a.
Cited in Ziebarth v. Nye, 42 Minn. 544.
PIERSE V. IRVINE, 1 Minn. 369, (Gil. 272.)
Negotiable Instruments, 68, 73, 78.
Pleading, 39.
Followed in Rey v. Simpson, 1 Minn. 380, (Gil.
282;) Winslow v. Boyden, 1 Minn. 383, (Gil.
285.) Distinguished in Levering v. Washing-
ton, 3 Minn. 326, 330, (Gil. 231.) Qualified in
Peckham v. Gilman, 7 Minn. 448, (Gil. 356.)
Cited in McComb v. Thompson, 2 Minn. 145,
(Gil. 121;) Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 430, (Gil.
345;) Stein v. Passmore, 25 Minn. 257.
PIERSE V. SMITH, 1 Minn. S2, (Gil. 60.)
Attachment, 7, 8, 15.
Cited in Curtis v. Moore, 3 Minn. 33, (Gil. 10;)
Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 186, (Gil. 119;)
Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls Water Power
Co., 9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 49;) Hinds v. Fagebank,
9 Minn, 71, (Gil. 61.)
PIERSON V. BALLARD, 32 Minn. 263, 20 N. W. 193.
Specific Performance, 17.
PIGOTT V. O'HALLORAN, 37 Minn. 415, 35 N. W. 4.
Taxation. 231, 232.
Cited in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 330.
2573
2574
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PINE COUNTY V. WILLARD, 39 Minn. 125, 39 N. W. | PIPER V. JOHNSTON-Continued.
71.
Principal and Surety, 3-5.
PINEO V. HEFFELFINGER, 29 Minn. 183, 12 N. W.
522.
Injunction, 28.
Applied in Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 315.
PINEVILLE LUMBER CO. V. THOMPSON, 46 Minn. 502.
49 N. W.204.
Sale, 20.
PINGER V. PINGER, 40 Minn. 417, 42 N. W. 289.
Equity, 43, 44.
PINNEY V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P & P. R. Co., 19
Mian. 251, (Gil. 211.)
Appeal and Error, 615.
Carriers, 24, 25.
Applied in Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Co., 30
Minn. 416. Cited in Beaupre v. Pacific & A.
Tel. Co., 21 Minn. 162.
PINNET V. FRIDLEY, 9 Minn. 34, (Gil. 23.)
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 10, 11.
Pleading, 11.
Cited in Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 484, (Gil.
393;) State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 81; Curtiss v.
Livingston, 36 Minn. 381; Schultz v. Hadler,
39 Minn. 192; Jellison v. Halloran, 40 Minn.
488; First Nat. Bank v. St. Croix Boom Corp.,
41 Minn. 142; Casey v. McIntyre, 45 Minn. 529.
PINNEY V. JORGENSON, 27 Minn. 26, 6 N. W. 376.
Tender, 8, 9.
Cited in Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30
Minn. 311.
PINNEY V. KING, 21 Minn. 514.
Negotiable Instruments, 178.
Cited in Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 76.
PINNEY V. LUCE, 44 Minn. 367, 46 N. W. 561.
Waters and Water Courses, 29.
PINNEY'S WILL, IN RE, 27 Minn. 280, 6 N. W. 791,
7 N. W. 144.
Appeal and Error, 495, 559.
Costs, 52.
Evidence, 154.
Wills, 2-5, 9.
Cited in Woodcock v. Johnson, 36 Minn. 218; In
re Layman's Will, 40 Minn. 372.
PINT V. BAUER, 31 Minn. 4, 16 N. W. 425.
Trial, 169.
Cited in Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 265; Lane v. Lenfest, 40 Minn. 377;
Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co., 45
Minn. 444.
PIONEER PRINTING Co. v. SANBORN, 3 Minn. 413,
(Gil. 304.)
Garnishment, 4, 43.
Sheriffs and Constables, 65.
Cited in Chase v. North, 4 Minn. 383, (Gil. 290;)
Cole v. Sater, 5 Minn. 472, (Gil. 381.)
PIONEER SAVINGS & LOAN Co. v. POWERS, 47 Minn.
269, 50 N. W. 227.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 5.
PIPER V. BRANHAM, 14 Minn. 548, (Gil. 418.)
Taxation, 4, 73.
PIPER V. JOHNSTON, 12 Minn. 60, (Gil. 27.)
Appeal and Error, 88, 538.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 68, 89.
Homestead, 79.
Judgment, 58.
Followed in Whitaker v. McClung, 14 Minn. 171,
(Gil. 132;) Leyde v. Martin, 16 Minn. 44, (Gil.
29;)
Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn. 55. Modified in
Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn. 118; Baldwin v.
Rogers, 28 Minn. 548. Cited in Rogers v.
Greenwood, 14 Minn. 338, (Gil. 257;) St. Paul
& S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 505, (Gil.
436;) Heinrich v. Englund, 34 Minn. 397; Na-
tional Albany Exch. Bank v. Cargill, 39 Minn.
477; Oldenberg v. Devine, 40 Minn. 410.
PIPER V. PACKER, 20 Minn. 274, (Gil. 245.)
Appeal and Error, 430.
Cited in Herrick v. Butler, 30
Schmitt v. Schmitt. 31 Minn. 108.
Minn. 153;
PIXLEY V. REED, 26 Minn. 80, 1 N. W. 800
Attachment, 100.
Cited in Swensgaard v. Davis, 33 Minn. 369;
Rossiter v. Minnesota Bradner-Smith Paper
Co., 37 Minn. 297; Rachelman v. Skinner, 46
Minn. 197, 198.
PLACE V. JOHNSON, 20 Minn. 219, (Gil. 198.)
Equity, 16, 21.
Husband and Wife, 37, 49.
Specific Performance, 49.
Vendor and Purchaser, 102–104.
Cited in Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 243.
PLANO MANUF'G Co. v. BUXTON, 35 Minn. 203, 30
N. W. 663.
Principal and Agent, 60.
PLATH V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'n, 23 Minn. 479.
Insurance, 10, 62, 63.
Cited in Funke v. Minnesota Farmers' Mut. Fire
Ins. Ass'n 29 Minn. 354; Benedict v. Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W., 51 N. W. 373.
PLUMMER V. MOLD, 14 Minn. 532, (Gil. 403.)
Contracts, 166.
Logs and Logging, 36.
Followed in Stanchfield v. Sartell, 35 Minn. 430,
431.
PLUMMER V. MOLD, 22 Minn. 15.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Estoppel, 44.
Evidence, 374.
Pleading, 226.
Trial, 15.
Cited in James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 312; Wagner
v. Nagel, 33 Minn. 350; Rhodes v. Pray, 36
Minn. 393.
PLUMMER V. WHITNEY, 33 Minn. 427, 23 N. W. 841.
Execution, 93.
Cited in Clossen v. Whitney, 39 Minn. 51.
PLYMAT V. BRUSH, 46 Minn. 23, 48 N. W. 443.
Appeal and Error, 719.
Husband and Wife, 8.
POLK COUNTY V. HUNTER, (State v. Hunter,) 42
Minn. 312, 44 N. W. 201.
Taxation, 21.
POND V. CARPENTER, 12 Minn. 430, (Gil. 315.)
Husband and Wife, 4, 30, 31.
Followed in Clague v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 374.
Distinguished in Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 147,
(Gil. 115.) Cited in Kingsley v. Gilman, 15
Minn. 61, (Gil. 42.)
POND V. HOLBROOK, 32 Minn. 291, 20 N. W. 232.
Landlord and Tenant, 14.
2575
2576
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
POND V. HOLCOMBE. See Umland v. Holcombe.
"OND MACHINE TOOL Co. v. ROBINSON, 38 Minn.
272, 37 N. W. 99.
Mechanics' Liens, 6, 45.
Sale, 201.
Distinguished in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn.
440. Cited in Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis
El. Co., 44 Minn. 156.
PORTER V. CHANDLER, 27 Minn. 301, 7 N. W. 142.
Evidence, 363.
Landlord and Tenant, 96.
PORTER V. FLETCHER, 25 Minn. 493.
Deceit, 17, 26.
Pleading, 128, 129.
POWERS V. AMES, 9 Minn. 178, (Gil. 164.)
Pleading, 120.
Cited in Reynolds v. La Crosse & M. Packet Co,,
10 Minn. 186, (Gil. 149;) State v. Torinus, 22
Minn. 273.
POWERS V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 36 Minn. 87, 30 N.
W. 433.
Municipal Corporations, 321.
POWERS DRY GOODS Co. v. IMPERIAL FIRE INS. Co.,
51 N. W. 123.
Insurance, 88, 93-95, 147.
P. P. MAST & Co. v. EASTON, 33 Minn. 161, 22 N.
W. 253.
Límitation of Actions, 43, 59.
Applied in Olson v. Orton, 28 Minn. 37. Cited in P. P. MAST & Co. v. MATTHEWS, 30 Minn. 441, 16
Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 475; Carlton v.
Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055; Redding v. Wright, 51
N. W. 1056.
PORTER V. MONTGOMERY, 26 Minn. 118, 1 N. W. 844.
Vendor and Purchaser, 37.
POST, IN RE, (Post v. Armstrong,) 33 Minn. 478, 24
N. W. 184.
Appeal and Error, 234, 687.
Cited in Re Lyons, 42 Minn. 20.
POTT V. PENNINGTON, 16 Minn. 509, (Gil. 460.)
Executors and Administrators, 140.
POTTER V. GJERTSEN, 37 Minn. 386, 34 N. W. 746.
Malicious Prosecution, 5.
POTTER V. MARVIN, 4 Minn. 525, (Gil. 410.)
Mortgages, 248, 347, 348.
POTTER V. MELLEN, 36 Minn. 122, 30 N. W. 438.
Practice in Civil Cases, 18.
Cited in Potter v. Mellen, 41 Minn. 487; Farmer
v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462; Alden v. Wright, 47
Minn. 228.
POTTER V. MELLEN, 41 Minn. 487, 43 N. W. 375.
Damages, 77, 78.
Evidence, 66.
POTTGIESER V. DORN, 16 Minn. 204, (Gil. 180.)
Contracts, 10.
Evidence, 74.
Pleading, 77.
Applied in Moulton v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 121;
Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 132. Overruled
in German-American Bank v. White, 38 Minn.
471. Cited in Pullen v. Wright, 34 Minn. 315.
POTTNER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 41 Minn. 73, 42
N. W. 784.
Municipal Corporations, 201.
POTTS V. NEWELL, 22 Minn. 561.
Chattel Mortgages, 4.
POTULNI V. SAUNDERS, 37 Minn. 517, 35 N. W. 379.
Master and Servant, 24.
Trespass, 28.
Cited in McCord v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39
Minn. 183.
POWELL V. HEISLER, 45 Minn. 549, 48 N. W. 411.
Appeal and Error, 300.
Towns, 8, 9.
POWELL V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 46 Minn. 249, 48
N. W. 907.
Practice in Civil Cases, 62.
N. W. 155.
Pleading, 160.
Cited in Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 281; Baus-
man v. Credit Guarantee Co., 47 Minn. 378.
PRATT V. BEAUPRE, 13 Minn. 187, (Gil. 177.)
Evidence, 324.
Principal and Agent, 86, 89.
Followed in Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 121;
Brunswick-Balke Collender Co. v. Boutell, 45
Minn. 23. Applied in Peterson v. Homan, 44
Minn. 167. Explained in Rowell v. Oleson, 32
Minn. 290. Cited in Holton v. Parker, 13 Minn.
384, (Gil. 356;) Brunswick-Balke Col ender Co.
v. Boutell, 45 Minn. 22; Souhegan Nat. Bank
v. Boardman, 46 Minn. 296; Hayes v. Crane,
50 N. W. 926.
PRATT V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 38 Minn.
455, 38 N. W. 356.
Railroad Companies, 164.
PRATT v. DUCEY, 38 Minn. 517, 38 N. W. 611.
Logs and Logging, 43, 44.
PRATT V. DUNCAN, 26 Minn. 545, 32 N. W. 709.
Mechanics' Liens, 44.
PRATT V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 30 Minn. 41, 14 N.
W. 62.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Followed in Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 94;
Young v. Davis, 30 Minn.294; Crosby v. St. Paul
C. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414. Applied in Wood-
ling v. Knickerbocker, 31 Minn. 270; Zier v.
Hoffliu, 33 Minn. 67. Cited in Pratt v. Pioneer
Press Co., 32 Minn. 223.
PRATT V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 32 Minn. 217, 18 N.
W. 836; 20 N. W. 87.
Appeal and Error, 473, 640.
Libel and Slander, 17.
New Trial, 35.
Followed in Woodward v. Glidden, 33 Minn. 108;
Followed in Dennis v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 302.
Cited in Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co., 35 Minn.
258; Dennis v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 303; State
Sash & Door Manuf'g Co. v. Adams, 47 Minn.
401.
PRATT V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 35 Minn. 251, 28 N.
W. 708.
Corporations, 42.
Libel and Slander, 18.
New Trial, 37.
Cited in Larrabee v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 36
Minn. 144.
POWELL V. WYMAN. See Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins. PRATT V. PRATT, 22 Minn. 148.
Co., ln re.
Action, 2.
2577
2578
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
PRATT V. SPARKMAN, 42 Minn. 448, 44 N. W. 663.
Negotiable Instruments, 198.
PRATT V. TINKCOM, 21 Minn. 142.
Mortgages, 235, 236.
Newspapers, 5.
Words and Phrases, 700.
PRAY V. RHODES, 42 Minn. 93, 43 N. W. 838.
Negotiable Instruments, 52.
PRINDLE V. CAMPBELL Continued.
Followed in Morehouse v. Bowen, 9 Minn. 314,
(Gil. 297;) Sewall v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn.
523, (Gil. 469.) Cited in Sheehy v. Hinds, 27
Minn. 262.
PROBSTFIELD V. CZIZEK, 37 Minn. 420, 34 N. W. 896.
Estoppel, 14.
Cited in Miller v. Fasler, 42 Minn. 368.
PRENDERGAST V. DISPATCH PRINTING CO., 40 Minn. PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE PAYMENT, ETC.,
295, 41 N. W. 1036.
Libel and Slander, 61, 63.
Pleading, 117.
PRENTICE V. NUTTER, 25 Minn. 484.
Liens, 1.
Vendor and Purchaser, 53.
PRENTISS V. PRENTISS, 14 Minn. 18, (Gil. 5.)
Wills, 44.
PRESCOTT V. BEYER, 34 Minn. 493, 26 N. W. 732.
Deed, 21, 66.
Highways, 18.
Cited in Marchand v. Town of Maple Grove, 51
N. W. 607.
G
PRESLEY V. LOWRY, 25 Minn. 114.
Evidence, 76.
IN RE,
(St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,) 45
Minn. 510, 48 N. W. 334.
Railroad Companies, 124.
PROETZ V. ST. PAUL WATER Co., 17 Minn. 163, (Gil.
136.)
Eminent Domain, 236.
Cited in Mathews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18
Minn. 447, (Gil. 403;) Hempsted v. Cargill, 46
Minn. 121.
PROSSER V. HARTLEY, 35 Minn. 340, 29 N. W. 156.
Appeal and Error, 546.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 64.
Exemptions, 18, 19.
Cited in Security Bank v. Beede, 37 Minn. 529;
Hillyer v. Remore, 42 Minn. 256.
Cited in Presley v. Lowry, 26 Minn. 159; Brown- PUGH v. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 29 Minn. 390, 13
ing v. Hinkle, 51 N. W. 606.
PRESLEY V. LOWRY, 26 Minn. 155, 2 N. W. 61.
Judgment, 219.
PRESSNELL v. LUNDIN, 44 Minn. 551, 47 N. W. 161.
Pleading, 44.
PRICE V. DOYLE, 34 Minn. 400, 26 N. W. 14.
Mechanics' Liens, 132.
Pleading, 7, 8.
Followed in Holcombe v. Mattson, 52 N. W. 857.
Distinguished in Houston v. Nord, 39 Minn.
493. Cited in Simonson v. Grant, 36 Minn. 442.
PRICE V. PHOENIX MUT. LIFE INS. Co., 17 Minn.
497, (Gil. 473.)
Infancy, 29.
Insurance, 40, 41, 47, 48, 135, 143.
·Trial, 66.
Words and Phrases, 278, 653, 805.
PRIEDMAN v. JOHNSON, 21 Minn. 12.
Negotiable Instruments, 70, 179.
PRIGNITZ V. FISCHER, 4 Minn. 366, (Gil. 275.)
Appeal and Error, 12.
Court Commissioners, 1.
Prohibition, Writ of, 1, 15.
Cited in Dayton v. Paine, 13 Minn. 495, 497, (Gil.
455, 456.)
PRINCE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 19 Minn. 267, (Gil. 226.)
Insurance, 189.
Followed in Moss v. City of St. Paul, 21 Minn.
422; State v. Klein, 22 Minn. 335, 336.
PRINCE V. FARRELL, 32 Minn. 293, 20 N. W. 234.
Pleading, 245.
PRINCE V. HEENAN, 5 Minn. 347, (Gil. 279.)
Garnishment, 24, 25, 38, 56.
Cited in Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 9 Minn. 60, (Gil. 48, 49;) Hinds v.
Fagebank, 9 Minn. 70, (Gil. 60;) Minnesota
Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson, 31 Minn. 43.
PRINDLE V. CAMPBELL, 9 Minn. 212, (Ġil. 197.)
Municipal Corporations, 287.
Taxation, 158, 159, 166, 207.
N. W. 189.
Appeal and Error, 81.
Pleading, 220.
Cited in Madden v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 455.
PULLEN V. WRIGHT, 34 Minn. 314, 26 N. W. 394.
Damages, 102.
Pleading, 105.
Applied in Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 Minn.
392. Cited in German-American Bank v.
White, 38 Minn. 474.
PULLIAM V. ADAMSON, 43 Minn. 511, 45 N. W. 1132.
Novation, 3.
PULVER V. Grooves, 3 Minn. 359, (Gil. 252.)
Appeal and Error, 12.
Court Commissioners, 1, 2.
Approved in Prignitz v. Fischer, 4 Minn. 367,
(Gil. 276.) Cited in Marty v. Ahl, 5 Minn. 33,
(Gil. 18.)
PURCELL V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 50 N. W. 1034.
Damages, 54.
Negligence, 45.
Words and Phrases, 613.
PUTNAM V. How, 39 Minn. 363, 40 N. W. 258.
Factors and Brokers, 39.
Cited in Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 536.
PUTNAM V. PITNEY, 45 Minn. 242, 47 N. W. 790.
Executors and Administrators, 143.
Wills, 42.
Cited in Southard v. Southard, 50 N. W. 933.
PYE V. CITY OF MANKATO, 36 Minn. 373, 31 N. W. 863.
Municipal Corporations, 191.
Cited in Redmond v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
39 Minn. 249; Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 41 Minn. 386; Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 176; Beach v. Gaylord, 43
Minn. 479.
PYE V. CITY OF MANKATO, 38 Minn. 536, 38 N. W. 621.
Municipal Corporations, 319.
Words and Phrases, 206.
Cited in Ray v. City of St. Paul, 44 Minn. 343.
2579
2580
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
QUEHL V. PETERSON, 47 Minn. 13, 49 N. W. 390.
Homestead, 59.
Words and Phrases, 503.
Q.
QUINN V. MARKOE, 37 Minn. 439, 35 N. W. 263.
Elections and Voters, 16, 21.
Words and Phrases, 181.
QUICK V. MINNESOTA IRON Co., 47 Minn. 361, 50 N. QUINN V. OLSON, 34 Minn. 422, 26 N. W. 230.
W. 244.
Master and Servant, 122.
Cited in McLaren v. Williston, 51 N. W. 374.
QUIMBY V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 38 Minn. 528,
38 N. W. 623.
Libel and Slander, 48.
Applied in Stewart v. Minnesota Tribune Co.,
41 Minn. 72.
Appeal and Error, 617.
Vendor and Purchaser, 49.
Cited in O'Connor v. Hughes, 35 Minn. 448, 449;
Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 319.
QUINN V. SCOTT, 22 Minn. 456.
Libel and Slander, 32, 33, 39, 42.
Cited in Marks v. Baker, 23 Minn. 165.
QUINN V. CHAMPAGNE, 38 Minn. 322, 37 N. W. 451. QUINN V. SHORTALL, 29 Minn. 106, 12 N. W. 153.
Evidence, 11.
Frauds, Statute of, 60.
Cited in Richardson v. Farwell, 51 N. W. 916.
False Imprisonment, 5.
RABITTE V. NATHAN, 22 Minn. 266.
Appeal and Error, 93.
R.
Cited in Gurney v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn.
164.
RACHAC V. SPENCER, 51 N. W. 920.
Depositions, 20.
RACHELMAN v. SKINNER, 46 Minn. 196, 48 N. W.
776.
Attachment, 89, 102.
RADKE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Ry. Co., 41 Minn.
350, 43 N. W. 6.
Eminent Domain, 64.
RAIL V. LITTLE FALLS LUMBER Co., 47 Minn. 422,
50 N. W. 471.
Sale, 32, 33.
RAILWAY TRANSFER Co. V. RAILROAD & WARE-
HOUSE COMMISSION, 39 Minn. 231, 39 N. W. 150.
Railroad Companies, 17.
Cited in State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40
Minn. 356.
RAKOWSKY V. City of Duluth, 44 Minn. 188, 46 N.
W. 338.
Municipal Corporations, 131.
RADKE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 262, RAMSDEN V. O'KEEFE, 9 Minn. 74, (Gil. 63.)
39 N. W. 624.
Public Lands, 68.
RADKE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 61, 43
N. W. 967.
Public Lands, 60.
RADLEY V. O'LEARY, 36 Minn. 173, 30 N. W. 457.
Justices of the Peace, 25.
Cited in Herrick v. Newell, 51 N. W. 819.
RAHILLY V. LANE, 15 Minn. 447, (Gil. 360.)
Affidavit, 5.
Appeal and Error, 705, 707, 708, 712, 734,
752.
Justices of the Peace, 40.
Followed in Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn. 47.
Modified in Anderson v. Hanson, 28 Minn. 403.
Cited in McGinty v. Warner, 17 Minn. 43, 44,
(Gil. 25, 26;) Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 93,
(Gil. 76;) Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 220, 221,
(Gil. 200, 202:) Steinhart v. Pitcher, 20 Minn.
104, (Gil. 90;) Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 207.
RAHMAN V. MINNESOTA & N. W. R. Co., (Rehman
v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co.,) 43 Minn. 42,
44 N. W. 522.
Master and Servant, 163.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 122.
Ramsey v. GLENNY, 45 Minn. 401, 48 N. W. 322.
Adverse Possession, 22, 31.
Boundaries, 8.
RAMSEY V. MERRIAM, 6 Minn. 168, (Gil. 104.)
Mortgages, 199, 206, 249, 252, 295.
Followed in Allen v. Chatfield, 8 Minn. 440, (Gil.
389;) Goenen v. Schroeder, 18. Minn. 73, 77,
(Gil. 57, 61;) Butterfield v. Farnham, 19 Minn.
90, 91, (Gil. 63.) Cited in Bowers v. Hechtman,
45 Minn. 241.
RAMSEY COUNTY V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 537, 24 N. W. 313.
Railroad Companies, 118.
Taxation, 153.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 18; Todd
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn.
165, 167; State v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 39
Minn. 26; City of St. Paul v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 113; Redwood County v. Wi-
nona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 517; Morri-
son County v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn.
452; St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
45 Minn. 511, 514.
2581
2582
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
RAMSEY COUNTY V. CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEP-| RAY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 44 Minn. 340, 46 N. W. 675.
HERD, 45 Minn. 229, 47 N. W. 783.
Taxation, 39.
RAMSEY COUNTY V. STEES, 27 Minn. 14, 6 N. W. 401.
Appeal and Error, 114.
Cited in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 405.
Municipal Corporations, 322.
RAYMOND V. COMMISSIONERS OF STEARNS COUNTY,
18 Minn. 60, (Gil. 40.)
Highways, 52.
Cited in Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 80,
(Gil. 66.)
RAMSEY COUNTY V. STEES, (Stees, In re,) 28 Minn. REAGAN V. MADDEN, 17 Minn. 402, (Gil. 378.)
326, 9 N. W. 879.
Eminent Domain, 52.
Appeal and Error, 477.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Union Depot St. REDDING V. GODWIN, 44 Minn. 355, 46 N. W. 563.
Railway & Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 295.
RAND V. GETCHELL, 24 Minn. 319.
Attachment, 97.
RANDALL V. CONSTANS, 33 Minn. 329, 23 N. W. 530.
Frauds, Statute of, 64.
Trusts, 2, 30.
Vendor and Purchaser, 54.
Cited in Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 122; Alt
v. Banholzer, 36 Minn. 58; Connelly v. Sheri-
dan, 41 Minn. 19; Wolford v. Farnham, 44
Minn. 162; Smith v. Glover, 44 Minn. 265; Wil-
son v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 205; Groff v. State
Bank of Minneapolis, 52 N. W. 651.
RANDALL V. EDERT, 7 Minn. 450, (Gil. 359.)
Public Lands, 116, 147.
Distinguished in Judd v. Randall, 36 Minn. 14.
Cited in Johnson v. Gilfillan, 8 Minn. 401, (Gil.
357;) Gray v. Stocktou, 8 Minn. 535, (Gil. 478.)
RANSIER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 30
Minn. 215, 14 N. W. 853.
Railroad Companies, 160, 161.
Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
32 Minn. 332.
RANSIER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 32
Minn. 331, 20 N. W. 332.
Master and Servant, 100, 129.
Negligence, 38.
Cited in Mahan v. Union Depot St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 34 Minn. 31; McLaren v. Willis-
ton, 51 N. W. 375.
RASMUSSON V. Clay County, (Rasmusson v. Board
of County Com'rs, 41 Minn. 283, 43 N. W. 3.
Counties, 70, 71.
RATHBUN V. MOODY, 4 Minn. 364, (Gil. 273.)
Appeal and Error, 15.
Cited in American Ins. Co. v. Schroeder, 21
Minn. 331.
RAU V. MINNESOTA VALLEY R. Co., 13 Minn. 442,
(Gil. 407.)
Adjoining Land-Owners, 1, 2.
Adverse Possession, 35.
Appeal and Error, 422.
Pleading, 168.
Cited in Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 93, (Gil. 83:)
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Matthews, 16 Minn.
351, (Gil. 312;) Sherin v. Brackett, 36 Minn.
153.
RAUEN V. BURG, 38 Minn. 389, 37 N. W. 946.
Justices of the Peace, 61.
RAUSCH, IN RE, 35 Minn. 291, 28 N. W. 920.
Descent and Distribution, 3.
Husband and Wife, 68.
RAY V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 40 Minn. 458, 42 N. W.
297.
Municipal Corporations, 144.
Cited in Ray v. City of St. Paul, 44 Minn. 341, 342.
Conspiracy, 5.
Deceit, 44.
Evidence, 70, 237, 369.
Insolvency, 27.
Witness, 28.
Followed in Stickney v. Jordan, 47 Minn. 264.
Cited in Alden v. Wright, 47 Minn. 228; Red-
ding v. Wright, 51 N. W. 1056.
REDFORD V. REDFORD, 45 Minn. 48, 47 N. W. 308.
Wills, 49.
REDIN V. BRANHAN, 43 Minn. 283, 45 N. W. 445.
Mortgages, 79, 112a.
Parties, 9, 10.
Redmond v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn.
248, 40 N. W. 64.
Appeal and Error, 361
Eminent Domain, 92.
RED RIVER ROLLER MILLS V. WRIGHT, 30 Minn.
249, 15 N. W. 167.
Waters and Water-Courses, 3, 26.
RED RIVER & L. W. R. Co. v. Sture, 32 Minn. 95,
20 N. W. 229.
Public Lands, 70, 83.
Records, 1.
Trial, 133.
Applied in Carner v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 376. Cited in Lang v. Morey, 40
Minn. 396.
RED WING HOTEL Co. v. FRIEDRICH, 26 Minn. 112,
1 N. W. 827.
Corporations, 91.
Cited in Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v.
Davis, 40 Minn. 114.
REDWOOD COUNTY V. TOWER, 28 Minn. 45, 8 N. W.
907.
Counties, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43.
Applied in Soule v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 22/
Cited in Board of Education v. Jewell, 4-
Minn. 429.
REDWOOD COUNTY V. WINONA & ST. P. LAND Co.,
(State v. Certain Lands in Redwood County,)
40 Minn. 512, 41 N. W. 465, 42 N. W. 473.
Constitutional Law, 169.
Taxation, 9, 69, 70, 94.
Applied in City of St. Paul v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 397. Cited in Chippewa
County v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn.
300; Otter Tail County v. Batchelder, 47 Minn.
514; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Northwestern
Manuf'g & Car Co., 51 N. W. 119.
REDWOOD COUNTY V. WINONA & ST. P. LAND CO.,
(State v. Certain Lands in Redwood County,)
42 Minn. 181, 43 N. W. 1152.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
REED V. LAMMEL, 28 Minn. 306, 9 N. W. 858.
Deed, 19, 26.
Cited in Sanborn v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 30
2583
2584
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
REED V. LAMMEL, 40 Minn. 397, 42 N. W. 202.
Use and Occupation, 1, 3.
REED V. MANCHESTER SAV. BANK. See Atwater
v. Manchester Sav. Bank.
REED V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. Rr. Co., 34 Minn. 557,
27 N. W. 77.
Horse and Street Railroads, 3, 10.
Cited in Miller v. St. Paul C. Ry. Co., 42 Minn.
457; Heffinger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 504.
REED V. NEWTON, 22 Minn. 541.
Ejectment, 24.
REED V. PIXLEY, 22 Minn. 540.
Judgment, 68.
Cited in Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 60.
REED V. PIXLEY, 25 Minn. 482.
Appeal and Error, 308.
REED V. SEYMOUR, 24 Minn. 273.
Principal and Agent, 45.
State Prison, 1-3.
States and State Officers, 5.
REES, IN RE, (Rees v. Lowenstein,) 39 Minn. 401,
40 N. W. 370.
Evidence, 12.
Insolvency, 97.
Distinguished in Re Lyons, 42 Minn. 20; In re
Shotwell, 43 Minn. 395.
REGENTS OF STATE UNIVERSITY V. HART, 7 Minn.
61, (Gil. 45.)
Corporations, 55.
University of Minnesota, 1, 3, 4.
Cited in Robbins v. School District, 10 Minn. 347,
(Gil. 273.)
REGISTER V. STATE, 8 Minn. 214, (Gil. 185.)
Appeal and Error, 56.
Contempt, 2.
REHMAN V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. Ry. Co., (Rah-
man v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co.,) 43 Minn.
42, 44 N. W. 522.
Master and Servant, 163.
REICH V. REICH, 26 Minn. 97, 1 N. W. 804.
REISAN V. MOTT, 42 Minn. 49, 43 N. W. 691.
Chattel Mortgages, 110.
Evidence, 82.
Malicious Prosecution, 30, 32.
Principal and Agent, 81.
Cited in Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 430; Mjones
v. Yellow Medicine County Bank, 45 Minn. 337.
REITAN V. GOEBEL, 33 Minn. 151, 22 N. W. 291.
Libel and Slander, 13, 88.
REitan v. Goebel, 35 Minn. 384, 29 N. W. 6.
Appeal and Error, 762.
REITAN V. GOEBEL, 40 Minn. 408, 42 N. W. 394.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
RENNER V. CANFIELD, 36 Minn. 90, 30 N. W. 435.
Negligence, 43, 44.
RESTAD V. TOWN OF SCAMBLER, 33 Minn. 515, 24
N. W. 197.
Highways, 41.
Cited in Schwede v. Town of Burnstown, 35
Minn. 469,
REVEILLE, THE, V. LANDRETH, 2 Minn. 175, (Gil.
146.)
Shipping, 6.
Cited in Irvine v. The Hamburg, 3 Minn. 197,
201, (Gil. 127, 132.)
REY V. SIMPSON, 1 Minn. 380, (Gil. 282.)
Negotiable Instruments, 68, 73.
Pleading, 39.
Distinguished in Peckham v. Gilman, 7 Minn.
448, (Gil. 356.) Cited in McComb v. Thomp-
son, 2 Minn. 145, (Gil. 121;) Kern v. Von
Phul, 7 Minn. 430, (Gil. 345.)
REYNOLDS V. FLEMING, 43 Minn. 513, 45 N. W. 1099.
Execution, 21, 90.
REYNOLDS V. FRANKLIN, 39 Minn. 24, 38 N. W. 636.
Deceit, 8.
Followed in Stickney v. Jordan, 47 Minn. 262.
Cited in Reynolds v. Franklin, 44 Minn. 30;
Carlton v. Hulett, 51 N. W. 1055.
REYNOLDS V. FRANKLIN, 41 Minn. 279, 43 N. W. 53.
Exchange of Property, 8, 9.
Cited in Reynolds v. Franklin, 44 Minn. 30, 32.
REYNOLDS V. FRANKLIN, 44 Minn. 30, 46 N. W. 139.
Damages, 79.
Cited in Redding v. Godwin, 44 Minn. 358.
REICHENBERGER V MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. RY. Co., REYNOLDS V. FRANKLIN, 47 Minn. 145, 49 N. W. 648.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 31.
39 Minn. 137, 39 N. W.71.
New Trial, 6.
REID V. FRAZER, 37 Minn. 473, 35 N. W. 269.
Partnership, 77.
REIFF V. BAKKEN, 36 Minn. 333, 31 N. W. 348.
Appeal and Error, 432.
Usury, 44.
REILLY V. BADER, 46 Minn. 212, 48 N. W. 909.
Estoppel, 19.
Trial, 114.
Cited in Reilly v. Bader, 52 N. W. 522.
REILLY V. WILLIAMS, 47 Minn. 590, 50 N. W. 826.
Mechanics' Liens, 42, 113.
REIMER V. NEWEL, 47 Minn. 237, 49 N. W. 865.
Constitutional Law, 13.
Mortgages, 92.
Taxation, 109-112, 194, 202.
Judgment, 168.
Trial, 7.
Vendor and Purchaser. 118.
REYNOLDS V. LA CROSSE & M. PACKET Co., 10 Minn.
178, (Gil. 144.)
Appeal and Error, 400.
Appearance, 3.
Judgment, 21.
Overruling Hawke v. Banning, 3 Minn. 67, (Gil.
30.) Cited in La Crosse & M. Packet Co. v.
Reynolds, 12 Minn. 214, (Gil. 135;) Williams v.
McGrade, 13 Minn. 176, (Gil. 167;) Skillman v.
Greenwood, 15 Minn. 104, (Gil. 79;) Brown v.
Lawler, 21 Minn. 329; Minneapolis Harvester
Works v. Libby, 24 Minn. 329; Dillon v. Porter,
36 Minn. 342.
REYNOLDS V. REYNOLDS, 44 Minn. 132, 46 N. W. 236.
Divorce, 11.
New Trial, 83.
Cited in Koktan v. Knight, 44 Minn. 306.
2585
2586
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
REYNOLDS V. ST. PAUL LOAN & TRUST CO., 46 Minn. | RICE V. DICKERMAN, 47 Minn. 527, 50 N. W. 698.
84, 48 N. W. 458.
Executors and Administrators, 106, 107,
118.
Mortgages, 456.
|
REYNOLDS V. THE FAVORITE, 9 Minn. 148, (Gil. 138.) RICE V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 24
Appeal and Error, 206, 207.
Followed in Morin v. The F. Sigel, 10 Minn. 250,
(Gil. 195.)
REYNOLDS V. THE FAVORITE, 10 Minn. 242, (Gil.
190.)
Admiralty, 1.
Shipping, 8.
RHEINER V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 36
Minn. 170, 30 N. W. 548.
Railroad Companies, 190.
Minn. 444.
Appeal and Error, 209.
RICE V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 24
Minn. 447.
Appeal and Error, 84.
Followed in Exley v. Berryhill, 36 Minn. 119;
National Albany Exchange Bank v. Cargill,
39 Minn. 478.
RICE V. KELSET, 42 Minn. 511, 44 N. W. 535.
Equity, 25.
RHEINER V. STILLWATER ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER RICE V. ST. PAUL & P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 464.
Co., (Stillwater St. Railway Transfer Co. v.
Rheiner,) 29 Minn. 147, 12 N. W. 419.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Followed in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 30 Minn.
42; Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 94; Young
v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294; Carlson v. Small, 32
Minn. 439. Applied in Fox v. Burke, 29 Minn.
173; Clapp v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 23; Jacobson v. Williams, 34 Minn. 23;
Clark v. Nelson Lumber Co., 34 Minn. 249;
Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414.
Cited in Rheiner v. Union Depot St. Railway
& Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 292.
RHEINER V. STILLWATER ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER
Co., (Rheiner v. Union Depot St. Railway &
Transfer Co.,) 31 Minn. 193, 17 N. W. 279.
Appeal and Error, 372, 591.
Cited in Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 214.
RHEINER V. UNION DEPOT, ETC., Co., 31 Minn. 289,
17 N. W. 623.
Eminent Domain, 237.
Words and Phrases, 795.
Distinguished in Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Kanne, 32 Minn. 176. Cited in Whitely v. Mis-
sissippi Water Power & Boom Co., 38 Minn. 526.
RHOADES V. SIMAN, 24 Minn. 192.
Appeal and Error, 294.
Waters and Water-Courses, 12.
RHODES V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 34 Minn. 87, 24
N. W. 347.
Carriers, 4, 5.
RHODES V. PRAY, 36 Minn. 392, 32 N. W 86.
Action, 20.
Due-Bills, 1.
Evidence, 370a.
Trial, 37.
Witness, 32.
RHODES V. WEBB, 24 Minn. 292.
Banks and Banking, 21.
RHONE V. GALE, 12 Minn. 54, (Gil. 25.)
Evidence, 19, 20.
Landlord and Tenant, 21.
Pleading, 16.
RICE V. AUSTIN, 19 Minn. 103, (Gil. 74.)
Constitutional Law, 15, 22, 23, 37.
Followed in State v. Dike, 20 Minn. 364, 365, (Gil.
315, 316;) St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 24
Minn. 573. Approved in State v. Braden, 40
Minn. 175. Applied in Western Ry. Co. v. De
Graff, 27 Minn. 5; State v. Whitcomb, 28 Minn.
51.
Mortgages, 85.
Railroad Companies, 146-148.
Words and Phrases, 640.
RICE V. TAVERNIER, 8 Minn. 248, (Gil. 214.)
RICE V. TAVERNIER, 8 Minn. 248, (Gil. 214.)
Powers, 8.
Words and Phrases, 451.
Cited in Gilbert v. How, 45 Minn. 123.
RICH V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 37 Minn. 423, 85
N. W. 2.
Highways, 77.
Municipal Corporations, 93, 126.
Cited in Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 83;
Viliski v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 307.
RICH V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 40 Minn. 82, 41 N.
W. 455.
Evidence, 113.
Municipal Corporations, 128.
RICH V. RICH, 12 Minn. 468, (Gil. 369.)
Appeal and Error, 664.
Husband and Wife, 17, 86-88.
Pleading, 302.
Words and Phrases, 338.
Cited in McNally v. Weld, 30 Minn. 213.
RICHARD V. SCHLEUSENER, 41 Minn. 49, 42 N. W.
599.
Negligence, 21.
RICHARDS V. FINNEGAN, 45 Minn. 208, 47 N. W. 788.
Mortgages, 217, 218.
RICHARDS V. SPICER, 23 Minn. 212.
Chattel Mortgages, 98.
RICHARDS V. WHITE, 7 Minn. 345, (Gil. 271.)
Attachment, 87, 96.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 92.
Practice in Civil Cases, 33.
RICHARDSON V. FARWELL, 51 N. W. 915.
Guardian and Ward, 31-34.
RICHARDSON V. RICHARDS, 36 Minn. 111, 30 N. W.
457.
Judgment, 161.
RICHARDSON v. ROGERS, 37 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270.
Appeal and Error, 91, 139.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 2.
Judgment, 90.
Cited in Fall v. Moore, 45 Minn. 518.
RICHMOND V. JOHNSON, 28 Minn. 447, 10 N. W. 596.
Insurance, 173.
Followed in Gutterson v. Gutterson, 52 N. W.
580. Cited in Laudenschlager v. Northwest-
ern E. & L. Ass'n, 36 Minn. 132.
2587
2588
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
RICHMOND V. KOENIG, 43 Minn. 480, 45 N. W. 1093. | ROBBINS V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn.
Specific Performance, 41.
Words and Phrases, 461.
RICHTER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 29 Minn. 198, 12 N.
W. 532.
Sheriffs and Constables, 51.
RICHTER V. TRASK, 40 Minn. 379, 42 N. W. 87.
Garnishment, 58.
RICKER V. BUTLER, 45 Minn. 545, 48 N. W. 407.
Adverse Possession, 30, 33.
RICKER V. CHARTER OAK LIFE INS. Co., 27 Minn.
193, 6 N. W. 771.
Insurance, 32, 103.
Words and Phrases, 112.
Followed in Allis v. Ware, 28 Minn. 168. Dis-
tinguished in Richmond v. Johnson, 28 Minn.
448.
RICKEY V. STEWART, 45 Minn. 437, 48 N. W. 22.
Sale, 3.
RILEY V. MITCHELL, 36 Minn. 3, 29 N. W. 588.
Husband and Wife, 19.
Cited in Riley v. Mitchell, 38 Minn. 11.
RILEY V. MITCHELL, 38 Minn. 9, 35 N. W. 472.
Appeal and Error, 154, 685.
Words and Phrases, 183, 611.
Cited in Anderson v. Meeker County, 46 Minn.
239.
RIPPE V. CHICAGO, D. & M. R. Co., 20 Minn. 187,
(Gil. 166.)
Eminent Domain, 171, 172, 176.
Distinguished in Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 23 Minn. 128; Conter v. St. Paul & S. C.
R. Co., 24 Minn. 315. Cited in Rippe v. Chi-
cago, D. & M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 21; Whitacre v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 313.
RIPPE V. CHICAGO, D. & M. R. Co., 22 Minn. 44.
Eminent Domain, 229.
Distinguished in Contér v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 315.
RIPPE V. CHICAGO, D. & M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 18.
Appeal and Error, 279.
Eminent Domain, 172, 177, 183, 187.
Evidence, 365.
Riparian Rights, 4.
Witness, 52.
Cited in Union Depot St. Railway & Transfer
Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 301; Hanford v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 112, 113.
RIPPE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn.
34, 43 N. W. 652.
Railroad Companies, 233.
ROACH V. DION, 39 Minn. 449, 40 N. W. 512.
Descent and Distribution, 2.
ROACH V. PETERSON, 47 Minn. 291, 50 N. W. 80.
Landlord and Tenant, 63, 66.
ROACH V. PETERSON, 47 Minn. 462, 50 N. W. 601.
Landlord and Tenant, 64, 65.
Cited in Flint v. Sweeney, 52 Ń. W. 136.
ROBBINS, IN RE, 34 Minn. 99, 24 N. W. 356.
Deed, 39.
Cited in
Applied in Wait v. May, 51 N. W. 472.
Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 124.
ROBBINS, IN RE, 36 Minn. 66, 30 N. W. 304.
Insolvency, 76.
Cited in Rosenthal v. Davenport, 38 Minn. 543.
286.
Eminent Domain, 67.
Cited in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 124.
ROBBINS V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 24 Minn.
191.
Eminent Domain, 221.
ROBBINS V. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, 10 Minn. 340,
(Gil. 268.)
Schools and School Districts, 4, 27, 35.
Distinguished in Sanborn v. School District No.
10, 12 Minn. 33, 37, 38, (Gil. 9, 12, 13;) City of
Winona v. School District No. 82, 40 Minn. 20.
Cited in Adams v. City of Minneapolis, 20 Minn.
490, (Gil. 443.)
ROBEL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 35 Minn.
84, 27 N. W. 305.
Death by Wrongful Act, 16.
Master and Servant, 124.
ROBERT V. BROOKS, 23 Minn. 138.
Justices of the Peace, 73.
Cited in Thompson v. Killian, 25 Minn. 113.
ROBERT V. WESTERN LAND Ass'N, 43 Minn. 3, 44
N. W. 668.
Taxation, 189, 190.
ROBERTS V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 33
Minn. 218, 22 N. W. 389.
Master and Servant, 91.
Cited in Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 322; Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co.,
45 Minn. 237.
ROBERTS V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 51
N. W. 478.
Judgment, 271.
Removal of Causes, 4, 7, 9.
Words and Phrases, 4.
ROBERTS V. GRACE, 16 Minn. 126, (Gil. 115.)
Deed, 17, 18.
Vendor and Purchaser, 143, 144, 151, 152.
Cited in Simmons v. Fuller, 17 Minn. 490, (Gil.
466;) Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322, 323; Wil-
kins v. Bevier, 43 Minn. 216.
ROBERTS V. MAZEPPA MILL Co., 30 Minn. 413, 15 N.
W. 680.
Sale, 34, 40, 43.
Applied in Palmer v. Breen, 34 Minn. 41. Ex-
plained in Stone v. Harmon, 31 Minn. 517,
Cited in Warder v. Bowen, 31 Miun. 336.
ROBERTS V. ST. PAUL CITY Rr. Co., See Wood v.
St. Paul City Ry. Co.
ROBERTSON V. DAVIDSON, 14 Minn. 554, (Gil. 422.)
Appeal and Error, 632.
Replevin, 81, 93, 94.
Cited in Briggs v. Shea, 50 N. W. 1037.
ROBERTSON V. SIBLEY, 10 Minn. 323, (Gil. 253.)
Corporations, 132, 150, 151.
ROBERTSON V. SULLIVAN, 31 Minn. 197, 17 N. W. 336.
Homestead, 52.
Cited in Stewart v. Rhoades, 39 Minn. 194.
ROBINSON V. BARTLETT, 11 Minn. 410, (Gil. 302.)
Appeal and Error, 167.
Negotiable Instruments, 68, 70.
Cited in Thompson v. Howe, 21 Minn. 98; Stein
v. Passmore, 25 Minn. 257.
2589
**2590
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ROBINSON V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 40 Minn. 228, 41 N. | ROGERS V. BENTON, 39 Minn. 39, 38 N. W. 765.
W. 950.
Municipal Corporations, 281.
ROBINSON V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. Co., 51 N. W.
384.
Railroad Companies, 40.
ROBLEE V. MOSES, 28 Minn. 44, 8 N. W. 904.
Pleading, 94, 217.
ROBLEE V. SECREST, 28 Minn. 43, 8 N. W. 904.
Pleading, 94, 217.
Cited in Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 369.
ROBLING V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Rr. Co. See
Reichenberger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co.
ROBSON V. BOHN, 22 Minn. 410.
Account Stated, 4.
Sale, 135.
Followed in Palmer v. Breen, 34 Minn. 42. Cit-
ed in Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 319.
ROBSON V. BOHN, 27 Minn. 333, 7 N. W. 357.
Sale, 42, 145, 150.
Followed in Palmer v. Breen, 34 Minn. 42.
ROBSON V. SWART, 14 Minn. 371, (Gil. 287.)
Warehousemen, 2.
Followed in Alexander v. Thompson, 42 Minn.
499.
ROCHAT V. EMMETT, 35 Minn. 420, 29 N. W. 147.
Mortgages, 31.
ROCHESTER Ins. Co. v. MARTIN, 13 Minn. 59, (Gil.
54.)
Corporations, 16.
Estoppel, 4.
Insurance, 56, 188.
Mortgages, 98-100, 317, 328, 453.
Words and Phrases, 571.
Applied in Jellison v. Halloran, 44 Minn. 202.
Cited in Taylor v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 472;
Russell v. H. C. Akeley Lumber Co., 45 Minn.
378, 379.
ROGERS V. BRACKETT, 34 Minn. 279, 25 N. W. 601.
Exemptions, 22, 23.
Homestead, 4.
ROGERS V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 22 Minn. 491.
Municipal Corporations, 98, 220, 222, 242,
243, 246, 280.
Words and Phrases, 444, 445.
Followed in Carpenter v. City of St. Paul, 23
Minn. 234. Applied in City of St. Paul v. Nickl,
42 Minn. 263. Distinguished in Mayall v. City
of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 298. Explained in State
v. District Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn.
65. Cited in Dousman v. City of St. Paul, 23
Minn. 398; Cook v. Slocum, 27 Minn. 511; State
v. District Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn.
168, 308-310; Hennepin County v. Bartleson, 37
Minn. 344.
ROGERS V. GASTON, 43 Minn. 189, 45 N. W. 427.
Attorney and Client, 18.
ROGERS V. GREENWOOD, 14 Minn. 333, (Gil. 256.)
Appeal and Error, 86.
Practice in Civil Cases, 41, 51.
Cited in Bray v. Doheny, 39 Minn. 357; Eidam
v. Finnegan, 50 N. W. 933.
ROGERS V. HASTINGS & D. Rr. Co., 22 Minn. 25.
Corporations, 39, 40.
Cited in Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 151.
ROCHETTE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 32 ROGERS V. HENDRICKS, 44 Minn. 388, 46 N. W. 767.
Minn. 201, 20 N. W. 140.
Eminent Domain, 33, 271.
Words and Phrases, 378, 730.
Followed in Carroll v. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 40
Minn. 169. Applied in Carroll v. Wisconsin
Cent. Co., 40 Minn. 171. Cited in Shero v.
Carey, 35 Minn. 424; Thelan v. Farmer, 36
Minn. 227; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 288; Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co., 42 Minn. 535; Lakkie v. Chicago,
St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 440.
Appeal and Error, 489.
ROGERS V. HOLYOKE, 14 Minn. 220, (Gil. 158.)
Mortgages, 77, 362, 363, 366, 367, 374, 375.
ROGERS V. HOLYOKE, 14 Mina. 514, (Gil. 387.)
Appeal and Error, 36.
Followed in Thorp v. Lorenz, 34 Minn. 350. Ap-
plied in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317; United
States Sav., Loan & Bldg. Co. v. Ahrens, 52 N.
W. 898.
ROCK COUNTY NAT. BANK V. HOLLISTER, 21 Minn. ROGERS V. MCCAULEY, 22 Minn. 384.
385.
Negotiable Instruments, 55.
Followed in Third Nat. Bank v. Clark, 23 Miun.
268. Cited in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Han-
son, 33 Minn. 43.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 28.
Homestead, 9.
Distinguished in Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn.
118. Cited in Leonard v. Green, 31 Minn. 142.
ROCKWELL V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, 47 Minn. ROGERS V. MANLEY, 46 Minn. 403, 49 N. W. 194.
219, 49 N. W. 690.
Constitutional Law, 32.
Deed, 107.
Cited in Rodes v. St. Anthony & D. Elevator
Co., 52 N. W. 27.
ROCKWOOD V. DAVENPORT, 37 Minn. 533, 35 N. W. ROGERS V. STEVENSON, 16 Minn. 68, (Gil. 56.)
877.
Judgment, 75, 85, 86.
ROEHL V. BAASEN, 8 Minn. 26, (Gil. 9.)
Appeal and Error, 247, 286.
Evidence, 117.
Trial, 79.
Bankruptcy, 12.
Contracts, 23.
Evidence, 219.
Frauds, Statute of, 2.
Negotiable Instruments, 65, 134.
Cited in Kumler v. Ferguson, 22 Minn. 118; Bar- ROGSTAD V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 31 Minn.
ker v. Todd, 37 Minn. 370.
ROELLER V. AMES, 33 Minn. 132, 22 N. W. 177.
Execution, 153.
208, 17 N. W. 287.
Railroad Companies, 222.
Cited in Marty v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 38 Minn. 110.
2591
2592
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ROHRER V. TURRILL, 4 Minn. 407, (Gil. 309.)
Attachment, 55.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 79.
Execution, 105, 109.
Negotiable Instruments, 169.
Followed in Folsom v. Carli, 5 Minn. 336, (Gil.
268.) Applied in Goener v. Woll, 26 Minn. 156.
Cited in Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 88, (Gil.
53, 54;) First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 13 Minn.
409, (Gil. 378;) Hossfeldt v. Dill, 28 Minn. 473.
ROLES V. MINTZER, 27 Minn. 31, 6 N. W. 378.
Master and Servant, 16.
ROSENBAUM V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 38 Minn. 173,
36 N. W. 447.
Master and Servant, 31, 147.
ROSENFIELD V. ARROL, 44 Minn. 395, 46 N. W. 768.
Negligence, 27, 57.
ROSENFIELD V. SWENSON, 45 Minn. 190, 47 N. W.
718.
Sale, 46.
ROSENTHAL V. DAVENPORT, 38 Minn. 543, 38 N. W.
Clerk of Court, 11-13.
618.
Cited in Woodcock v. Johnson, 36 Minn. 219; Ross v. EVANS, 30 Minn. 206, 14 N. W. 897.
Rollins v. Wibye, 40 Minn. 152.
ROLFE V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. Rr. Co., (Rolph
v. Burlington, C. R. & N.. Ry. Co.,) 39 Minn.
398, 40 N. W. 267.
Practice in Civil Cases, 2.
ROLFE V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. Co., (Rolph
v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.,) 39 Minn.
400, 40 N. W. 268.
Practice in Civil Cases, 2.
ROLLINS V. PHELPS, 5 Minn. 463, (Gil. 373.)
Principal and Agent, 37, 44.
Cited in Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn. 101.
ROLLINS V. ST. PAUL LUMBER Co., 21 Minn. 5.
Appeal and Error, 611.
Pleading, 266, 287.
Applied in Warner v. Lockerby, 28 Minn. 31.
Appeal and Error, 105, 695,
Words and Phrases, 28.
Explained in Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Peter-
Cited in Town of Haven v.
son, 31 Minn. 43.
Orton, 37 Minn. 445.
Ross v. KELLY. (Ross v. Silver & Copper Island
Min. Co.,) 36 Minn. 38, 29 N. W. 591, 31 N. W.
219.
Corporations, 148, 149.
Ross v. MELLIN, 36 Minn. 421, 32 N. W. 172.
Innkeepers, 3.
Words and Phrases, 340.
Ross V. SILVER & COPPER ISLAND MIN. Co., (Ross
v. Kelly,) 36 Minn. 38, 29 N. W. 591, 31 N. W.
219.
Corporations, 148, 149.
Cited in Merriam v. Pine City Lumber Co., 23 Ross v. WORTHINGTON, 11 Minn. 438, (Gil. 323.)
Minn. 323; Lesher v. Getman, 30 Minn. 326;
Hedderly. v. Downs, 31 Minn. 186.
ROLLINS V. WIBYE, 40 Minn. 149, 41 N. W. 545.
Exchange of Property, 1, 2.
ROLPH V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., (Rolfe
v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.,) 39 Minn.
398, 40 N. W. 267.
Practice in Civil Cases, 2.
ROLPH V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. Co., (Rolfe
v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.,) 39 Minn.
400, 40 N. W. 268.
Practice in Civil Cases, 2.
ROLSETH V. SMITH, 38 Minn. 14, 35 N. W. 565.
Master and Servant, 179.
Negligence, 77.
Cited in Horn Silver Mining Co. v. Ryan, 42
Minn. 200.
ROMANS V. LANGEVIN, 34 Minn. 312, 25 N. W. 638.
Pleading, 29.
Specific Performance, 18.
Cited in Quinn v. Champagne, 38 Minn. 324.
RONDEAU V. BEAUMETTE, 4 Minn. 224, (Gil. 163.)
Appeal and Error, 132.
Words and Phrases, 294.
Cited in Ives v. Phelps, 16 Minn. 453, (Gil. 408.)
RONDQUIST V. HIGHAM, 33 Minn. 490, 24 N. W. 190.
Principal and Agent, 82.
Roos V. STATE, 6 Minn. 428, (Gil. 291.)
Counties, 9.
Constitutional Law, 80.
Equity, 18.
Mortgages, 118, 155, 167, 168, 171.
Cited in Thorwarth v. Armstrong, 20 Minn. 466,
(Gil. 422;) Thorp v. Merrill, 21 Minn. 338; Leb-
anon Sav. Bank v. Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 325;
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 199; Lowry v.
Mayo, 41 Minn. 390; Backus v. Burke, 51 N.
W. 286.
ROSSITER V. MINNESOTA BRADNER-SMITH PAPER
Co., 37 Minn. 296, 33 N. W. 855.
Attachment, 101.
Courts, 29.
Cited in Rachelman v. Skinner, 46 Minn. 197.
ROTHSCHILD V. BOELTER, 18 Minn. 361, (Gil. 331.)
Exemptions, 5.
Words and Phrases, 351, 747, 807.
ROTHSCHILD V. BURRITT, 47 Minn. 28, 49 N. W. 393.
Factors and Brokers, 50, 58, 59.
ROTHWELL V. ROBINSON, 39 Minn. 1, 38 N. W. 772.
Corporations, 128.
Applied in Bjorngaard v. Goodhue County Bank,
52 N. W. 48. Cited in Horn Silver Mining Co.
v. Ryan, 42 Minn. 198; Mealey v. Nickerson, 44
Minn. 431; Rothwell v. Robinson, 44 Minn.
538; Hodgson v. Duluth, H. & D. R. Co., 46
Minn. 456.
ROTHWELL V. ROBINSON, 44 Minn. 538, 47 N. W.
255.
Corporations, 129.
ROSBY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 37 Minn. 171, ROUNDS V. GREEN, 29 Minn. 139, 12 N. W. 454.
33 N. W. 698.
Pleading, 112.
Words and Phrases, 211.
ROSE V. ROBERTS, 9 Minn. 119, (Gil. 109.)
Contracts, 31.
Partnership, 81.
Creditors' Suit, 1, 5.
ROUSSAIN V. PATTEN, 46 Minn. 30S, 48 N. W. 1122.
Constitutional Law, 132.
Trial, 142.
ROWE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 51 N. W. 907.
Schools and School-Districts, 9.
2593
2594
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ROWE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 384, 43 | RUSSELL V. H. C. AKELEY LUMBER Co., 45 Minn.
N. W. 76.
Surface Water, 2.
Cited in Jordan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 175.
ROWELL V. OLESON, 32 Minn. 288, 20 N. W. 227.
Evidence, 328.
Sale, 96.
Cited in Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 474; Williams
v. Journal Printing Co., 43 Minn. 538; Souhegan
Nat. Bank v. Boardman, 46 Minn. 296.
ROYCE V. GRAY, 21 Minn. 329.
Justices of the Peace, 72.
RUDSDILL V. SLINGERLAND, 18 Minn. 380, (Gil. 342.)
Witness, 77.
Words and Phrases, 105.
Followed in Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 424.
Cited in Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 88;
State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 71.
RUGG V. HOOVER, 28 Minn. 404, 10 N. W. 473.
Mechanics' Liens, 68, 73.
Followed in Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 174;
Morrison v. Philippi, 35 Minn. 193. Cited in
Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 128; Meyer v.
Berlandi, 39 Minn. 448; McGlauflin v. Beeden,
41 Minn. 411; Conter v. Farrington, 46 Minn.
337.
RUGGLES V. SWANWICK, 6 Minn. 526, (Gil, 365.)
Attorney and Client, 16.
Evidence, 285.
Negotiable Instruments, 170.
RUGLAND V. ANDERSON, 30 Minn. 386, 15 N. W. 676.
Death by Wrongful Act, 4.
RUGLAND V. THOMPSON, 51 N. W. 604.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 27.
Evidence, 319.
Negotiable Instruments, 155.
RUMRILL V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 28 Minn. 202, 9 N. W.
731.
Executors and Administrators, 9, 120.
Words and Phrases, 416.
Followed in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 39. Ex-
plained in Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 159. Cited
in Brown v. Huntsman, 32 Minn. 468; D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter, 37 Minn. 331; Men-
age v. Jones, 40 Minn. 255.
Rushfeldt v. SHAVE, 37 Minn. 282, 33 N. W. 791.
Appeal and Error, 199.
RUSSELL V. BLAKEMAN, (Russell v. Gunn,) 40 Minn.
463, 42 N. W. 391.
Mortgages, 357.
RUSSELL V. CHAMBERS, 31 Minn. 54, 16 N. W. 458.
Seduction, 4, 6-8.
RUSSELL V. GILSON, (Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co.,) 36 Minn. 366, 31 N. W. 692.
Taxation, 102, 106.
Applied in Merriman v. Knight, 43 Minn. 494.
Distinguished in Fairchild v. City of St. Paul,
46 Minn. 547.
RUSSELL V. GUNN, (Russell v. Blakeman,) 40 Minn.
463, 42 N. W. 391.
Mortgages, 357.
RUSSELL V. HAYDEN, 40 Minn. 88, 41 N. W. 456.
Evidence, 159.
Mechanics' Liens, 63.
Cited in Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322; Nystrom
v. London & N. A. Mortgage Co., 47 Minn. 32.
V.2M.DIG.-82
376, 48 N. W. 3.
Limitation of Actions, 17.
Mortgages, 318.
Cited in Bitzer v. Campbell, 47 Minn. 224, 225.
RUSSELL V. LowтH, 21 Minn. 167.
Public Lands, 150–152.
RUSSELL V. MERCHANTS' BANK OF LAKE CITY, 47
Minn. 286, 50 N. W. 223.
Waste, 3.
RUSSELL V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 32 Minn.
230, 20 N. W. 147.
Master and Servant, 118, 173.
Followed in Cook v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
34 Minn. 47. Applied in Hungerford v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 446, 448.
Distinguished in Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co.,
47 Minn. 363. Cited in Robel v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 86; Craver v. Christian,
36 Minn. 414; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co.,
87 Minn. 155; Steen v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 37
Minn. 313; Rolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 17; Mc-
Donald v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 41
Minn. 443.
RUSSELL V. MINNESOTA OUTFIT, 1 Minn. 162, (Gil.
136.)
Action, 12.
Appeal and Error, 498.
Assignment, 22, 29.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 82.
Partnership, 21.
Shipping, 1, 2.
Cited in Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 90, (Gil.
55;) Jones v. Wilder, 28 Minn. 245.
RUSSELL V. REED, 32 Minn. 45, 19 N. W. 86.
New Trial, 48.
Trial, 166.
RUSSELL V. REED, 36 Minn. 376, 31 N. W. 452.
Alteration of Instruments, 3.
Cited in Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v.
Willyard, 46 Minn. 534.
RUSSELL V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn.
210, 22 N. W. 379.
Appeal and Error, 371.
Eminent Domain, 77.
Cited in Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. Ry. Co. v.
Ryan, 37 Minn. 39.
RUSSELL V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., (Russell v.
Gilson,) 36 Minn. 366, 31 N. W. 692.
Taxation, 102, 106.
Applied in Merriman v. Knight, 43 Minn. 494.
Distinguished in Fairchild v. City of St. Paul,
46 Minn. 547.
RUSSELL V. SCHURMEIER, 9 Minn. 28, (Gil. 16.)
Appeal and Error, 461.
Evidence, 264.
Trial, 40.
Cited in Catlin v. Fletcher, 9 Minn. 88, (Gil. 78;)
Schurmeier v. Johnson, 10 Minn. 322, (Gil.
252.)
RUSSELL V. SPEEDY, 38 Minn. 303, 37 N. W. 340.
Homestead, 57.
Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 15.
RUSSELL V. TICE, 42 N. W. 392.
Mortgages, 357.
2595
2596
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
RUSSELL V. WISCONSIN, M. & P. Rr. Co., 39 Minn. | RYAN v. Long, 35 Minn. 394, 29 N. W. 51.
145, 39 N. W. 302.
Attorney and Client, 1.
Frauds, Statute of, 39.
Sale, 48, 162.
RUTHERFORD V. NEWMAN, 8 Minn. 47, (Gil. 28.)
Execution, 131.
Cited in Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 293, (Gil.
220;) Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 176.
RYAN V. DAKOTA COUNTY, (Ryan v. Board County
Com'rs,) 32 Minn. 138, 19 N. W. 653.
Counties, 77, 78.
Cited in Fuller v. Morrison County, 36 Minn. 310.
RYAN V. KRANZ, 25 Minn. 362.
Appeal and Error, 47.
Applied in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317. Cited
in Langdon v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 512.
SABLE V. BROCKMEIER, 45 Minn. 248, 47 N. W. 794.
Covenants, 45.
SAGE V. VALENTINE, 23 Minn. 102.
Composition with Creditors, 2.
Cited in Murchie v. McIntire, 40 Minn. 334.
Sahlgaard v. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 51 N. W. 111.
Carriers, 80, 120.
ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER Co. v. CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS, 41 Minn. 270, 43 N. W. 56.
Deed, 91.
Easements, 4.
Waters and Water-Courses, 4.
RYAN V. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 13, 27 Minn. 433, 8
N. W. 146.
Schools and School Districts, 45, 48, 49.
Distinguished in Goetz v. School District No. 59,
31 Minn. 164.
RYAN DRUG Co. v. PEACOCK, 40 Minn. 470, 42 N. W.
298.
Attachment, 98.
Estoppel, 22.
RYDER V. HULETT, 44 Minn. 353, 46 N. W. 559.
Mortgages, 257, 276.
RYDER V. NEITGE, 21 Minn. 70.
Sale, 65.
S.
ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER Co. v. EAST-
MAN, 20 Minn. 277, (Gil. 249.)
Appeal and Error, 489.
Contracts, 87-S9, 110, 164, 177.
Deposition, 9.
ST. ANTHONY MILL Co. v. VANDALL, 1 Minn. 246,
(Gil. 195.)
Appeal and Error, 170.
Assignment, 30.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 76.
ST. CLOUD WATER-POWER & MILL Co. v. MISSIS-
SIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 43 Minn. 380, 45 N. W.
714.
*
Logs and Logging, 26.
ST. CROIX BOOм Corp. v. MOWER'S EX'RS, (St.
Croix Boom Corp. v. Brown,) 47 Minn. 281, 50
N. W. 197.
Executors and Administrators, 61.
ST. CROIX LUMBER Co. V. MITTLESTADT, 43 Minn.
91, 44 N. W. 1079.
Corporations, 114.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., (Pro-
ceedings to Enforce Payment, etc., In re,) 45
Minn. 510, 48 N. W. 334.
Jury, 27.
Negligence, 55, 82.
Words and Phrases, 721, 722.
ST.
Cited in Hocum v. Weith-
ST.
Applied in O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 294.
erick, 22 Minn. 156; In re Smith, 34 Minn. 438.
ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER Co. v. GREE-
LY, 11 Minn. 321, (Gil. 225.)
Taxation, 63, 98, 206, 257.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 34.
Railroad Companies, 124.
LOUIS DALLES IMP. Co. v. C. N. NELSON LUM-
BER CO., 43 Minn. 130, 441 N. W. 1080.
Words and Phrases, 230.
LOUIS LIFE INS. Co. v. ALLIANCE MUT. Life
INS. Co., 23 Minn. 7.
Interpleader, 5, 8.
ST. ANTHONY FAlls Water-POWER Co. v. KING ST. MARTIN V. DESNOYER, 1 Minn. 41, (Gil. 25.)
FALLS
WROUGHT IRON BRIDGE Co., 23 Minn. 186.
Appeal and Error, 54.
Dedication, 54.
Municipal Corporations, 125.
Pleading, 238.
Removal of Causes, 6, 8.
Cited in Scheffer v. National Life Ins. Co., 25
Minn. 534; Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Peter-
son, 31 Minn. 43; Bettis v. Schreiber, 31 Minn.
331; Althen v. Kelly. 32 Minn. 283; Jewell v.
Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 41 Minn. 405.
ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER Co. v. MERRI-
MAN, 35 Minn. 42, 27 N. W. 199.
Equity, 24.
Cited in Farmers' Union Elevator Co. v. Syndi-
cate Ins. Co., 40 Minn. 153.
Appeal and Error, 758.
Justices of the Peace, 6.
Distinguished in McKee v. Metraw, 31 Minn. 429.
ST. MARTIN V. Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156, (Gil. 131.)
Appeal and Error, 357.
Costs, 53, 54.
Libel and Slander, 5, 52, 91.
New Trial, 34.
Trial, 121, 161.
Cited in Beaulieu v. Parsons, 2 Minn. 44, (Gil.
31;) Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 146, (Gil. 117;)
City of St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 171, (Gil.
143;) McCarty v. Bennett, 12 Minn. 496, (Gil.
401;) Knowlton v. McMahon, 13 Minn. 387,
(Gil. 359;) Kumler v. Ferguson, 22 Minn. 118;
West v. Hanrahan, 28 Minn. 386; State v.
Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER Co. v. MORRI-ST. PAUL DISTILLING Co. v. PRATT, 45 Minn. 215, 47
SON, 12 Minn. 249, (Gil. 162.)
Landlord and Tenant, 7.
Applied in Miller v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 103.
Cited in Morrison v. Bassett, 26 Minn. 237.
N. W. 789.
Conspiracy, 1, 4.
Jury, 45.
2597
2598
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ST. PAUL DIVISION NO. 1, SONS OF TEMPERANCE, V. | ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. CITY OF MINNEAP-
BROWN, 9 Minn. 151, (Gil. 141.)
Appeal and Error, 45.
OLIS, 44 Minn. 149, 46 N. W. 324.
Highways, 6.
ST. PAUL DIVISION NO. 1, SONS OF TEMPERANCE, V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. CITY OF MINNEAP-
BROWN, 9 Minn. 157, (Gil. 144.)
Corporations, 70.
Specific Performance, 23, 65, 66, 82.
Tender, 12.
Cited in Connor v. St. Anthony Board of Educa-
(Gil. 357;) Wilder v.
tion, 10 Minn. 445, (Gil. 357;)
Haughey, 21 Minn. 106; Austin v. Wacks, 30
Minn. 339; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 122;
Lewis v. Prendergast, 39 Minn. 302.
ST.
OLIS, 45 Minn. 400, 48 N. W. 22.
Adverse Possession, 26.
Limitation of Actions, 23, 55.
PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co. v. CITY of St. Paul,
(City of St. Paul v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,)
39 Minn. 112, 38 N. W. 925.
Railroad Companies, 122.
Cited in St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 511.
ST. PAUL DIVISION NO. 1, SONS OF TEMPERANCE, V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co. v. ST. PAUL UNION:
BROWN, 11 Minn. 356, (Gil. 254.)
Corporations, 4, 33.
Specific Performance, 35, 67, 69.
DEPOT CO., 44 Minn. 325, 46 N. W. 566.
Evidence, 321.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408. ST. PAUL NAT. Bank v. Cannon, 46 Minn. 95, 48 N.
Cited in Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 307,
(Gil. 198;) State v. Sibley, 25 Minn. 403.
W. 526.
Judgment, 131.
Negotiable Instruments, 224.
Payment, 12.
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co. v. ALLIS, 24
Minn. 75.
ST.
Appeal and Error, 354, 507.
PAUL ROLLER-MILL Co. v. WESTERN UNION
TEL. Co.. 39 Minn. 186, 39 N. W. 318.
Constitutional Law, 67.
Telegraph Companies, 3.
Corporations, 21.
Cited in Chittenden v. German-Amer. Bank, 27
Minn. 144; Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 496.
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co. v. PARSONS, 47
Minn. 352, 50 N. W. 240.
Insurance, 119–121.
ST.
PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., IN RE, (Chippewa
County v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,) 42 Minn.
295, 44 N. W. 70.
Railroad Companies, 136.
Followed in Chippewa County v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn. 301.
ST. PAUL FOUNDRY Co. v. WEGMANN, 40 Minn. 419, ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., IN RE, 42 Minn. 301, 44
N. W. 72.
Railroad Companies, 136.
42 N. W. 288.
Mechanics' Liens, 131, 135, 136, 139.
ST. PAUL HARVESTER CO. V. NICOLIN, 36 Minn. 232, ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co. v. FIRST DIVISION ST.
30 N. W. 763.
Sale, 147.
ST. PAUL HARVESTER WORKS, IN RE. See Deane
v. Hodge.
ST. PAUL HARVESTER WORKS V. LANGIN, 23 Minn.
462.
Appeal and Error, 423.
P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 31, 49 N. W. 303.
Boundaries, 2, 3.
Cited in Everson v. City of Waseca, 44 Minn.
248.
ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co. v. ROBBINS, 23 Minn.
439.
Corporations, 92, 99.
Cited in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Libby,
24 Minn. 330; Marson v. Deither, 52 N. W. 38.
ST. PAUL LABOR EXCHANGE CO. V. EDEN, 50 N. W. ST. PAUL TRUST Co. v. HILL, (Kittson's Estate, In
921.
Mechanics' Liens, 123.
ST. PAUL LAND CO. v. DAYTON, 37 Minn. 364, 34 N.
W. 335.
Contracts, 14.
Corporations, 74, 75.
Pleading, 115.
re,) 45 Minn. 197, 48 N. W. 419.
Executors and Administrators, 80.
Words and Phrases, 163.
ST. PAUL TRUST Co. v. SARGENT, 44 Minn. 449, 47
N. W. 51.
Executors and Administrators, 132.
Cited in St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, 42 Minn. ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL,
73.
ST. PAUL LAND CO. v. DAYTON, 39 Minn. 315, 40 N.
W. 66.
Corporations, 26.
Judgment, 31.
Specific Performance, 90.
Cited in St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, 42 Minn.
73.
ST. PAUL LAND CO. v. DAYTON, 42 Minn. 73, 43 N.
W. 782.
Vendor and Purchaser, 14, 15.
ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co. v. CITY OF MINNEAP-
OLIS, 35 Minn. 141, 27 N. W. 500.
Eminent Domain, 20, 128, 147.
30 Minn. 359, 15 N. W. 684.
Eminent Domain, 8, 19.
Estoppel, 36.
Cited in Re St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 34 Minn.
231; Valentine v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn.
447; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City of Minn-
eapolis, 35 Minn. 143, 144.
ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co. v. MINNESOTA & N.
W. R. Co., 47 Minn. 154, 49 N. W. 646.
Union Depot Companies.
ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co. v. ST. PAUL M. &. M.
Rr. Co., 35 Minn. 320, 29 N. W. 140.
Railroad Companies, 97.
Cited in St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul
Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 326.
2599
2600
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ST. PAUL, & C. Rr. Co. v. BROWN, 24 Minn. 517.
Constitutional Law, 25.
Insane Asylum, 1–3.
Public Lands, 55, 56, 62, 72.
Words and Phrases, 783.
Applied in State v. Whitcomb, 28 Minn. 51.
Cited in Western Ry. Co. v. De Graff, 27 Minn.
5; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 535.
ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co. v. MCDONALD, 34 Minn.
195, 25 N. W. 453.
Railroad Companies, 129.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 17.
ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., IN RE, (Chisago County v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co.,) 27 Minn. 109, 6 N. W.
454.
Appeal and Error, 95.
Taxation, 89.
Cited in Pugh v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 29
Minn. 392; Wagner v. Wagner, 34 Minn. 443;
Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 3, 6, 8, 28; San-
born v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 318;
Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,
40 Minn. 519; People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 52
N. W. 219.
ST. PAUL & D. R. Co. v. BLACKMAR, 44 Minn. 514,
47 N. W. 172.
Contracts, 68.
Judgment, 49.
ST. PAUL & M. PRESSED BRICK Co. v. Srour, 45
Minn. 327, 47 N. W. 974.
Mechanics' Liens, 94, 105.
ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., IN RE, (St. Paul & N.
P. Ry. Co. v. State,) 34 Minn. 227, 25 N. W.
345.
Eminent Domain, 21, 26, 125, 141.
Words and Phrases, 297.
Cited in Gurney v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 163.
ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. Co., IN RE, (St. Paul & N.
P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, St. C. & W. Ry. Co.,)
36 Minn. 85, 30 N. W. 433.
Eminent Domain, 6, 131.
Words and Phrases, 227.
ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., IN RE, 37 Minn. 164, 33
N. W. 701.
Railroad Companies, 28.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. GARDNER, 19 Minn. 142,
(Gil. 99.)
Appeal and Error, 53, 223, 625.
Constitutional Law, 131, 135.
Conversion of Personal Property, 19.
Jury, 43.
Reference, 3.
Words and Phrases, 123.
Cited in Fair v. Stickney Farm Co., 35 Minn. 382.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. MCDONALD, 34 Minn.
182, 25 N. W. 57.
ST.
Appeal and Error, 620.
Railroad Companies, 128.
Explained in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Robin-
son, 40 Minn. 361, 364, 368. Cited in Chauncey
v. Wass, 35 Minn. 17; Sioux City & St. P. R.
Co. v. Robinson, 41 Minn. 154, 459; Chippewa
County v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn.
298.
PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. MATTHEWS, 16 Minn.
341, (Gil. 303.)
Eminent Domain, 144, 185, 186, 218, 230, 233.
Words and Phrases, 533.
Followed in Knauft v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Co., 22 Minn. 176. Cited in Lake Superior &
M. R. Co. v. Greve, 17 Minn. 335, (Gil. 310;)
Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 130,
131; Trogden v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 22
Minn. 201.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.
RY. Co., 26 Minn. 243, 2 N. W. 700.
Bailment, 1.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. MURPHY, 19 Minn. 500,
(Gil. 433.)
Appeal and Error, 245.
Eminent Domain, 66, 85, 171, 172, 174, 191,
192, 203, 227, 235, 246.
Witness, 38.
Words and Phrases, 280.
Followed in Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 126, 129; Whitacre v. St. Paul & S. C.
R. Co., 24 Minn. 312. Cited in City of Minne-
apolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 146, 148; Sherman
v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 228;
Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn.
441; Peck v. Superior Short Line Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 344; Cameron v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 76, 77; Haynes v. City of Du-
luth, 47 Minn. 459.
Cited in Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 3S ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. ROBINSON, 40 Minn. 360,
Minn. 88.
ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co. v. BRADBURY, 42 Minn.
222, 44 N. W. 1.
Appeal and Error, 416.
Contracts, 83, 94.
Cited in Langdon v. Northfield, 42 Minn. 467;
Winslow Brothers Co. v. Herzog Manuf'g Co.,
46 Minn. 452.
ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co. v. MINNESOTA, ST. C. &
W. RY. Co., (St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., In re,)
36 Minn: 85, 30 N. W. 432.
Eminent Domain, 6, 131.
Words and Phrases, 227.
ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. Co. v. STATE, (St. Paul & N.
P. Ry. Co., In re,) 34 Minn. 227, 25 N. W. 345.
minent Domain, 21, 26, 125, 141.
Words and Phrases, 297.
Cited in Gurney v. City of St. Paul 36 Minn. 163.
42 N. W. 79.
Judgment, 130.
Railroad Companies, 130.
Followed in Chippewa County v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn. 298, 300. Applied in Al-
brecht v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 584. Dis-
tinguished in Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v.
Robinson, 41 Minn. 454, 455.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. ROBINSON, 41 Minn.
394, 43 N. W. 75.
Equity, 8.
Applied in Albrecht v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn.
534. Cited in Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v.
Robinson, 41 Minn. 461; Newton v. Newton, 46
Minn. 36; Crump v. Ingersoll, 47 Minn. 182.
ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. SHANKS, 40 Minn. 369,
42 N. W. 83.
Judgment, 130.
Railroad Companies, 130.
2601
2602
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
ST PAUL & S. C. R. Co. v. WARD, 47 Minn. 40, 49 | SANBORN V. MUELLER, 38 Minn. 27, 35 N. W. 666.
N. W. 401.
Public Lands, 87-89.
ST. PETER Co. v. BUNKER, 5 Minn. 192, (Gil. 153.)
Public Lands, 129, 131.
Followed in Bruggermann v. Hoerr, 7 Minn. 343,
(Gil. 270;) Ferguson v. Kumler, 11 Minn. 110,
(Gil. 67.)
ST. PETER'S CHURCH V. COMMISSIONERS SCOTT
COUNTY, 12 Minn. 395, (Gil. 280.)
Taxation, 38, 49, 53, 81.
Followed in Hennepin County v. Grace, 27 Minn.
505. Applied in Hennepin County v. Bell, 43
Minn. 345. Cited in Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15
Minn. 297, (Gil. 229;) Gilfillan v. Hobart, 34
Minn. 69; Ramsey County v. Church of the
Good Shepherd, 45 Minn, 229.
SALISBURY V. BARTLESON, 39 Minn. 365, 40 N. W.
265.
Appeal and Error, 416.
Negotiable Instruments, 148.
Deed, 27.
Taxation, 212, 218, 225, 268, 304.
Cited in Windom v. Schuppel, 39 Minn. 38.
Smalley v. Isaacson, 40 Minn. 453.
SANBORN V. NEAL, 4 Minn. 126, (Gil. 83.)
Office and Officers, 14.
Schools and School-Districts, 28, 29.
Distinguished in Rollins v. Phelps, 5 Minn. 467,
(Gil. 377.) Cited in Fowler v. Atkinson, 6
Minn. 580, (Gil. 414;) Bingham v. Stewart, 13
Minn. 108, (Gil. 98;) Morrison v. Mendenhall,
18 Minn. 239, (Gil. 222.)
SANBORN V. NOCKIN, 20 Minn. 178, (Gil. 163.)
Evidence, 249.
Frauds, Statute of, 55.
Internal Revenue, 10.
Specific Performance, 19, 96, 101.
Distinguished in Nippolt v. Kammon, 39 Minn.
372. Cited in Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 391;
St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, 42 Minn. 74.
Cited in Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. SANBORN V. PETTER, 35 Minn. 449, 29 N. W. 64.
499.
Mortgages, 242.
SALISBURY V. HEKLA FIRE INs. Co., 32 Minn. 458, SANBORN V. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 10, RICE COUNTY, 12
21 N. W. 552.
Insurance, 12, 13.
Cited in Ganser v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 34
Minn. 374.
SALISBURY V. KEIGHER, 47 Minn. 367, 50 N. W. 246.
Assignment, 5.
Municipal Corporations, 123, 124.
Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
Evidence, 209, 210.
Limitation of Actions, 65.
Schools and School-Districts, 12, 32, 33.
Trial, 77.
Applied in Heintzelman v. Druids' Relief Ass'n,
38 Minn. 140. Cited in Cole v. Curtis, 16 Minn.
188, (Gil. 166.)
SALLUND V. JOHNSON, (Sollund v. Johnson,) 27 Sanborn v. STURTEVANT, 17 Minn. 200, (Gil. 174.)
Minn. 455, 8 N. W. 271.
Deceit, 31.
Sanborn v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 35 Minn. 314.
29 N. W. 126.
Deed, 88.
Highways, 80.
Cited in Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 402.
SANBORN V. COMMISSIONERS RICE COUNTY, 9 Minn.
273, (Gil. 258.)
Constitutional Law, 47, 69.
Taxation, 1, 7.
Affirmed in Fuller v. Morrison County, 36 Minn.
310. Cited in Comer v. Folsom, 13 Minn. 222,
(Gil. 210;) City of Faribault v. Misener, 20
Minn. 398, (Gil. 349;) State v. Foley, 30 Minn.
357.
SANBORN V. COOPER, 31 Minn. 307, 17 N. W. 856.
Taxation, 221.
Followed in Russell v. Gibson, 36 Minn. 368.
Applied in Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn. 339, 340.
Cited in Kipp v. Fernhold, 37 Minn. 134;
Knight v. Alexander, 38 Minn. 388; Vander-
linde v. Canfield, 40 Minn. 543; Smith v. Kipp,
51 N. W. 657.
Sanborn V. Eads, (Sanborn v. Trustees of Ham-
line University,) 38 Minn. 211, 36 N. W. 338.
Limitation of Actions, 37.
Mortgages, 110, 161, 286.
Quieting Title, 15, 19, 21.
SANBORN V. EADS, 36 N. W. 463.
Appeal and Error, 649.
Appeal and Error, 589.
Evidence, 276.
Trespass, 5, 6, 16.
Cited in Kelly v. Clow Reaper Manuf'g Co., 20
Minn. 90, (Gil. 76;) Merriam v. Pine City Lum-
ber Co., 23 Minn. 322; National Car & Locomo-
tive Builder v. Cyclone Steam Snow-Plow Co.,
51 N. W. 658.
SANBORN V. TRUSTEES OF HAMLINE UNIVERSITY,
(Sanborn v. Eads,) 38 Minn. 211, 36 N. W. 338.
Limitation of Actions, 37.
Mortgages, 110, 161, 286.
Quieting Title, 15, 19, 21.
SANBORN V. WEBSTER, 2 Minn. 323, (Gil. 277.)
Appeal and Error, 657.
Costs, 42.
Damages, 40.
Sandberg v. BERG, 35 Minn. 212, 28 N. W. 255.
Appeal and Error, 478.
SANDERS V. CHANDLER, 26 Minn. 273, 3 N. W. 351.
Sheriffs and Constables, 26, 30.
Cited in Hossfeldt v. Dill, 28 Minn. 471; Hart-
man v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 225; Fullington v.
Northwestern Breeders' Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475.
SANDERS V. CLASSON, 13 Minn. 379, (Gil. 352.)
Action, 30.
Contracts, 62.
Followed in Hawley v. Wilkinson, 18 Minn. 527,
(Gil. 470;) Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 97, (Gil.
81.) Applied in Follansbee v. Johnson, 28 Minn.
312. Cited in Merriam v. Pine City Lumber
Co., 23 Minn. 322; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 34.
2603
2604
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SANDWICH MANUF'G Co. v. DONAHUE, (French v. SCHACHERL V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 42 Minn. 42,
Donohue,) 29 Minn. 111, 12 N. W. 354.
Corporations, 82.
Partnership, 87.
Pleading, 285.
43 N. W. 837.
Carriers, 119.
New Trial, 55.
726.
Surface Water, 1.
Cited in Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 SCHAEFER V. MARTHALER, 34 Minn. 487, 26 N. W.
Minn. 310; Jewell v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W.,
41 Minn. 406; Minnesota Gaslight Economizer
Co. v. Denslow, 46 Minn. 173; Columbia Elec-
tric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 465.
SANDWICH MANUF'G Co. v. HERRIOTT, (Sandwich
Manuf'g Co. v. Kimberly,) 37 Minn. 214, 33 N.
W. 782.
Pleading, 280.
SCHAFER V. VIZENA, 30 Minn. 387, 15 N. W. 675.
Garnishment, 47.
SCHAFFER V. City of St. PaUL, 41 Minn. 310, 13
N. W. 65.
New Trial, 36.
SANDWICH MANUF'g Co. v. ZELLMER, 51 N. W. 379. SCHALCK V. HARMON, 6 Minn. 265, (Gil. 176.)
Covenants, 24.
Estoppel, 3.
SANFORD V. JOHNSON, 24 Minn. 172.
Husband and Wife, 34.
Landlord and Tenant, 56.
Principal and Agent, 46.
Words and Phrases, 144, 389.
Cited in Fall v. Moore, 45 Minn. 516; Jones v.
Bliss, 51 N. W. 376; Finch v. Moore, 52 N. W.
384.
SANFORD V. JOHNSON, 26 Minn. 314, 4 N. W. 43.
Use and Occupation, 6.
SARDESON V. MENAGE, 41 Minn. 314, 43 N. W. 66.
Mortgages, 422, 428.
SARGEANT V. BIGELOW, 24 Minn. 370.
Equity, 74.
SATHER V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 40 Minn.
91, 41 N. W. 458.
Railroad Companies, 59, 251, 252.
Words and Phrases, 802.
SATHER V. NESS, 42 Minn. 379, 44 N. W. 123,
Master and Servant, 70.
Cited in Sather v. Ness, 44 Minn. 444.
SATHER V. NESS, 44 Minn. 443, 46 N. W. 909.
Master and Servant, 34.
SAUTER V. DOLLMAN, 46 Minn. 504, 49 N. W. 258.
Deed, 57.
SAVAGE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn.
419, 18 N. W. 272.
Railroad Companies, 267.
Cited in Ransier v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 334.
SAWYER V. HARRISON, 43 Minn. 297, 45 N. W. 434.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 86.
Action, 42.
Cited in Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 368,
(Gil. 253.)
SCHALLER V. BORGER, 47 Minn. 357, 50 N. W. 247.
Fraud, 4.
SCHEFFER V. NATIONAL LIFE INS. Co., 25 Minn.
534.
Insurance, 37, 76, 124.
Removal of Causes, 8.
Words and Phrases, 37.
SCHEFFER V. TOZIER, 25 Minn. 478.
Payment, 37.
SCHEFFLER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 32
Minn. 125, 19 N. W. 656.
Death by Wrongful Act, 7.
Cited in Scheffler v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 519; Gunderson v. Northwestern
Elevator Co., 47 Minn. 165.
SCHEFFLER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 32
Minn. 518, 21 N. W. 711.
Death by Wrongful Act, 15.
Evidence, 225.
Railroad Companies, 214.
Applied in Hepfel v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
51 N. W. 1050. Cited in Robel v. Milwaukee &
St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 89; Emerson v. Pete
ler, 35 Minn. 484; Hooper v. Chicago, St. P.,
M. & O. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 53; Deisen v. Chica-
go, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 458;
Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 116.
SCHELL V. SECOND NAT. BANK ST. PAUL, 14 Minn.
43, (Gil. 34. )
Evidence, 238.
Negligence, 2, 54, 60.
Trial, 24.
Cited in Martin v. North Star ron Works, 81
Minn. 409.
SAWYER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST L. RY. Co., 38 Minn. SCHERMEELY V. STILLWATER & ST. P. R. Co., 16
103, 35 N. W. 671.
Master and Servant, 28.
Distinguished in Moon v. Northern Pac. R.
Co., 46 Minn. 110. Cited in Evans v. Goodrich,
46 Minn. 389.
SAWYER V. WALLACE, 47 Minn. 395, 50 N. W. 366.
Specific Performance, 92.
SAYRE V. BURDICK, 47 Minn. 367, 50 N. W. 245.
Evidence, 277, 335.
SCANLAN V. O'BRIEN, 21 Minn. 434.
Attachment, 37.
Cited in Easton v. Goodwin, 22 Minn. 428.
SCANLON V. OLIVER, 42 Minn. 538, 44 N. W. 1031.
Vendor and Purchaser, 19, 78.
Minn. 506, (Gil. 457.)
Eminent Domain, 190.
Distinguished in Conter v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 314. Cited in Warreh v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 391, (Gil.
353;) Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co., 20
Minn. 188, (Gil. 168;) Rippe v. Chicago, D. &
M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 21.
SCHEUFLER V. GRAND LODGE A. O. U. W. OF MIN-
NESOTA, 45 Minn. 256, 47 N. W. 799.
Corporations, 24.
Insurance, 165-169, 182.
Applied in Backdahl v. Grand Lodge A. O. U.
W., 46 Minn. 65. Cited in Benedict v. Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W., 51 N. W. 373.
2605
2606
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SCHILLING V. CARTER, 35 Minn. 287, 28 N. W. 658. | SCHMITT V. SCHMITT, (Schmidt v. Schmidt,) 32
Liens, S.
Cited in Liljengren v. Ege, 46 Minn. 489.
SCHIMMELE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 34
Minn. 216, 25 N. W. 347.
Constitutional Law, 73.
Costs, 55.
Railroad Companies, 240.
SCHLEUDER V. COREY, 30 Minn. 501, 16 N. W. 401.
Appeal and Error, 647.
SCHLIEMAN V. BOWLIN, 36 Minn. 198, 30 N. W. 879.
Assignment, 14.
SCHMID V. BROWN COUNTY, (Schmid v. Board
County Com'rs,) 44 Minn. 67, 46 N. W. 145.
Sheriffs and Constables, 55.
Minn. 130, 19 N. W. 649.
New Trial, 96.
Cited in Knight v. Valentine, 35 Minn. 369,
SCHNEIDER V. ASHWORTH, 34 Minn. 426, 26 N. W.
233.
Trial, 185.
Cited in Benjamin v. Levy, 39 Minn. 12.
SCHNEIDER V. CHICAGO, B. & N. R. Co., 42 Minn.
68, 43 N. W. 783.
Master and Servant, 106.
Trial, 153.
Words and Phrases, 487.
Followed in Moran v. Eastern Ry. Co., 50 N. W.
930.
SCHOCH V. BIRDSALL, 51 N. W. 382.
Mortgages, 49, 66, 215.
SCHMIDT V. BAUMANN, 36 Minn. 189, 30 N. W. 765. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 7 v. THOMPSON, 5 Minn. 280, (Gil.
Appeal and Error, 489.
SCHMIDT V. BICKENBACH, 29 Minn. 122, 12 N. W.
349.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 16.
SCHMIDT V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS, (Schmidt v.
Stearns County,) 34 Minn. 112, 24 N. W. 358.
Counties, 23.
SCHMIDT V. COULTER, 6 Minn. 492, (Gil. 340.)
Principal and Surety, 30.
SCHMIDT V. DURNHAM, 46 Minn. 227, 49 N. W. 126.
Breach of Marriage Promise, 3, 4..
SCHMIDT V. GRACE, 23 Minn. 238.
Appeal and Error, 507.
SCHMIDT V. HENNEPIN COUNTY BARREL Co., 35
Minn. 511, 29 N. W. 200.
Corporations, 107.
SCHMIDT V. LUDWIG, 26 Minn. 85, 1 N. W. 803.
Accord and Satisfaction, 3.
Cited in Mason v. Campbell, 27 Minn. 55.
SCHMIDT V. MCCARTHY, 43 Minn. 288, 46 N. W. 239.
Witness, 47.
SCHMIDT V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. RY. Co., 38
Minn. 491, 38 N. W. 487.
Eminent Domain, 111.
SCHMIDT V. SCHMIDT, (Schmitt v. Schmitt,) 32
Minn. 130, 19 N. W. 649.
New Trial, 96.
Cited in Knight v. Valentine, 35 Minn. 369.
SCHMIDT V. SCHMIDT, 47 Minn. 451, 50 N. W. 598.
Constitutional Law, 136-138.
Trial, 16.
Wills, 12.
SCHMIDT V. STEARNS COUNTY, (Schmidt v. Board
County Com'rs,) 34 Minn. 112, 24 N. W. 358.
Counties, 23.
221.)
Justices of the Peace, 46, 47, 81.
Schools and School-Districts, 26.
Words and Phrases, 719.
Distinguished in Chaska Co. v. Supervisors Car-
ver County, 6 Minn. 217, (Gil. 139.) Cited in
Holgate v. Broome, 8 Minn. 246, 247, (Gil. 212,
213;) Goodnow v. Commissioners Ramsey
County, 11 Minn. 41, 43, (Gil. 19, 20;) Farmers'
& Mechanics' Bank v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 202.
SCHOOL-DIST. No. 10 v. THELANDER, 31 Minn. 333,
17 N. W. S66.
Schools and School-Districts, 17.
SCHOOL-DIST. No. 10 v. THELANDER, 32 Minn. 476,
21 N. W. 554.
Schools and School-Districts, 42.
Words and Phrases, 265.
SCHOOL-DIST, No. 31 v. ROACH, 43 Minn. 495, 45 N.
W. 1097.
Schools and School-Districts, 53.
SCHOOL-DIST. No. 73 v. WRABECK, 31 Minn. 77, 16
N. W. 493.
Adverse Claim, 38.
Appeal and Error, 266.
Trial, 186.
Cited in Hewitt v. Blumenkranz, 33 Minn. 417.
SCHOONOVER V. GALARNAULT, 45 Minn. 174, 47 N.
W. 654.
Taxation, 281, 288.
SCHOONOVER V. SPARROW, 38 Minn. 393, 37 N. W.
949.
Infancy, '6.
SCHOREGGE V. GORDON, (Schoregge v. Bishop,) 29
Minn. 367, 13 N. W. 194.
Attorney and Client, 11.
Bonds, 2.
Partnership, 88.
SCHRAMM V. HAUPT, 38 Minn. 379, 37 N. W. 798.
Equity, 42.
SCHMIDT V. WITHERICK, 29 Ming. 156, 12 N. W. 448. SCHREIBER V. GERMAN-AMERICAN HAIL INS. Co.,
Libel and Slander, 12.
SCHMITT V. CASSILIUS, 31 Minn. 7, 16 N. W. 453.
Injunction, 15.
Pleading, 207.
SCHMITT V. SCHMITT, 31 Minn. 106, 16 N. W. 543.
Trial, 173.
43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. 708.
Insurance, 22, 82, 92, 109.
SCHROEDER V. DE GRAFF, (Schroeder v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co.,) 28 Minn. 299, 9 N.
W. 857.
Eminent Domain, 257, 258.
Cited in Sloan v. Becker, 31 Minn. 417; Conlan | SCHROEDER V. HARRIS, 43 Minn. 160, 45 N. W. 4.
v. Grace, 36 Minn. 281.
Appeal and Error, 754.
2007
2608
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SCHROEDER V. LAHRMAN, 26 Minn. 87, 1 N. W. 801. | SCHURMEIER V. ST. PAUL & P. R. Co., 10 Minn. 82,
Judgment, 119.
Words and Phrases, 34.
Cited in Cannon River Manuf'rs' Ass'n v. Rog-
ers, 42 Minn. 127.
SCHROEDER V. LAHRMAN, (Schroeder v. Lahman,)
28 Minn. 75, 9 N. W. 173.
Mortgages, 417.
Cited in Abraham v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 159.
SCHUBERT V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 27
Minn. 360, 7 N. W. 366.
Railroad Companies, 270.
Followed in Evaus v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 492. Cited in Holtz v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 385; Johnson v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 429.
SCHUEK V. HAGAR, 24 Minn. 339.
Appeal and Error, 99, 156.
Indecent Assault, 2, 3.
Infancy, 27, 28.
Witness, 107.
Applied in Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 303.
Cited in Cochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 61.
SCHULTE V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 34 Minn. 48, 24 N. W.
320.
Practice in Civil Cases, 55, 56.
Cited in Williams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 254.
SCHULTZ V. BROWN, 47 Minn. 255, 49 N. W. 982.
Executors and Administrators, 73, 74.
SCHULTZ V. BROWN, 47 Minn. 257, 49 N. W. 982.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
SCHULTZ V. HADLER, 39 Minn. 191, 39 N. W. 97.
Ejectment, 2.
(Gil. 59.)
Boundaries, 1.
Dedication, 47, 48.
Eminent Domain, 29, 291.
Public Lands, 109.
Affirmed in Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall.
286. Followed in City of Winona v. Huff, 11
Minn. 135, 136, (Gil. 84, 86;) St. Paul, S. & T.
F. Ry. Co. v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co.,
26 Minn. 33. Applied in Wilder v. De Cou, 26
Minn. 16; Carli v. Stillwater St. Railway &
Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 375. Questioned in
Village of Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 18,
(Gil. 6;) Gray v. First Division St. P. & P. R.
Co., 13 Minn. 318, (Gjl. 292;) Dawson v. St.
Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 15 Minn. 138,
(Gil. 104) Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 17 Minn. 224, 225, (Gil. 200, 201;) Village of
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 269, (Gil. 245;)
Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn.
130; Union Depot St. Railway & Transfer Co.
v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 301; Adams v. Chi-
cago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 289; Ever-
son v. City of Waseca, 44 Minn. 248; Village
of Wayzata v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 52 N.
W. 914.
SCHUSTER V. TOWN OF LEMOND, 27 Minn. 253, 6 N.
W. 802.
Highways, 56.
Words and Phrases, 24.
Followed in State v. Holman, 40 Minn. 370. Cited
in State v. Barton, 36 Minn. 146; Anderson v.
Meeker County, 46 Miun. 239.
SCHWAB V. PIERRO, 43 Minn. 520, 46 N. W. 71.
Work and Labor, 10.
SCHWAB V. RIGBY, 38 Minn. 395, 38 N. W. 101.
Sunday, 6.
SCHUMAKER V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 46 Minn. 39, SCHWARTZ V. GERMANIA LIFE INS. Co., 18 Minn.
48 N. W. 559.
Master and Servant, 52.
SCHUMANN V. MARK, 35 Minn. 379, 28 N. W. 927.
Appeal and Error, 239.
New Trial, 9.
Vendor and Purchaser, 62.
SCHURMEIER V. ENGLISH, 46 Minn. 306, 48 N. W.
1112.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 11, 47, 53.
Cited in Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 52
N. W. 862.
SCHURMEIER V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co.,
12 Minn. 351, (Gil. 228.)
Appeal and Error, 9.
SCHURMEIER v. JOHNSON, 10 Minn. 319, (Gil. 250.)
Appeal and Error, 375.
Estoppel, 20.
Evidence, 273.
Judgment, 169.
Distinguished in Harrington v. Samples, 36
Minn. 202. Cited in Judson v. Reardon, 16
Minn. 441, (Gil. 397.)
448, (Gil. 404.)
Insurance, 8.
Tender, 14.
Cited in Schwartz v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 21
Minn. 224.
SCHWARTZ V. GERMANIA LIFE INS. Co., 21 Minn.
215.
Appeal and Error, 344, 493.
Evidence, 395.
Insurance, 7.
Trial, 55.
Followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 408.
Cited in Leonard v. Green, 34 Minn. 143; Haw-
kins v. Sauby, 50 N. W. 1016.
SCHWARZ V. JUDD, 28 Minn. 371, 10 N. W. 208.
Death by Wrongful Act, 9.
Cited in Barnum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 463; Robel v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 89.
SCHWEDE V. Town of BURNSTOWN, 35 Minn. 468,
29 N. W. 72.
Highways, 43, 44.
SCHWEIDER V. LANG, 29 Minn. 254, 13 N. W. 33.
Compromise, 2.
SCHURMEIER V. ST. PAUL & P. R. Co., 8 Minn. 113, SCHWERIN V. DE GRAFF, 19 Minn. 414, (Gil. 359.)
(Gil. 88.)
Injunction, 19.
Followed in Whitman v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 8
Minn. 116, (Gil. 90.)
Garnishment, 61.
Work and Labor, 13, 14.
Cited in Schwerin v. De Graff, 21 Minn. 356;
Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 488.
2609
2610
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SCRIBNER V. ALLEN-Continued.
SCHWERIN V. DE GRAFF, 21 Minn. 354.
Contracts, 90.
Evidence, 356.
Followed in Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 344. Ap-
proved in Miller v. Lamb, 22 Minn. 44. Dis-
tinguished in Rollins v. Wibye, 40 Minn. 152.
Cited in Roles v. Mintzer, 27 Minn. 32; Wood-
cock v. Johrson, 36 Minn. 219; Smith v. Bar-
ringer, 37 Minn. 95.
SCHWICKERT V. LEMKE.
v.
See Steffes v. Lemke.
SCOFIELD V. WALRATH, 35 Minn. 356, 28 N. W. 926.
Appeal and Error, 272.
Trial, 35.
SCONE V. AMOS, 38 Minn. 79, 35 N. W. 575.
Pleading, 252.
SCOTT v. AUSTIN, 36 Minn. 460, 32 N. W. 89, 864.
Usury, 31, 39, 40.
Followed in Exley v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 185.
And compare Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn.
445.
SCOTT V. BROWN, 33 Minn. 518, 24 N. W. 199.
Appeal and Error, 489.
SCOTT V. EDES, 3 Minn. 377, (Gil. 271.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 87-90.
Cited in Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 403, (Gil. 306;)
Gere v. Murray, 6 Minn. 316, (Gil. 221;) Hath-
away v. Brown, 22 Minn. 217.
Scott v. KING, 7 Minn. 494, (Gil. 401.)
Evidence, 77.
Pleading, 73.
Witness, 91.
Cited in Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 427, (Gil.
385;) Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 528.
SCOTT V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 179, 43 N. W. 966.
Appeal and Error, 405.
SCOTT V. RAYMOND, 31 Minn. 437, 18 N. W. 274.
Sale, 54, 97.
Cited in Cosgrove v. Bennett, 32 Minn. 374; Max-
well v. Lee, 34 Minn. 15; Felsenthal v. Hawks,
52 N. W. 529.
SCOTT V. REED, 33 Minn. 341, 23 N. W. 463.
Frauds, 1.
Cited in Smith v. Glover, 44 Minn. 264.
SCOTT V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 21 Minn. 322.
Eminent Domain, 53, 81, 153, 154.
Words and Phrases, 785.
Followed in Cotton v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom
Co., 22 Minn. 374. Applied in Greve v. First
Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 69. Cited
in Warren v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 426; Wilmes y. Minneapolis & N. W.
Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 245; Haynes v. City of Du-
luth, 47 Minn. 459.
427, 428;) Sewall v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn.
525, (Gil. 470;) Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn.
272; Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 71.
SEAGER V. BURNS, 4 Minn. 141, (Gil. 93.)
Husband and Wife, 3.
Specific Performance, 32, 78, 79, 81.
Vendor and Purchaser, 140.
Cited in Mitchell v. Bank of St. Paul, 7 Minn.
256. (Gil. 196;) Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls
Water Power Co., 12 Minn. 145, (Gil. 83.)
SEARLES V. THOMPSON, 18 Minn. 316, (Gil. 285.)
Appeal and Error, 38, 193.
Evidence, 73.
Practice in Civil Cases, 11.
Followed in Thorp v. Lorenz, 34 Minn. 350. Ap-
plied in Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317. Cited in
Volmer v. Stagerman, 25 Minn. 245; Ryan v.
Kranz, 25 Minn. 362; Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co.
v. Peterson, 31 Minn. 43.
SEARS V. WEMPNER, 27 Minn. 351, 7 N. W. 362.
Evidence, 340.
SECOMBE V. BORLAND, 34 Minn. 258, 25 N. W. 452.
Homestead, 33.
SECOMBE V. KITTELSON, 29 Minn. 555, 12 N. W. 519.
Constitutional Law, 4, 18.
Cited in Burt v. Winona & St. P. Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 476.
SECOND NAT. BANK V. HOWE, 40 Minn. 390, 42 N. W.
200.
Negotiable Instruments, 53, 54.
SECOND NAT. BANK V. SCHRANCK, 43 Minn. 38, 44
N. W. 524.
Insolvency, 9.
SECURITY BANK V. BEEDE, 37 Minn. 527, 35 N. W.
435.
Insolvency, 19.
SECURITY BANK V. BELL, 32 Minn. 409, 21 N. W.
470.
Negotiable Instruments, 38.
SECURITY BANK V. LUTTGEN, 29 Minn. 363, 13 N. W.
151.
Banks and Banking, 20.
Cited in Leuthold v. Fairchild, 35 Minn. 108.
SEDGWICK, IN RE, (Olmstead County v. Sedgwick.)
See Barber, In re.
SEEMAN V. FEENEY, 19 Minn. 79, (Gil. 54.)
Appeal and Error, 265, 658, 660.
Damages, 16, 22.
Words and Phrases, 459.
Cited in McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 91,
Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 468; Boetcher v.
Staples, 27 Minn. 308; Hoffman v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 45 Minn. 55.
SCOTT COUNTY V. RING, 29 Minn. 398, 13 N. W. 181. SEGELBAUM V. SEGELBAUM, 39 Minn. 258, 39 N. W.
Counties, 31, 37.
Words and Phrases, 366, 781.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn. 310.
SCRIBNER V. ALLEN, 12 Minn. 148, (Gil. 85.)
Equity, 6.
Quieting Title, 8.
Distinguished in Sinclair v. Commissioners Wi-
nona County, 23 Minn. 407. Cited in Brackett
v. Gilmore, 15 Minn. 256, (Gil. 196;) Conkey v.
Dike, 17 Minn. 463, (Gil. 442;) Minnesota Lin-
seed Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20 Minn. 473, 474, (Gil.
492.
Divorce, 6, 8, 20, 33.
SEGOG V. ENGLE, 43 Minn. 191, 45 N. W. 427.
Garnishment, 60.
SEIGNEURET V. FAHEY, 27 Minn. 60, 6 N. W. 403.
Ejectment, 45.
Cited in Wheeler v. Merriman, 30 Minn. 378; Mc
Lellan v. Omodt, 37 Minn. 158.
SEILER V. WILBER, 29 Minn. 307, 13 N. W. 136.
Mortgages, 298.
2611
2612
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SELBY V. STANLEY, 4 Minn. 65, (Gil. 34.)
Husband and Wife, 43.
Vendor and Purchaser, 127, 128, 162.
Followed in Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 450,
(Gil. 306;) Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 335,
(Gil. 269;) Duke v. Balme, 16 Minn. 310, (Gil.
274.) Cited in Gardner v. McClure, 6 Minn.
263, (Gil. 175;) Hammond v. Peyton, 34 Minn.
530; Welch v. Ketcham, 51 N. W. 115.
SELDEN V. BANK OF COMMERCE, 3 Minn. 166, (Gil.
108.)
Deposition, 6.
Evidence, 115.
Partnership, 33, 34.
Trial, 98.
Disapproved in State v. McCartey, 17 Minn. 88,
(Gil. 65.) Cited in Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v.
Murphy, 5 Minn. 46, (Gil. 29;) D. M. Osborne
& Co. v. Stone, 30 Minn.27; Van Dyke v. Seel-
ye, 52 N. W. 216.
SEMROW V. SEMROW, 23 Minn. 214.
Divorce, 34, 35.
Duress, 7.
Followed in Weld v. Weld, 28 Minn. 35.
SEMROW V. SEMROW, 26 Minn. 9, 46 N. W. 446.
Appeal and Error, 118.
Followed in Menage v. Lustfield, 30 Minn. 488.
SENCERBOX v. MCGRADE, 6 Minn. 484, (Gil. 334.)
Evidence, 337.
Principal and Agent, 43, 104.
Cited in Mahoney v. McLean, 26 Minn. 416;
Cummings v. Baars, 36 Minn. 353.
SENNETT V. SHEHAN, 27 Minn. 328, 7 N. W. 266.
Vendor and Purchaser, 108.
Applied in McClure v. Bradford, 39 Minn. 119.
Cited in La Du-King Manuf'g Co. v. La Du,
36 Minn. 476; McKinney v. Harvie, 38 Minn.
21; Jones v. Bliss, 51 N. W. 376.
SEPP V. MCCANN, 47 Minn. 364, 50 N. W. 246.
Assignment, 5.
Municipal Corporations, 123, 124.
Followed in Salisbury v. Keigher, 47 Minn. 367.
SERGEANT V. DWYER, 44 Minn. 309, 46 N. W. 444.
Contracts, 15.
Words and Phrases, 784.
SERGEANT V. RUBLE, 33 Minn. 354, 23 N. W. 535.
Mortgages, 145.
SERWE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 50 N. W. 1021.
Carriers, 142.
SEURER V. HORST, 31 Minn. 479, 18 N. W. 283.
Appeal and Error, 731.
Evidence, 187.
Master and Servant, 17.
Summons, 5.
SEWALL V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 20 Minn. 511, (Gil. 459.)
Equity, 7, 49.
Municipal Corporations, 240, 276, 277.
Quieting Title, 9.
Words and Phrases, 186.
Followed in Carpenter v. City of St. Paul, 23
Minn. 236. Approved in State v. District
Court of Ramsey County, 44 Minn. 247. Ap-
plied in Mayall v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn.
298. Distinguished in Albrecht v. City of St.
Pau!, 47 Minn. 532; Malmgreen v. Phinney, 52
N. W. 916. Cited in Rich v. City of Minneap-
olis, 37 Minn. 424; Overmann v. City of St.
Paul, 39 Minn. 121.
SEYMOUR, SABIN & Co. v. CARLI, 31 Minn. 81, 16 N.
W. 495.
Adverse Possession, 2, 3.
Words and Phrases, 686, 687.
Followed in Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 403, 404.
Cited in Brown v. Morgan, 44 Minn. 432.
SHABER V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 103,
Death by Wrongful Act, 11.
9 N. W. 575.
Negligence, 96.
Railroad Companies, 167, 168, 186, 204, 206.
Distinguished in Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 532. Cited in Opsahl v.
Judd, 30 Minn. 128; Scheffler v. Minneapolis &
St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 520; Robel v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 89; Bolinger v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 36 Minn. 420, 421; Phelps
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 487;
Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 40 Minn.
281; Beanstrom v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 46
Minn. 195.
SHABER V. ST. PAUL WATER Co., 30 Minn. 179, 14
N. W. 874.
Covenants, 31.
Words and Phrases, 164.
Cited in Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 16.
SHACKELTON V. Kneisley, 51 N. W. 470.
Partnership, 67.
SHAKOPEE MANUF'G CO., IN RE, (Shakopee Iron &
Brass Works v. Cole,) 37 Minn. 91, 33 N. W.
219.
Corporations, 6.
Insolvency, 42.
SHANE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 26 Minn. 543, 6 N. W.
349.
Payment, 32.
Cited in Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W. 902.
SHAPIRA V. BARNEY, 30 Minn. 59, 14 N. W. 270.
Fixtures, 5.
SHARON V. WOOLDRICK, 18 Minn. 354, (Gil. 325.)
Public Lands, 101, 135, 141.
Trespass, 9.
SHARP V. MERRILL, 41 Minn. 492, 43 N. W. 385.
Statutes, 5.
SHARPE V. ROGERS, 10 Minn. 207, (Gil. 168.)
Vendor and Purchaser, 13.
Followed in Sharpe v. Rogers, 12 Minn. 184, (Gil.
112.)
SHARPE V. ROGERS, 12 Minn. 174, (Gil. 103.)
Contracts, 25.
Equity, 17.
Public Lands, 100.
SHARPE V. TRAVER, 8 Minn. 273, (Gil. 239.)
New Trial, 52.
SHARTLE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 17 Minn. 30S,
(Gil. 284.)
Bridges, 7.
Damages, 2.
Municipal Corporations, 136, 140, 176-178.
New Trial, 34.
Pleading, 286.
Statutes, 72.
Trial, 78, 84, 94.
Applied in Warner v. Lockerby, 28 Minn. 31;
Bohen v. City of Waseca, 32 Minn. 179; Young
v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 196. Dis-
tinguished in Altnow v. Town of Sibley, 30
+
2613
2614
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SHARTLE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS-Continued.
Minn. 190. Cited in Lindholm v. City of St.
Paul, 19 Minn. 250, (Gil. 210;) Moore v. City of
Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 302. (Gil. 259;) Rollins
v. St. Paul Lumber Co., 21 Minn. 8; O'Leary
v. City of Mankato, 21 Minn. 67, 68; Hedderly
v. Downs, 31 Minn. 186; Taylor v. City of Aus-
tin, 32 Minn. 248; Noonan v. City of Stillwater,
33 Minn. 200.
SHELDON V. BUTLER, 24 Minn. 513.
Frauds, Statute of, 33.
Cited in Wilson v. Hentges, 29 Minn. 105; D. M.
Osborne & Co. v. Baker, 34 Minn. 308; Crane
v. Wheeler, 50 N. W. 1033.
SHELDON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 29
Minn. 318, 13 N. W. 134.
Eminent Domain, 87.
SHATTO V. ABERNETHY, 35 Minn. 538, 29 N. W. 325. SHELDON V. RISEDORPH, 23 Minn. 518.
Appeal and Error, 360.
Sale, 68.
SHATTO V. LATHAM, 33 Minn. 36, 21 N. W. 838.
Courts, 20.
SHAUBHUT V. HILTON, 7 Minn. 506, (Gil. 412.)
Attachment, 60, 65.
Execution, 141.
Judgment, 93.
Followed in First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 22 Minn.
231; Brown v. Brown, 28 Minn. 503.
SHAUBUT V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn.
502.
Eminent Domain, 269.
Nuisance, 16.
Applied in Barnum v. Minnesota Transfer Ry.
Co., 33 Mirn. 366. Distinguished in Rochette v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 203.
Cited in Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 434; Thelan
v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 227; Adams v. Chicago,
B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 2S8; Swanson v. Mis-
sissippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42 Minn. 535; Lak-
kie v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 44
Minn. 440.
SHAW, IN RE, 31 Minn. 44, 16 N. W. 461.
Justices of the Peace, 88.
SHAW V. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, 44 Minn. 22, 46 N.
W. 146.
Contracts, 92.
SHAW V. HENDERSON, 7 Minn. 480, (Gil. 386.)
New Trial, 45.
Practice in Civil Cases, 47.
SHAW V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 40 Minn. 144, 41
N. W. 548.
Carriers, 145.
SHAW V. ROBERTSON, 12 Minn. 445, (Gil. 334.)
Evidence, 91.
Cited in Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 334,
(Gil. 306;) Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 427,
(Gil. 385;) Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn. 46.
SHEEHY V. HINDS, 27 Minn. 259, 6 N. W. 781.
Taxation, 167, 238.
Words and Phrases, 106.
Followed in O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 27 Minn. 452;
Sherburne v. Rippe, 35 Minn, 540, 543. Cited
in Farnham v. Jones, 32 Minn. 13; Gilfillan v.
Chatterton, 38 Minn. 336; Taylor v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., 45 Minn. 70.
SHEFFIELD V. LADUE, 16 Minn. 388, (Gil. 346.)
Appeal and Error, 175.
Principal and Agent, 90, 91, 93, 94.
SHEFFIELD V. MULLIN, 27 Minn. 374, 7 N. W. 687.
Appeal and Error, 501.
SHEFFIELD V. MULLIN, 28 Minn. 251, 9 N. W. 756.
Judgment, 237.
Appeal and Error, 442, 480.
Attorney and Client, 14.
Cited in Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 370.
SHELLEY V. LASH, 14 Minn. 498, (Gil. 373.)
Appeal and Error, 556.
Counties, 65.
Evidence, 103.
Judgment, 212-214.
Followed in James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 311.
Overruled in Shepard v. Murray County, 33
Minn. 520.
SHEPARD V. MURRAY COUNTY, (Shepard v. Mal-
hoit,) 33 Minn. 519, 24 N. W. 291.
Overruling Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 496, (Gil,
441.)
Counties, 67.
Pleading, 142.
Words and Phrases, 565, 776.
SHEPARD V. PETTIT, 30 Minn. 119, 14 N. W. 511.
Appeal and Error, 49.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
20, 21.
Cited in Johnson v. Northern Pac., F. F. & B.
H. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 30.
SHEPARD V. PETTIT, 30 Minn. 481, 16 N. W. 271.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
22.
SHEPARD V. SHERIN, 43 Minn. 382, 45 N. W. 718.
Principal and Agent, S3, 84.
SHEPHERD V. WARE, 46 Minn. 174, 48 N. W. 773.
Constitutional Law, 157.
SHERBURNE V. RIPPE, 35 Minn. 540, 29 N. W. 322.
Judgment, 184.
Taxation, 238.
Words and Phrases, 234, 772.
Cited in Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 38 Minn. 336;
Wakefield v. Brown, 38 Minn. 362, 363; Taylor
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 45 Minn. 70.
SHEREN V. MENDENHALL, 23 Minn. 92.
Corporations, 3.
Words and Phrases, 83.
SHERIN V. BRACKETT, 36 Minn. 152, 30 N. W. 551.
Adverse Possession, 1, 23, 28, 36.
Words and Phrases, 23, 589.
Applied in Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 38-
Minn. 125, 129. Cited in Vandall v. St. Martin,
42 Minn. 166; Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 405.
SHERIN V. LARSON, 28 Minn. 523, 11 N. W. 70.
Ejectment, 1.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
25, 26.
Cited in Hennessy v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 56.
2615
2616
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SHERMAN V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Rr. Co., 34 | SHOEMAKER V. CEDAR RAPIDS, I. F. & N. W. Ry.
Minn. 259, 25 N. W. 593.
Co., 45 Minn. 366, 48 N. W. 191.
Easements, 6.
Master and Servant, 174, 175.
Cited in Craver v. Christian, 36 Minn. 413, 415;
Wilson v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 37 Minn.
328; Smith v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn.
90; Bengtson v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry.
Co., 47 Minn. 488.
SHERMAN V. CLARK, 24 Minn. 37.
Chattel Mortgages, 46.
Replevin, 64, 65, 80.
Venue in Civil Cases, 9.
Applied in McLeod v. Capehart, 52 N. W. 381;
Cited in Ferguson v. Hogan, 25 Minn. 139;
Howland v. Rugland, 35 Minn. 391; Keyes v.
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 294.
SHERMAN V. GUNDLACH, 37 Minn. 118, 33 N. W. 549.
Summons, 23.
Words and Phrases, 597.
Cited in Chubbuck v. Cleveland, 37 Minn. 468;
First Nat. Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179.
SHERMAN V. LEWIS, 44 Minn. 107, 46 N. W. 318.
Wills, 62.
SHERMAN V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 30 Minn.
227, 15 N. W. 239.
Appeal and Error, 185.
Eminent Domain, 78, 202, 204.
Trial, 97.
Cited in Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 213; Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. Ry. Co.
v. Ryan, 37 Minn. 39.
SHERO V. CAREY, 35 Minn. 423, 29 N. W. 58.
Highways, 67.
Cited in Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom
Co., 42 Minn. 535; Lammers v. Brennan, 46
Minn, 211.
SHERRERD V. FRAZER, 6 Minn. 572, (Gil. 406.)
Evidence, 14.
Judgment, 73, 74.
SHERWOOD V. CITY OF DULUTH, (Sherwood v. Judge
of District Court,) 40 Minn. 22, 41 N. W. 234.
Municipal Corporations, 219, 284.
SHERWOOD V. ST. PAUL & C. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 122.
Appeal and Error, 109.
Eminent Domain, 112, 171, 203, 219, 224.
Distinguished in Conter v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 24 Minn. 315. Cited in Whitacre v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 312; Leber v.
Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 260;
Sheldon v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29
Minn. 320; City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30
Minn. 146; Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 441.
SHERWOOD V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 21 Minn. 127.
Eminent Domain, 103, 219.
Partnership, 26.
Cited in Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 441; Cameron v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 42 Minn. 77: Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn.
490.
SHILLOCK V. GILBERT, 23 Minn. 386.
Deed, 8.
Estoppel, 61.
Infancy, 21.
Payment, 21.
Cited in James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 312.
SHORT V. MOREA, 4 Minn. 119, (Gil. 78.)
New Trial, 7.
Pleading, 267.
SHORTS V. CHEADLE, 8 Minn. 67, (Gil. 44.)·
Mortgages, 179.
SHOTWELL, IN RE, (Shotwell v. Nicollet Nat.
Bank,) 43 Minn. 389, 45 N. W. 842.
Insolvency, 93–95.
Words and Phrases, 208, 313, 388.
SHOTWELL, IN RE, 51 N. W. 909.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 72–
75, 86.
SHRIVER V. SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co., 24 Minn.
506.
Carriers, 18, 46, 52, 61.
Evidence, 134.
Followed in Leo v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 440. Applied in Moulton v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 88; Hull v. Chicago, St.
P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 512. Cited in
Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn.
399; Lindsley v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
36 Minn. 542; Boehl v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 192; Armstrong v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 88.
SHULL V. RAYMOND, 23 Minn. 66.
Appeal and Error, 377, 378.
Libel and Slander, 3.
Applied in Rosquist v. D. M. Gilmore Furniture
Co., 52 N. W. 385. Cited in State v. Adamson,
43 Minn. 201.
SHUNK V. HELLMILLER, 11 Minn. 164, (Gil. 104.)
Appeal and Error, 694.
Followed in Koetke v. Ringer, 46 Minn. 259.
Cited in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 208.
SIBILRUD V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 29
Minn. 58, 11 N. W. 146.
Railroad Companies, 283, 288, 295.
Words and Phrases, 501.
Cited in Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
31 Minn. 60.
SIBLEY V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 32 Minn. 526, 21
N. W.732.
Railroad Companies, 290.
Cited in Hoffman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
40 Minn. 61.
SIBLEY V. PINE COUNTY, (Sibley v. Willard,) 31
Minn. 201, 17 N. W. 337.
Assignment, 25.
Attorney and Client, 37.
Interest of Money, 3.
Cited in Valentine v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn.
448; Auerbach v. Gieseke, 40 Minn. 262; Red-
wood County v. Winona & St. P. L. Co., 40
Minn. 522.
SIEBERT V. LEONARD, 17 Minn. 433, (Gil. 410.)
Action, 9.
Contracts, 132.
Work and Labor, 6, 12.
Cited in Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 509, (Gil.
457.)
2617
2618
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SIEBERT V. LEONARD, 21 Minn. 442.
Appeal and Error, 434, 489.
Evidence, 111.
Pleading, 255.
Trial, 87.
Cited in Burns v. Maltby, 43 Minn. 163.
SIEBERT V. MAINZER, 26 Minn. 104, 1 N. W. 824.
Appeal and Error, 483, 527.
SIEBERT V. ROSSER, 24 Minn. 155.
Deed, 72.
Vendor and Purchaser, 140.
SIGAFOOS V. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Ry. Co., 39
Minn. 8, 38 N. W. 627.
Eminent Domain, 74, 203, 209.
SIGEL, THE F. See Morin v. The F. Sigel.
SIMAN V. RHOADES, 24 Minn. 25.
Waters and Water-Courses, 19-23.
SIMMER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 23 Minn. 408.
Contempt, 6.
Damages, 104.
Municipal Corporations, 195.
Explained in Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 257.
Cited in Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince,
34 Minn. 76.
SIMMONS V. ANDERSON, 44 Minn. 487, 47 N. W. 52.
Chattel Mortgages, 2.
SIMMONS V. FULLER, 17 Minn. 485, (Gil. 462.)
Mortgages, 56, 63.
Cited in Thorwarth v. Armstrong, 20 Minn. 467,
(Gil. 423;) Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 323.
SIMMONS V. HOLSTER, 13 Minn. 249, (Gil. 232.)
Libel and Slander, 7, 27, 76, 77, 81, 82.
New Trial, 10.
Witness, 63, 78.
Cited in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 223.
SIMMONS V. ST. PAUL & C. Rr. Co., 18 Minn. 184,
(Gil. 168.)
Appeal and Error, 600.
Eminent Domain. 203, 216.
Evidence, 142.
Trial, 80.
Venue in Civil Cases, 17.
Words and Phrases, 785.
Cited in Colvill v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn.
285, (Gil. 242;) Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S. & T.
F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 481, (Gil. 415;) St. Paul & S.
C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 510, (Gil. 441;)
Curtis v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn.
31, (Gil. 25;) Scott v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 324; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 30 Minn. 228; Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. Ry.
Co. v. Ryan, 36 Minn. 547; Sigafoos v. Minne-
apolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 9; Emmons
v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., 41 Minn.
134; Haynes v. City of Duluth, 47 Minn. 459.
SIMMONS HARDWARE Co. v. MULLEN, 33 Minn. 195,
22 N. W. 294.
Frauds, Statute of, 44.
Cited in Fontaine v. Bush, 40 Minn. 143.
SIMMONSEN v. CURTIS, 43 Minn. 539, 45 N. W. 1135.
Replevin, 1.
SIMON V. MANN, 32 Minn. 65, 19 N. W. 347.
Garnishment, 14.
Insolvency, 13, 14.
SIMON V. MANN, 33 Minn. 412, 23 N. W. 856.
Insolvency, 7, 15.
Words and Phrases, 163.
Applied in Bennett v. Denny, 33 Minn. 532
Cited in Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 485; Dan-
iels v. Palmer, 35 Minn. 349; Fairbanks v.
Whitney, 36 Minn. 306; Daniels v. Palmer, 41
Minn. 120; In re Kittson, 45 Minn. 199.
SIMONSON V. GRANT, (Simonson v. Thori,) 36 Minn.
489, 31 N. W. 861.
Mechanics' Liens, 128.
Principal and Surety, 10.
Distinguished in Houston v. Nord, 39 Minn. 493
SIMONSON V. THOMPSON, 25 Minn. 450.
Public Lands, 58, 66.
Applied in Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
38 Minn. 263. Explained in Radke v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 263, 264. Cited in
Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38
Minn. 262.
SIMONSON V. THORI, (Simonson v. Grant,) 36 Minn.
439, 31 N. W. 861.
Mechanics' Liens, 128.
Principal and Surety, 10.
Distinguished in Houston v. Nord, 39 Minn. 493.
SIMONTON V. FIRST NAT. BANK MINNEAPOLIS, 24
Minn. 216.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 46.
Payment, 13, 14.
Distinguished in Trunkey v. Crosby, 33 Minn.
467.
SIMPSON V. ATKINSON, 39 Minn. 238, 39 N. W. 323.
Specific Performance, 76.
SIMPSON V. Cоo¤, 24 Minn. 180.
Executors and Administrators, 87.
Wills, 55, 56, 58.
Followed in Officer v. Simpson, 27 Minn. 151.
Applied in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn.
236.
SIMPSON V. EVANS, 44 Minn. 419, 46 N. W. 908.
Contracts, 29.
Usury, 19.
SIMPSON V. KRUMDICK, 23 Minn. 352, 10 N. W. 18.
Trial, 91, 109.
Words and Phrases, 5.
Cited in Taylor v. Mueller, 30 Minn. 347, 348;
Fontaine v. Bush, 40 Minn. 143.
SINCLAIR V. COMMISSIONERS OF WINONA COUNTY.
23 Minn. 404.
Taxation, 114.
Cited in State v. Common Council of St. Paul.
25 Minn. 110.
SINGER V. BROCKAMP, 33 Minn. 501, 24 N. W. 189.
Evidence, 245.
Sale, 15.
SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co. v. DAVIS, 51 N. W. 907.
Deed, 96.
Ejectment, 3.
Vendor and Purchaser, 161
SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co. v. KING, 41 Minn. 461,
43 N. W. 329.
Railroad Companies, 131.
2619
2620
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co. v. ROBINSON, 41 Minn. | SLOAN V. BECKER, 34 Minn. 491, 26 N. W. 730.
452, 43 N. W. 326.
Railroad Companies, 131.
Words and Phrases, 315.
Distinguished in Chippewa County v. St. Paul,
S. & T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn. 300.
SIOUX CITY & ST. P. R. Co. v. Singer, 51 N. W.
905.
Deed, 96.
Ejectment, 3.
Vendor and Purchaser, 161, 264.
Mortgages, 21.
Applied in Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 339. Cited
in Cummings v. Baars, 36 Minn. 354; Wake-
field v. Day, 41 Minn. 347.
SLOCUM V. MINNEAPOLIS MILLERS' ASS'N, 33 Minn.
438, 23 N. W. 862.
Practice in Civil Cases, 12.
SLOGGY V. DILWORTH, 38 Minn. 179, 36 N. W. 451.
Nuisance, 19, 20, 24.
Followed in Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Davis, SLOSSON V. FERGUSON, 31 Minn. 448, 18 N. W. 281.
51 N. W. 907.
SISKRON V. WOOD, (Siskron v. Sackett.) See John
Martin Lumber Co. v. James M. Wood.
SJOBERG V. NORDIN, 26 Minn. 501, 5 N. W. 677.
Judge, 9.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 52 N. W. 223.
SKAARAAS V. FINNEGAN, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456.
Damages, 32.
Evidence, 311.
Applied in Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luck-
ow, 37 Minn. 543. Distinguished in McCor-
mick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39
Minn. 469. Cited in Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 32
Minn. 107; Reynolds v. Franklin, 41 Minn. 281.
SKAARAAS V. FINNEGAN, 32 Minn. 107, 19 N. W. 729.
Principal and Agent, 92.
SKILLMAN V. GREENWOOD, 15 Minn. 102, (Gil. 77.)
Appeal and Error, 409.
Constitutional Law, 50.
Cited in Dillon v. Porter, 36 Minn. 342.
SKJEGGERUD V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co.,
38 Minn. 56, 35 N. W. 572.
Highways, 2, 69.
Cited in Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 339; St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis,
44 Minn. 150.
SKOGLUND V. MINNEAPOLIS ST. Rr. Co., 45 Minn.
330, 47 N. W. 1071.
Husband and Wife, 77.
v.
Attachment, 39, 41.
SLOSSON V. HALL, 17 Minn. 95, (Gil. 71.)
Appeal and Error, 563.
Deed, 28, 31.
Words and Phrases, 285.
Cited in Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177; Bailey
v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322; Williams v. Schem-
bri, 44 Minn. 254; Ambs v. Chicago, St. P., M.
& O. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 268.
SMALL V. MINNEAPOLIS ELECTRO MATRIX Co., 45
Minn. 264, 47 N. W. 797.
Corporations, 56.
SMALLEY V. ISAACSON, 40 Minn. 450, 42 N. W. 352.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 18.
Partition, 6, 7, 12, 13.
Pleading, S6.
Cited in Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 405;
Schroeder v. Capehart, 52 N. W. 140.
SMITH, IN RE, (Smith v. Capital Bank of St. Paul,)
34 Minn. 436, 26 N. W. 234.
Deposition, 24, 25, 30.
Cited in Byers v. Orensstein, 42 Minn. 388.
SMITH V. ANDERSON, 33 Minn. 25, 21 N. W. 841.
Deed, 68.
SMITH V. BARNES, (Smith v. Brooks,) 38 Minn. 240,
36 N. W. 346.
Mechanics' Liens, 32, 33.
Applied in Burns v. Sewell, 51 N. W. 225.
Slagle & Co. v. GoodNow. See F. M. Slagle & SMITH V. BARRINGER, 37 Minn. 94, 33 N. W. 116.
Co. v. Goodnow.
SLATER V. SCHACK, 41 Minn. 269, 43 N. W. 7.
Holidays, 2.
SLAUGHTER V. NININGER, 3 Minn. 150, (Gil. 95.)
Appeal and Error, 398.
SLINEY V. DULUTH & W. R. Co., 46 Minn. 384, 49
N. W. 187.
Master and Servant, 153.
SLINGERLANd v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422, 49 N. W.
237.
Limitation of Actions, 15.
SLINGERLAND V. SLINGERLAND, 39 Minn. 197, 39 N.
W. 146.
Specific Performance, 57.
Cited in Slingerland v. Slingerland, 46 Minn. 101.
SLINGERLAND V. SLINGERLAND, 46 Minn. 100, 48 N.
W. 605.
Evidence, 353.
Specific Performance, 87, 95.
SLOAN V. BECKER, 31 Minn. 414, 18 N. W. 143.
Mortgages, 22.
Practice in Civil Cases, 14.
Cited in Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 347.
Contracts, 136.
Custom and Usage, 16.
SMITH V. BEAN, 46 Minn. 138, 48 N. W. 687.
Insolvency, 10, 11.
SMITH V. BELL, 44 Minn. 524, 47 N. W. 263.
Landlord and Tenant, 49.
Overruled in Hunter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 5.
SMITH V. BETCHER, 34 Minn. 218, 25 N. W. 347.
Pleading, 210.
Cited in Van Loon v. Griffin, 34 Minn. 446.
SMITH V. BRAINERD, 37 Minn. 479, 35 N. W. 271.
Insolvency, 62, 86.
Words and Phrases, 797.
Distinguished in Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 481.
SMITH V. BROOKS, (Smith v. Barnes,) 38 Minn.
240, 36 N. W. 346.
Mechanics' Liens, 32, 33.
Applied in Burns v. Sewell, 51 N. W. 225.
SMITH V. BUSE, 35 Minn. 234, 28 N. W. 220.
Judgment, 139.
Mortgages, 272.
Cited in Todd v. Johnson, 52 N. W. 865.
2621
2622
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SMITH V. CAPITAL BANK OF ST. PAUL, (Smith, In | SMITH V. JORDAN, 13 Minn. 264, (Gil. 246.)
re,) 34 Minn. 436, 26 N. W. 234.
Deposition, 24, 25, 30.
Cited in Byers v. Orensstein, 42 Minn. 388.
SMITH V. CARLSON, 36 Minn. 220, 30 N. W. 761.
Negotiable Instruments, 32.
SMITH V. CHAPEL, 36 Minn. 180, 30 N. W. 660.
New Trial, 49.
SMITH V. COE, 22 Minn. 276.
Libel and Slander, 9, 56.
Cited in Petsch v. Dispatch Printing Co., 40
Minn. 293; Carlson v. Minnesota Tribune Co.,
47 Minn. 340.
SMITH V. CONKWRIGHT, 28 Minn. 23, 8 N. W. 876.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 39, 77, 119.
SMITH V. CRANE, 33 Minn. 144, 22 N. W. 633.
Negotiable Instruments, 16.
SMITH V. DEIDRICK, 30 Minn. 60, 14 N. W. 262.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 24.
Distinguished in Dow v. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 481.
Cited in Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 32;
Smith v. Brainerd, 37 Minn. 483.
SMITH V. DENNETT, 15 Minn. 81, (Gil. 59.)
Appeal and Error, 310.
Pleading, 28.
Followed in Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 206.
Applied in Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 407.
Cited in Drake v. Barton, 18 Minn. 464, (Gil.
416;) Cochrane v. Quackenbush, 29 Minn. 377;
Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 510; Dorr v.
McDonald, 43 Minn. 459; Bromberg v. Minne-
sota Fire Ass'n, 45 Minn. 321.
SMITH V. DUKES, 5 Minn. 373, (Gil. 301.)
Appeal and Error, 658.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 55.
Trial, 56.
SMITH V. FORCE, 31 Minn. 119, 16 N. W. 704.
Appeal and Error, 716.
Contracts, 27.
Conversion of Personal Property, 22.
Summons, 15.
Cited in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 427.
SMITH V. GIBSON, 15 Minn. 89, (Gil. 66.)
Specific Performance, 69, 105.
Vendor and Purchaser, 142, 166.
SMITH V. GILL, 37 Minn. 455, 35 N. W. 178.
Mechanics' Liens, 155, 164.
SMITH V. GLOVER, 41 Minn. 260, 46 N. W. 406.
Equity, 9.
Limitation of Actions, 40.
Parties, 12.
Affirmed in smith v. Glover, 52 N. W. 210.
SMITH V. GRONEWEG, 40 Minn. 178, 41 N. W. 939.
Deposition, 10.
Sale, 115.
SMITH V. HARMON, 32 Minn. 312, 20 N. W. 238.
Appeal and Error, 478.
SMITH V. HARRISON. See Smith v. Webb.
SMITH V. HEADLEY, 33 Minn. 384, 23 N. W. 550.
Mechanics' Liens, 62, 84, 85, 91, 106.
Distinguished in Paul v. Nample, 44 Minn. 454.
Cited in Boyd v. Blake, 42 Minn. 4; North-
western Pavement Co. v. Norwegian Semina-
ry, 43 Minn., 451.
Contracts, 103, 148.
Equity, 14, 15.
Internal Revenue, 8.
Pleading, 126.
Approved in Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 229,
(Gil. 207.) Cited in Cabbott v. Radford, 17
Minn. 322, (Gil. 298;) Owsley v. Greenwood.
18 Minn. 430, (Gil. 389.)
SMITH V. KIPP, 51 N. W. 656.
Appeal and Error, 203, 285.
Taxation, 92.
Cited in Re Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
SMITH V. LACKOR, 23 Minn. 454.
Homestead, 11, 72.
Cited in Jelinek v. Stepan, 41 Minn. 413.
SMITH V. LYTLE, 27 Minn. 184, 6 N. W. 625.
Vendor and Purchaser, 55.
Distinguished in Reynolds v. Fleming, 43 Minn.
516.
SMITH V. MABEN, 42 Minn. 516, 44 N. W. 792.
Malicious Prosecution, 29, 40.
SMITH V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 26 Minn.
419, 4 N. W. 782.
Railroad Companies, 221.
Cited in Johnson v. Truesdale, 46 Minn. 346.
SMITH V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 37 Minn.
103, 33 N. W. 316.
Railroad Companies, 48, 49.
SMITH V. MINNESOTA TRANSFER PACKING Co., 38
Minn. 450, 35 N. W. 204.
Sale, 151.
SMITH V. MOORHEAD MANUF'G CO., 23 Minn. 141.
Evidence, 52, 57.
SMITH V. MOULTON, 12 Minn. 352, (Gil. 229.)
Limitation of Actions, 61.
SMITH V. MULLIKEN, 2 Minn. 319, (Gil. 273.)
Judgment, 286.
Pleading, 146, 162, 165, 288, 269.
Words and Phrases, 812.
Cited in Yoss v. De Freudenrich, 6 Minn. 102,
(Gil. 45;) Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11 Minn. 116,
(Gil. 73;) Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 167, 173,
(Gil. 158, 164.)
SMITH V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. Co., (Studdart, In
re,) 30 Minn. 553, 16 N. W. 452.
Insolvency, 35, 38.
SMITH V. NOBLES ('OUNTY, 37 Minn. 535, 35 N. W. 383.
Bounties, 6.
Followed in State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
40 Minn. 360.
SMITH V. PARK, 31 Minn. 70, 16 N. W. 490.
Fixtures, 6.
Landlord and Tenant, 93.
Cited in Ness v. Wood, 42 Minn. 429.
SMITH V. PEARSON, 44 Minn. 397, 46 N. W. S49.
Appeal and Error, 645.
Cited in Madden v. Oestrich, 46 Minn. 539.
SMITH V. PENDERGAST, 26 Minn. 318, 3 N. W. 978.
Appeal and Error, 393.
Landlord and Tenant, 32.
Words and Phrases, 726.
Cited in Hewitt v. Blumenkranz, 33 Minn. 417,
Hurley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 34
Minn. 146; Cummings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 317;
Williams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 254.
2623
2624
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SMITH V. ROBERTS, 43 Minn. 342, 46 N. W. 336.
Landlord and Tenant, 97.
Liens, 4.
Cited in Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v.
Minnesota & D. El. Co., 44 Minn. 391.
SMITH V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 18 N.
W. 827.
Carriers, 79, 94, 98, 116.
Trial, 4.
Cited in Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 42
Minn. 48; Boehl v. Chicago, M. & Št. P. Ry.
Co., 44 Minn. 195.
SMITH V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 30 Minn. 169,
14 N. W. 797.
Carriers, 108.
Words and Phrases, 325.
SNOW v. JOHNSON, 1 Minn. 48, (Gil. 32.)
Contracts, 139, 140.
Covenants, 6.
Words and Phrases, 132.
SNOWBERG V. NELSON-SPENCER PAPER Co., 43 Minn.
532, 45 N. W. 1131.
Master and Servant, 165.
SNYDER V. WOLFORD, 33 Minn. 175, 22 N. W. 254.
Evidence, 246.
Frauds, Statute of, 49.
Cited in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 335.
SOBIESKI V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 41 Minn. 169,
42 N. W. 863.
Accord and Satisfaction, 9.
Damages, 84.
Master and Servant, 58, 66, 176.
Release and Discharge, S.
SMITH V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 44 Minn. 17, 46 N. SOLBERG V. PETERSON, 27 Minu. 431, 8 N. W. 144.
W. 149.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Master and Servant, 103.
Distinguished in Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. R. Co., 47 Minn. 10. Cited in Steffenson v.
Cited in Steffenson v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 356.
SMITH V. SCHROEDER, 15 Minn. 35, (Gil. 18.)
Payment, 20, 29.
Distinguished in State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 29.
Cited in Shane v. City of St. Paul, 26 Minn. 546.
SMITH V. STEVENS, 36 Minn. 303, 31 N. W. 55.
Livery Stable Keepers, 1.
Distinguished in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn.
444.
SMITH V. STEWART, 41 Minn. 7, 42 N. W. 595.
Libel and Slander, 94.
SMITH V. SWENSON, 37 Minn. 1, 32 N. W. 784.
Guardian and Ward, 48.
Cited in Rice v. Dickerman, 47 Minn. 530.
SMITH V. UPMAN, 1 Minn. 442, (Gil. 315.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
SMITH V. VALENTINE, 19 Minn. 452, (Gil. 393.)
Equity, 88, 89.
Evidence, 27, 56.
Mortgages, 351, 356, 358, 360, 361.
Rules of Court, 1.
Summons, 46, 47.
Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 36 Minn. 389.
SMITH V. WEBB, 11 Minn. 500, (Gil. 378.)
Banks and Banking, 38-40.
SMITH V. WILSON, 36 Minn. 334, 31 N. W. 176.
Appeal and Error, 178, 497.
Innkeepers, 5, 6.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 10.
SOLBERG V. WRIGHT, 33 Minn. 224, 22 N. W. 381.
Mortgages, 117.
SOLE-LEATHER OVER MANUF'G Co. V. BANGS, (Lee
v. Bangs,) 43 Minn. 23, 44 N. W. 671.
Sale, 47, 49.
Cited in Rosenfield v. Swenson, 45 Minn. 191.
SOLLUND V. JOHNSON, (Sallund v. Johnson,) 27
Minn. 455, 8 N. W. 271.
Deceit, 31.
SOLOMON V. DRESCHLER, 4 Minn. 278, (Gil. 197.)
Contracts, 34.
Intoxicating Liquors, 49, 50.
Payment, 35.
Distinguished in Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 91,
92; Olson v. Hurley, 33 Minn. 40; Anheuser-
Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Mason, 44 Minn. 319.
Cited in Brimhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 22,
(Gil. 5;) Lash v. Edgerton, 13 Minn. 218, (Gil.
204;) Ingersoll v. Randall, 14 Minn. 403, 404,
(Gil. 305, 306.)
SOLOMON V. VINSON, 31 Minn. 205, 17 N. W. 340.
Sale, 158.
Overruling Foerster v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Minn. 210,
(Gil. 171;) Holgate v. Broome, 8 Minn. 243,
(Gil. 209.) Cited in Guthrie v. Olson, 32 Minn..
465; Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 510.
SOMERDORF v. SCHLIEP, 43 Minn. 150, 44 N. W.
1084.
Vendor and Purchaser, 4, 94.
SOMERVILLE V. DONALDSON, 26 Minn. 75, 1 N. W.
808.
New Trial, 95.
Applied in Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 131.
Cited in Knight v. Valentine, 35 Minn. 368.
SMITH V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 87, SONNENBERG v. Riedel, 16 Minn. 83, (Gil. 72,)
43 N. W. 968.
Master and Servant, 125.
SNELL, IN RE, 31 Minn. 110, 16 N. W. 692.
Certiorari, 18.
Habeas Corpus, 5, 11.
Distinguished in State v. Bechdel, 37 Minn. 360.
Cited in State v. Hayden, 35 Minn. 283.
SNOW V. HARDY, 3 Minn. 77, (Gil. 35.)
Certiorari, 34.
Justices of the Peace, 82.
SNOW V. JOHNSON, 1 Minn. 39, (Gil. 24.)
Damages, 35.
Accord and Satisfaction, 1, 14.
Cited in Schweider v. Lang, 29 Minn. 256.
SOPER V. SIBLEY COUNTY, 46 Minn. 274, 48 N. W.
1112.
Elections and Voters, 13, 19, 20, 43, 44.
SOUHEGAN NAT. BANK V. BOARDMAN, 46 Minn. 293,
48 N. W. 1116.
Negotiable Instruments, 81.
SOULE V. THELANDER, 31 Minn. 227, 17 N. W. 373.
Pleading, 124.
Schools and School-Districts, 15, 18-20.
Cited in Perkins v. Merrill, 37 Minn. 41.
2625
2626
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SOUTHARD V. SOUTHARD, 50 N. W. 932.
Wills, 33.
SOUTHERN MINN. R. Co. v. Stoddard, 6 Minn. 150,
(Gil. 92.)
Courts, 8.
Railroad Companies, 21.
SPENCER & SEARLES, IN RE, (State v. Severance,)
29 Minn. 269, 13 N. W. 48.
Insolvency, 113.
Words and Phrases, 296.
Cited in Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g
Co., 44 Minn. 323.
Cited in McRoberts v. Southern Minn. R. Co., SPERRY V. GOODWIN, 44 Minn. 207, 46 N. W. 328.
18 Minn. 114, 115, (Gil. 100.)
SOWERS V. DUKES, 8 Minn. 23, (Gil. 6.)
Evidence, 116, 143.
Distinguished in Krippner y. Biebl, 28 Minn.
142. Cited in Chamberlain v. Porter, 9 Minn.
269, (Gil. 253.)
SPAFFORD V. DULUTH, R. W. & S. R. Co., 51 N. W.
469.
Mechanics' Liens, 53.
SPEAR V. SNYDER, 29 Minn. 463, 13 N. W. 910.
Contracts, 77.
SPENCER V. ANNAN, 4 Minn. 542, (Gil. 426.)
Mortgages, 204, 205.
Explained in Ramsey v. Merriam, 6 Minn. 173,
(Gil. 107.) Cited in Bennett v. Healey, 6 Minn.
249, (Gil. 166;) Butterfield v. Farnham, 19
Minn. 90, 91, (Gil. 63;) Mason v. Goodnow, 41
Minn. 11; Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 Minn. 241.
SPENCER V. HAUG, 45 Minn. 231, 47 N. W. 794.
Execution, 68, 107.
Judgment, 178.
Time.
Followed in Johnson v. Merritt, 52 N. W. 863,
864.
SPENCER V. LEVERING, 8 Minn. 461, (Gil. 410.)
Appeal and Error, 388.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 39.
Mortgages, 86, 89.
Approved in Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 77,
(Gil. 51;) Nopson v. Horton, 20 Minn. 272,
(Gil. 243.) Cited in Rogers v. Benton, 39
Minn. 44; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 169.
SPENCER V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 362.
Appeal and Error, 313.
Eminent Domain, 278.
Followed in Wampach v. St. Paul & S. C. R.
Co., 21 Minn. 365; Kaiser v. St. Paul, S. & T.
F. R. Co., 22 Minn. 150. Cited in Wampach v.
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 35, 36; Fer-
guson v. Hogan, 25 Minn. 139.
SPENCER V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 29.
Appeal and Error, 349, 359.
Eminent Domain, 280.
Husband and Wife, 16, 79.
Trespass, 22.
SPENCER V. SHEEHAN, 19 Minn. 338, (Gil. 292.)
Executors and Administrators, 101, 102.
Husband and Wife, 78.
Limitation of Actions, 11.
Words and Phrases, 690.
Followed in Greenwood v. Murray, 28 Minn. 124.
Cited in Sanborn v. Cooper, 31 Minn. 311;
Smith v. Swenson, 37 Minn. 3; Rice v. Dicker-
man, 47 Minn. 530.
SPENCER V. TOZER, 15 Minn. 146, (Gil. 112.)
Appeal and Error, 601.
Trial, 106.
1
SPENCER V. WOODBURY, 1 Minn. 105, (Gil. 82.)
Assignment, 2.
V.2M.DIG.-83
Taxation, 191-193, 197, 200, 201.
Followed in Reimer v. Newel, 47 Minn. 242.
Cited in McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 329;
Mitchell v. McFarland, 47 Minn. 536; Richard-
son v. Farwell, 51 N. W. 916.
SPOONER V. BAY ST. LOUIS SYNDICATE, 44 Minn.
401, 46 N. W. 848.
Receivers, 3.
Cited in Spooner v. Bay St. Louis Syndicate, 51
N. W. 377.
SPOONER V. BAY ST. LOUIS SYNDICATE, 47 Minn.
461, 50 N. W. 601.
Corporations, 165.
Cited in McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 50
N. W. 1115.
SPOONER V. BAY ST. LOUIS SYNDICATE, 51 N. W.
377.
Corporations, 164.
SPOONER V. FRENCH, 22 Minn. 37.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 15.
Landlord and Tenant, 83.
SPOONER V. SPOONER, 26 Minn. 137, 1 N. W. S38.
Constitutional Law, 126.
Applied in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 66.
SPOTTSWOOD V. HERRICK, 22 Minn. 548.
Money Received, 7, 16.
Followed in Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 308.
SPRAGUE V. MARTIN, 29 Minn. 226, 13 N. W. 34.
Mortgages, 439, 440.
Explained in Lowry v. Akers, 52 N. W. 924.
Cited in Abraham v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 160.
SPRAGUE V. ROVERUD, 34 Minn. 475, 26 N. W. 603.
Taxation, 298.
SPRAGUE V. WELLS, 47 Minn. 504, 50 N. W. 535.
Bonds, 13.
Parties, 4.
Pleading, 34.
SPURR V. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSUR. Co., 40 Minn.
428, 42 N. W. 207.
Equity, 28.
Judgment, 101a.
SPURR V. HOME INS. Co., 40 Minn. 424, 42 N. W. 206.
Equity, 28.
Judgment, 101a.
STACEY V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 158, 43
N. W. 905.
Railroad Companies, 249, 263.
Cited in Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 43 Minn. 207.
STACKHOUSE V. BERRYHILL, 47 Minn. 20, 49 N. W.
392.
Wills, 34.
STAHL V. MITCHELL, 41 Minn. 325, 43 N. W. 385.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 56-58.
Stanchfield v. SARTELL, 35 Minn. 429, 29 N. W.
145.
Logs and Logging, 37.
2627
2628
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STANDISH V. VOSBERG, 27 Minn. 175, 6 N. W. 489.
Mortgages, 324.
Cited in Herber v. Christopherson, 30 Minn. 397;
Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175.
STAPP V. THE CLYDE, 43 Minn. 192, 45 N. W. 430.
Constitutional Law, 166.
Maritime Liens.
Cited in Stapp v. The Clyde, 44 Minn. 511.
STAPP V. THE CLYDE, 44 Minn. 510, 47 N. W. 160.
Constitutional Law, 167.
STARBUCK V. DUNKLEE, 10 Minn. 168, (Gil. 136.)
Appeal and Error, 82.
Contracts, 157.
Evidence, 16.
Pleading, 64, 84.
Distinguished in Kingsley v. Gilman, 12 Minn.
516-518, (Gil. 426, 427.) Followed in Vermilye
v. Vermilye, 32 Minn. 499. Cited in Brisbin
v. American Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 47, (Gil. 27.)
STARBUCK V. DUNKLEE, 12 Minn. 161, (Gil. 97.)
Appeal and Error, 629.
Cited in Briggs v. Shea, 50 N. W. 1037.
STARIHA V. GREENWOOD, 28 Minn. 521, 11 N. W. 76.
Contracts, 63.
Evidence, 67.
Frauds, Statute of, 17.
STARKEY V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 19 Minn. 203,
(Gil. 166.)
Contracts, 7.
Municipal Corporations, 106, 111, 112.
Words and Phrases, 72.
STARKEY V. DE GRAFF, 22 Minn. 431,
Contracts, 91.
Trial, 86.
Cited in Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 488.
STATE V. ARMINGTON, 25 Minn. 29.
Bigamy, 1-4, 7, 11
Divorce, 1, 30.
Judgment, 208.
Jury, 28.
Cited in Bomsta v. Johnson, 38 Minn. 233; State
v. Scott, 41 Minn. 366.
STATE V. ARMSTRONG, 4 Minn. 335, (Gil. 251.)
Adultery, 1, 3, 4.
Indictment, 30.
Statutes, 73.
Followed in State v. Johnson, 12 Minn. 481, 482,
(Gil. 385, 386;) Pickett v. Pickett, 27 Minn.
300. Cited in State v. Richardson, 34 Minn.
118.
STATE V. AUSTIN, (State v. Haarla,) 35 Minn. 51,
26 N. W. 906.
Bonds, 1.
Highways, 42.
Cited in Schwede v. Town of Burnstown, 35
Minn. 469.
STATE V. BACH, 36 Minn. 234, 30 N. W. 764.
Intoxicating Liquors, 40, 53, 64, 72.
Words and Phrases, 562.
STATE V. BACHELDER, 5 Minn. 223, (Gil, 178.)
Adverse Claim, 2, 3, 36.
Public Lands, 92, 111, 115, 118, 128.
Followed in State v. Stevens, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil.
416;) State v. Batchelder, 7 Minn. 135, 139,
(Gil. 79, 83;) Foster v. Commissioners Blue
Earth County, 7 Minn. 148, (Gil. 92;) Monette
v. Cratt, 7 Minn. 242, 251, (Gil. 180, 190;) Ham-
ilton v. Batlin, 8 Minn. 405, (Gil. 361;) Murphy
v. Hinds, 15 Minn. 183, (Gil. 140:) McNair v.
Foler, 21 Minn. 183; Johnson v. Paul, 23 Minn.
49; School Dist. No. 73 v. Wrabeck, 31 Minn.
79.
STARLOCKI V. Williams, 34 Minn. 543, 26 N. W. 909. STATE V. BADEN, 37 Minn. 212, 34 N. W. 24.
Costs, 17.
STATE V. ABRISCH, 41 Minn. 41, 42 N. W. 543.
Seduction, 13, 14.
Cited in State v. Abrisch, 42 Minn. 203.
STATE V. ABRISCH, 42 Minn. 202, 43 N. W. 1115.
Criminal Law, 27, 150.
STATE V. ADAMSON, 43 Minn. 196, 45 N. W. 152.
Forgery, 5-7, 14.
Witness, 76.
Cited in Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 213.
STATE V. AMES, 31 Minn. 440, 18 N. W. 277.
Mandamus, 22, 33, 34, 39.
Municipal Corporations, 308.
Cited in Martin v. Elwood, 35 Minn. 310.
STATE V. ANDERSON, 25 Minn. 66.
Criminal Law, 9.
Larceny, 6, 20.
Cited in State v. Masteller, 45 Minn. 129.
STATE V. ANDERSON, 41 Minn. 104, 42 N. W. 786.
Criminal Law, 119.
STATE V. ANDERSON, 47 Minn. 270, 50 N. W. 226.
Intoxicating Liquors, 52.
STATE V. ARCHIBALD, 43 Minn. 328, 45 N. W. 606.
Mandamus, 27, 48.
Statutes. 66.
Intoxicating Liquors, 43, 48.
Applied in State v. Quinlan, 40 Minn. 58.
STATE V. BAGAN, 41 Minn. 285, 43 N. W. 5.
Criminal Law, 136.
Rape, 2, 17.
STATE V. BAILEY, (Jordan v. Bailey,) 37 Minn. 174,
33 N. W. 778.
Judge, 4, 5.
STATE V. BARNES, 17 Minn. 340, (Gil. 315.)
Habeas Corpus, 6.
STATE V. BARRETT, 40 Minn. 65, 41 N. W. 459,
Aliens, 6, 7.
Clerk of Court, 3-5.
Homicide, 52, 53, 102.
Jury, 1, 37.
Witness, 81, 98.
Followed in State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 78. Cited
in Crombie v. Little, 47 Minn. 586.
STATE V. BARRETT, 40 Minn. 77, 41 N. W. 463.
Homicide, 12, 13.
STATE V. BARTON, 36 Minn. 145, 30 N. W. 454.
Highways, 57.
Followed in State v. Holman, 40 Minn. 369. Ap-
plied in State v. Holman, 40 Minn. 370. Cited
in Anderson v. Meeker County, 46 Minn, 239.
STATE V. BATCHELDER, 7 Minn. 121, (Gil. 79.)
Public Lands, 93.
2629
2630
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. BILANSKY, 3 Minn. 246, (Gil. 169.)
Criminal Law, 36, 192.
STATE V. BAUMHAGER, 28 Minn. 226, 9 N. W. 704.
Embezzlement, 6.
Cited in State v. Hayden, 35 Minn. 285.
STATE V. BAXTER, 38 Minn. 137, 36 N. W. 108.
Practice in Civil Cases, 61.
STATE V. BECHDEL, 37 Minn. 360, 34 N. W. 334.
Habeas Corpus, 18.
Cited in State v. Bechdel, 38 Minn. 281.
STATE V. BECHDEL, 38 Minn. 278, 37 N. W. 338.
Appeal and Error, 40.
Habeas Corpus, 14, 15.
Words and Phrases, 329.
STATE V. BECHT, 23 Minn. 1.
Bastardy, 16, 17.
Cited in State v. Snure, 29 Minn. 133; State v.
Lee, 29 Minn. 453; State v. Eichmiller, 35
Minn. 241.
STATE V. BECHT, 23 Minn. 411.
Constitutional Law, 150, 159.
Execution, 159.
Words and Phrases, 239.
STATE V. BEEBE, 17 Minn. 241, (Gil. 218.)
Criminal Law, 13-15, 48, 62, 82, 83, 97.
Grand Jury, 12.
Indictment, 1, 2, 25.
Larceny, 24.
Witness, 79.
Words and Phrases, 6, 436, 762.
Cited in State v. Anderson, 25 Minn. 68; State v.
Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
STATE V. BELL, 26 Minn. 388, 5 N. W. 970.
Assault and Battery, 24.
Criminal Law, 16.
STATE V. BELL, 26 Minn. 521, 4 N. W. 621.
Criminal Law, 4, 34.
STATE V. BELL, (Hennepin County v. Bell,) 43
Minn. 344, 45 N. W. 615,
Taxation, 35.
Cited in Ramsey County v. Church of the Good
Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229.
STATE V. BENEDICT, 15 Minn. 198, (Gil. 153.)
Elections and Voters, 5.
Office and Officers, 4-6.
Words and Phrases, 364, 365.
Followed in Jordan v. Bailey, 37 Minn. 178. Ex-
plained in Scott County v. Ring, 29 Minn. 403.
Cited in City of Faribault v. Misener, 20 Minn.
402, (Gil. 352;) Jordan v. Bailey, 37 Minn. 176,
177; Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn. 310.
STATE V. BENSON, 28 Minn. 424, 10 N. W. 471.
Innkeepers, 13, 14.
STATE V. BENZ, 41 Minn. 30, 42 N. W. 547.
Intoxicating Liquors, 11, 12.
Followed in State v. Brackett, 41 Minn. 34. Cited
in State v. Schroeder, 43 Minn. 232.
STATE V. BERGMAN, 37 Minn. 407, 34 N. W. 737.
Criminal Law, 18.
Words and Phrases, 594, 760.
STATE V. BERNIER, 38 N. W. 368.
Elections and Voters, 9-12, 15, 18, 30.
STATE V. BERRY, 3 Gil. 190.
Corporations, 170, 171.
Witness, 61, 62, 69.
Applied in Wischstadt v. Wischstadt, 47 Minn.
360. Cited in State v. Parrant, 16 Minn. 179,
(Gil. 158;) Mims v. State, 26 Minn. 496.
STATE V. BLACK, 22 Minn. 336.
Judge, 1.
STATE V. BLISS, 21 Minn. 458.
Criminal Law, 190.
Justices of the Peace, 44, 45, 48, 86.
Witness, 112.
Cited in Watson v. Ward, 27 Minn. 30.
STATE V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF MCLEOD
COUNTY, 27 Minn. 90, 6 N. W. 421.
Highways, 17.
STATE v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF SCOTT
COUNTY, 42 Minn. 284, 44 N. W. 64.
Counties, 14.
Cited in State v. Board of County Com'rs of Scott
County, 43 Minn. 323.
STATE V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF SCOTT
COUNTY, 43 Minn. 322, 45 N. W. 614.
Counties, 15, 16.
STATE V. BOARD OF PARK COм'RS, 33 Minn. 524, 24
N. W. 187.
Municipal Corporations, 203.
Cited in State Park Com'rs v. Henry, 38 Minn.
270.
STATE V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 27 Minn. 442,
8 N. W. 161.
Municipal Corporations, 283.
Followed in Otter Tail County v. Batchelder,
47 Minn. 517. Applied in State v. District
Court of Ramsey County, 47 Minn. 409. Ex-
plained in State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 29 Minn. 65, 66; State v. District Court
of Ramsey County, 47 Minn. 409. Cited in State
v. District Court of Ramsey County, 32 Minn.
183; State v. District Court of Ramsey County,
33 Minn. 168, 309; Albrecht v. City of St. Paul,
47 Minn. 532.
STATE V. BOWEN, 45 Minn. 145, 47 N. W. 650.
Criminal Law, 35.
Justices of the Peace, 5.
STATE V. BOYD, 36 Minn. 538, 32 N. W. 780.
Larceny, 8, 9.
STATE V. BOYLSON, 3 Minn. 438, (Gil. 325.)
Homicide, 40-42.
Distinguished in State v. Ruhnke, 27 Minn. 312.
Cited in State v. Butler, 26 Minn. 93.
STATE V. BRACHVOGEL, 38 Minn. 265, 36 N. W. 641.
Statutes, 23.
Distinguished in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn.
440.
STATE V. BRACKETT, 41 Minn. 33, 42 N. W. 548.
Intoxicating Liquors, 11, 13.
STATE V. BRADEN, 40 Minn. 174, 41 N. W. 817.
Constitutional Law, 25.
Disapproving dictum in Chamberlain v. Sibley,
4 Minn. 309, (Gil. 228.)
STATE V. BRECHT, 41 Minn. 50, 42 N. W. 602.
Adultery, 2, 5, 6.
Criminal Law, 31.
Indictment, 15.
Jury, 33, 40.
Marriage, 8.
2631
2632
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. BRIN, 30 Minn. 522, 16 N. W. 406.
STATE V. BYRUD, 23 Minn. 29.
Appeal and Error, 360.
Criminal Law, 78, 86.
Larceny, 15, 21.
Words and Phrases, 627.
STATE V. BRINCKHAUSER, (State v. Bruckhauser,)
26 Minn. 301, 3 N. W. 695.
Municipal Corporations, 22.
STATE V. BRINKHAUS, 34 Minn. 285, 25 N. W. 642.
Seduction, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22.
Words and Phrases, 108.
Cited in State v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 197; State v.
Keith, 47 Minn. 561; State v. Lockerby, 52 N.
W. 959.
STATE V. BROWN, 12 Minn. 490, (Gil. 393.)
Extortion, 1, 2.
Indictment, 21.
Words and Phrases, 743.
STATE V. BROWN, 12 Minn. 538, (Gil. 448.)
Criminal Law, 43, 51, 114, 160, 161.
Grand Jury, 1.
Homicide, 3-5, 104.
Judge, 6.
Jury, 15-19, 21, 33.
Followed in State v. Hanley, 34 Minn. 433. Dis-
tinguished in Cain v. Libby, 32 Minn. 492.
Cited in State v. Taunt, 16 Minn. 115, (Gil.
105;) State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 524;
Carli v. Rhener, 27 Minn. 293; Burt v. Winona
& St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 475; State v. Reid, 39
Minn. 282; State v. Framness, 43 Minn. 492.
STATE V. BROWN, 22 Minn. 482.
Judge, 2.
Words and Phrases, 185, 474.
STATE V. BROWN, 41 Minn. 319, 43 N. W. 69.
Criminal Law, 161.
Homicide, 9-11.
Cited in State v. Framness, 43 Minn. 491; State
v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 182.
STATE V. BROWN, 47 Minn. 472, 50 N. W. 920.
Reform School.
Distinguished in State v. Brown, 52 N. W. 935.
STATE V. BRUCKHAUSER, (State v. Brinckhauser,)
26 Minn. 301, 3 N. W. 695.
Municipal Corporations, 22.
STATE V. BRUGGERMAN, 31 Minn. 493, 18 N. W. 454.
Eminent Domain, 47.
Highways, 32.
STATE V. BUCKHAM, 29 Minn. 462, 13 N. W. 902.
Certiorari, 17.
Cited in Re Shaw, 31 Minn. 44; In re Snell, 31
Minn. 111.
STATE V. BURR, 28 Minn. 40, 8 N. W. 899.
Mandamus, 5.
Distinguished in State v. Whitcomb, 28 Minn.
50. Cited in State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 38 Minn. 293.
STATE V. BURR, 29 Minn. 432, 13 N. W. 676.
Landlord and Tenant, 79.
Words and Phrases, 272.
STATE V. BUTLER, 26 Minn. 90, 1 N. W. 821.
Embezzlement, 9-11.
STATE V. BUTLER, 47 Minn. 483, 50 N. W. 533.
False Pretenses, 1, 2, 4-6.
Criminal Law, 145, 146.
Followed in State v. Hoag, 23 Minn. 31; State v.
Wedge, 23 Minn. 32.
STATE V. CANTIENY, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. 458.
Arrest, 2.
Criminal Law, 56, 95.
Homicide, 15, 25, 63, 69, 83.
Municipal Corporations, 44, 54, 68, 69.
Words and Phrases, 495, 507, 620.
Applied in State v. West, 42 Minn. 152. Cited
in Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 275.
STATE V. CASSIDY, 22 Minn. 312.
Intoxicating Liquors, 2.
Statutes, 19, 29.
Followed in State v. Klein, 22 Minn. 335, 336.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 31 Minn. 7; Allen
v. Pioneer-Press Co., 40 Minn. 120; State v.
Madson, 43 Minn. 440; Boyle v. Vanderhoof,
45 Minn. 32; State v. Starkey, 52 N. W. 25.
STATE V. CERTAIN LANDS IN REDWOOD COUNTY,
(Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land
Co.,).40 Minn. 512, 41 N. W. 465, 42 N. W. 473.
Constitutional Law, 169.
Taxation, 9, 69, 70, 94.
Applied in City of St. Paul v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 397. Cited in Chippewa
County v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 42 Minn.
300; Otter Tail County v. Batchelder, 47 Minn.,
514; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Northwestern
Manuf'g & Car Co., 51 N. W. 119.
STATE V. CERTAIN LANDS IN REDWOOD COUNTY,
(Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land
Co.,) 42 Minn. 181, 43 N. W. 1152.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
STATE V. CHARLES, 16 Minn. 474, (Gil. 426.)
Constitutional Law, 45.
Criminal Law, 33.
Municipal Corporations, 57.
Followed in State v. Oleson, 26 Minn. 509. Cited
in State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 207; State v. Lee,
29 Minn. 450, 454, 455; State v. West, 42 Minn.
150.
STATE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Ry. Co., 36 Minn.
402, 31 N. W. 365.
Eminent Domain, 35.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 42 Minn. 248; Watson v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 323.
STATE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 38 Minn.
281, 37 N. W. 782.
Constitutional Law, 35.
Railroad Companies, 19, 20.
Reversed in Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v.
State, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 134 U. S. 418. Fol-
lowed in Railway Transfer Co. v. Railroad &
Warehouse Commission, 39 Minn. 233; State
v. Minneapolis Eastern Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 163.
Approved in State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 40 Minn. 355, 356.
STATE V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 40 Minn.
267, 41 N. W. 1047.
Railroad Companies, 16.
Words and Phrases, 121.
STATE V. CHRISTENSEN, 21 Minn. 500.
Criminal Law, 153.
Justices of the Peace. 87.
•
2633
2634
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. CHURCHILL, 15 Minn. 455, (Gil. 369.)
Appeal and Error, 10.
Elections and Voters, 35, 36.
Mandamus, 16.
STATE V. CHUTE, (Martin v. Chute,) 34 Minn. 135,
24 N. W. 353.
Corporations, 121.
STATE V. CITY COUNCIL, (State v. City of Minne-
apolis,) 40 Minn. 483, 42 N. W. 355.
Municipal Corporations, 225.
STATE V. CITY OF HASTINGS, 24 Minn. 78.
Railroad Companies, 77, 81, 90.
Statutes, 6.
Words and Phrases, 628.
Followed in State v. Gould, 31 Minn. 193; State
v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 145. Explained in Burt
v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 478. Cit-
ed in City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 437.
STATE V. CITY OF LAKE CITY, 25 Minn. 404.
Assignment, 20.
Constitutional Law, 148.
Evidence, 7.
Mandamus, 37, 38.
Municipal Corporations, 3, 4.
Railroad Companies, 68, 76.
Statutes, 18.
Words and Phrases, 792.
Distinguished in Wellcome v. Town of Monticel-
lo, 41 Minn. 139. Cited in Re Howes, 38 Minn.
406; City of Winona v. School District No. 82,
40 Minn. 16, 19; State v. Minnesota Thresher
Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 216, 217.
STATE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 32 Minn. 501, 21
N. W. 722.
Railroad Companies, 86.
Words and Phrases, 343.
STATE V. COMFORT, 22 Minn. 271.
Criminal Law, 24.
Cruelty to Animals.
Indictment, 11.
Cited in State v. Holong, 38 Minn. 369; State v.
Abrisch, 41 Minn. 41.
STATE V. COMMON COUNCIL, 25 Minn. 106.
Certiorari, 2.
Elections and Voters, 31.
STATE V. COMMON COUNCIL, (State v. City of North.
field,) 41 Minn. 211, 42 N. W. 1058.
Intoxicating Liquors, 36.
STATE V. CONWAY, 23 Minn. 291.
Criminal Law, 117, 124, 125.
Cited in State v. Framness, 43 Minn. 492.
STATE V. COOKE, 24 Minn. 247.
Intoxicating Liquors, 7, 35.
Cited in State v. Harris, 52 Ń. W. 388.
STATE V. COON, 14 Minn. 456, (Gil. 340.)
Indictment, 26.
Justices of the Peace, 35, 36.
Office and Officers, 16.
Distinguished in State v. Wedge, 24 Minn. 154.
STATE V. COON, 18 Minn. 518, (Gil. 464.)
Larceny, 10, 23, 38.
Cited in State v. Colwell, 43 Minn. 379.
STATE V. CORNWALL, 35 Minn. 176, 28 N. W. 144.
Municipal Corporations, 7.
Words and Phrases, 363.
Cited in Stemper v. Higgins, 38 Minn. 223.
STATE V. CORY, 35 Minn. 178, 28 N. W. 217.
Prohibition, Writ of, 14.
STATE V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, (State v. City STATE V. COTTON, 29 Minn. 187, 12 N. W. 529.
Council,) 40 Minn. 483, 42 N. W. 355.
Municipal Corporations, 225.
STATE V. CITY OF NORTHFIELD, (State v. Common
Council,) 41 Minn. 211, 42 N. W. 1058.
Intoxicating Liquors, 36.
STATE V. CITY OF ST. ANTHONY, 10 Minn. 433, (Gil.
345.)
Schools and School-Districts, 10, 11.
STATE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 34 Minn. 250, 25 N. W.
449.
Certiorari, 6.
Municipal Corporations, 39,
Followed in State v. Village of Lamberton, 37
Minn. 363. Cited in Moede v. Stearns County,
43 Minn. 313.
STATE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, (Oakland Cemetery
Ass'N v. City of St. Paul,) 36 Minn. 529, 32 N.
W. 781.
Municipal Corporation, 264.
Words and Phrases, 52, 737.
STATE V. CLARKE, 31 Minn. 207, 17 N. W. 344.
Breach of the Peace.
STATE V. CLOUGH, 23 Minn. 17.
Counties, 51.
STATE V. COLWELL, 43 Minn. 378, 45 N. W. S47.
Larceny, 29, 40.
Courts, 25.
Followed in State v. Sweeney, 33 Minn. 24, 25.
Cited in Radley v. O'Leary, 36 Minn. 174.
STATE V. COUNTY AUDITOR, (State v. Foley,) 30
Minn. 350, 15 N. W. 375.
Constitutionai Law, 82, 121.
Distinguished in Coles v. Washington County,
35 Minn. 129, 130. Cited in Merrill v. Dearing,
32 Minn. 480; Easton v. Hayes, 35 Minn. 418,
419, 420; Fuller v. Morrison County, 36 Minn.
310; Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 499; Gerken
v. Sibley County, 39 Minn. 434.
STATE v. Cox, 26 Minn. 214, 2 N. W. 494.
Mandamus, 9.
Cited in State v. Macdonald, 30 Minn. 99; Sher-
man v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn.
230; Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 464.
STATE V. CRITCHETT, 37 Minn. 13, 32 N. W. 787.
Benevolent Societies.
Corporations, 5.
Words and Phrases, 82.
Followed in State v. Trubey, 37 Minn. 98; State
v. Steele, 37 Minn. 429.
STATE V. CRON, 23 Minn. 140.
Intoxicating Liquors, 20.
Cited in State v. Funk, 27 Minn. 319; State v.
Bach, 36 Minn. 235.
2635
2636
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
State v. CroNKHITE, 28 Minn. 197, 9 N. W. 681.
Taxation, 8, 282.
Explained in State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 352, 354.
Cited in Coles v. County of Washington, 35
Minn. 127, 128, 130; Goldschmidt v. Nobles
County, 37 Minn. 50; Easton v. Hayes, 38 Minn.
464, 465; Schoonover v. Galarnault, 45 Minn.
176.
STATE V. CRUMMEY, 17 Minn. 72, (Gil. 50.)
Criminal Law, 10.
Gaming, 9, 10.
Municipal Corporations, 58.
STATE V. CURTIS, 39 Minn. 357, 40 N. W. 263.
Criminal Law, 72
Forgery, 12.
Words and Phrases, 109.
Applied in State v. Sauer, 42 Minn. 260. Cited
in State v. Sauer, 42 Minn. 261.
STATE V. CZIZEK, 38 Minn. 192, 36 N. W. 457.
Embezzlement, 8, 29.
STATE V. DAVIS, 17 Minn. 429, (Gil. 406.)
Mandamus, 30, 31.
Cited in State v. Schaack, 23 Minn. 359.
STATE V. DAVIS, 22 Minn. 423.
Elections and Voters, 57, 59.
Grand Jury, 7, 11.
STATE V. DEE, 14 Minn. 35, (Gil. 27.)
Assault and Battery, 30.
Homicide, 61.
Witness, 9, 70.
Distinguished in State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 71.
STATE V. DEUSTING, 33 Minn. 102, 22 N. W. 442.
Intoxicating Liquors, 42.
Words and Phrases, 222.
STATE V. DICK, 47 Minn. 375, 50 N. W. 362.
Criminal Law, 26.
Intoxicating Liquors, 79.
Words and Phrases, 77, 78.
STATE V. DIKE, 20 Minn. 363, (Gil. 314.)
Constitutional Law, 15-17, 27.
Approved in State v. Braden, 40 Minn. 175. Ap-
plied in State v. Whitcomb, 28 Minn. 51. Cited
in Western R. Co. v. De Graff, 27 Minn. 5.
STATE V. DINEEN, 10 Minn. 407, (Gil. 325.)
Assault and Battery, 12-15, 26, 27.
Criminal Law, 108.
Words and Phrases, 184.
Applied in State v. Henn, 39 Minn. 477.
Cited
in State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 216, (Gil.
195.)
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT, (State v. Macdonald,) 26
Minn. 445, 4 N. W. 1107.
Highways, 12-15.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT, (State v. Leftwich,) 41
Minn. 42, 42 N. W. 598.
Certiorari, 16.
Contempt, 4.
STATE V. DIStrict Court OF HENNEPIN COUNTY,
33 Minn. 235, 22 N. W. 625.
Constitutional Law, 34.
Municipal Corporations, 202, 204–210.
Words and Phrases, 458.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 33 Minn. 252; Morton v. Power, 33
Minn. 523.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY,
33 Minn. 252, 22 N. W. 632.
Constitutional Law, 34.
Municipal Corporations, 202, 204–210.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY,
35 Minn. 461, 29 N. W. 60.
Eminent Domain, 23, 156.
Applied in Re St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 37
Minn. 167, 168.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY,
42 Minn. 40, 43 N. W. 686.
Divorce, 36.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY,
42 Minn. 247, 44 N. W. 7.
Railroad Companies, 35, 36.
Applied in State v. Shardlow, 43 Minn. 526.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 26
Minn. 233, 2 N. W. 698.
Prohibition, Writ of, 13.
Cited in State v. Cory, 35 Minn. 179.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 29
Minn. 62, 11 N. W. 133.
Evidence, 214.
Municipal Corporation, 254, 255.
Followed in Otter Tail County v. Batchelder, 47
Minn. 517. Cited in Mayall v. City of St. Paul,
30 Minn. 298; State v. District Court of Ram-
sey County, 32 Minn. 183; State v. District
Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn. 168; State
v. District Court of Hennepin County, 33 Minn.
249; State v. District Court of Ramsey Coun-
ty, 33 Minn. 303, 304, 309.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 31
Minn. 354, 17 N. W. 954.
Municipal Corporations, 259.
Words and Phrases, 634, 635.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 32
Minn. 181, 19 N. W. 732.
Municipal Corporations, 100, 110, 260.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 33
Minn. 164, 22 N. W. 295.
Municipal Corporations, 214, 215, 258, 290.
Words and Phrases, 337.
Explained in State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 47 Minn. 409. Cited in State v. Dis-
trict Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn. 302.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 33
Minn. 295, 23 N. W. 222.
Municipal Corporations, 216, 244, 251, 258,
266, 267.
Words and Phrases, 443.
Cited in Hennepin County v. Bartleson, 37 Minn.
344.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT, (City of St. Paul v. STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 40
Nickl,) 42 Minn. 262, 44 N. W. 59.
Municipal Corporations, 282.
Minn. 5, 41 N. W. 235.
Municipal Corporations, 291.
Miun. 244, 46 N. W. 349.
Certiorari, 22.
STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF DAKOTA COUNTY, 41 STATE V. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 44
Minn. 518, 43 N. W. 389.
Municipal Corporations, 16.
2637
2638
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. DISTrict Court of RAMSEY COUNTY, 47 | STATE V. FIDELITY & CASUALTY Ins. Co., 39 Minn.
Minn. 406, 50 N. W. 476.
Municipal Corporations, 268, 302.
STATE V. DONALDSON, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781.
Druggists, 1-3.
Statutes, 24.
Words and Phrases, 548.
538, 41 N. W. 108.
Constitutional Law, 19.
Insurance, 191, 192.
Quo Warranto, 5.
STATE V. FINCH, 37 Minn. 433, 34 N. W. 904.
Inspection.
Cited in State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 51 STATE V. FISHER, 38 Minn. 378, 37 N. W. 948.
N. W. 113.
STATE V. DOUGHER, 47 Minn. 436, 50 N. W. 475.
Bastardy, 1.
STATE V. DOWLAN, 33 Minn. 536, 24 N. W. 188.
Municipal Corporations, 77, 79.
Quo Warranto, 2.
Cited in State v. Harrison, 34 Minn. 527; State
v. Gates, 35 Minn. 386; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 214.
STATE V. DRESSEL, 38 Minn. 90, 35 N. W. 580.
Taxation, 289, 390.
Larceny, 5.
STATE V. FITCH, (Board County Com'rs v. Fitch,)
30 Minn. 532, 16 N. W. 411.
Highways, 40, 47.
Words and Phrases, 720.
Cited in State v. Austin, 35 Minn. 51; Schwede
v. Town of Burnstown, 35 Minn. 469; Riley v.
Mitchell, 38 Minn. 12, 13.
STATE V. FITZGERALD, 37 Minn. 26, 32 N. W. 788.
Elections and Voters, 1.
Distinguished in State v. Gurley, 37 Minn. 476.
Cited in Wellcome v. Town of Monticello, 41
Minn. 138.
STATE V. DULUTH ST. RY. Co., 47 Minn. 369, 50 N. STATE V. FLAHERTY, 46 Minn. 128, 48 N. W. 686.
W. 332.
Appeal and Error, 635.
Words and Phrases, 678.
STATE V. DUMPHEY, 4 Minn. 438, (Gil. 340.)
Homicide, 30, 31, 60, 62, 63, 97-99.
Jury, 32.
Witness, 8.
Followed in State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn.
519. Cited in State v. Lessing, 16 Minn. 77,
78, (Gil. 66, 67;) State v. Wagner, 23 Minn.
545.
STATE V. DWYER, 21 Minn. 512.
Intoxicating Liquors, 6, 33, 34.
STATE V. EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT ASS'N OF MIN-
NEAPOLIS, 51 N. W. 908.
Insurance, 197.
Followed in State v. Knights of Aurora, 51 N.
W.909.
STATE V. EHRIG, 21 Minn. 462.
Highways, 45.
STATE V. FLECKENSTEIN, 26 Minn. 177, 2 N. W. 475.
Intoxicating Liquors, 22.
Words and Phrases, 353.
Distinguished in State v. Wheeler, 27 Minn. 77.
Cited in State v. Nolan, 37 Minn. 18.
STATE V. FLEISCHER, 41 Minn. 69, 42 N. W. 696.
Physicians and Surgeons, 3.
STATE V. FOLEY, (State v. County Auditor,) 30
Minn. 350, 15 N. W. 375.
Constitutional Law, 82, 121.
Distinguished in Coles v. Washington County,
35 Minn. 129, 130. Cited in Merrill v. Dearing,
32 Minn. 480; Easton v. Hayes, 35 Minn. 418-
420; Fuller v. Morrison County, 36 Minn.
310; Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 499; Gerken
v. Sibley County, 39 Minn. 434.
STATE V. FRAMNESS, 43 Minn. 490, 45 N. W. 1098.
Criminal Law, 121, 167.
Fines, 3.
STATE V. EICHMILLER, 35 Minn. 240, 28 N. W. 503. STATE V. FRELINGHUYSEN, 43 Minn. 265, 45 N. W.
Criminal Law, 151.
Bastardy, 13, 14.
STATE V. EISELE, 37 Minn. 256, 33 N. W. 785.
Highways, 74–76.
STATE V. ENO, 8 Minn. 220, (Gil. 190.)
Criminal Law, 120.
Homicide, 92.
Indictment, 7.
Larceny, 37, 41.
Words and Phrases, 427.
Applied in State v. Wiles, 26 Minn. 382. Cited
in State v. Wood, 13 Minn. 125, (Gil. 116;)
State v. Coon, 18 Minn. 522, 523, (Gil. 466, 467.)
STATE V. EVERETT, 14 Minn. 439, (Gil. 330.)
Constitutional Law, 454.
Words and Phrases, 418.
Distinguished in Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Co., 18 Minn. 172, (Gil. 155.) Cited in Borough
of St. Peter v. Bauer, 19 Minn. 332, (Gil. 286;).
State v. West, 42 Minn. 151.
432.
Jury, 36.
Criminal Law, 53.
Applied in Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 0.
Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 213.
STATE V. FRIEND, 47 Minn. 449, 50 N. W. 692.
Larceny, 13, 22.
Words and Phrases, 734, 814.
STATE V. FRIZZELL, 31 Minn. 460, 18 N. W. 316.
Elections and Voters, 6.
Office and Officers, 9.
Distinguished in Beatty v. Sibley County, 32
Minn. 471.
STATE V. FROISETп, 16 Minn. 296, (Gil. 260.)
Witness, 60.
Cited in State v. Brecht, 41 Minn. 53.
STATE V. FROISETH, 16 Minn. 313, (Gil. 277.)
Grand Jury, 3, 4.
Cited in State v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 298, (Gil.
262;) State v. Grimes, 52 Ń. W. 276.
State v. FEDERAL INVESTMENT Co., 50 N. W. 1028. STATE V. FUNK, 27 Minn. 318, 7 N. W. 359.
Insurance, 187.
Intoxicating Liquors, 9, 24.
2639
2640
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. GALLAGHER, 42 Minn. 449, 44 N. W. 529.
Statutes, 45.
STATE V. GALUSHA, 26 Minn. 238, 2 N. W. 939, 3 N.
W. 350.
States and State Officers, 9.
STATE V. GALVIN, 27 Minn. 16, 6 N. W. 380.
Highways, 74.
STATE V. GARVEY, 11 Minn. 154, (Gil. 95.)
Assault and Battery, 22, 25, 28.
Criminal Law, 79.
Indictment, 8.
Words and Phrases, 283.
Cited in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 361, (Gil. 333;)
State v. Coon, 18 Minn. 521, (Gil. 465;) State v.
Welch, 21 Minn. 26; State v. Grear, 29 Minn.
224; Casey v. Sevatson, 30 Minn. 517.
STATE V. GATES, 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 404.
Seduction, 11.
Words and Phrases, 583.
STATE V. GATES, 35 Minn. 385, 28 N. W 927
Municipal Corporations, 78, 79.
STATE V. GESSERT, 21 Minn. 369.
Homicide, 35.
STATE V. GLUCK, 41 Minn. 553, 43 N. W. 483.
Intoxicating Liquors, 66.
STATE V. GOETZ, 24 Minn. 114.
Municipal Corporations, 72.
STATE V. GORMAN, 40 Minn. 232, 41 N. W. 948.
Taxation, 10.
Cited in Mearkle v. Hennepin County, 44 Minn.
547, 548; De Graff v. Ramsey County, 46 Minn.
320; Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W. 902.
STATE V. GORTON, 33 Minn. 345, 23 N. W. 5.29.
Schools and School-Districts, 16.
Words and Phrases, 510.
STATE V. GOULD, 31 Minn. 189, 17 N. W. 276.
Statutes, 4.
Words and Phrases, 765.
STATE V. GREENMAN, 23 Minn. 203.
Grand Jury, 8.
Cited in State v. Schumm, 47 Minn. 374.
STATE V. GUINEY, 26 Minn. 313, 3 N. W. 977.
Towns, 5.
STATE V. GUMMELL, 22 Minn. 51.
Assault and Battery, 33.
STATE V. GURLEY, 37 Minn. 475, 35 N. W. 179.
Elections and Voters, 2.
Municipal Corporations, 76.
STATE
V. GUT, 13 Minn. 341, (Gil. 315.)
Constitutional Law, 90.
Criminal Law, 7, 23, 37, 133, 179, 180, 187.
Deposition, 21.
Evidence, 13.
Grand Jury, 9, 10.
Homicide, 7, 8, 18, 43-45, 49, 75.
Indictment, 29.
Insanity, 7.
Jury, 4, 5, 7, 8, 23.
Statutes, 35.
Words and Phrases, 225.
Followed in State v. Stokely, 16 Minn. 287, (Gil.
252;) State v. Grear, 29 Minn. 225; State v.
Hanley, 34 Minn. 433. Applied in State v.
Kemp, 34 Minn. 62. Cited in State v. Miller,
15 Minn. 348, (Gil. 231;) State v. Welch, 21
Minn. 27; State v. Cantieny, 31 Minn. 7; State
v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 364; State v. Brecht, 41
Minn. 51.
STATE V. HAARLA, (State v. Austin,) 35 Minn. 51,
26 N. W. 906.
Bonds, 1.
Highways, 42.
Cited in Schwede v. Town of Burnstown, 35
Minn. 469.
STATE V. HACKETT, 47 Minn. 425, 50 N. W. 472.
Criminal Law, 32.
Larceny, 12.
Cited in Burt v. Winona & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 STATE V. HAIR, 37 Minn. 351, 34 N. W. 893.
Minn. 474.
STATE V. GRACE, 18 Minn. 398, (Gil. 359.)
Witness, 109, 110.
STATE V. GRAFFMULLER, 26 Minn. 6, 46 N. W. 445.
Criminal Law, 12, 178, 189.
Cited in City of Faribault v. Wilson, 34 Minn.
256.
STATE V. GRANT, 10 Minn. 39, (Gil. 22.)
Bail, 3, 8-11.
Constitutional Law, 41.
Habeas Corpus, 7, S.
States and State Officers, 1.
State v. GrAY, 29 Minn. 142, 12 N. W. 455.
Gaming, 7, 11.
Words and Phrases, 96.
Cited in State v. McGinnis, 30 Minn. 53.
STATE V. GREAR, 28 Minn. 426, 10 N. W. 472.
Criminal Law, 69, 100.
Cited in Tancre v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 480.
STATE V. GREAR, 29 Minn. 221, 13 N. W. 140.
Criminal Law, 68, 90, 96, 188.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 3; Swinfin
v. Lowry, 37 Minn. 346.
STATE V. GREEN, 32 Minn. 433, 21 N. W. 547.
Criminal Law, 123.
Maiming, 1-3.
Words and Phrases, 387.
STATE V. HAMLINE UNIVERSITY, (Nobles County v.
Hamline University,) 46 Minn. 316, 48 N. W.
1119.
Taxation, 36, 37.
Words and Phrases, 384.
STATE V. HAMMOND, 40 Minn. 43, 41 N. W. 243.
Municipal Corporations, 23.
STATE V. HANFT, 26 Minn. 264, 3 N. W. 343,
Appeal and Error, 699.
STATE V. HANFT, 32 Minn. 403, 23 N. W. 308.
Certiorari, 10.
STATE V. HANLEY, 25 Minn. 429.
Intoxicating Liquors, 54.
Distinguished in State v. Funk, 27 Minn. 319;
State v. Langdon, 31 Minn. 318; State v. Kant-
ler, 33 Minn. 81.
STATE V. HANLEY, 34 Minn. 430, 26 N. W. 397.
Evidence, 181.
Homicide, 81, 82, S8.
Cited in State v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 182.
STATE V. HARD, 25 Minn. 460.
Judgment, 98.
2641
2642
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. HARRISON, 34 Minn. 526, 26 N. W. 729.
Constitutional Law, 26.
Cited in State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g
Co., 40 Minn. 214.
STATE V. HASTINGS & D. Ry. Co. See State v.
Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co.
STATE V. HAYDEN, 35 Minn. 283, 28 N. W. 659.
Habeas Corpus, 12.
STATE V. HAYS, 38 Minn. 475, 38 N. W. 365.
Criminal Law, 156.
Justices of Peace, 30.
Cited in Re Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
STATE V. HECK, 23 Minn. 549.
Intoxicating Liquors, 58, 67.
Words and Phrases, 749.
Applied in State v. Quinlan, 40 Minn. 59. Cited
in City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 63;
State v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 500; State v. Grimes,
52 N. W. 276.
STATE V. HEENAN, 8 Minn. 44, (Gil. 26.)
Criminal Law, 134.
STATE V. HEITSCH, 29 Minn. 134, 12 N. W. 353.
Intoxicating Liquors, 69.
STATE V. HENN, 39 Minn. 464, 40 N. W. 564.
Indictment, 27a.
Larceny, 2, 14.
Cited in State v. Vorey, 41 Minn.136.
STATE V. HENN, 39 Minn. 476, 40 N. W. 572.
Assault and Battery, 26, 31.
STATE V. HERDINA, 25 Minn. 161.
Assault and Battery, 16, 17, 23.
Parent and Child, 7.
STATE V. HERRICK, 12 Minn. 132, (Gil. 75.)
Criminal Law, 176, 177.
Trial, 10.
Cited in Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 497, (Gil. 473;)
State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 367.
STATE V. HERZOG, 25 Minn. 490.
Embezzlement, 2,
STATE V. Hill, 10 Minn. 63, (Gil. 45.)
Appeal and Error, 108.
Habeas Corpus, 2, 3.
Distinguished in State v. Barnes, 17 Minn. 41,
(Gil. 319.)
STATE V. HILL, 32 Minn. 275, 20 N. W. 196.
Mandamus, 23.
Municipal Corporations, 90.
STATE V. HINCKLEY, 4 Minn. 345, (Gil. 261.)
Grand Jury, 6.
Indictment, 6.
Larceny, 17.
Words and Phrases, 580.
Followed in State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 141, (Gil.
127;) State v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 249, (Gil. 226;)
State v. Coon, 18 Minn. 521, (Gil. 465.) Ap-
plied in State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 524. Distin-
guished in State v. Taunt, 16 Minn. 111, 113,
(Gil. 101, 102.) Cited in State v. Garvey, 11
Minn. 161, (Gil. 102.)
STATE V. HOAG, 23 Minn. 31.
Criminal Law, 145, 146.
STATE V. HOGARD, 12 Minn. 293, (Gil. 191.)
Criminal Law, 91, 102.
Indictment, 9.
Larceny, 26, 27, 30.
Words and Phrases, 281.
Cited in State v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 35.
STATE V. HOLDEN, 42 Minn. 350, 44 N. W. 123.
Criminal Law, 50, 67, 71.
Homicide, 50.
STATE V. HOLDEN, (Norwood v. Holden,) 45 Minn.
313, 47 N. W. 971.
Counties, 7, 8.
STATE V. HOLM, 37 Minn. 405, 34 N. W. 748.
Habeas Corpus, 16, 17.
STATE V. HOLMAN, 40 Minn. 369, 41 N. W. 1073.
Highways, 57.
Cited in Anderson v. Meeker County, 46 Minn.
239.
STATE V. HOLONG, 38 Minn. 368, 37 N. W. 587.
Criminal Law, 133a.
Homicide, 33.
Cited in State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 75; State v.
Keith, 47 Minn. 560.
STATE V. HORAN, 32 Minn. 394, 20 N. W. 905.
Criminal Law, 61.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 280.
STATE V. HOYT, 13 Minn. 132, (Gil. 125.)
Grand Jury, 6.
Homicide, 6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 38, 39, 76.
Witness, 92.
Words and Phrases, 578.
Followed in State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn.
522, 524. Cited in State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn.
364.
STATE V. HUNGERFORD, 39 Minn. 6, 38 N. W. 628.
Carriers, 69, 72.
STATE V. HUNTER, (Polk County v. Hunter,) 42
Minn. 312, 44 N. W. 201.
Taxation, 21.
STATE V. HYDE, 27 Minn. 153, 6 N. W. 555.
Appeal and Error, 342.
Intoxicating Liquors, 46.
Cited in State v. McGinnis, 30 Minn. 49, 53.
STATE V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL-DISTRICT OF VIL-
LAGE OF NEWPORT, 42 Minn. 357, 44 N. W. 120.
Schools and School Districts, 8.
STATE V. JAMISON, 38 Minn. 21, 35 N. W. 712.
Abduction, 5, 6.
Words and Phrases, 735.
Cited in State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 561.
STATE V. JENNISON. See State v. Dike.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 12 Minn. 476, (Gil. 378.)
Bigamy, 5, 6, 8, 9.
Constitutional Law, 89.
Witness, 106.
Words and Phrases, 127.
Criticised in State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 377, 379,
(Gil. 349, 351.) Cited in State v. Ryan, 13 Minn.
379, (Gil. 351;) State v. McDonald, 20 Minn. 139,
(Gil. 122;) State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 35.
2643
2644
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 23 Minn. 569.
Criminal Law, 89.
Indictment, 28.
Applied in State v. Masteller, 45 Minn. 131.
Cited in Brady v. Brennan, 25 Minn. 211; Wil-
son v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 282;
Stone v. Evans, 32 Minn. 247.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 26 Minn. 316, 3 N. W. 982.
Criminal Law, 85.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 33 Minn. 34, 21 N. W. S43.
Burglary, 2.
Larceny, 31.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 37 Minn. 493, 35 N. W.373.
Criminal Law, 110, 111.
Homicide, 32, 79, 100.
Indictment, 12, 23.
Cited in State v. Bagan, 41 Minn. 288.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 41 Minn. 111, 42 N. W. 786.
Municipal Corporations, 28.
STATE V. JOHNSON, 43 Minn. 350, 45 N. W. 711.
Insurance, 194.
STATE V. JOHNSON.
See State v. Weld.
STATE V. JONES, 24 Minn. 86.
Taxation, 74.
Followed in Washington County v. German
Amer. Bank, 28 Minn. 361.
STATE V. JONES, 24 Minn. 251.
Taxation, 24.
STATE V. KANTLER, 33 Minn. 69, 21 N. W. 856.
Intoxicating Liquors, 41.
Municipal Corporations, 42, S5.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 8; Stolz v.
Thompson, 44 Minn. 275.
STATE V. KEITH, 47 Minn. 559, 50 N. W. 691.
Abduction, 2-4, 7-9.
Criminal Law, 107.
STATE V. KEMP, 34 Minn. 61, 24 N. W. 349.
Constitutional Law, 153.
Criminal Law, 11.
Words and Phrases, 226, 419.
STATE V. KENT, 22 Minn. 41.
Embezzlement, 1.
Cited in State v. Herzog, 25 Minn. 491.
STATE V. KILTY, 28 Minn. 421, 10 N. W. 475.
Words and Phrases, 502.
Wrecking Trains.
STATE V. KINNEY, 84 Minn. 311, 25 N. W. 705.
Assault and Battery, 11.
STATE V. KINSELLA, 14 Minn. 524, (Gil. 395.)
Statutes, 28.
Applied in Hoffman v. Parsons, 27 Minn. 238;
Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 319. Cited in
Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49, (Gil. 36;)
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 324; Mississippi
& R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 85;
Allen v. Pioneer-Press Co., 40 Minn. 120; State
v. Murray, 41 Minn. 126; City of Duluth v.
Krupp, 46 Minn. 437.
STATE V. KLEIN, 22 Minn. 328.
Intoxicating Liquors, 2.
Statutes, 19, 29, 43.
STATE V. KLITZKE, 46 Minn. 343, 49 N. W. 54.
Appeal and Error, 149.
Bastardy, 6, 8, 19.
STATE V. KNIGHTS OF AURORA, 51 N. W. 909.
Insurance, 197.
STATE V. KOBE, 26 Minn. 148, 1 Ņ. W. 1054.
Intoxicating Liquors, 51, 70.
Cited in State v. Bach, 36 Minn. 235.
STATE V. KOBE, 26 Minn. 150, 1 N. W. 1051
Criminal Law, 105.
STATE V. LALIYER, 4 Minn. 368, (Gil. 277.)
Homicide, 65, 66, 77.
Cited in State v. Grear, 29 Minn. 222.
STATE V. LALIYER, 4 Minn. 379, (Gil. 236.)
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 20.
STATE V. LANGDON, 29 Minn. 393, 13 N. W. 187.
Intoxicating Liquors, 25.
Cited in State v. Langdon, 31 Minn. 316, 318;
State v. Bach, 36 Minn. 235; State v. Nolan, 37
Minn. 18.
STATE V. LANGDON, 31 Minn. 316, 17 N. W. 859.
Intoxicating Liquors, 26.
State v. Kantler, 33 Minn. 81.
STATE V. LARSON, 40 Minn. 63, 41 N. W. 363.
Justices of the Peace, 28, 29.
Cited in State v. Harris, 52 N. W. 388.
STATE V. LAUTENSCHLAGER, 22 Minn. 514.
Criminal Law, 44.
Evidence, 177.
Homicide, 30, 31, 39, 90.
Jury, 31, 35.
Witness, 43.
Followed in Re Storer's Will, 28 Minn. 12. Cited
in State v. Brown, 41 Minn. 323; State v.
Lentz, 45 Minn. 182.
STATE V. LAUTENSCHLAGER, 23 Minn. 290.
Appeal and Error, 271.
Criminal Law, 112, 127.
STATE V. LA VAQUE, 47 Minn. 106, 49 N. W. 525.
Statutes, 38.
STATE V. LAVAKE, 26 Minn. 526, 6 N. W. 339.
Intoxicating Liquors, 56, 62.
Words and Phrases, 562, 702.
Followed in State v. Langdon, 29 Minn. 397.
Cited in State v. Bach, 36 Minn. 235; State v.
Wyman, 42 Minn. 182; State v. Masteller, 45
Minn. 129.
STATE V. LAWLOR, 23 Minn. 216, 9 N. W. 698.
Criminal Law, 60, 77, 181.
Homicide, 54.
Witness, 63, 104.
Cited in State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 525; State v.
Quinlan, 40 Minn. 57; State v. Barrett, 40
Minn. 79; State v. Frelinghuysen, 43 Minn. 266.
STATE V. LEE, 22 Minn. 407.
Criminal Law, 80, 81.
Cited in Bingham v. Bernard, 36 Minn. 116;
State v. Lockerby, 52 N. W. 959.
STATE V. LEE, (State v. Tosney,) 26 Minn. 262, 3 N.
W. 345.
Criminal Law, 169.
Municipal Corporations, 1.
Witness, 69.
2645
2646
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. LEE, 29 Minn. 445, 13 N. W. 913.
Constitutional Law, 33.
Criminal Law, 5.
Words and Phrases, 94, 175, 508, 568, 619.
Applied in State v. Harris, 5 N.' W. 389. Cited
in City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 64;
State v. West, 42 Minn. 150.
STATE V. LEFTWICH, (State v. District Court,) 41
Minn. 42, 42 N. W. 598.
Certiorari, 16.
Contempt, 4.
STATE V. LENTZ, 45 Minn. 177, 47 N. W. 720.
Criminal Law, 137.
Homicide, 55, 56, 71.
STATE V. LESLIE, 30 Minn. 533, 16 N. W. 408.
Highways, 22, 26.
STATE V. LESSING, 16 Minn. 75, (Gil. 64.)
Criminal Law, 166.
Homicide, 94, 95.
STATE V. LEVY, 23 Minn. 104.
Appeal and Error, 568.
Criminal Law, 175.
Larceny, 7.
Witness, 3.
Cited in State v. Levy, 24 Minn. 367; State v.
Boyd, 36 Minn. 539.
STATE V. LEVY, 24 Minn. 362.
Bail, 1, 7.
Criminal Law, 122.
STATE V. LINTON, 42 Minn. 32, 43 N. W. 571.
Bastardy, 15.
STATE V. LOOMIS, 27 Minn. 521, 8 N. W. 758.
Corporations, 23.
Criminal Law, 147.
Larceny, 16.
Warehousemen, 1.
STATE V. LUCY, 41 Minn. 60, 42 N. W. 697.
Homicide, 51, 72, 84.
State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202.
Intoxicating Liquors, 4, 5, 19.
Municipal Corporations, 14.
Applied in State v. Óleson, 26 Minn. 517; State v.
Harris, 52 N. W. 389. Cited in State v. Lee, 29
Minn. 450; State v. West, 42 Minu. 150.
STATE V. MCCARTHY, 41 Minn. 59, 42 N. W. 599.
Perjury, 1.
Words and Phrases, 429.
STATE V. MCCRUM, 38 Minn. 154, 36 N. W. 102.
Abduction, 1.
STATE V. MCDONALD, 20 Minn. 136, (Gil. 119.)
Constitutional Law, 92.
Distinguished in State v. Herzog, 25 Minn. 492,
STATE V. MACDONALD, 24 Minn. 48.
Aliens, 3-5.
Followed in Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 14.
Cited in Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 178.
STATE V. MCDONALD, 26 Minn. 145, 1 N. W. 832.
Taxation, 178, 182.
Cited in Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn. 480; State
v. Smith, 36 Minn. 457.
STATE V. MACDONALD, (State v. District Court,) 2€
Minn. 445, 4 N. W. 1107.
Highways, 12-15.
STATE V. MACDONALD, 29 Minn. 440, 13 N. W. 671,
Mandamus, 12.
STATE V. MACDONALD, 30 Minn. 98, 14 N. W. 459.
Mandamus, 10.
Cited in Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379; Rich-
ardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 464.
STATE V. MCFADDEN, 23 Minn. 40.
Counties, 1, 6, 32.
Statutes, 36.
Cited in State v. Parker, 25 Minn. 219; State ex
re). Minn. Ry. Const. Co. v. City of Lake City,
25 Miun. 416; Smith v. Anderson, 33 Minn. 26
STATE V. MCGINNIS, 30 Minu. 48, 14 N. W. 256.-
Criminal Law, 155.
Intoxicating Liquors, 68.
Cited in State v. McGinnis, 30 Minn. 53.
STATE V. MCGINNIS, 30 Mina. 52, 14 N. W. 258.
Intoxicating Liquors, 47, 59, 71.
Applied in State v. Quinlan, 40 Minn. 59.
STATE V. MCGRORTY, 2 Minn. 224, (Gil. 187.)
Criminal Law, 140, 142.
STATE V. MCGUIRE, 42 Minn. 27, 43 N. W. 687.
Bail, 12.
STATE V. MCINTYRE, 19 Minn. 93, (Gil. 65.)
Homicide, 36, 37.
Indictment, 10, 13.
State v. LumberMEN'S BOARD OF EXCHANGE, 33 STATE V. MCINTYRE, 25 Minn. 383.
Minn. 471, 23 N. W. S3S.
Logs and Logging, 41.
Words and Phrases, 42.
STATE V. MABEN, 45 Minn. 56, 47 N. W. 306.
Jury, 12.
STATE V. MCCARTEY, 17 Minn. 76, (Gil. 54.)
Jail and Jailer, 1-3.
Sheriffs and Constables, 61.
STATE V. MCMARTIN, 42 Minn. 30, 43 N. W. 572.
Prohibition, Writ of, 9.
STATE V. MADSON, 43 Minn. 433, 45 N. W. 856.
Statutes, 46.
Criminal Law, 42, 74, 75, 88, 98, 103, 183, STATE V. MAHONEY, 23 Minn. 181.
185.
Grand Jury, 5.
Jury, 11, 14.
Indictment, 1, 4.
Larceny, 4.
Witness, 74,
Words and Phrases, 762.
Cited in State v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 246, 251, (Gil.
223, 228;) Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17
Minn. 318, (Gil. 294;) State v. Conway, 23
Minn. 293; Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 345;
State v. Grimes, 52 N. W. 276.
Intoxicating Liquors, 78.
Explained in State v. McGinnis, 30 Mina. 52,
Cited in State v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 499.
STATE V. MAHONEY, (Penney v. Mahoney,) 37 Minn.
174, 33 N. W. 778. See Jordan v. Bailey.
STATE V. MANTOR, 14 Minn. 437, (Gil. 327.)
Towns, 3.
STATE V. MARVIN, 26 Minn. 323, 3 N. W. 991.
Justices of the Peace, 4.
Distinguished in State v. Bowen, 45 Minn. 148
-2647
2648
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. MASTELLER, 45 Minn. 128, 47 N. W. 541.
Rape, 14.
STATE V. MESSENGER, 27 Minn. 119, 6 N. W. 457.
Eminent Domain, 45.
Statutes, 54.
Applied in State v. Bruggerman, 31 Minň. 494,
495; In re Lincoln Park, 44 Minn. 302. Cited
in State Park Com'rs v. Henry, 38 Minn. 268,
270; City of St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 264;
Miller v. Town of Corinna, 42 Minn. 392; Hill
v. Townley, 45 Minn. 169.
STATE V. MILLER, 10 Minn. 313, (Gil. 246.)
Criminal Law, 135.
Larceny, 34.
STATE V. MILLER, 15 Minn. 344, (Gil. 277.)
Criminal Law, 38, 39.
Words and Phrases, 225.
STATE V. MINNESOTA CENT. RY. Co., 36 Minn. 246,
30 N. W. 816.
Corporations, 11.
Railroad Companies, 10-12, 94, 133.
Explained in Minnesota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Don-
aldson, 38 Minn. 116. Cited in State v. Minne-
sota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Mina. 215.
STATE v. MINNESOTA THRESHER MANUF'o Co., 40
Minn. 213, 41 N. W. 1020.
Constitutional Law, 149.
Corporations, 2, 136.
Quo Warranto, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 99, 308, 572.
Cited in Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co., 40
Minn. 346; Arthur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 415;
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 453; Willis v.
St. Paul Sanitation Co., 50 N. W. 1111.
Cited in State v. Stokely, 16 Mina. 289, (Gil. 253.) STATE V. MONNIER, 8 Minn. 212, (Gil. 182.)
STATE V. MILLER, 23 Minn. 352.
Criminal Law, 162.
Cited in State v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 36; State v.
Wyman, 42 Minn. 153.
STATE V. MILLER, 45 Minn. 521, 48 N. W. 401.
Larceny, 32, 33.
Cited in Rosquist v. D. M. Gilmore Furniture
Co., 52 N. W. 385.
STATE V. MILNER, 16 Minn. 55, (Gil. 43.)
Certiorari, 13.
Criminal Law, 196.
Cited in State v. Severance, 29 Minn. 271.
STATE V. MIMS, 26 Minn. 183, 2 N. W. 494, 683.
Aliens, 8.
Criminal Law, 170.
Embezzlement, 21-23, 26, 27.
Jury, 39.
Trial, 97, 160.
Cited in State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 83; Bingham v.
Bernard, 36 Minn. 115; State v. Lentz, 45
Minn. 184.
STATE V. MIмs, 26 Minn. 191, 2 N. W. 492.
Embezzlement, 12, 13.
Trial, 97, 160.
Forgery, 1.
STATE V. MONSON, 41 Minn. 140, 42 N. W. 790.
Indictment, 16.
STATE V. MOREN, 51 N. W. 618.
Lotteries, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 452.
STATE V. MOTT, 16 Minn. 472, (Gil. 424.)
Forgery, 2.
Words and Phrases, 307.
STATE V. MUELLER, 38 Minn. 497, 38 N. W. 691.
Intoxicating Liquors, 75, 77.
Distinguished in State v. Masteller, 45 Minn. 131.
STATE V. MUNCH, 22 Minn. 67.
Embezzlement, 4, 5, 14-17.
Indictment, 5, 18.
Words and Phrases, 815.
Followed in State v. Baumhager, 28 Minn. 227.
Cited in State v. Lavake, 26 Minn. 528; State
v. Ring, 29 Minn. 84, S5; State v. Czizek, 33
Minn. 192.
STATE V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF MINNEAPOLIS, (State
v. Sawyer,) 43 Minn. 202, 45 N. W. 155.
Criminal Law, 152.
STATE V. MINNEAPOLIS E. Rr. Co., 40 Minn. 156, STATE V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF ST. PAUL, 26 Minn.
41 N. W. 465.
Constitutional Law, 35.
Mandamus, 4.
Railroad Companies, 20.
Reversed in Minneapolis E. Ry. Co. v. State, 10
Sup. Ct. 473, 134 U. S. 467.
STATE V. MINNEAPOLIS MILL Co., 26 Minn. 229, 2
N. W. 839.
Navigable Waters, 7.
Taxation, 19.
Words and Phrases, 633.
Cited in Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 43 Miun. 65; Hanford v. St. Paul
& D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 112.
STATE V. MINNEAPOLIS MILLERS' ASSOCIATION, 30
Minn. 429, 16 N. W. 151.
Taxation, 29, 65.
STATE V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 39 Minn.
219, 39 N. W. 153.
Mandamus, 24, 25, 28, 29, 40.
Municipal Corporations, 87.
Railroad Companies, 33, 34, 42-45.
Words and Phrases, 19.
Cited in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 429: Robinson
v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 385.
162, 2 N. W. 166.
Prohibition, Writ of, 12.
Applied in State v. District Court for Ramsey
County, 26 Minn. 234. Cited in State v. Cory,
35 Minn. 178.
STATE V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF ST. PAUL, 32 Minn.
329, 20 N. W. 243.
Municipal Corporations, 33.
Words and Phrases, 463.
Cited in City of St. Paul v. Stoltz, 33 Minn. 235.
STATE V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF ST. PAUL, (City of
St. Paul v. Hennessy,) 38 Minn. 94, 35 N. W.
576.
Nuisance, 30, 31.
STATE V. MURRAY, 41 Minn. 123, 42 N. W. 858.
Municipal Corporations, 74.
Statutes, 37.
STATE V. NELSON, 41 Minn. 25, 42 N. W. 548.
Mandamus, 21.
Payment, 30.
Followed in Mearkle v. Hennepin County, 44
Minn. 548. Cited in De Graff v. Ramsey Coun-
ty, 46 Minn. 320; Joannin v. Ogilvie, 52 N. W.
217, 219.
2649
2650
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. PARRANT, 16 Minn. 178, (Gil. 157.)
Criminal Law, 118.
STATE V. NERBOVIG, 33 Minn. 480, 24 N. W. 321.
Criminal Law, 17, 19, 158.
Intoxicating Liquors, 57, 60.
Jury, 3, 9.
Cited in State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 117.
STATE V. NEw, 22 Minn. 76.
Criminal Law, 84, 94.
Embezzlement, 3, 20, 25.
Larceny, 11, 39.
Cited in State v. Butler, 26 Minn. 92; State v.
Masteller, 45 Minn. 129.
STATE V. NICHOLS, 29 Minn. 357, 13 N. W. 153.
Appeal and Error, 387.
Bastardy, 11.
Witness, 66.
Cited in State v. Klitzke, 46 Minn. 343, 345.
STATE V. NOLAN, 37 Minn. 16, 33 N. W. 36.
Intoxicating Liquors, 27.
STATE V. NOONAN. 24 Minn. 124.
Criminal Law, 193.
Applied in State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 44 Minn. 245.
STATE V. NOONAN, 24 Minn. 174.
Criminal Law, 148, 149.
Cited in State v. Abrisch, 42 Minn. 203.
STATE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 32 Minn. 294, 20
N. W. 234.
Railroad Companies, 110, 111.
Cited in Stevens County v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 470.
Cited in State v. Anderson, 41 Minn. 105.
STATE V. PAULSON, (Open v. Paulson.) See Nor-
wood v. Holden.
STATE V. PEERS, 33 Minn. 81, 21 N. W. 860.
Constitutional Law, 29.
Elections and Voters, 53.
Prohibition, Writ of, 8.
STATE V. PENNER, 27 Minn. 269, 6 N. W. 790.
Sheriffs and Constables, 31.
Applied in Ryan Drug Co. v. Peacock, 40 Minn
471.
STATE V. PERRY, 28 Minn. 455, 10 N. W. 778.
Bail, 2, 4-6.
Cited in Benedict v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W.,
51 N. W. 372.
STATE V. PETERSON, 38 Minn. 143, 36 N. W. 443.
Fines, 2.
Intoxicating Liquors, 30, 65, 73.
Statutes, 1.
Followed in State v. Olson, 38 Minn. 150. Cited
in State v. Sannerud, 38 Minn. 229; State v.
Framness, 43 Minn. 492; State v. Harris, 52 N.
W. 389.
STATE V. PFEIFER, 26 Minn. 175, 2 N. W. 474.
Intoxicating Liquors, 22.
Distinguished in State v. Wheeler, 27 Minn. 77.
Cited in State v. Nolan, 37 Minn. 18.
STATE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 36 Minn. 207, 30 STATE V. PLYM, 43 Minn. 385, 45 N. W. 848.
N. W. 663.
Railroad Companies, 112-114.
STATE V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 39 Minn. 25, 38 N.
W. 635.
Railroad Companies, 120.
Cited in Hennepin County v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 240.
STATE v. O'CONNOR, 38 Minn. 243, 36 N. W. 462.
Extradition, 3.
STATE V. OLESON, 26 Minn. 507, 5 N. W. 959.
Criminal Law, 4, 34.
Words and Phrases, 506.
Cited in State v. West, 42 Minn. 150.
STATE V. OLSON, 38 Minn. 150, 36 N. W. 446.
Intoxicating Liquors, 30, 65, 73.
Statutes, 1.
STATE V. ORTII, 38 Minn. 150, 36 N. W. 103.
Intoxicating Liquors, 10.
Applied in State v. Benz, 41 Minn. 32.
STATE V. OSTROM, 35 Minn. 480, 29 N. W. 585.
Constitutional Law, 48.
STATE V. OWENS, 22 Minn. 238.
Abortion, 1–5.
Criminal Law, 172, 173.
Applied in State v. Wiles, 26 Minn. 382. Cited
in State v. Quinlan, 40 Minn. 58.
STATE V. PAMPERIN, 42 Minn. 320, 44 N. W. 251.
Municipal Corporations, 38.
STATE V. PARKER, 25 Minn. 215.
Counties, 3, 4.
Quo Warranto, 1.
Words and Phrases, 523.
Applied in Smith v. Anderson, 33 Minn. 26, 28;
State v. Tracy, 51 N. W. 613.
Bigamy, 10.
Criminal Law, 70.
Cited in Waite v. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 161.
STATE V. PRIESTER, 43 Minn. 373, 45 N. W. 712.
Intoxicating Liquors, 28, 29, 76.
Municipal Corporations, 15.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, 28-
Minn. 381, 10 N. W. 209.
Appeal and Error, 681.
Cited in State v. Buckham, 29 Minn. 463; Auer-
bach v. Gloyd, 34 Minn. 504.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 19
Minn. 117, (Gil. 85.)
Executors and Administrators, 100, 116.
Prohibition, Writ of, 6.
Distinguished in Re Gragg, 32 Minn. 143.
Cited
in Spencer v. Sheehan, 19 Minn. 341, 342, (Gil.
294, 295;) State v. Probate Court of Sibley
County, 33 Minn. 95.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 25
Minn. 22.
Executors and Administrators, 26, 52, 64,
65, 94.
Followed in Dawson v. Girard Life Ins. Co., 27
Minn. 414. Distinguished in Gage v. Stimson,
26 Minn. 65. Cited in Noon v. Finnegan, 29'
Minn. 420; State v. Probate Court of Ramsey
County, 40 Minn. 300; Barber v. Bowen, 47
Minn. 121.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 40
Minn. 296, 41 N. W. 1033.
Executors and Administrators, 88, 95, 99.
Applied in O'Mulcahey v. Gragg, 45 Minn. 114;
Davis v. Townsend, 45 Minn. 525. Cited in-
Barber v. Bowen, 47 Minn. 121.
2651
2652
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 42 | STATE V. RICHTER, 37 Minn. 436, 35 N. W. 9.
Minn. 54, 43 N. W. 692.
Executors and Administrators, 60.
Extradition, 1.
Words and Phrases, 319.
STATE V. PROBATE COURT OF SIBLEY COUNTY, 33 STATE V. RIEBE, 27 Minn. 315, 7 N. W. 262.
Minn. 94, 22 N. W. 10.
Executors and Administrators, 117.
Applied in Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 239.
Cited in Hurley v. Hamilton, 37 Minn. 161.
STATE V. PULLE, 12 Minn. 164, (Gil. 99.)
Conspiracy, 6, 7.
Criminal Law, 2.
Cited in Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 331,
(Gil. 303;) Locke v. First Division St. P. & P.
R. Co., 15 Minn. 357, (Gil. 291;) Dutcher v.
Culver, 24 Minn. 588.
STATE V. QUINLAN, 40 Minn. 55, 41 N. W. 299.
Criminal Law, 76, 87.
Words and Phrases, 7, 76, 707.
STATE V. RACHAC, 37 Minn. 372, 35 N. W. 7.
Records, 2, 3.
STATE V. RAND, 39 Minn. 502, 40 N. W. S35.
Taxation, 26, 27.
Words and Phrases, 173, 246.
STATE V. RAPP, 39 Minn. 65, 3S N. W. 926.
Eminent Domain, 28.
Highways, 16, 36.
STATE V. RECKARDS, 21 Minn. 47.
Appeal and Error, 230.
Costs, 35.
Criminal Law, 45, 168.
Disorderly House, 2.
STATE V. REDMON, (White, In re,) 43 Minn. 250, 45
N. W.232.
Habeas Corpus, 13.
Hawkers and Peddlers, 3.
Municipal Corporations, 40.
Cited in Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 43 Minn.
422; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 437;
Willis v. Standard Oil Co., 52 N. W. 654.
STATE V. REDWOOD. FALLS BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N,
45 Minn. 154, 47 N. W. 540.
Taxation, 30, 31.
STATE V. REED, 27 Minn. 458, 8 N. W. 768.
Mandamus, 20.
STATE V. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RAMSEY COUNTY,
26 Minn. 521, 6 N. W. 337.
Deed, 67.
STATE V. REID, 39 Minn. 277, 39 N. W. 796.
Criminal Law, 51.
Rape, 1, 12, 13.
STATE V. REIS, 38 Minn. 371, 38 N. W. 97.
Municipal Corporations, 249.
Words and Phrases, 359, 446.
STATE V. RHEAMS, 34 Minn. 18, 24 N. W. 302.
Homicide, 26, 86.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 6.
Forgery, 13.
Words and Phrases, S.
Cited in State v. Curtis, 39 Minn. 359.
STATE V. RING, 29 Minn. 78, 11 N. W. 233.
Counties, 45.
Embezzlement, 7, 18, 19, 24, 28.
Evidence, 215, 216.
Jury, 2.
Office and Officer, 3.
Cited in State v. Czizek, 38 Minn. 192.
STATE V. ROBINSON, 14 Minn. 447, (Gil. 333.)
Criminal Law, 8.
Indictment, 22.
Followed in State v. Anderson, 25 Minn. 68.
Cited in State v. Masteller, 45 Minn. 129.
STATE V. ROBINSON, 42 Minn. 107, 43 N. W. 833.
Municipal Corporations, 37.
STATE V. ROSE, 47 Minn. 47, 49 N. W. 404.
Criminal Law, 106.
Homicide, 64, 103.
STATE V. RUINKE, 27 Minn. 309, 7 N. W. 264.
Chattel Mortgages, 111.
STATE V. RYAN, 13 Minn. 370, (Gil. 343.)
Constitutional Law, 91.
Criminal Law, 115, 171.
Homicide, 30, 31, 34, 91, 93, 105.
Words and Phrases, 273.
Followed in State v. Lautenschlager, 23 Minn.
291. Approved in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 363,
(Gil. 336;) State v. McDonald, 20 Minn. 139,
(Gil. 122.) Cited in State v. Parrant, 16 Minn.
179, (Gil. 158;) State v. Lessing, 16 Minn. 77,
(Gil. 66;) State v. Owens, 22 Minn. 244; State
v. Armington, 25 Minn. 34; State v. Framness,
43 Minn. 491.
STATE V. SACKETT, 39 Minn. 69, 38 N. W. 773.
Constitutional Law, 155.
Criminal Law, 163.
STATE V. ST. JOHN, 47 Minn. 315, 50 N. W. 200.
Certiorari, 32.
Highways, 37.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., (Pence v. St.
Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 28 Minn. 48S, 11 N. W.
80.
Landlord and Tenant, 45.
Railroad Companies, 93.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 311,
15 N. W. 307.
Railroad Companies, 107, 108.
Words and Phrases, 339.
Applied in State v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 295.
STATE V. RICHARDSON, 34 Minn. 115, 24 N. W. 354. STATE v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Hennepin
Affidavit, 1.
Extradition, 2.
Words and Phrases, 129.
STATE V. RICHTER, 23 Minn. 81.
Intoxicating Liquors, 44, 45.
Cited in State v. Heitsch, 29 Minn. 135.
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Có.,) 33 Minn
534, 24 N. W. 196.
Railroad Companies, 117.
Distinguished in Martin County v. Drake, 40
Minn. 140. Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35
Minn. 18; Todd County v. St. Paul, M. & M.
Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 165.
2653
2654
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., (City of Min- | STATE V. SCHROEDER, 43 Minn. 231, 45 N. W. 149.
neapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 35 Minn.
131, 28 N. W. 3.
Railroad Companies, 32.
Followed in State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 225, 227, 229.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 246,
36 N. W. 870.
Appeal and Error, 261.
Railroad Companies, 41.
Intoxicating Liquors, 14.
Followed in State v. Schroeder, 45 Minn. 44.
STATE V. SCHROEDER, 45 Minn. 44, 47 N. W. 308.
Intoxicating Liquors, 14.
STATE V. SCHUMM, 47 Minn. 373, 50 N. W. 362.
Criminal Law, 25.
Jury, 6.
Followed in State v. Dick, 47 Minn. 375.
Cited in State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., STATE V. SCOTT, 41 Minn. 365, 43 N. W. 62.
39 Minn. 222, 223, 230.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 353,
42 N. W. 21.
Railroad Companies, 13.
STATE V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., (Hennepin
County v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,) 42 Minn.
238, 44 N. W. 63.
Railroad Companies, 123.
Cited in St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. Ry.
Co., 45 Minn. 511, 513.
Criminal Law, 54, 55.
Homicide, 27, 46, 73, 74, 87.
Jury, 25.
STATE V. SECREST, 33 Minn. 381, 23 N. W. 545.
Criminal Law, 20.
STATE V. SEVERANCE, (Spencer & Searles, In re
29 Minn. 269, 13 N. W. 48.
Insolvency, 113.
Words and Phrases, 296.
Cited in Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g
Co., 44 Minn. 323.
STATE V. ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT Co., 42 Minn. 142, STATE V. SEXTON, 42 Minn. 154, 43 N. W. 845.
43 N. W. 840.
Railroad Companies, 116.
STATE V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 35 Minn. 222, 28
N. W. 245.
Quo Warranto, 7.
Railroad Companies, 8, 9.
Words and Phrases, 647:
Distinguished in State v. Minnesota Cent. Ry.
Co., 36 Minn. 266. Cited in State v. Minnesota
Cent. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 258, 259, 264; State v.
Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 215,
217.
STATE V. SANDERSON, 26 Minn. 333, 3 N. W. 984.
Counties, 29, 30.
STATE V. SANNERUD, 38 Minn. 229, 36 N. W. 447.
Intoxicating Liquors, 65, 73, 74.
Statutes, 1.
STATE V. SAUER, 38 Minn. 438, 38 N. W. 355.
Criminal Law, 101.
Words and Phrases, 637.
Cited in State v. Sauer, 42 Minn. 258.
STATE V. SAUER, 42 Minn. 258, 44 N. W. 115.
Witness, 75.
Words and Phrases, 176.
Cited in State v. Adamson, 43 Minn. 200.
Criminal Law, 154.
STATE V. SHARDLOW, 43 Minn. 524, 46 N. W. 74.
Railroad Companies, 35, 37–39.
STATE V. SHARP, 27 Minn. 38, 6 N. W. 408.
Constitutional Law, 55.
Quo Warranto, 10, 13.
Schools and School-Districts, 1.
Words and Phrases, 751.
Cited in Jordan v. Bailey, 37 Minn. 177; State v.
Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn.
214; State v. Tracy, 51 N. W. 613.
STATE V. SHAW, 39 Minn. 153, 39 N. W. 305.
Gaming, 8, 12.
Words and Phrases, 322-324.
Disapproved in State v. Grimes, 52 N. W. 42.
STATE V. SHENTON, 22 Minn. 311.
Assault and Battery, 29.
Cited in State v. Ward, 35 Minn. 183; State v.
Abrisch, 41 Minn. 41.
STATE V. SHERIFF OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, 24 Minn.
87.
Habeas Corpus, 9, 10.
STATE V. SHERIFF OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 51 N. W. 112.
Constitutional Law, 14, 79.
STATE V. SAWYER, (State v. Municipal Court of STATE V. SHERWOOD, 15 Minn. 221, (Gil. 173.)
.
Minneapolis,) 43 Minn. 202, 45 N. W. 155.
Criminal Law, 152.
STATE V. SCHAACK, 28 Minn. 358, 10 N. W. 22.
Mandamus, 30.
Taxation, 177.
STATE V. SCHMAIL, 25 Minn. 368.
Intoxicating Liquors, 61.
Cited in State v. Clarke, 31 Minn. 207.
STATE V. SCHMAIL, 25 Minn. 370.
Costs, 59.
Criminal Law, 174.
Intoxicating Liquors, 21, 72.
Distinguished in State v. Wheeler, 27 Minn. 77.
Explained in State v. Pfeifer, 26 Minn. 176.
Cited in State v. Bach, 86 Minn. 235.
Constitutional Law, 148.
Mandamus, 16, 17, 36, 41.
Followed in State v. Churchill, 15 Minn. 460,
(Gil. 375;) Allen v. Robinson, 17 Minn. 115, 117,
(Gil. 92, 94;) State v. City of Lake City, 25
Minn. 427. Distinguished in State v. Williams,
25 Minn. 342. Cited in Commissioners Mille
Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 180; In re
Howes, 38 Minn. 405; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 217.
STATE V. SHETTLEWORTH, 18 Minn. 208, (Gil. 191.)
Criminal Law, 109.
Rape, S-10, 20, 21.
Followed in Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 464,
465. Distinguished in State v. Teipner, 36
Minn. 536. Cited in State v. Reid, 39 Minn.
281, 284.
2655
2656
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. SHIPPEY, 10 Minn. 223, (Gil. 178.)
Criminal Law, 180.
Homicide, 1, 2, 17, 21, 24, 43.
Indictment, 24.
Followed in State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 148, (Gil.
133.) Applied in State v. Sorenson, 32 Minn.
121. Cited in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 359, (Gil.
332;) State v. Dee, 14 Minn. 41, (Gil. 31;) State
v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 524; State v. Tripp,
34 Minn. 26; State v. Hanley, Id. 433.
STATE V. SIBLEY, 25 Minn. 387.
Corporations, 8, 17, 18, 116-118.
Evidence, 288.
Words and Phrases, 68.
STATE V. SIMONS, 32 Minn. 540, 21 N. W. 750.
Constitutional Law, 31.
Prohibition, Writ of, 7.
Cited in State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322; Gilbert-
son v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 414.
STATE V. SIMPSON, 28 Minn. 66, 9 N. W. 78.
Criminal Law, 30:
STATE V. SIOUX CITY & N. R. Co., 43 Minu. 17, 44
N. W. 1032.
Corporations, 172.
Words and Phrases, 165.
STATE V. SMALL, 29 Minn. 216, 12 N. W. 703.
Statutes, 50.
STATE V. SMITH, 20 Minn. 376, (Gil. 32º
Jury, 29.
STATE V. SMITH, 22 Minn. 218.
Municipal Corporations, 81-84.
Approved in State v. Murray, 41 Minn. 130. Ap-
plied in Scott County v. Hinds, 52 N. W. 524.
Cited in State v. Guiney, 26 Minn. 314; Lord v.
City of Anoka, 36 Minn. 177.
STATE V. SMITH, 29 Minn. 193, 12 N. W. 524.
Disorderly House, 1, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 352.
Followed in State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 458.
STATE V. SMIT¤, 35 Minn. 257, 28 N. W. 241.
Statutes, 41.
Words and Phrases, 27.
Distinguished in State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 440.
Explained in Schramm v. Haupt, 38 Minn. 380;
Reimer v. Newell, 47 Minn. 242. Cited in Hall
v. Wheeler, 37 Minn. 523; City of Winona v.
School-District, No. 82, 40 Minn. 15.
STATE V. SMITH, 36 Minn. 456, 32 N. W. 174.
Taxation, 181, 185, 186.
Distinguished in Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn.
102.
Cited in Pigott v. O'Halloran, 37 Minn.
417; Mueller v. Jackson, 39 Minn. 432.
STATE V. SMITH, 47 Minn. 475, 50 N. W. 605.
Bastardy, 5.
STATE V. SNURE, 29 Minn. 132, 12 N. W. 347.
Bastardy, 2, 7, 12, 20.
Cited in State v. Nichols, 29 Minn. 359; State v.
Wenz, 41 Minn. 197; State v. Klitzke, 46 Minn.
343; State v. Smith, 47 Minn. 475.
STATE V. SOMERBY, 42 Minn. 55, 43 N. W. 689.
Quo Warranto, 12.
STATE V. SORENSON, 32 Minn. 118, 19 N. W. 738.
Holidays, 1.
Homicide, 47, 48, 85.
Cited in State v. Rheans, 34 Minn. 20; State v.
Spaulding, Id. 367.
STATE V. SOUTHERN MINN. R. Co., 18 Minn. 40,
(Gil. 21.)
Mandamus, 8.
Railroad Companies, 24.
Cited in State v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 224.
STATE V. SPAUDE, 37 Minn. 322, 34 N. W. 164.
Constitutional Law, 54.
Municipal Corporations, 8, 75.
Cited in Bradish v. Lucken, 38 Minn. 189; Stem-
per v. Higgins, 38 Minn. 223, 224, 228; Well-
come v. Town of Monticello, 41 Minn. 138;
McCormick v. Village of West Duluth, 47
Minn. 275; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County,
51 N. W. 113.
STATE V. SPAULDING, 34 Minn. 361, 25 N. W. 793.
Criminal Law, 59.
Homicide, 57-59.
STATE V. STALEY, 14 Minn. 105, (Gil. 75.)
Appeal and Error, 539.
Criminal Law, 52, 57, 63-66, 92, 93, 99, 184.
Homicide, 67, 78, 101.
Witness, 84, 93.
Words and Phrases, 637, 638.
Followed in State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 525.
Cited
in Baldwin v. Blanchard, 15 Minn. 499, (Gil.
411;) Judson v. Reardon, 16 Minn. 441, (Gił.
397;) Simmons v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 18
Minn. 192, (Gil. 176;) Ferson v. Wilcox, 19
Minn. 451, (Gil. 392;) State v. Cantieny, 34
Minn. 8; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 364;
Scofield v. Walrath, 35 Minn. 356; Conlan v.
Grace, 6 Minn. 280; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn.
74; State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 367; State v. Hol-
den, 42 Minn. 353.
STATE V. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 32
Minn. 324, 20 N. W. 238.
Constitutional Law, 173.
Physicians and Surgeons, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 771.
Cited in State v. State Board of Medical Exam-
iners, 34 Minn. 389.
STATE V. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 34
Minn. 357, 26 N. W. 123.
Physicians and Surgeons, 4.
Words and Phrases, 240.
Cited in State v. State Board of Medical Exam-
iners, 34 Minn. 391, 393; State v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 302.
STATE V. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 34
Minn. 391, 26 N. W. 125.
Physicians and Surgeons, 5.
STATE V. Steele, 37 Minn. 428, 34 N. W. 903.
Corporations, 12, 13.
Words and Phrases, 69.
STATE V. STEIN, 51 N. W. 474.
Perjury, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 157,422, 809, 810.
STATE V. STEVENS, 5 Minn. 521, (Gil. 416.)
Adverse Claims, 2, 36.
Public Lands, 92, 111, 115, 118, 128.
STATE V. STOKELY, 16 Minn. 282, (Gil. 249.)
Criminal Law, 40, 41, 138.
Homicide, 14, 70, 80, 89.
Indictment, 3.
Jury, 13.
Cited in State v. Hanley, 34 Minn. 433; State v.
Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
2657
2658
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. STORDOCK, (Williams, In re,) 39 Minn. 172, | State v. ToWN OF HIGHLAND, 25 Minn. 355.
39 N. W. 65.
Criminal Law, 129.
STATE V. SULLIVAN, (Taylor v. Sullivan,) 45 Minn.
309, 47 N. W. 802.
Elections and Voters, 37.
Office and Officer, 1.
Words and Phrases, 252.
STATE V. SUMMERS, 38 Minn. 324, 37 N. W. 451
Larceny, 28.
STATE V. SWEENEY, 33 Minn 23, 21 N. W. 847.
Justices of the Peace, 31. 32.
STATE. TALL, 43 Minn. 273, 45 N. W. 449.
Criminal Law, 139.
Witness, 14, 35, 64, 65, 99.
STATE V. TAUNT, 16 Minn. 109, (Gil. 99.)
Criminal Law, 58, 104, 165.
Larceny, 18, 19, 36.
Railroad Companies, 69.
STATE V. TOWN OF LAKE, 28 Minn. 362, 10 N. W. 17.
Mandamus, 3, 49.
Words and Phrases, 602.
STATE V. TOWN OF LIME, 23 Minn. 521.
Railroad Companies, 67, 82.
Towns, 6, 7.
Approved in State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn.
413. Cited in State v. City of Hastings, 24
Minn. 82; Coe v. Caledonia & M. Ry. Co., 27
Minn. 206.
STATE V. TOWN OF ROSCOE, 25 Minn. 445.
Railroad Companies, 78.
STATE V. TOWN OF SOMERSET, 44 Minn. 549, 47 N.
W. 163.
Mandamus, 35.
STATE V. TRACY, 51 N. W. 613.
Quo Warranto, 6, 11, 14.
Followed in State v. Anderson, 25 Minn. 67. A? STATE V. TRIPP, 34 Minn. 25, 24 N. W. 290.
plied in State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 524.
State v. Rheams, 34 Minn. 21.
Cited in
STATE V. TEIPNER, 36 Minn. 535, 32 N. W. 678.
Rape, 11.
Witness, 115, 116.
STATE V. THADEN, 43 Minn. 253, 45 N. W. 447.
Conspiracy, 8.
Witness, 64.
Followed in State v. Tall, 43 Minn. 275.
STATE V. THADEN, 43 Minn. 325, 45 N. W. 614.
Criminal Law, 46, 73.
False Pretenses, 3.
STATE V. THOMAS, 19 Minn. 484, (Gil. 418.)
Grand Jury, 2.
Jury, 24.
Perjury, 2, 5.
Cited in State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 34; State
v. Hanley, 34 Minn. 431; State v. Stein, 51 N.
W. 474.
STATE V. THOMPSON, 32 Minn. 144, 19 N. W. 730.
Criminal Law, 22.
STATE V. THOMPSON, 46 Minn. 302, 48 N. W. 1111.
Highways, 30.
STATE V. TIMMENS. 4 Minn. 325, (Gil. 241.)
Counties, 5.
Indictment, 14, 20.
Seduction, 9, 19, 20.
Words and Phrases, 582, 685.
Followed in State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 560, 561.
Cited in State v. Robinson, 14 Minn. 456, (Gil.
340;) State v. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 287; State
v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 197; State v. Lockerby, 52
N. W. 959.
STATE V. TINER, 13 Minn. 520, (Gil. 488.)
Criminal Law, 157.
STATE V. TOSNEY, (State v. Lee,) 26 Minn. 262, 3
N. W. 345.
Criminal Law, 169.
Municipal Corporations, 1.
Witness, 67.
STATE V. TOWN OF CLARK, 23 Minn. 422.
Constitutional Law, 66.
Municipal Corporations, 311.
Railroad Companies, 84.
Followed in State v. Town of Lime, 23 Minn. 528.
v.2M.DIG.-84
Assault and Battery, 18, 21.
STATE V. TRUBEY, 37 Minn. 97, 33 N. W. 554.
Insurance, 186.
STATE V. TRUSTEES SOUTHERN MINN. R. Co., 21
Minn. 344.
Railroad Companies, 135.
Taxation, 14.
STATE V. UELAND, 30 Minn. 29, 14 N. W. 58.
Constitutional Law, 43.
Followed in State v. Ostrom, 35 Minn. 481. Ap-
plied in Todd v. Rustad, 43 Minn. 502. Cited
in Christlieb v. Hennepin County, 41 Minn.
143.
STATE V. UELAND, 30 Minn. 277, 15 N. W. 245.
Wills, 65.
Applied in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 233.
Cited in Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn.
354, 388; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 243.
STATE V. ULLMAN, 5 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Blackmail, 1-3.
STATE V. VADNAIS, 21 MinD. 382.
Rape, 18, 19, 22.
Applied in State v. Wiles, 26 Minn. 382.
STATE V. VANDERSLUIS, 42 Minn. 129, 43 N. W. 789.
Physicians and Surgeons, 6-8.
Words and Phrases, 770.
STATE V. VILLAGE OF LAMBERTON, (Holden v. Vil-
lage Council of Lamberton,) 37 Minn. 362, 34
N. W. 336.
Certiorari, 3.
Elections and Voters, 32.
STATE V. VOREY, 41 Minn. 134, 43 N. W. 324.
Rape, 16.
State v. WAGNER, 23 Minn. 544.
Criminal Law, 49.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 31 Minn. 12; State v.
Bagan, 41 Minn. 286.
STATE V. WAHOLZ, 28 Minn. 114, 9 N. W. 578.
Highways, 9.
Cited in State v. Hill, 32 Minn. 276; Gaston v.
Merriam, 33 Minn. 279.
STATE V. WALSH, 43 Minn. 444, 45 N. W. 721.
Malicious Mischief, 2.
Words and Phrases, 713.
2659
2660
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. WARD, 35 Minn. 182, 28 N. W. 192.
Rape, 5-7.
Words and Phrases, 47.
STATE V. WEBBER, 31 Minn. 211, 17 N. W. 339.
Appeal and Error, 152.
STATE V. WEBBER, (Brown County v. Winona &
St. P. Land Co.,) 38 Minn. 397, 37 N. W. 949.
Certiorari, 19, 25.
Mandamus, 11.
Railroad Companies, 132.
Taxation, 93, 97.
Followed in Brown County v. Winona & St. P.
Land Co., 39 Minn. 381. Applied in State v.
Leftwich, 41 Minn. 43. Explained in Redwood
County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn.
515, 525. Cited in Redwood County v. Winona
& St. P. Land Co., 42 Minn. 181.
STATE V. WEDGE, 23 Minn. 32.
Criminal Law, 145, 146
STATE V. WEDGE, 24 Minn. 150.
District and Prosecuting Attorneys, 2, 3.
Office and Officer, 15.
State v. WELCH, 21 Minn. 22.
Criminal Law, 6.
Elections and Voters, 56-60
Statutes, 14, 55.
Followed in State v. Davis, 22 Minn. 424.
STATE V. WELD, 39 Minn. 426, 40 N. W. 561.
Mandamus, 26, 47.
Practice in Civil Cases, 22.
Words and Phrases, 79.
Cited in State v. Archibald, 43 Minn. 332; Todd
v. Rustad, 43 Minn. 502.
STATE V. WELLMAN, 34 Minn. 221, 25 N. W. 395.
Larceny, 1, 3, 35.
STATE V. WENZ, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. W. 933.
Seduction, 12, 15, 18.
Cited in State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 562; State v.
Lockerby, 52 N. W. 959.
STATE V. WEST, 39 Minn. 321, 40 N. W. 249.
Indecent Assault, 5, 6.
Words and Phrases, 370.
Cited in State v. Bagan, 41 Minn. 287.
STATE V. WEST, 42 Minn. 147, 43 N. W. 845.
Criminal Law, 3.
Words and Phrases, 174, 178, 396.
Cited in State v. Anderson, 47 Minn. 271; State
v. Harris, 52 N. W. 388.
STATE V. WESTON, 23 Minn. 366.
Criminal Law, 194.
Followed in State v. Noonan, 24 Minn. 126, 127,
175. Distinguished in State v. District Court
of Ramsey County, 44 Minn. 245.
STATE V. WHEELER, 19 Minn. 98, (Gil. 70.)
Forgery, 10, 11.
STATE V. WILCOX, 24 Minn. 143.
Constitutional Law, 42.
Courts, 15.
Insanity, 1, 2.
Prohibition, Writ of, 10, 11.
Distinguished in State v. Municipal Court of St.
Paul, 26 Minn. 163.
STATE V. WILES, 26 Minn. 381, 4 N. W. 615.
Criminal Law, 29.
Cited in State v. Hackett, 47 Minn. 427.
STATE V. WILLIAMS, 25 Minn. 340.
Mandamus, 18, 19.
STATE
V. WILLIAMS, 32 Minn. 537, 21 N. W. 746.
Chattel Mortgages, 112-114.
Indictment, 17.
Words and Phrases, 41, 152.
STATE V. WILLSON, 28 Minn. 52, 9 N. W. 28.
Forgery, 3, 4.
Words and Phrases, 276, 277.
STATE V. WINONA & ST. P. LAND Co., (Brown
County v. Winona & St. P. Land Co.,) 39
Minn. 380, 40 N. W. 166.
Taxation, 70.
Followed in Redwood County v. Winona & St.
P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 514, 515, 523. Cited in
Redwood County v. Winona & St. P. Land
Co., 42 Minn. 181.
STATE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 434,
(Gil. 377.)
Constitutional Law, 107.
Railroad Companies, 15.
STATE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 315.
Railroad Companies, 101, 137.
Taxation, 14.
Followed in State v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 21
Minn. 345. Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35
Minn. 17; Stevens County v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 470, 472.
STATE V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 472.
Covenants, 7.
Railroad Companies, 126, 127.
Followed in Brown County v. Winona & St. P.
Land Co., 38 Minn. 400; Brown County v.
Winona & St. P. Land Co., 39 Minn. 381.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. McDonald,
34 Minn. 188; Redwood County v. Winona &
St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 515.
STATE V. WISWELL, 35 Minn. 480, 29 N. W. 586.
Constitutional Law, 48.
STATE V. WOOD, 13 Minn. 121, (Gil. 112.)
Forgery, 8.
Cited in Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 277, (Gil. 234.)
Distinguished in State v. Henn, 39 Minn. 465. STATE V. WORTHINGHAM, 23 Minn. 528.
Cited in State v. Curtis, 39 Minn. 359.
STATE V. WHEELER, 27 Minn. 76, 6 N. W. 423.
Intoxicating Liquor, 23.
STATE V. WHITCOMB, 28 Minn. 50, 8 N. W. 902.
Constitutional Law, 28.
Approved in State v. Braden, 40 Minn. 175.
Cited in State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
28 Minn. 293.
Bastardy, 3, 4, 9, 10.
Marriage, 1, 2, 5, 6.
Cited in State v. Snure, 29 Minn. 134; Fox v.
Burke, 31 Minn. 321; State v. Eichmiller, 35
Minn. 241; State v. Klitzke, 46 Minn. 343.
STATE V. WYMAN, 42 Minn. 182, 43 N. W. 1116.
Criminal Law, 162.
Intoxicating Liquors, 63.
2661
2662
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STATE V. YOUNG, 23 Minn. 551.
Bonds, 3.
Counties, 36.
Sunday, 5.
Followed in Redwood County v. Tower, 28 Minn.
46. Explained in Schwab v. Rigby, 38 Minn.
396. Cited in Andrews v. Farnham, 29 Minn.
249;
Scott County v. Ring, Id. 408; McMillan
v. Ames, 33 Minn. 261.
STATE V. YOUNG, 29 Minn. 474, 9 N. W. 737.
Constitutional Law, 30, 112.
STEARNS COUNTY V. ST. CLOUD, M. & A. R. Co.,
(Board County Com'rs v. St. Cloud, M. & A.
R. Co.,) 36 Minn. 425, 32 N. W. 91.
Highways, 62, 70.
STEELE V. BOND, 28 Minn. 267, 9 N. W. 772.
Courts, 23.
Mortgages, 14.
Cited in Petsch v. Biggs, 31 Minn. 395; Steele v.
Bond, 32 Minn. 19; Radley v. O'Leary, 36 Minn.
174.
Applied in State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., STEELE V. BOND, 32 Minn. 14, 18 N. W. 830.
38 Minn. 299; State v. McMartin, 42 Minn. 31.
Explained in Secombe v. Kittelson, 29 Minn.
556. Cited in State v. Simons, 32 Minn. 543,
514.
STATE V. YOUNG, 44 Minn. 76, 46 N. W. 204.
Insolvency, 114.
Followed in Briggs v. Shea, 50 N. W. 1037.
STATE V. ZEITLER, 35 Minn. 238, 28 N. W. 501.
Bastardy, 14.
Cited in State v. Eichmiller, 35 Minn. 240, 241.
STATE BANK OF DULUTH V. HENEY, 40 Minn. 145,
41 N. W. 411.
Municipal Corporations, 121.
Cited in City of Duluth v. Heney, 43 Minn. 155;
Breen v. Kelly, 45 Minn. 353.
STATE OF WISCONSIN V. TORINUS, 22 Minn. 272.
Pleading, 123.
States and State Officers, 2, 3.
Cited in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Libby,
24 Minn. 329; La Grange Mill Co. v. Bennewitz,
28 Minn. 63.
STATE OF WISCONSIN V. TORINUS, 24 Minn. 332.
States and State Officers, 6, 7.
Distinguished in State v. Galusha, 26 Minn. 241.
Cited in State v. Torinus, 26 Minn. 4; State of
Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 178.
STATE OF WISCONSIN V. TORINUS, 26 Minn. 1, 49 N.
. W. 259.
States and State Officers, 8.
Cited in State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn.
178.
Mortgages, 312.
Vendor and Purchaser, 45, 46.
Cited in Bohn Manuf'g Co. v. Lewis, 45 Minn.
165.
STEELE V. ETHERIDGE, 15 Minn. 501, (Gil. 413.)
Appeal and Error, 570.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 17.
Evidence, 290.
New Trial, 33.
Trial, 125, 126.
Cited in Paine v. Sherwood, 19 Minn. 323, (Gil.
277; Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 486.
STEELE V. FISH, 2 Minn. 153, (Gil. 129.)
Adverse Claim, 1, 3.
Cited in State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 239, (Gil.
185;) Hamilton v. Batlin, 8 Minn. 404, (Gil.
360, 361;) Wilder v. City of St. Paul, 12 Minn.
198, (Gil. 122;) Rau v. Minnesota Val. R. Co.,
13 Minn. 445, (Gil. 411;) Murphy v. Hinds, 15
Minn. 183, (Gil. 140;) Brackett v. Gilmore, 15
Minn. 251, (Gil. 191;) Barber v. Evans, 27
Minn. 93; Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 415.
STEELE V. MALONY, 1 Minn. 347, (Gil. 257.)
Jury, 10, 26.
STEELE V. TAYLOR, 1 Minn. 274, (Gil. 210.)
Execution, 83.
Lis Pendens, 4
Parties, 18, 31.
Specific Performance, 80.
Cited in Hart v. Marshall, 4 Minn. 297, (Gil. 214;)
Montgomery v. McEwen, 9 Minn. 108, (Gil. 97;)
Coukey v. Dike, 17 Minn. 464, (Gil. 442.)
STATE OF WISCONSIN V. TORINUS, 28 Minn. 175, 9 STEELE V. THAYER, 36 Minn. 174, 30 N. W. 758.
N. W. 725.
Judgment, 113.
Words and Phrases, 101.
Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 31 Minn. 215; Craver v.
Christian, 34 Minn. 398; Woodcock v. Carlson,
52 N. W. 142.
STATE SASH & DOOR MANUF'G Co. v. ADAMS, 47
Minn. 399, 50 N. W. 360.
Trial, 193.
STATE SASH & DOOR MANUF'g Co. v. NORWEGIAN-
DANISH SEMINARY, 45 Minn. 254, 47 N. W. 796.
Mechanics' Liens, 104.
Cited in St. Paul & M. Pressed Brick Co. v.
Stout, 45 Minn. 329.
STEARNS V. JOHNSON, 17 Minn. 142, (Gil. 116.)
Accord and Satisfaction, 6.
Appeal and Error, 436, 607.
Evidence, 65.
Fraud, 8.
Trial, 21.
Cited in Stearns v. Johnson, 19 Minn. 544, 547,
(Gil. 473, 476.)
STEARNS V. JOHNSON, 19 Minn. 540, (Gil. 470.)
Principal and Agent, 54, 55, 106.
Pleading, 80.
Use and Occupation, 4, 5.
STEEN V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 37 Minn. 310, 34
N. W. 113.
Master and Servant, 33.
STEES, IN RE, (Ramsey County v. Stees,) 28 Minn.
326, 9 N. W. 879.
Eminent Domain, 52.
Distinguished in Rheiner v. Union Depot St.
Railway & Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 295.
STEES V. KRANZ, 32 Minn. 313, 20 N. W. 241.
Injunction, 7, 22, 29.
Landlord and Tenant, 46, 47.
Pleading, 26.
STEES V. LEONARD, 20 Minn. 494, (Gil. 448.)
Contracts, 119, 121, 124.
Evidence, 298.
Pleading, 258.
Trial, 7.
Cited in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 231; Con-
ter v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 343;
Nash v. City of St. Paul, 23 Minn. 138; Nel-
ichka v. Esterly, 29 Minn. 146; Anderson v.
May, 52 N. W. 531.
2663
2664
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
1
STEFFENSON V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Rr. Co., 45 ↑ STERN V. HARRIS, 40 Minn. 209, 41 N. W. 1036.
Minn. 355, 47 N. W. 1068.
Master and Servant, 109.
Distinguished in Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 47 Minn. 10. Cited in Steffenson v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 610.
STEFFENSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 51
N. W. 610.
Master and Servant, 53.
Trial, 50.
STEFFES V. LEMKE, 40 Minn. 27, 41 N. W. 302.
Mechanics' Liens, 133.
Parties, 17.
}
Principal and Surety, 11.
STEIN V. HASTINGS, 45 Minn. 196, 47 N. W. 968.
Replevin, 87.
STEIN V. LA Dow, 13 Minn. 412, (Gil. 381.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 37-39.
Cited in Williams v. Frost, 27 Minn. 257; Cam-
pion v. Whitney, 30 Minn. 179.
STEIN V. MUNCH, 24 Minn. 390.
Chattel Mortgages, 27, 30, 31.
Cited in Mann v. Flower, 25 Minn. 507; Gal-
lagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 509, 511.
STEIN V. PASSMORE, 25 Minn. 256.
Negotiable Instruments, 9, 68, 186.
Cited in Buck v. Hutchins, 45 Minn. 272.
STEIN V. RHEINSTROM, 47 Minn. 476, 50 N. W. 827.
Negotiable Instruments, 100.
Warehousemen, 3.
STEIN V. SWENSEN, 44 Minn. 218, 46 N. W. 360.
Insolvency, 78.
Usury, 10, 29, 41, 42.
Cited in Stein v. Swensen, 46 Minn. 361; Hawk-
ins v. Sauby, 50 N. W. 1016.
STEIN V. SWENSEN, 46 Minn. 360, 49 N. W. 55.
Evidence, 352, 354.
Usury, 20, 45, 49.
Words and Phrases, 780.
STEINER V. ZWICKEY, 41 Minn. 448, 43 N. W. 376.
Vendor and Purchaser, 27.
STEINHART V. PITCHER, 20 Minn. 102, (Gil. 86.)
Appearance, 10.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 20, 22.
Cited in Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177.
STEINKRAUS v. MINNEAPOLIS, L. & M. Ry. Co., 39
Minn. 135, 39 N. W. 70.
New Trial, 6.
STEMPER V. HIGGINS, 38 Minn. 222, 37 N. W. 95.
Elections and Voters, 7, 14, 52.
Words and Phrases, 753.
Partnership, 4.
Cited in Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 378.
STEVENS, IN RE, (Green's Estate, In re,) 38 Minn.
432, 38 N. W. 111.
Insolvency, 34.
Cited in Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 120.
STEVENS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 29 Minn. 219, 12
N. W. 533.
Municipal Corporations, 91.
STEVENS V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 42 Minn. 136, 43
N. W. 842.
Appeal and Error, 202.
Evidence, 166, 186.
Applied in Lewis v. Willoughby, 43 Minn. 311.
Cited in Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 409; Har-
row v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 72; Pa-
pooshek v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 44 Minn.
197; In re Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
•
STEVENS V. CURRY, 10 Minn. 316, (Gil. 249.)
Practice in Civil Cases, 24.
STEVENS V. HATCH, 6 Minn. 64, (Gil. 19.)
Deed, 51, 52.
Cited in Heiman v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
17 Minn. 159, (Gil. 132;) Thompson v. Eston,
31 Minn. 101; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 276;
Tatge v. Tatge, 34 Minn. 276; Conlan v. Grace,
36 Minn. 281; Nazro v. Ware, 38 Minn. 445;
Lee v. Fletcher, 46 Minn. 52.
STEVENS V. JOHNSON, 28 Minn. 172, 9 N. W. 677.
Negotiable Instruments, 21.
Sale, 152.
Applied in Torinus v. Buckham, 29 Minn. 131.
Cited in Mast & Co. v. Matthews, 30 Minn.
442; Durment v. Tuttle, 52 N. W. 910.
STEVENS V. LUDLUM, 46 Minn. 160, 48 N. W. 771.
Estoppel, 58.
Cited in Fergestad v. Gjertsen, 46 Minn. 371;
Irish-American Bank v. Ludlum, 51 N. W.
1047, 1048.
STEVENS V MCMILLIN, 37 Minn. 509, 35 N. W. 372.
Appeal and Error, 403.
Pleading, 212.
Replevin, 82.
Cited in Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 104.
STEVENS V. MONTGOMERY, 27 Minn. 108, 6 N. W.
456.
Trial, 157.
Cited in State v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 184.
STEVENS COUNTY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
(Stevens County, In re,) 36 Minn. 467, 31 N. W.
942.
Railroad Companies, 109, 115, 140.
Stensgaard v. NATIONAL FIRE INS. Co., 36 Minn. STEVENSON V. HYLAND, 11 Minn. 198, (Gil. 128.)
181, 30 N. W. 468.
Insurance, 66.
Words and Phrases, 782.
STENSGAARD V. SMITH, 43 Minn. 11, 44 N. W. 669.
Contracts, 5, 19.
STERLING V. Bock, 37 Minn. 29, 32 N. W. 865.
Contracts, 112.
Witness, 45.
STERLING V. Bock, 40 Minn. 11, 41 N. W. 236.
Partnership, 30, 31.
STERLING FIRE INS. Co. v. BEFFREY, 50 N. W. 922.
Insurance, 102.
Negotiable Instruments, 93.
Cited in Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn. 193.
STEVENSON V. MCLAREN, 23 Minn. 111.
Bankruptcy, 8, 9.
STEVERS V. GUNZ, 23 Minn. 520.
Justices of the Peace, 19.
STEWART V. COLTER, (Stewart v. Carter,) 31 Minn.
385, 18 N. W. 98.
Taxation, 88, 125, 162. 219, 223.
Cited in Knight v. Valentine, 34 Minn. 28; Gil-
fillan v. Hobart, 34 Minn. 69; State v. Tall, 43
Minn. 276; Godfrey v. Valentine. 45 Minn. 503.
2665
2666
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STEWART V. COOLEY, 23 Minn. 347.
Appeal and Error, 242, 243.
Judge, 12.
Cited in Stone v. Johnson, 30 Minn. 18; Cool-
baugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn. 449.
STEWART V. DAVENPORT, 23 Minn. 346.
Appeal and Error, 293.
STEWART V. DUNCAN, 40 Minn. 410, 42 N. W. 89.
Judgment, 273.
Words and Phrases, 544.
Applied in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 66.
STEWART V. DUNCAN, 47 Minn. 285, 50 N. W. 227.
Execution, 112.
STEWART V. ERIE & W. TRANSP. Co., 17 Minn. 372,
(Gil. 348.)
Carriers, 54, 55.
Constitutional Law, 70.
Contracts, 47.
Corporations, 122-126.
Pleading, 231, 232.
Railroad Companies, 2, 3.
Cited in Small v. Minneapolis Electro-Matrix
Co., 45 Minn. 267; Kolff v. St. Paul Fuel Ex-
change, 50 N. W. 1036.
STEWART V. HIDDEN, 13 Minn. 43, (Gil. 29.)
Accord and Satisfaction, 5.
Gifts, 1.
Negotiable Instruments, 151.
Cited in Sonnenberg v. Riedel, 16 Minn. 85, (Gil.
74;) Lamprey v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 156.
STEWART V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 36
Minn. 355, 31 N. W. 351.
Taxation, 209.
Followed in Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 37 Minn. 12;
Kipp v. Hill, 40 Minn. 188. Cited in Mulvey v.
Tozer, 40 Minn. 387.
STEWART V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 40 Minn. 101,
41 N. W. 457.
Libel and Slander, 26.
STICKNEY V. JORDAN, 47 Minn. 262, 49 N. W. 980.
Deceit, 45.
Cited in Stickney v. Jordain, 52 N. W. 861.
STICKNEY V. SMITH, 5 Minn. 486, (Gil. 390.)
Conversion of Personal Property, 1.
Replevin, 27, 40.
STILLMAN V. FITZGERALD, 37 Minn. 186, 33 N. W.
564.
Factors and Brokers, 2.
Principal and Agent, 49.
STILLMAN V. NORTHERN PAC., F. & B. H. R. Co.,
34 Minn. 420, 26 N. W. 39.
Eminent Domain, 199.
Cited in Nelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 171; McDonald v. Peacock, 37 Minn.
514.
STILLWATER ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER Co. v.
RHEINER, (Rheiner v. Stillwater St. Railway
& Transfer Co.,) 29 Minn. 147, 12 N. W. 449.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Followed in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 30 Minn.
42; Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 94; Young
v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294; Carlson v. Small, 32
Minn. 439. Applied in Fox v. Burke, 29 Minn.
173; Clapp v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33
Minn. 23; Jacobson v. Williams, 34 Minn. 23;
Clark v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 34 Minn. 249;
Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414.
Cited in Rheiner v. Union Depot, St. Railway
& Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 290.
STINE V. BENNETT, 13 Minn. 153, (Gil. 138.)
Constitutional Law, 86, 87.
Limitation of Actions, 8.
Statutes, 10, 57, 71.
Followed in Duncan v. Cobb, 32 Minn. 462, 463.
Cited in Burk v. Western Land Ass'n, 40 Minn.
507; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 169; Russell v.
H. C. Akeley Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 380.
STEWART V. MINNESOTA TRIBUNE Co., 41 Minn. 71, STINSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P. & M. Rr. Co., 27 Minn.
42 N. W. 787.
Libel and Slander, 41, 46, 69, 86.
STEWART V. MURRAY, 13 Minn. 426, (Gil. 393.)
Evidence, 265.
Mortgages, 3.
Cited in Steele v. Bond, 32 Minn. 22.
STEWART V. RHOADES, 39 Minn. 193, 39 N. W. 141.
Homestead, 53.
Cited in Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 16.
STEWART V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 43 Minn.
268, 45 N. W. 431.
Master and Servant, 50.
STEWART V. SMITH, 36 Minn. 82, 30 N. W. 430.
Mortgages, 47, 48.
STEWART V. WILSON, 23 Minn. 449.
Libel and Slander, 2, 11, 56.
STICKNEY V. BRONSON, 5 Minn. 215, (Gil. 172.)
Conversion of Personal Property, 39.
Damages, 115.
Witness, 51.
Cited in Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 120, (Gil.
112;) Newell v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 21; Beebe
v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 551; Howe v. Cochran,
47 Minn. 404.
284, 6 N. W. 784.
Eminent Domain, 75, 195.
Cited in Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30
Minn. 229; Union Depot St. Railway & Trans-
fer Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 299.
STINSON V. DOUSEMAN, 1 Minn. 325, (Gil. 251.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
STINSON V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn.
492, (Gil. 446.)
Removal of Causes, 2.
STINSON V. SMITH, 8 Minn. 366, (Gil. 326.)
Municipal Corporations, 241, 245.
Statutes, 7.
Distinguished in Dowlan v. Sibley County, 36
Minn. 431. Explained in Noonan v. City of
Stillwater, 33 Minn. 201, 202; State v. Dis-
trict Court of Hennepin County, 33 Minn. 244,
245. Cited in Sanborn v. Commissioners Rice
County, 9 Minn. 277, (Gil. 261;) Moulton v.
Doran, 10 Minn. 71, (Gil. 52;) Rogers v. City of
St. Paul, 22 Minn. 507; City of St. Paul v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 474; State v. Dis-
trict Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn. 306;
State v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 530; State
v. Reis, 38 Minn. 375.
2667
2668
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
STOCKING V. HANSON, 22 Minn. 542.
Abatement and Revival, 26–28.
Appeal and Error, 124.
Judgment, 3, 253.
New Trial, 93.
Cited in Berkey v. Judd, 27 Minn. 477.
STOCKING V. HANSON, 35 Minn. 207, 28 N. W. 507.
Appearance, 19.
Judgment, 233.
Cited in Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 35; Baus-
man v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 208; Magin v. Lamb,43
Minn. 81; Nell v. Dayton, 47 Minn. 259.
STOCKING V. ST. PAUL TRUST Co., 39 Minn. 410, 40
N. W. 365.
Evidence, 34, 45.
STOCKTON V. THORN, (Nelson's Will, In re,) 39
Minn. 204, 39 N. W. 143.
Wills, 10, 17.
Words and Phrases, 767, 768.
Cited in Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 457; In re
Hess' Will, 51 N. W. 615.
STONE V. MYERS, 9 Minn. 303, (Gil. 287.)
Fraudulent Conveyances, 52, 54.
Judgment, 154, 170, 196.
Followed in Cleland v. Tavernier, 11 Minn. 196,
(Gil. 127.) Distinguished in Kenney v. Goer-
gen, 36 Minn. 192. Cited in Lydiard v. Chute,
45 Minn. 280; Fullington v. Northwestern
Breeders' Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475.
STONE V. QUAAL, 36 Minn. 46, 29 N. W. 326.
Confusion of Goods, 3.
Pleading, 79.
Words and Phrases, 481.
Explained in Nunnemacker v. Johnson, 38 Minn.
391. Cited in Ellingboe v. Brakken, 36 Minn.
158; Steele v. Thayer, 36 Minn. 175.
STORER'S WILL, IN RE, (Storer v. Zimmerman,) 28
Minn. 9, 8 N. W. 827.
Evidence, 180.
Wills, 13-15.
Applied in Re Nelson's Will, 39 Minn. 209.
Cited in Re Hess' Will, 51 N. W. 615.
STOUT V. MCMASTERS, 37 Minn. 185, 33 N. W. 558.
Appeal and Error, 661.
STOKER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 32 Minn. 478, 21 STOUT V. STOPPEL, 30 Minn. 56, 14 N. W. 268.
N. W. 557.
Municipal Corporations, 183.
Fixtures, 8.
Cited in Shapira v. Barney, 30 Minn. 60; Little
v. Willford, 31 Minn. 179.
STOKOE v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. STOUT V. WATSON, 45 Minn. 454, 48 N. W. 195.
545, 42 N. W. 482.
Witness, 13.
STOLL V. HOUDE, 34 Minn. 193, 25 N. W. 63.
Libel and Slander, 64.
STOLZ V. THOMPSON, 44 Minn. 271, 46 N. W. 410.
Constitutional Law, 180.
Applied in State v. Aslesen, 52 N. W. 221.
STONE V. BASSETT, 4 Minn. 298, (Gil. 215.)
Constitutional Law, 94, 100.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 1.
Judicial Sales, 3.
Mortgages, 310, 352, 403, 404.
Followed in Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 488, (Gil.
379;) Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn. 307, (Gil. 235;)
Turrell v. Morgan, 7 Minn. 374, (Gil. 294.) Ex-
plained in Hillebert v. Porter, 28 Minn. 497,
498.
Cited in Freeborn v. Pettibone, 5 Minn.
278, (Gil. 220;) Nutting v. McCutcheon, 5 Minn.
390, (Gil. 315;) Whittacre v. Fuller, 5 Minn. 520,
(Gil. 414;) Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 392,
(Gil. 349) Spencer v. Levering, 8 Minn. 464,
(Gil. 414.)
STONE V. EVANS, 32 Minn. 243, 20 N. W. 149.
Appeal and Error, 575.
Damages, 110.
Malpractice, 2.
STONE V. HARMON, 31 Minn. 512, 19 N. W. 88.
Evidence, 303.
Vendor and Purchaser, 47.
Cited in Thompson v. Libby, 34 Minn. 378; Lil-
jengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42
Minn. 424.
STONE V. JOHNSON, 30 Minn. 16, 13 N. W. 920.
Appeal and Error, 177.
Cited in Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn. 449;
King v. Kindred, 38 Minn. 355; D. M. Osborne
& Co. v. Williams, 39 Minn. 355.
v.
Negotiable Instruments, 51.
STRAIT V. FRARY, 33 Minn. 194, 22 N. W. 295.
Usury, 11.
Cited in Hass v. Camp, 40 Minn. 331; Lewis v.
Willoughby, 43 Minn. 310.
STRATTON V. ALLEN, 7 Minn. 502, (Gil. 409.)
Pleading, 284.
Replevin, 13.
Distinguished in Hurd v. Simonton, 10 Minn.
426, (Gil. 340.) Cited in Thornton v. Smith, 11
Minn. 20, (Gil. 3;) Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11
Minn. 116, (Gil. 73;) Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn.
264, (Gil. 170.)
STREETER V. SMITH, 31 Minn. 52, 16 N. W. 460..
Contracts, 26.
STREETER V. WILKINSON, 24 Minn. 288.
Executors and Administrators, 118, 119.
Distinguished in Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn.
112. Cited in Re Mousseau's Will, 30 Minn.
203; Rice v. Dickerman, 47 Minn. 530.
STREISSGUTH V. NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN
BANK, 43 Minn 50, 44 N. W. 797.
Banks and Banking, 11.
STROEBEL V. WHITNEY, (Stroebel v. Wheney,) 31
Minn. 384, 18 N. W. 98.
Libel and Slander, 4.
STROLBERG V. BrandenbeRG, 39 Minn. 348, 40 Ñ.
W. 356.
Chattel Mortgages, 8.
STROMBERG V. LINDBERG, 25 Minn. 513.
Chattel Mortgages, 99.
Execution, 29.
STRONG V. BAKER, 25 Minn. 442.
Appeal and Error, 610.
Principal and Surety, 25, 26.
STRONG V. BROWN, 41 Minn. 304, 43 N. W. 67.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 61.
2669
2670
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SUMNER V. JONES-Continued.
STRONG V. COLTER, 13 Minn. 82, (Gil. 77.)
Husband and Wife, 47.
Landlord and Tenant, 98.
Principal and Agent, 97.
State v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40
Minn. 217.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 9. SUMNER V. SAWTELLE, 8 Minn. 309, (Gil. 272.)
Distinguished in Leighton v. Sheldon, 16 Minn.
246, (Gil. 218.)
STRONG V. COMER, 50 N. W. 936.
Judgment, 25.
STRONG V. LYNN, 38 Minn. 315, 37 N. W. 448.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 36.
Deed, 100.
Vendor and Purchaser, 157.
Cited in Lyon v. Gleason, 40 Minn. 436.
STRUTZEL V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 47 Minn. 543,
50 N. W. 690.
Death by Wrongful Act, 17.
Horse and Street Railroads, 6.
Negligence, 71.
STUART V. LOWRY, 42 Minn. 473, 44 N. W. 532.
Estoppel, 55.
Cited in Stuart v. Lowry, 51 N. W. 663.
STUART V. LOWRY, 51 N. W. 662.
Adverse Claim, 31.
STUART V. WALKER, 10 Minn. 296, (Gil. 234.)
Taxation, 205.
STUB V. GRIMES, 38 Minn. 317, 37 N. W. 444.
Vendor and Purchaser, 6.
Appeal and Error, 417.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 27.
Homestead, 8.
1
Distinguished in Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn.
118. Cited in Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 67,
(Gil. 33;) Johnson v. Johnson, 16 Minn. 514,
(Gil. 464;) Rogers v. McCauley, 22 Minn. 387;
Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 279.
SUPERVISORS OF RAMSEY COUNTY V. HEENAN, 2
Minn. 330, (Gil. 281.)
Mandamus, 14.
Statutes, 3, 13, 31.
Towns, 1.
Followed in Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 468, (Gil.
376;) City of St. Paul v. Colter, 12 Minn. 51,
(Gil. 22;) State v. Gould, 31 Minn. 193. Cited
in Bunday v. Dunbar, 5 Minn. 447, (Gil. 364;)
Roos v. State, 6 Minn. 436, (Gil. 298;) Winona
& St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 535,
(Gil. 410;) State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 349, (Gil. 323 ;)
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 322-324; State v..
McFadden, 23 Minn. 45; State v. City of Hast-
ings, 24 Minn. 80, 81; Burt v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co., 31 Minn. 477, 478; State v. Cantieny,
34 Minn. 7; Allen v. Pioneer-Press Co., 40
Minn. 119.
STUDDART, IN RE, (Smith v. New York Life Ins. SUPERVISORS OF TOWN OF MAPLE LAKE V. COMMIS-
Co.,) 30 Minn. 553, 16 N. W. 452.
Insolvency, 35, 38.
STUDLEY V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 51 N. W. 115.
Railroad Companies, 182, 183, 216.
SIONERS OF WRIGHT COUNTY, 12 Minn. 403,
(Gil. 287.)
Towns, 2.
Cited in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 283.
STURM V. SCHOOL-DIST. No. 70, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N. SUTTON V. WOOD, 27 Minn. 362, 7 N. W. 365.
W. 462.
Schools and School-Districts, 14, 54.
SUBKE V. ECKES, 40 Minn. 501, 42 N. W. 696.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
SUCHANECK V. SMITH, 45 Minn. 26, 47 N. W. 397.
Landlord and Tenant, 80.
Estoppel, 50.
SVANOE V. LARSON, 47 Minn. 7, 49 N. W. 3S8.
Work and Labor, 15.
SWAIN V. AGRICULTURAL Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 390, 34
N. W. 738.
Insurance, 112.
SUESENBACH V. WAGNER, 41 Minn. 103, 42 N. W. SWAIN v. KNAPP, 32 Minn. 429, 21 N. W. 414.
925.
Judgment, 209.
SULLIVAN V. BOWLER. See Sullivan v. Weibeler.
SULLIVAN V. LA CROSSE & M. STEAM PACKET Co.,
10 Minn. 386, (Gil. 308.)
Appeal and Error, 32.
Summons, 19.
Words and Phrases, 156.
SULLIVAN V. MURPHY, 23 Minn. 6.
Corporations, 66.
Evidence, 87.
Frauds, Statute of, 16, 18.
Cited in Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn.
295; Stariha v. Greenwood, 28 Minn. 522; Max-
field v. Schwartz, 43 Minn. 222; McNamara v.
Eustis, 46 Minn, 312.
SULLIVAN V. WEIBELER, 37 Minn. 10, 32 N. W. 787.
Appeal and Error, 634.
Applied in State v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 47 Minn.
871.
SUMNER V. JONES, 27 Minn. 312, 7 N. W. 265.
Constitutional Law, 142.
Followed in Lesher v. Beesmeire, 30 Minn. 107.
Cited in Schmitt v. Schmitt, 31 Minn. 108;
Admiralty, 3.
SWAIN V. KNAPP, 34 Minn. 232, 25 N. W. 397.
Account Stated, 1.
Shipping, 3.
SWANSON V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 42
Minn. 532, 44 N. W. 986.
Navigable Waters, 9.
Followed in Lammers v. Brennan, 46 Minn. 211.
Cited in Lakkie v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 44 Minn, 440.
SWANSTROM V. MARVIN, 38 Minn. 359, 37 N. W. 455.
Judgment, 257, 272.
Trial, 195.
Cited in State Sash & Door Manuf'g Co. v.
Adams, 47 Minn. 401; Carlson v. Carlson, 52
N. W. 215.
SWART V. MORGAN. See Swart v. Thomas.
SWART V. THOMAS, 26 Minn. 141, 1 N. W. 830.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 35.
Execution, 37.
Distinguished in Perkins v. Zarracher, 32 Minn.
74, 75. Cited in Ide v. Harwood, 30 Minn. 195;
Lesher v. Getman, 30 Minn. 327; Thompson v.
Winona Harvester Works, 41 Minn. 437.
2671
2672
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
SWEENEY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 33 | SWIFT V. FLETCHER-Continued.
Minn. 153, 22 N. W. 289.
Master and Servant, 161.
Sweet v. COUNTY COM'RS of Carver County, 16
Minn. 106, (Gil. 96.)
Counties, 75, 76.
SWENSGAARD V. DAVIS, 33 Minn. 368, 23 N. W. 543.
Malicious Prosecution, 8.
Cited in Rossiter v. Minnesota Bradner-Smith |
Paper Co., 37 Minn. 297.
SWIFT V. FLETCHER, 6 Minn. 550, (Gil. 386.)
Action, 41.
Constitutional Law, 96.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 1.
Judgment, 29.
Practice in Civil Cases, 57.
Cited in Schalck v. Harmon, 6 Minn. 271, (Gil,
180;) Linn v. Rugg, 19 Minn. 186, (Gil. 152;)
Guilford v. Minnesota, S. S. M. & A. Ry. Co.,
51 N. W.660.
·
SWINFIN V. LOWRY, 37 Minn. 345, 34 N. W. 22.
Damages, 10.
SWINGLER V. CHICAGO, ST. P. M. & O. Ry. Co.
See Clarke v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co.
SYLTE V. NELSON, 26 Minn. 105, 1 N. W. 811.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 7.
Distinguished in McPherson v. Runyon, 41
Minn. 525. Cited in Ward v. Anderberg, 36
Minn. 301.
SYMONDS V. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. Co.,
23 Minn. 49..
Insurance, 25, 26, 55, 57.
TABERT V. COOLEY, 46 Minn. 366, 49 N. W. 124.
Malicious Prosecution, 31.
TABOR V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 36 Minn. 188, 30 N. W.
765.
Municipal Corporations, 158.
Distinguished in Miller v. City of St. Paul, 38
Minn. 135.
TAIT V. THOMAS, 22 Minn. 537.
Trespass, 29.
TALBOT V. BARAGER, 37 Minn. 208, 34 N. W. 23.
Judgment, 126.
TALBOTT V. GERE, 8 Minn. 85, (Gil. 61.)
Courts, 31.
TALBOYS V. BOSTON, 46 Minn. 144, 48 N. W. 688.
Principal and Agent, 17.
TALCOTT V. MARSTON, 3 Minn. 339, (Gil. 238.)
Damages, 39.
!
Interest of Money, 11, 12.
Followed in Hollinsheaâ v. Von Glahn, 4 Minn.
211, (Gil. 133.) Explained in Bidwell v. Whit-
ney, 4 Minn. 80, (Gil. 48, 50;) Daniels v. Brad-
ley, 4 Minn. 161, (Gil. 106;) Daniels v. Ward, 4
T.
TAPLEY V. TAPLEY, 10 Minn. 448, (Gil. 360.)
Appeal and Error, 457.
Duress, 2, 9.
Pleading, 281.
Words and Phrases, 247.
Cited in Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 264, (Gil. 170 ;)
Rich v. Rich, 12 Minn. 474, (Gil. 377;) Krae-
mer v. Deustermann, 37 Minn. 472, 473.
TARBELL V. FARMERS' MUT. ELEVATOR Co., 44 Minn.
471, 47 N. W. 152.
Evidence, 343.
Warehousemen, 20.
TARBOX V. GORMAN, 31 Minn. 62, 16 N. W. 466.
Corporations, 61.
Negotiable Instruments, 196, 213, 214.
TARBOX V. GOTZIAN, 20 Minn. 139, (Gil. 122.)
Contracts, 18.
Trial, 130.
Distinguished in Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Good-
now, 40 Minn. 497, 498. Cited in Bolles v.
Sachs, 37 Minn. 317; Stensgaard v. Smith, 43
Minn. 13.
Minn. 169, (Gil. 114.) Cited in Kent v. Bown, TATGE V. TATGE, 34 Minn. 272, 25 N. W. 596, 26 N.
3 Minn. 351, (Gil. 249;) Culbertson v. Lennon,
4 Minn. 57, (Gil. 28;) Cooper v. Reaney, 4 Minn.
533, (Gil. 418;) Chapin v. Murphy, 5 Minn.
482, (Gil. 386;) Hendrick_v. Banning, 7 Minn.
38, (Gil. 22;) Martin v. Lemon, 19 Minn. 73,
(Gil. 47;) Newell v. Houlton, 22 Minn. 24; More-
land v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 88; Dyar v. Sling-
erland, 24 Minn. 268; Smith v. Crane, 33 Minn.
146; Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 124.
W. 121.
Trusts, 31.
Cited in Fontaine v. Bush, 40 Minn. 142; Nell v.
Dayton, 43 Minn. 243.
TAUTHOLL V. NESS, (Tantholt v. Ness,) 35 Minn.
370, 29 N. W. 49.
Contracts, 127.
Evidence, 358.
TANCRE V. REYNOLDS, (Tancre v. Pullman,) 35 TAYLOR V. ALLEN, 40 Minn. 433, 42 N. W. 292.
Minn. 476, 29 N. W. 171.
Attorney and Client, 21.
Deposition, 18, 32.
Replevin, 16, 28, 54.
Cited in Osgood v. Sutherland, 36 Minn. 244.
TANTHOLT V. NESS, (Tautholl v. Ness,) 35 Minn.
370, 29 N. W. 49.
Contracts, 127.
Evidence, 358.
Frauds, Statute of, 62, 67.
TAYLOR V. BISSELL, 1 Minn. 225, (Gil. 186.)
Certiorari, 30.
Justices of the Peace, 67, 69.
Distinguished in Thompson v. Killian, 25 Minn.
113. Cited in Walker v. McDonald, 5 Minn.
460, (Gil. 370:) Taylor v. Parker, 17 Minn. 471,
(Gil. 449;) Burt v. Bailey, 21 Minn、 406.
2673
2674
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
}
TAYLOR V. BLAKE, 11 Minn. 255, (Gil. 170.)
Contracts, 35.
Duress, 3.
Pleading, 14.
Cited in Rand v. Board of Com'rs, 52 N. W. 902.
TAYLOR V. BURGESS, 26 Minn. 547, 6 N. W. 350.
Mortgages, 296.
Usury, 34.
Distinguished in Seiler v. Wilber, 29 Minn. 307;
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 498. Cited in
Cornell v. Smith, 27 Minn. 134.
TAYLOR V. CITY OF AUSTIN, 32 Minn. 247, 20 N. W.
157.
Appeal and Error, 558.
Municipal Corporations, 190, 199.
Negligence, 62.
TAYLOR V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 25 Minn. 129.
Municipal Corporations, 230.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR, 10 Minn. 107, (Gil. 81.)
Constitutional Law, 8.
Counties, 10.
Elections and Voters, 17, 28, 33, 48.
Words and Phrases, 454.
Followed in Edson v. Child, 18 Minn. 65, 66, (Gil.
50,51;) Edson v. Ohild, 18 Minn. 352, 353, (Gil,
324, 325;) Everett v. Smith, 22 Minn. 54, 55.
Distinguished in Dayton v. City of St. Paul, 22
Minn. 403; State v. Town of Lime, 23 Minn.
526. Limited in Bayard v. Klinge, 16 Minn.
252, (Gil. 226.) Cited in Quinn v. Markoe, 37
Minn. 440; Stemper v. Higgins, 38 Minn. 226,
227; Soper v. Sibley County, 46 Minn. 275.
TAYLOR V. WINONA & St. P. R. Co., 45 Minn. 66,
47 N. W. 453.
Public Lands, 45-47.
Taxation, 245.
Cited in Lamm v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 45 Minn. 74.
TAYLOR V. HANSCOM, (Tyler v. Hanscom,) 28 Minn. TEICK V. BOARD Com'rs Carver COUNTY, 11 Minn.
1, 8 N. W. 825.
Estoppel, 52.
Execution, 56.
Followed in Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 392.
Cited in Johnson v. Bray, 35 Minn. 250; Gran-
ning v. Swenson, 52 N. W. 31.
TAYLOR V. MUELLER, 30 Minn. 343, 15 N. W. 413.
Custom and Usage, 6.
New Trial, 61.
Sale, 138.
Cited in Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
100; Simmons Hardware Co. v. Mullen, 33
Minn. 196; Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 429; Fontaine v. Bush, 40
Minn. 143.
TAYLOR V. NORTH STAR MUT. Ins. Co., 46 Minn. 198,
48 N. W. 772.
Insurance, 195, 196.
Cited in Re Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 51 N.
W. 921.
TAYLOR V. PARKER, 17 Minn. 469, (Gil. 447.)
Appeal and Error, 321.
Interest of Money, 25.
Justices of the Peace, 64.
Limitation of Actions, 26.
Words and Phrases, 512.
Cited in Blakely v. Le Duc, 19 Minn. 193, (Gil.
156;) Steinhart v. Pitcher, 20 Minn. 105, (Gil.
92.)
TAYLOR V. PARKER, 18 Minn. 79, (Gil. 63.)
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 21.
TAYLOR V. READ, 19 Minn. 372, (Gil. 317.)
Money Received, 3, 4.
Cited in Wyvell v. Jones, 37 Minn. 69; Press-
nell v. Lundin, 44 Minn. 552; Herrick v. New-
ell, 51 N. W. 820.
292, (Gil. 201.)
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 19.
Highways, 23.
TEIPEL V. VANDERWEIER, 36 Minn. 443, 31 N. W.
934.
Estoppel, 65.
TELL V. WOODRUFF, 45 Minn. 10, 47 N. W. 262.
Mechanics' Liens, 58.
Applied in Hill v. Lovell, 47 Minn. 294. Cited in
Bardwell v. Mann, 46 Minn. 286.
TELLER V. BISHOP, 8 Minn. 226, (Gil. 195.)
Appeal and Error, 231, 389.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 48.
Cited in Cooper v. Breckenridge, 11 Minn. 346,
(Gil. 246;) Stone v. Johnson, 30 Minn 18; Mc
Nally v. Weld, 30 Minn. 213.
TEMPLE, IN RE, 33 Minn. 343, 23 N. W. 463.
Attorney and Client, 23.
TEMPLE V. Scorт, 3 Minn. 419, (Gil. 306.)
Exemptions, 3, 20.
Judgment, 220, 221.
Followed in Irvine v. Myers, 6 Minn. 563, (Gil.
399.)
TENBERG V. MARTIN, (Tinburg v. Martin,) 26 Minn.
71, 1 N. W. 583.
Appeal and Error, 507.
TENNES V. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE Ins. Co., 26
Minn. 271, 3 N. W. 346.
Insurance, 104.
TERRITORY V. SMITH, 3 Minn. 240, (Gil. 164.)
Constitutional Law, 9.
Elections and Voters, 8.
Quo Warranto, 8.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn.
311.
Taylor v. SLINGERLAND, 39 Minn. 470, 40 N. W. TERRYLL V. BAILEY, 27 Minn. 304, 7 N. W. 261.
575.
Taxation, 299, 300.
TAYLOR V. SPAULDING, 36 Minn. 550, 32 N. W. 863.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Cited in Cable v. Byrne, 38 Minn. 535.
TAYLOR V. SULLIVAN, (State v. Sullivan,) 45 Minn.
309, 47 N. W. 802.
Elections and Voters, 37.
Office and Officer, 1.
Words and Phrases, 252.
Appeal and Error, 759.
Judgment, 107.
Cited in Daley v. Mead, 40 Minn. 383.
THAYER V. BARNEY, 12 Minn. 502, (Gil. 406.)
Evidence, 40, 36S.
Internal Revenue, 3, &
New Trial, 78.
Pleading, 107.
Reference, 21.
Words and Phrases, 87.
2675
2676
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
THAYER V. BARNEY-Continued.
Cited in Smith v. Jordan, 13 Minn. 271, (Gil.
251;) Owsley v. Greenwood, 18 Minn. 430, (Gil.
389;) Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 61, (Gil. 39;)
Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 87; State v.
Spaulding, 34 Minn. 365; Baker v. Thompson,
36 Minn. 316.
THAYER V. COLE, 10 Minn. 215, (Gil. 173.)
Courts, 10.
THELAN V. FARMER, 36 Minn. 225, 30 N. W. 670.
Highways, 68.
THIAN V. GILL, 45 Minn. 459, 48 N. W. 193.
Estoppel, 17.
THOMPSON V. BICKFORD, 19 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
Execution, 12.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 72, 75, 76, 123.
Judgment, 79, 84.
Mortgages, 350.
Cited in Smith v. Valentine, 19 Minn. 455, (Gil.
397;) Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn. 534;
Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462.
THOMPSON V. BRADEN, (Thompson v. Haselton,) 34
Minn. 12, 24 N. W. 199.
Appeal and Error, 59.
THOMPSON V. DAVIDSON, 15 Minn. 412, (Gil. 933.)
Taxation, 51.
Words and Phrases, 442.
THIELEN V. RICHARDSON, 35 Minn. 509, 29 N. W. THOMPSON V. DRYMALA, (Drymala v. Thompson,)
677.
Estoppel, 11.
THIRD NAT. BANK V. ARMSTRONG, 25 Minn. 530.
Negotiable Instruments, 18, 20.
Followed in Stevens v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 173.
Applied in Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Hally, 27 Minn. 498; Deering v. Thom, 29
Minn. 120; Edwards v. Ramsey, 30 Minn. 92.
Distinguished in Beer v. Aultman Taylor Co.,
32 Minn. 91. Cited in Mast & Co. v. Matthews,
30 Minn. 442; C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 43
Minn. 409.
THIRD NAT. BANK V. CLARK, 23 Minn. 263.
Evidence, 275.
Negotiable Instruments, 55.
Distinguished in Conger v. Nesbitt, 30 Minn.
437. Cited in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Han-
son, 33 Minn. 43.
26 Minn. 40, 1 N. W. 255.
Master and Servant, 86.
Followed in Fay v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 233. Distinguished in Hughes v.
Wincna & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 141; Clark
v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 28 Minn. 129; Brown
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 555,
556; Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 315, 317, 322. Cited in Gates v. South-
ern Minnesota Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 112; Collins
v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 33; Ransier
v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 335.
THOMPSON V. EASTON, 31 Minn. 99, 16 N. W. 542.
Contracts, 113.
Deed, 54.
Cited in Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 281.
THOMPSON V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co.,
26 Minn. 353, 4 N. W. 603.
Sheriffs and Constables, 54.
THIRD NAT. BANK V. MARINE LUMBER Co., 44 Minn. THOMPSON V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 24
65, 46 N. W. 145.
Corporations, 67.
Minn. 444, 447. See Rice v. First Division St.
P. & P. R. Co.
THIRD NAT. BANK V. STILLWATER Gas Co., 36 Minn. THOMPSON V. FOSTER, 21 Minn. 319.
75, 30 N. W. 440.
Banks and Banking, 3.
Trusts, 26, 45.
Cited in Kraemer v. Deustermann, 37 Minn. 472.
THOMAS V. COUNTY COM'RS SCOTT County, 15
Minn. 324, (Gil. 254.)
Counties, 79, 80.
Sheriffs and Constables, 50.
Dictum approved in Davis v. Le Sueur County,
37 Minn. 492. Distinguished in Kroshus v.
Houston County, 46 Minn. 163.
THOMAS V. JOSLIN, 30 Minn. 388, 15 N. W. 675.
Principal and Agent, 26, 42.
Cited in Thomas v. Joslin, 36 Minn. 1; St. Paul
Land Co. v. Dayton, 37 Minn. 366.
THOMAS V. JOSLIN, 36 Minn. 1, 29 N. W. 344.
Judgment, 159, 160.
Applied in Spurr v. Home Ins. Co., 40 Minn.
425. Cited in Carlin v. Brackett, 38 Minn. 308.
THOMAS V. MILLER, 39 Minn. 339, 40 N. W. 358.
Usury, 15.
THOMAS V. THOMPSON, 35 Minn. 231, 28 N. W. 255.
Sale, 144.
THOMAS MANUF'G Co. v. FOOTE, 46 Minn. 240, 48
N. W. 1019.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 98.
Mortgages, 406, 418, 459, 460.
THOMPSON V. HANSON, 25 Minn. 484, 11 N. W. 86.
Public Lands, 13.
THOMPSON V. HASELTON, (Thompson v. Braden,) 34
Minn. 12, 24 N. W. 199.
Appeal and Error, 59.
THOMPSON V. HOWE, 21 Minn. L
Appeal and Error, 43.
THOMPSON V. HOWE, 21 Minn. 98.
Appeal and Error, 169.
THOMPSON V. KILLIAN, 25 Minn. 111.
Appeal and Error, 725.
Justices of the Peace, 54, 55, 70.
THOMPSON V. LAMB, 33 Minn. 196, 22 N. W. 443.
Appeal and Error, 179.
THOMPSON V. LAYMAN, 41 Minn. 295, 42 N. W. 1061.
Mortgages, 149.
THOMPSON V. LIBBY, 34 Minn. 374, 26 N. W. 1.
Sale, 58, 59.
Explained in Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 288;
Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 320. Cited in
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Thomp-
son, 46 Minn. 16; Bradford v. Neill, 46 Minn.
349; Beyerstedt v. Winona Mill Co., 51 N. W. 620.
THOMPSON V. LIBBY, 35 Minn. 443, 29 N. W. 150.
Sale, 67, 89.
Explained in Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 288.
2677
2678
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
THOMPSON V. LIBBY, 36 Minn. 287, 31 N. W. 52.
Sale, 188.
THOMPSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 35
Minn. 428, 29 N. W. 148.
Custom and Usage, 7.
THOMPSON V. MORGAN, 6 Minn. 292, (Gil. 199.)
Deed, 10, 42, 47.
Estoppel, 12.
Mortgages, 60.
Cited in Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 441, (Gil.
324, 326;) Calkins v. Copley, 29 Minn. 472.
THOMPSON V. MYRICK, 20 Minn. 205, (Gil. 184.)
Limitation of Actions, 38.
Public Lands, 102, 107, 108.
Specific Performance, 37, 63, 71.
Distinguished in McCarthy v. Couch, 37 Minn.
125. Cited in Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 12.
THOMPSON V. MYRICK, 24 Minn. 4.
Judgment, 147, 155.
New Trial, 1.
Trial, 176.
Cited in Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 76; Volmer
v. Stagerman, 25 Minn. 245; Geiser Threshing
Mach. Co. v. Farmer, 27 Minn. 430; Herrick v.
Butler, 30 Minn. 158; Andrews v. School Dis-
trict, No. 4, 35 Minn. 71, 72; Thomas v. Joslin,
36 Minn. 2; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 254,
453: Bazille v. Murray, 40 Minn. 50; Thwing
v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co., 40 Minn. 187.
THOMPSON V. PIONEER PRESS Co., 37 Minn. 285, 33
N. W. 856.
Evidence, 401.
Libel and Slander, 37.
Trial, 67, 68.
Cited in Giermann v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
42 Minn. 6.
THORESON V. NORTHWESTERN NAT. INS. Co., 29
Minn. 107, 12 N. W. 154.
Evidence, 398.
Cited in State v. Nichols, 29 Minn. 359.
THORN V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF WASHING-
TON COUNTY, 14 Minn. 233, (Gil. 171.)
Highways, 50, 51.
THORNE V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF WASHING-
TON COUNTY, 7 Minn. 150, (Gil. 93.)
Highways, 48, 49.
Cited in Thorn v. Board of County Com'rs of
Washington County, 14 Minn. 234, (Gil. 172.)
THORNTON V. SMITH, 11 Minn. 15, (Gil. 1.)
Nuisance, 6.
Cited in Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 184.
THORNTON V. TURNER, 11 Minn. 336, (Gil. 237.)
Limitations of Actions, 33.
Applied in Hempsted v. Cargill, 46 Minn. 119.
Cited in Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water
Power Co., 12 Minn. 143, (Gil. 81;) Barrows v.
Fox, 39 Minn. 62.
THORNTON V. WEBB, 13 Minn. 498, (Gil. 457.)
Appeal and Error, 277.
Limitation of Actions, 12.
Cited in Mueller v. Fruen, 36 Minn. 274.
THORP V. LORENZ, 34 Minn. 350, 25 N. W. 712.
Appeal and Error, 39.
Cited in Johnson v. Northern Pac., F. F. & B.
H. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 30.
THORP V. MERRILL, 21 Minn. 336.
Deed, 73, 74.
Mortgages, 173.
Cited in Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 199;
Lowry v. Mayo, 41 Minn. 390; Backus v.
Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
THOMPSON V. POLK COUNTY, 38 Minn. 130, 36 N. W. THORSEN V. PERKINS, 39 Minn. 420, 40 N. W. 557.
Vendor and Purchaser, 56, 159.
267.
Drainage, 4, 5.
THOMPSON V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 45 Minn. 13, THORSON V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co., 32
47 N. W. 259.
Deposition, 34.
Mechanics' Liens, 49.
THOMPSON V. SCHEID, 39 Minn. 102, 38 N. W. 801.
Notary Public, 2.
Replevin, 67, 82.
Words and Phrases, 9.
THOMPSON V. SUTTON, 23 Minn. 50.
Execution, 71.
Cited in Henry v. Traynor, 42 Minn. 236.
THOMPSON V. TINKCOM, 15 Minn. 295, (Gil. 226.)
Taxation, 45-48.
Words and Phrases, 643.
THOMPSON V. WINONA HARvester WorkS, 41 Minn.
434, 43 N. W. 383.
Insolvency, 23.
THOMPSON v. WINTER, 42 Minn. 121, 43 N. W. 796.
Specific Performance, 43.
THORESON V. MINNEAPOLIS HARVESTER Works, 29
Minn. 841, 13 N. W. 156.
Appeal and Error, 301, 318, 335.
Interest of Money, 19.
Sale, 93, 94.
Cited in Turnbull v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 31
Minn. 197; Barnett v. St. Anthony Falls
Water Power Co., 33 Minn. 271; Fitzpatrick v.
D. M. Osborne & Co., 52 N. W. 862.
Minn. 434, 21 N. W. 471.
Appeal and Error, 150.
THORWARTH V. ARMSTRONG, 20 Minn. 464, (Gil.
419.)
Mortgages, 57, 58, 216, 220.
Cited in Bartleson v. Thompson, 30 Minn. 164;
Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322.
THWING V. DAVISON, 33 Minn. 186, 22 N. W. 293.
Vendor and Purchaser, 101.
THWING V. HALL & DUCEY LUMBER Co., 40 Minn.
184, 41 N. W. 815.
Specific Performance, 30, 100, 103.
TICE V. FREEMAN, 30 Minn. 389, 15 N. W. 674.
Frauds, Statute of, 57.
Cited in Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 322.
TICE V. RUSSELL, 43 Minn. 66, 44 N. W. 886.
Execution, 118.
Principal and Agent, 23.
Cited in Hoover v. Johnson, 47 Minn. 435; Todd
v. Johnson, 52 N. W. 866.
TIDD V. RINES, 26 Minn. 201, 2 N. W. 497.
Courts, 17.
Deed, 5, 48, 85.
Taxation, 151.
Wills, 51.
Followed in Keith v. Hayden, 26 Minn. 214.
plied in Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 257.
Ap
Dis-
2679
2680
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
TIDD V. RINES-Continued.
approved in Collins v. Welch, 38 Minn. 64, 65.
Distinguished in State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 83;
Stewart v. Colter, 31 Minn. 389; Foster v.
Johnson, 39 Minn. 379. Explained in Gutz-
willer v. Crowe, 32 Minn. 71. Cited in Kel-
logg v. Olson, 34 Minn. 105; Gille v. Hunt, 35
Minn. 360; Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212;
Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 279.
TIERNEY V. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.,
(Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,) 31
Minn. 234, 17 N. W. 377.
Pleading, 197.
TIERNEY V. DODGE, 9 Minn. 166, (Gil. 153.)
Appeal and Error, 1, 698.
Certiorari, 7–9.
Constitutional Law, 39.
Criminal Law, 141.
Words and Phrases, 36.
Cited in Faribault v. Hulett, 10 Minn. 37, (Gil.
19;) City of St. Paul v. Colter, 12 Minn. 46,
(Gil. 17;) McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 366,
(Gil. 243;) Robertson v. Davidson, 14 Minn.
556, (Gil. 426;) City of St. Paul v. Marvin, 16
Minn. 104, (Gil. 94;) Borough of St. Peter v.
Bauer, 19 Minn. 332, (Gil. 286;) State v. Jones,
24 Minn. 86; City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30
Minn. 144; Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 208; Sher-
wood v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn. 23.
TIERNEY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., (Tier-
ney v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.,) 31
Minn. 234, 17 N. W. 377.
Pleading, 197.
TIERNEY V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 33
Minn. 311, 23 N. W. 229.
Appeal and Error, 336, 522.
Damages, 83.
Evidence, 126.
Master and Servant, 72, 178.
Followed in Macy v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 35
Minn. 200, 201. Applied in Lindvall v. Woods,
41 Minn. 216.
TILLENY V. WOLVERTON, 46 Minn. 256, 48 N. W. 908.
Factors and Brokers, 21, 22.
Cited in Tilleny v. Wolverton, 52 N. W. 909.
TILLMAN V. JACKSON, 1 Minn. 183, (Gil. 157.)
Appeal and Error, 128.
Costs, 48.
Execution, 73, 81.
Followed in Hutchins v. Commissioners Carver
County, 16 Minn. 16, (Gil. 4:) Lamberton v.
Merchants' Nat. Bank, 24 Minn. 288. Applied
in Willard v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 478. Cited
in Pettingill v. Moss, 3 Minn. 225, (Gil. 153;)
Millis v. Lombard, 32 Minn. 262; Duford v.
Lewis, 43 Minn. 28.
TILLOTSON V. MILLARD, 7 Minn. 513, (Gil. 419.)
Homestead, 5, 13, 63.
Words and Phrases, 347.
Cited in Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 156, (Gil. 125;)
Burwell v. Tullis, 12 Minn. 575, (Gil. 495;)
Dutcher v. Culver, 24 Minn. 595; Ferguson v.
Kumler, 27 Minn. 159; Quehl v. Peterson, 47
Minn. 16.
TINKCOM V. LEWIS, 21 Minn. 132.
Mortgage, 399, 427, 431.
Followed in Sardeson v. Menage, 41 Minn. 316.
Cited in Willis v. Jelineck, 27 Minn. 20; Schroe-
der v. Lahrman, 28 Minn. 76; Pamperin v.
Scanlan, 28 Minn. 349; Martin v. Sprague, 29
Minn. 56; Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 174, 175.
TINKLEPAUGH V. ROUNDS, 24 Miun. 298.
Witness, 97.
TODD V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Ry. Co., 37 Minn.
358, 35 N. W. 5.
Pleading, 27, 224.
TODD V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. Co., 39 Minn.
186, 39 N. W. 318.
Damages, 64.
TODD V. RUSTAD, 43 Minn. 500, 46 N. W. 73.
Counties, 17, 18.
TODD COUNTY V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Rr. Co., 38
Minn. 163, 36 N. W. 109.
Railroad Companies, 119.
Writ of error dismissed in St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co. v. Todd County, 12 Sup. Ct. 281, 142 U. S.
282. Applied in Hennepin County v. St. Paul,
M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 240. Cited in State
v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 39 Minn. 26; City of St.
Paul v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn.
113; St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.,
45 Minn. 511, 514.
TOLBERT V. HORTON, 31 Minn. 518, 18 N. W. 647.
Chattel Mortgages, 43, 87.
Words and Phrases, 332, 796.
Followed in Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 106.
Cited in North Star B. & S. Co. v. Ladd, 32
Minn. 383, 384; McNeil v. Finnegan, 33 Minn.
376; Yallop De Groot Co. v. Minneapolis & St.
L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 484; Dyer v. Thorstad, 35
Minn. 536; Ellingboe v. Brakken, 36 Minn. 158;
Stevens v. McMillan, 37 Minn. 511; Ludlum v.
Rothschild, 41 Minn. 220; King v. Lacrosse, 42
Minn. 490; Beaupre v. Dwyer, 43 Minn. 487;
Blinn v. Chessman, 51 N. W. 666.
TOLBERT V. HORTON, 33 Minn. 104, 22 N. W. 126.
Chattel Mortgages, 12, 86.
Cited in Kellogg v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 208.
TOLEDO NOVELTY WORKS v. BERNHEIMER, 8 Minn.
118, (Gil. 92.)
Mechanics' Liens, 11, 52, 175.
Distinguished in Pond Machine Tool Co. v. Rob-
inson, 38 Minn. 273, 274.
TOMLINSON V. SIMPSON, 33 Minn. 443, 23 N. W. 864.
Guardian and Ward, 38.
Cited in Simonson v. Grant, 36 Minn. 442.
TOMLINSON V. WILLSON. See Tomlinson v. Simp-
son.
TONER V. ADVANCE THRESHER Co., 45 Minn. 293,
47 N. W. 810.
Appeal and Error, 703.
TORDSEN V. GUMMER, 37 Minn. 211, 34 N. W. 20.
Justices of the Peace, 22.
TORINUS V. BUCKHAM, 29 Minn. 128, 12 N. W. 348.
Appeal and Error, 337.
Negotiable Instruments, 46.
Cited in Durment v. Tuttle, 52 N. W. 910.
TINBURG V. MARTIN, (Tenberg v. Martin,) 26 Minn. TORINUS V. MATTHEWS, 21 Minn. 99.
71, 1 N. W. 583.
Appeal and Error, 507.
Appeal and Error, 550.
Sale, 167.
2681
2682
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
TORINUS V. THORNTON, 26 Minn. 103, 1 N. W. 1056. | TowNSEND V. JOHNSON, 34 Minn. 414, 26 N. W. 395-
Appeal and Error, 507.
Insolvency, 82.
TORKELSON V. JORGENSON, 28 Minn. 383, 10 N. W. ToWNSEND V. KENDALL, 4 Minn. 412, (Gil. 315.)
416.
Sale, 56.
Cited in Warder v. Bowen, 31 Minn. 336.
TORP V. GULSETH, 37 Minn. 135, 33 N. W. 550.
Chattel Mortgages, 106.
Subrogation, 12, 13.
Cited in Deal v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 42 Minn.
106.
TOUSLEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 39 Minn. 419,
40 N. W. 509.
Conversion of Personal Property, 2.
Estoppel, 34.
TOWLERTON V. DAVIDSON, 7 Minn. 408, (Gil. 822.)
Ejectment, 39.
Specific Performance, 7.
TOWN V. WASHBURN, 14 Minn. 268, (Gil. 199.)
Limitation of Actions, 49.
Cited in Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 59; Foster v.
Johnson, 44 Minn. 293.
Guardian and Ward, 11, 12.
TOWNSEND V. MINNEAPOLIS COLD-STORAGE &
FREEZER Co., 46 Minn. 121, 48 N. W. 682.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 9.
TOWNSHEND v. GOODFELLOW, 40 Minn. 312, 41 N.
W. 1056.
Specific Performance, 10, 38, 39.
Applied in Richmond v. Koenig, 43 Minn. 481.
Cited in Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 18;
Gregory v. Christian, 42 Minn. 306; Hedderly
v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 446; Brown v. Munger,
42 Minn. 487; Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 212.
TOWNSHIP OF BLAKELY V. DEVINE, 36 Minn. 53, 29
N. W. 342.
Highways, 58.
Cited in Rowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41
Minn. 386; Jordan v. St. P. M. & M. Ry Co.,
42 Minn. 176; Beach v. Gaylord, 43 Minn. 479;
Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44 Minn. 537.
TOWNE V. CAMPBELL, (Towne v. Goldberg,) 35 TOWNSHIP OF HUTCHINSON V. FILK, 44 Minn. 536,-
Minn. 231, 28 N. W. 254.
Execution, 154.
Cited in Shackelton v. Kneisley, 51 N. W. 471.
TOWN OF CLAYTON V. TOWN OF BENNINGTON, 24
Minn. 14.
Towns, 11.
TOWN OF ELGIN V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 36
Minn. 517, 32 N. W. 749.
Railroad Companies, 75, 100.
Writ of error dismissed in Winona & St. P. R.
Co. v. Town of Plainview, 12 Sup. Ct. 530, 143
U. S. 371.
TOWN OF HAVEN V. ORTON, 37 Minn. 445, 35 N. W.
264.
Appeal and Error, 106.
Highways, 39.
Applied in Anderson v. Meeker County, 46 Minn.
233.
TOWN OF MONTGOMERY v. LE SUEUR COUNTY,
(Town of Montgomery v. Board County
Com'rs,) 32 Minn. 532, 21 N. W. 718.
Counties, 72.
47 N. W. 255.
Highways, 63, 64, 71.
TOZER V. HERSHEY, 15 Minn. 257, (Gil. 197.)
New Trial, 29.
Trial, 6, 20, 102.
TOZIER V. MERRIAM, 12 Minn. 87, (Gil. 46.)
Replevin, 29.
TRAINOR V. WORMAN, (Trainor v. Wouman,) 33
Minn. 484, 24 N. W. 297.
Reversed in Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237.
TRAINOR V. WORMAN, (Trainor v. Wouman,) 34-
Minn. 237, 25 N. W. 401.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 50.
Pleading, 111.
Overruling Mason v. Heyward, 3 Minn. 182, (Gil.
116.) Reversing Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn.
484. Cited in Rosby v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry.
Co., 37 Minn. 172; Boon v. State Ins. Co., 37
Minn. 427; Mosness v. German-American Ins..
Co., 52 N. W. 934.
TRASK V. GRAHAM, 47 Minn. 571, 50 N. W. 917.
Landlord and Tenant, 38-41.
TOWN OF PLAINVIEW V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., TRASK V. SHOTWELL, 41 Minn. 66, 42 N. W. 699.
36 Minn. 505, 32 N. W. 745.
Railroad Companies, 75, 100.
Writ of error dismissed in Winona & St. P. R.
Co. v. Town of Plainview, 12 Sup. Ct. 530, 143
U. S. 371. Followed in Town of Plainview v.
Winona & St. P. R. Co., 36 Minn. 517. Cited
in Fulton v. Town of Riverton, 42 Minn. 396.
Town or ST. PAUL V. THE DR. FRANKLIN, 1 Minn.
97, (Gil. 76.)
Certiorari, 11.
TOWNSEND V. FENTON, 30 Minn. 528, 16 N. W. 421.
Public Lands, 144.
Specific Performance, 54.
Cited in Townsend v. Fenton, 32 Minn. 483;
Lewis v. Wetherell, 36 Minn. 387; Lang v.
Morey, 40 Minn. 396, 397.
Negligence, 29.
TRAVIS V. HUNTER, (Travis v. Minneapolis Sweep-
er Co., 41 Minn. 176, 42 N. W. 1015.
Patents for Inventions, 6.
TREBBY V. SIMMONS, 38 Minn. 508, 38 N. W. 693.
Limitation of Actions, 78.
Cited in Humphrey v. Carpenter, 39 Minn. 117..
TREISE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 36 Minn. 526, 32 N.W.
857.
Municipal Corporations, 142.
TRENTOR V. POTHEN, 46 Minn. 298, 49 N. W. 129.
Attorney and Client, 15.
Cited in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Par-
sons, 47 Minn. 355.
TOWNSEND V. FENTON, 32 Minn. 482, 21 N. W. 726. TRIBUNE PUB. Co. v. CITY OF DULUTH, 45 Minn. 27,.
Specific Performance, 53.
Words and Phrases, 312.
Cited in Tatge v. Tatge, 34 Minn. 275.
47 N. W. 309.
Newspapers, 3.
Words and Phrases, 182.
2683
2684
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
Trigg v. LarSON, 10 Minn. 220, (Gil. 175.)
Appeal and Error, 710, 711.
Distinguished in Rahilly v. Lane, 15 Minn. 454,
(Gil. 368.) Cited in Stolt v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 51 N. W. 1103.
TRIGGS V. JONES, 46 Minn. 277, 48 N. W. 1113.
Damages, 46.
Equity, 51.
Parties, 3.
Principal and Agent, 51.
Trial, 32.
TRIMBO V. TRIMBO, 47 Minn. 3S9, 50 N. W. 350
Equity, 63, 64.
TRUSTEES OF GERMAN EVANGELICAL SOC. OF ST.
CLOUD V. HENSCHELL, 51 N. W. 477.
Religious Societies, 7.
TUCKER V. VAUGHAN, (Trunkey v. Crosby,) 33
Minn. 464, 23 N. W. 846.
Composition with Creditors, 1.
Garnishment, 10, 15, 52, 54.
TULLER V. CALDWELL, 3 Minn. 117, (Gil. 67.)
Summons, 9.
Overruled in Millette v. Mehmke, 26 Minn. 306.
TULLIS V. BERGFELD, 1 Minn. 424, (Gil. 309.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
TRIPP V. NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK, 41 Minn. 400, TULLIS V. BRAWLEY, 3 Minn. 277, (Gil. 191.)
43 N. W. 60.
Insolvency, 24-26.
Followed in Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Seeley,
41 Minn. 404. Cited in Tripp v. Northwestern
Nat. Bank, 45 Minn. 384; Willis v. St. Paul
Sanitation Co., 50 N. W. 1114.
TRIPP V. NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK, 45 Minn. 383,
48 N. W. 4.
Constitutional Law, 141.
Insolvency, 58.
TROGDEN V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 198.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Eminent Domain, 149, 150, 171, 178, 201.
Followed in Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co.,
23 Minn. 21. Cited in Whitacre v. St. Paul &
S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 312.
TROWBRIDGE V. FOREPAUGH, 14 Minn. 133, (Gil. 100.)
Action, 32.
Followed in Berg v. Stanhope, 43 Minn. 177.
Cited in Langevin v. City of St. Paul, 51 N. W.
819.
TROYER V. SCHWEIZER, 15 Minn. 241, (Gil. 187.)
Garnishment, 59.
TRUAX V. MILLER, 50 N. W. 935.
Accord and Satisfaction, 12.
TRUE V. TRUE, 6 Minn. 458, (Gil. 315.)
Divorce, 19, 21.
Cited in Bomsta v. Johnson, 38 Minn. 233.
TRUESDELL V. HULL, (Truesdell v. Hall,) 35 Minn.
468, 29 N. W. 72.
Pleading, 193.
TRUITT V. CALDWELL, 3 Minn. 364, (Gil. 257.)
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 1, 8,
15.
Pleading, 103.
Cited in Banning v. Sibley, 3 Minn. 397, (Gil.
291;) Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 403, (Gil. 306;)
Chophard v. Bayard, 4 Minn. 539, (Gil. 423;)
Gere v. Murray, 6 Minn. 316, (Gil. 221;) Camp
v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 181; May v. Walker, 35
Minn. 197.
TRUNKEY V. CROSBY, (Tucker v. Vaughan,) 33
Minn. 464, 23 N. W. 846.
Composition with Creditors, 1.
Garnishment, 10, 15, 52, 54.
TRUSTEES OF EAST NORWAY LAKE NORWEGIAN
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH V. HALVOR-
SON, 42 Minn. 503, 44 N. W. 663.
Ejectment, 35.
Religious Societies, 3-6, 8, 9.
Execution, 38, 39, 81, 105, 108.
Venue in Civil Cases, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 90.
Followed in Knox v. Randall, 24 Minn. 496. Ap-
plied in Goener v. Woll, 26 Minn. 156. Over-
ruled in Crosby v. Farmer, 39 Minn. 306. Cited
in Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 410, (Gil. 313,
314;) Folsom v. Carli, 5 Minn. 336, (Gil. 268;)
Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 88, (Gil. 53;)
Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 292, (Gil. 223;)
Hutchins v. Commissioners Carver County, 16.
Minn. 18, (Gil. 6.)
TULLIS V. FRIDLEY, 9 Minn. 79, (Gil. 68.)
Husband and Wife, 70.
Negotiable Instruments, 85.
Cited in Sandwich Manuf'g Co. v. Zellmer, 51
N. W. 380.
TULLIS V. ORTHWEIN, 5 Minn. 377, (Gil. 305.)
Exemptions, 29, 30.
Pleading, 108.
Distinguished in Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 192,
(Gil. 133, 134;) Cited in Howland v. Fuller,
Minn. 57, (Gil. 36;) Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn.
485, (Gil. 399.)
TUNE V. SWEENEY, 34 Minn. 295, 25 N. W. 628.
Appeal and Error, 408, 717.
TUNELL V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 31 Minn. 343, 17
N. W. 944.
Sale, 83.
1
Cited in Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
99; Maxwell v. Lee, 34 Minn. 515; D. M. Os-
borne & Co. v. Carpenter, 37 Minn. 333.
TUNELL V. LARSON, 37 Minn. 258, 34 N. W. 29.
New Trial, 12.
Cited in Tunell v. Larson, 39 Minn. 270.
TUNELL V. LARSON, 39 Minn. 269, 39 N. W. 628.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 45, 110.
Cited in Lathrop v. Clayton, 45 Minn. 126.
TUPPER V. THOMPSON, 26 Minn. 385, 4 N. W. 621.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 94, 95.
Sheriffs and Constables, 27.
Cited in Furman v. Tenny, 28 Minn. 79; Kenney
v. Goergen, 36 Minn. 192; Jackson v. Holbrook,
36 Minn. 498, 502, 504; Mullen v. Noonan, 44
Minn. 542.
TURNBULL V. NORTHWESTERN TERRA COTTA Co.,
46 Minn. 513, 49 N. W. 229.
Principal and Agent, 69.
TURNBULL V. SCHROEDER, 29 Minn. 49, 11 N. W. 147.
Boundaries, 12.
Cited in Borer v. Lange, 44 Minn. 286.
Cited in Trustees of German Evangelical Society TURNBULL V. SEYMOUR, 31 Minn. 196, 17 N. W. 278.
v. Henschell, 51 N. W. 477.
Sale, 177.
དྭ
2685
2686
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
TURNER V. HOLLERAN, 8 Minn. 451, (Gil. 401.)
Appeal and Error, 482.
Costs, 8, 11.
Justices of the Peace, 12.
Cited in Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 228, (Gil.
209;) Greenman v. Smith, 20 Minn. 419, (Gil.
373.)
TURNER V. HOLLERAN, 11 Minn. 253, (Gil. 168.)
Appeal and Error, 115.
Eminent Domain, 175.
Approved in Warren v. First Division St. P. &
P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 391, 392, (Gil. 352, 354.)
Cited in Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co., 20
Minn. 188, (Gil. 168;) Rippe v. Chicago, D. &
M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 21.
TURRELL V. MORGAN, 7 Minn. 368, (Gil. 290.)
Evidence, 252.
Mortgages, 403.
Followed in State v. Monnier, 8 Minn. 213, (Gil.
184.) Cited in Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 174,
175.
TURRELL V. WARREN, 25 Minn. 9.
Adverse Claim, 17.
Judgment, 194, 195.
Followed in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 34, 37,
38. Cited in Pierro v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
37 Minn. 315.
TUTTLE V. HOWE, 14 Minn. 145, (Gil. 118.)
Assignment, 1.
Mechanics' Liens, 16-18, 34, 141.
Overruled in North Star Iron Works Co. v.
Strong, 33 Minn. 5. Cited in Hodgins v. Hea-
ney, 17 Minn. 47, (Gil. 29;) Atkins v. Little,
17 Minn. 353, (Gil. 327;) Kelly v. Dill, 23 Minn.
439; Sibley v. Pine County, 31 Minn. 202; Al-
then v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1019.
TUTTLE V. MOORE, 16 Minn. 123, (Gil. 112.)
Specific Performance, 4.
TUTTLE V. STROUT, 7 Minn. 465, (Gil. 374.)
Homestead, 1.
Statutes, 32.
TUTTLE V. STROUT-Continued.
Followed in Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron,
11 Minn. 535, (Gil. 410;) State v. Gut, 13 Minn.
349, 350, (Gil. 323, 324;) Coleman v. Ballandi,
22 Minn. 147. Distinguished in Rogers v.
Brackett, 34 Minn. 230. Cited in City of St.
Paul v. Colter, 12 Minn. 51, (Gil. 22;) Barton
v. Drake, 21 Minn. 303; State v. Cantieny, 34
Minn. 7.
TUTTLE V. WILSON, 33 Minn. 422, 23 N. W. 864.
Negotiable Instruments, 107.
Cited in Tuttle v. Wilson, 42 Minn. 233.
TUTTLE V. WILSON, 42 Minn. 233, 44 N. W. 10.
Practice in Civil Cases, 59.
TWIST V. WINONA & St. P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164, 39
N. W. 402.
Negligence, 67.
Cited in Haesley v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 46
Minn. 236; Hepfel v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
51 N. W. 1050.
TYLER V. HANSCOM, (Taylor v. Hanscom,) 28 Minn.
1, 8 N. W. 825.
Estoppel, 52.
Execution, 56.
Followed in Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 392.
Cited in Johnson v. Bray, 35 Minn. 250; Gran-
ning v. Swenson, 52 N. W. 31.
TYRER V. HYDE, 27 Minn. 51, 6 N. W. 379.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
TYRRELL V. JONES, 18 Minn. 312, (Gil. 281.)
Appeal and Error, 744.
Courts, 22.
Justices of the Peace, 1, 8, 75, 77.
Cited in Steinhart v. Pitcher, 20 Minn. 104, (Gil.
90;) Anderson v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 21
Minn. 30; Burt v. Bailey, 21 Minn. 406.
TYSON V. KANE, 3 Minn. 287, (Gil. 197.)
Deposition, 1, 2, 11, 12.
Distinguished in Cooper v. Stinson, 5 Minn. 208,
(Gil. 166.) Cited in Hart v. Eastman, 7 Minn.
81, (Gil. 54.)
ULLMAN V. LION, 8 Minn. 381, (Gil 338.)
Insolvency, 110.
Judgment, 1.
Publication, 1, 2.
U.
Followed in Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337.
UMLAND V. HOLCOMBE, (Winland v. Holcomb,) 26
Minn. 286, 3 N. W. 341.
Homestead, 34.
UNION DEPOT, ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER Co. v.
BRUNSWICK—Continued.
Cited in Re Robbins, 34 Minn. 103; Lake Supe-
rior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38 Minn. 407; Adams
v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 289; Miller
v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 97, 102; Hanford v.
St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 112, 114; Village
of Wayzata v. Great N. Ry. Co., 52 N. W. 914.
Cited in Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 41 UNION NAT. BANK V. PRAY, 44 Minn. 168, 46 N. W.
Minn. 230.
UNDHEJEM V. HASTINGS, 38 Minn. 485, 38 N. W. 488.
Negligence, 65.
UNION DEPOT, ST. RAILWAY & TRANSFER Co. v.
BRUNSWICK, (Union Depot, St. Railway &
Transfer Co., In re,) 31 Minn. 297, 17 N. W. 626.
Eminent Domain, 34, 72, 198.
Riparian Rights, 10.
Words and Phrases, 566, 624.
304.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 127.
Cited in Fullington v. Northwestern Breeders'
Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475.
UNITED STATES V. GIDEON, 1 Minn. 292, (Gil. 226.)
Malicious Mischief, 1, 3.
Words and Phrases, 75.
UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA & N. W. R. Co., 1
Minn. 127, (Gil. 103.)
Constitutional Law, 119.
2687
2688
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
UNITED STATES V. SHANKS, 15 Minn. 369, (Gil. 302.) | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA V. ST. PAUL & N. P. RY.
Indians, 1, 2.
Cited in Earl v. Godley, 42 Minn. 362.
Co., 36 Minn. 447, 31 N. W. 936.
University of Minnesota, 2.
UNIVERSALIST GENERAL CONVENTION V. BOTTI- UPTON V. CORSER, 34 Minn. 355, 25 N. W. 801.
NEAU, 42 Minn. 35, 43 N. W. 687.
Judgment, 17.
Corporations, 139, 140.
Partnership, 11.
V.
VALENTINE V. CITY OF ST. PAUL. 34 Minn. 446, 26 | VAN HOESEN V. MINNESOTA BAPTIST STATE CON-
N. W. 457.
Payment, 31.
Cited in State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 27.
VAN AERNAM V. WINSLOW, 37 Minn. 514, 35 N. W.
381.
Judgment, 50.
Practice in Civil Cases, 58.
VENTION, 16 Minn. 96, (Gil. 86.)
Money Receiveā, 2, 5.
VAN LOON V. GRIFFIN, 34 Minn. 444, 26 N. W. 601.
Pleading, 211.
Distinguished in National Albany Exchange
Bank v. Cargill, 39 Minn. 478.
Van Brunt v. GREAVES, 32 Minn. 68, 19 N. W. 345. VAN METER V. KNIGHT, 32 Minn. 205, 20 N. W. 142.
Appeal and Error, 420.
VAN BRUNT V. MISMER, 8 Minn. 232, (Gil. 202.)
Mortgages, 40.
VANDALL V. ST. MARTIN, 42 Minn. 163, 44 N. W. 525.
Adverse Possession, 18, 19.
Cited in Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 406.
VANDERBURGH v. BassetT, 4 Minn. 242, (Gil. 171.)
Attachment, 74.
Conversion of Personal Property, 37.
Partnership, 28.
Replevin, 24.
VANDERHOOF v. HOLLOWAY, (Vanderhoof v. Mc-
Affee,) 41 Minn. 498, 43 N. W. 331.
Garnishment, 19, 45.
VANDERLINDE v. CANFIELD, 40 Minn. 541, 42 N. W.
538.
Taxation, 213, 214.
Cited in Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
VAN DOREN V. BAILEY, 51 N. W. 375.
Evidence, 76.
Costs, 10.
Mortgages, 62, 294.
Cited in Backus v. Burke, 51 N. W. 286.
VAN NORMAN, IN RE, 41 Minn. 494, 43 N. W. 334.
Insolvency, 85.
VAN RIPER V. RICE, 37 Minn. 70, 33 N. W. 440.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
VANSTRUM V. LILJENGREN, 37 Minn. 191, 33 N. W.
555.
119,/
Negotiable Instruments, 45, 116, 117,
120.
Cited in Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 307; An-
derson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 186.
VARCO V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 30 Minn.
18, 13 N. W. 921.
Interest of Money, 7.
Railroad Companies, 242, 243.
Trial, 144.
Cited in Havorka v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 34 Minn. 281, 282.
v.
VAN DUSEN & Co. v. PIPER. See G. W. Van Du- VAWTER V. CRAFTS, 41 Minn. 14, 42 N. W. 483.
sen & Co. v. Piper.
Mortgages, 139.
VAN EMAN V. STANCHFIELD, 8 Minn. 518, (Gil. 460.) | VENABLE V. PAULDING, 19 Minn. 488, (Gil 422.)
Contracts, 173.
Sale, 11.
Cited in Van Eman v. Stanchfield, 10 Minn. 260,
265, (Gil. 201, 206.)
Limitation of Actions, 50-52.
Words and Phrases, 228, 663.
Cited in Kerwin v. Sabin, 52 N. W. 643.
VAN EMAN V. STANCHFIELD, 10 Minn. 255, (Gil. VERMILYE V. VERMILYE, 32 Minn. 499, 18 N. W. 832,
197.)
Contracts, 60, 61, 138.
Evidence, 276.
Negotiable Instruments, 212.
Cited in Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 206,
(Gil. 180;) Bausman v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 205;
Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 39 Minn. 547; Na-
tional Car & Locomotive Builder v. Cylone
Steam Snow-Plow Co., 51 N. W. 658; Buxton v.
Beal, 51 N. W. 918.
VAN EMAN V. STANCHFIELD, 13 Minn. 75, (Gil. 70.)
Negotiable Instruments, 86, 161, 162.
Pledge, 12.
Cited in Bausman v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 205; Beard
v. First Nat. Bank, 39 Minn. 547.
21 N. W. 736.
Divorce, 17.
Overruling Goodrich v. Parker, 1 Minn. 195, (Gil.
169.) Explained in National Albany Exchange
Bank v. Cargill, 39 Minn. 478.
VILISKI V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 40 Minn. 304, 41
N. W. 1050.
Municipal Corporations, 127.
VILLAGE OF GLENCOE V. MCLEOD COUNTY, 40
Minn. 44, 41 N. W. 239.
Money Received, 15.
VILLAGE OF GLENCOE V. WADSWORTH, 51 N. W.
377.
Adverse Possession, 4.
2689
2690
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
VILLAGE OF MANKATO V. MEAGHER, 17 Minn. 265, | VOGEL V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 32 Minn. 167, 20 N.
(Gil. 243.)
Appeal and Error, 278.
Dedication, 2, 3, 33, 34, 37, 42, 43.
Evidence, 217.
Municipal Corporations, 61.
Public Lands, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 40, 44.
Trial, 80.
Words and Phrases, 617.
Distinguished in Taylor v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 69. Cited in City of Mankato v.
Warren, 20 Minn. 149, (Gil. 132;) Downer v.
St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 252.
W. 129.
Evidence, 112.
Followed in Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 34
Minn. 455. Cited in Rich v. City of Minneapo-
lis, 40 Minn. 84; Burns v. Maltby, 43 Minn. 163.
VOGEL V. D. M. OSBORNE & Co., 34 Minn. 454, 26
N. W. 453.
Damages, 38.
Cited in Smith v. Carlson, 36 Minn. 221.
VOGELY V. BLOOM, (Zimmerman v. Bloom,) 43
Minn. 163, 45 N. W. 10.
Evidence, 99.
VILLAGE OF MANKATO V. WILLARD, 13 Minn. 13, VOGLE V. GRACE, 5 Minn. 294, (Gil. 232.)
(Gil. 1.)
Dedication, 2, 5, 49, 51, 52.
Public Lands, 30.
Quieting Title, 1.
Words and Phrases, 196.
Cited in Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 224, (Gil. 200;) Village of Mankato v.
Meagher, 17 Minn. 269, 272, (Gil. 245, 248;) City
of Mankato v. Warren, 20 Minn. 149, (Gil. 132;)
Hurley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 34
Minn. 147; Village of White Bear v. Stewart,
40 Minn. 287.
Trial, 198.
Cited in State v. Perry, 28 Minn. 457.
VOLMER V. STAGERMAN, 24 Minn. 434.
Appeal and Error, 532.
VOLMER V. STAGERMAN, 25 Minn. 234.
Appeal and Error, 295.
Case and Bill of Exceptions, 6, 7, 14.
Judgment, 111.
Mortgages, 332.
New Trial, 1.
Words and Phrases, 193.
VILLAGE OF PINE CITY V. MUNCH, 42 Minn. 342, 44 VON GLAHN V. SOMMER, 11 Minn. 203, (Gil. 132.)
N. W. 197.
Municipal Corporations, 318.
Nuisance, 5.
Words and Phrases, 618.
Followed in Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44
Minn. 537. Cited in Village of Buffalo v. Har-
ling, 52 N. W. 932.
Appeal and Error, 46.
Trial, 191.
Approved in Ryan v. Kranz, 25 Minn. 362. Cited
in Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 513, (Gil. 386;)
Thompson v. Howe, 21 Minn. 1; Johnson v.
Northern Pac., F. F. & B. H. Ry. Co., 39 Minn.
30.
VILLAGE OF ST. JAMES V. HINGTGEN, 47 Minn. 521, 50 VOSE V. STICKNEY, 8 Minn. 75, (Gil. 51.)
N. W. 700.
Intoxicating Liquors, 31, 32.
VILIAGE OF WAYZATA V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. Co.,
46 Minn. 505, 49 N. W. 205.
Dedication, 38.
Estoppel, 71.
Attachment, 14.
Sheriffs and Constables, 22.
Approved in Dodge v. Chandler, 9 Minn. 100,
(Gil. 89.) Cited in Barry v. McGrade, 14
Minn. 166, (Gil. 128;) Vose v. Stickney, 19
Minn. 370, (Gil. 315;) Benz v. Geissell, 24 Minn.
172.
VILLAGE OF WHITE BEAR V. STEWART, 40 Minn. 284, VOSE V. STICKNEY, 19 Minn. 367, (Gil. 312.)
41 N. W. 1045.
Dedication, 20, 21.
VINSON V. CHICAGO, St. P., M. & O. Rr. Co., 47
Minn. 265, 50 N. W. 228.
Railroad Companies, 58.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 23, 125.
Cited in Camp v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 181; Wil-
cox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 95; Lathrop v.
Clayton, 45 Minn. 127; Mackellar v. Pillsbury,
51 N. W. 223.
W.
WACHLIN V. TOWN OF GLENCOE, 41 Minn. 499, 43 | WAGER V. BROOKS, (Wager v. Huntington,) 37
N. W. 967.
Appeal and Error, 527.
WADHAM'S OIL & GREASE Co. v. BRUNS. See
Butts v. Moorhead Manuf'g Co.
WADSWORTH V. BLAKE, 43 Minn. 509, 45 N. W. 1131.
Subrogation, 6.
WADSWORTH V. SCHISSELBAUER, 32 Minn. 84, 19 N.
W. 390.
Creditors' Suit, 3.
Cited in Moffatt v. Tuttle, 35 Minn. 302, 303;
Jackson v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 498; Lane v.
Innes, 43 Minn. 141.
V.2M.DIG.-85
Minn. 392, 34 N. W. 745.
Negotiable Instruments, 71.
WAGNER V. NAGEL, 33 Minn. 348, 23 N. W. 308.
Action, 21.
Courts, 5.
Husband and Wife, 7.
Trial, 184.
Words and Phrases, 32.
Cited in Schneider v. Ashworth, 34 Minn. 427;
Rhodes v. Pray, 36 Minn. 393; Benjamin v.
Levy, 39 Minn. 12; Bergh v. Warner, 47 Minn.
253.
2691
2692
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WAGNER V. WAGNER, 34 Minn. 441, 26 N. W. 450. | WALKER V. BEAN, 34 Minn. 427, 26 N. W. 232.
Appeal and Error, 94.
Divorce, 31.
WAGNER V. WAGNER, 36 Minn. 239, 30 N. W. 766.
Divorce, 5, 28.
Judgment, 109.
Cited in Wagner v. Wagner, 39 Minn. 395.
WAGNER V. WAGNER, 39 Minn. 394, 40 N. W. 360.
Divorce, 9, 10.
WAHL V. WALTON, 30 Minn. 506, 16 N. W. 397.
Arrest, 1.
Cited in State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 9.
WAIT V. MAY, 51 N. W. 471.
Public Lands, 50.
WAITE V. COARACY, 45 Minn. 159, 47 N. W. 537.
Death, 1.
Judgment, 34.
WAITE V. FRISBIE, 45 Minn. 361, 47 N. W. 1069.
Wills, 21, 22.
Cited in Wait v. Frisbie, 51 N. W. 217.
WAITE V. FRISBIE, 51 N. W. 217.
Wills, 22.
Logs and Logging, 8.
Partnership, 49.
Cited in Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 328.
WALKER V. CROSBY, 38 Minn. 34, 35 N. W. 475.
Judgment, 211.
WALKER V. JOHNSON, 28 Minn. 147, 9 N. W. 632.
Conversion of Personal Property, 48.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 31, 42.
Followed in Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v.
Prince, 34 Minn. 75. Cited in Lace v. Fixen,
39 Minn. 48; Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 177.
WALKER V. MCDONALD, 5 Minn. 455, (Gil. 368.)
Certiorari, 35.
Frauds, Statute of, 13.
Justices of the Peace, 68.
Cited in Nichols v. Allen, 23 Minn. 544.
WALKOW V. KINGSLEY, 45 Minn. 283, 47 N. W. 807.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 118.
WALLACE V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. E. Co., 37 Minn.
464, 35 N. W. 268.
Warehousemen, 19.
Followed in Tarbell v. Farmers' Mutual Elevator
Co., 44 Minn. 475.
WAKEFIELD V. BROWN, 38 Minn. 361, 37 N. W. 788. WALLACE V. PALMER, 36 Minn. 126, 30 N. W. 445.
Deed, 4.
Evidence, 327.
Execution, 9.
Cited in Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 213.
WAKEFIELD V. CHOWEN, 26 Minn. 379, 4 N. W. 618.
Abstracts of Title, 1.
WAKEFIELD v. DAY, 41 Minn. 344, 43 N. W. 71.
Adverse Claim, 13, 25.
Deed, 105.
Taxation, 196.
Cited in Parker v. Branch, 42 Minn. 156; Mars-
ton v. Williams, 45 Minn. 120; Adamson v.
Wiggins, 45 Minn. 449; Casey v. McIntyre,
45 Minn. 530; Mitchell v. McFarland, 47 Minn.
536.
WAKEFIELD V. SPENCER, 8 Minn. 376, (Gil. 336.)
Appeal and Error, 62.
Negotiable Instruments, 204.
Cited in McArdle v. McArdle, 12 Minn. 107, (Gil.
57.
Liens, 5.
Cited in Smith v. Roberts, 43 Minn. 343.
WALLRICH V. HALL, 19 Minn. 383, (Gil. 329.)
Costs, 9.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 25.
Equity, 65.
WALSH V. BYRNES, 39 Minn. 527, 40 N. W. 831.
Execution, 157.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 90.
Applied in Fullington v. Northwestern Breeders'
Ass'n, 51 N. W. 475. Walsh v. Culbertson's
Estate, (Walsh v. St. Paul Trust Co.,) 39 Minn.
23, 38 N. W. 631.
WALSH V. KATTENBURGH, 8 Minn. 127, (Gil. 99.)
Evidence, 204.
Frauds, Statute of, 14.
Pleading, 21, 48.
Applied in Collom v. Bixby, 33 Minn. 52. Cited
in Armstrong v. Vroman, 11 Minn. 223, (Gil.
144;) Sharon v. Wooldrick, 13 Minn. 359, (Gil.
329;) Benton v. Schulte, 31 Minn. 313.
WALDRON V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 33 Minn. 87, 22 N. WALSH V. ST. PAUL TRUST Co., (Walsh v. Culbert-
W. 4.
Damages, 81.
Deposition, 3.
Evidence, 357.
Venue in Civil Cases, 14.
Cited in McNamara v. Eustis, 46 Minn. 312.
WALES V. NEW YORK BOWERY FIRE INs. Co., 37
Minn. 106, 33 N. W. 322.
Insurance, 16, 17.
WALKER, IN RE, 37 Minn. 243, 33 N. W. 852, 34 N.
W. 591.
Insolvency, 32, 108.
Words and Phrases, 131.
Cited in Olson v. O'Brien, 46 Minn. 90.
WALKER V. BARRON, 4 Minn. 253, (Gil. 178.)
Deposition, 31.
WALKER V. BARRON, 6 Minn. 508, (Gil. 353.)
Costs, 12.
Custom and Usage, 1, 2.
son's Estate,) 39 Minn. 23, 38 N. W. 631.
Principal and Agent, 2.
WALSH V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 367, 8 N.
W. 145.
Master and Servant, 113.
Cited in Gates v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 28
Minn. 112; Olson v. McMullen, 34 Minn. 95:
Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn. 364.
WALTER V. GREENWOOD, 29 Minn. 87, 12 N. W. 145.
Execution, 15.
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy,
23, 24.
Words and Phrases, 579.
WALTER V. HANSON, 33 Minn. 474, 24 N. W. 186.
Vendor and Purchaser, 129.
Cited in Hammond v. Peyton, 34 Minn. 530.
WALTER V. HENSEL, (Walter v. Odd-Fellows' Mut.
Ben. Soc.,) 42 Minn. 204, 44 N. W. 57.
Insurance, 156.
Words and Phrases, 654-656.
2893
2694
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
*
WALTER A. WOOD MOWING & REAPING MACH. CO. | WARDER, BUSHNELL & GLESSNER Co. v. WILL-
v. MINNEAPOLIS & N. ELEVATOR Co., 51 N. W.
378.
Chattel Mortgages, 3, 10.
WALTERS V. ARMSTRONG, 5 Minn. 448, (Gil. 364.)
Evidence, 316.
Distinguished in Torinus v. Buckham, 29 Minn.
131. Cited in Borup v. Nininger, 5 Minn. 551,
(Gil. 436;) Kern v. Von Phul, Minn. 430, (Gil.
346;) Whitacre v. Culver, 9. Minn. 301, (Gil.
285;) Leighton v. Grant, 20 Minn. 354, (Gil.
306.)
YARD, 46 Minn. 531, 49 N. W. 300.
Alteration of Instruments, 4, 9.
Appeal and Error, 730.
WARDLOW V. BESSER, 3 Minn. 317, (Gil. 223.)
Justices of the Peace, 50.
WARDWELL V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 46
Minn. 514, 49 N. W. 206.
Carriers, 130--133.
WARE V. EASTON, 46 Minn. 180, 48 N. W. 775.
Summons, 32.
WALTHER V. NEIDHAMER, 28 Minn. 357, 10 N. W. WAR EAGLE, THE, V. NUTTING, 1 Minn. 256, (Gil,
432.
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
WALTON V. PERKINS, 28 Minn. 413, 10 N. W. 424.
Libel and Stander, 97.
Quieting Title, 26.
Cited in Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn. 272;
Knudson v. Curley, 30 Minn. 434; School Dist.
No. 73 v. Wrabeck, 31 Minn. 79; Myrick v.
Coursalle, 32 Minn. 154; Burton v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 193; Stuart v. Lowry,
51 N. W. 663.
WALTON V. PERKINS, 33 Minn. 357, 23 N. W. 527.
Adverse Claim, 20.
201.)
Pleading, 277.
Cited in Irvine v. The Hamburg, 3 Minn. 195,
201, (Gil, 126, 132.)
WARNER V. COMMISSIONERS HENNEPIN COUNTY,
9 Minn. 139, (Gil. 130.)
Eminent Domain, 37.
Mandamus, 46.
WARNER V. FISCHBACH, 29 Minn. 262, 13 N. W. 47.
Appeal and Error, 746.
Trial, 36.
Cited in Melby v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 33 Minn.
494.
WAMPACH V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. | WARNER V. FOOTE, 40 Minn. 176, 41 N. W. 935.
364.
Appeal and Error, 313.
Eminent Domain, 278, 281.
WAMPACH V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 34.
Appeal and Error, 349.
Damages, 57.
Husband and Wife, 16, 79.
WARD V. ANDERBERG, 31 Minn. 304, 17 N. W. 630.
Usury, 5
WARD V. ANDERBERG, 36 Minn. 300, 30 N. W. 890.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 8.
Distinguished in McPherson v. Runyon, 41 Minn.
525. Cited in Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn.
104.
WARD V. HACKETT, 30 Minn. 150, 14 N. W. 578.
Negotiable Instruments, 49.
New Trial, 62.
Cited in Berkey v. Judd, 34 Minn. 394.
WARD V. HAWS, 5 Minn. 440, (Gil. 359.)
Appeal and Error, 659.
Pleading, 276.
WARD V. HUHN, 16 Minn. 159, (Gil. 142.)
Bankruptcy, 4.
Homestead, 25.
Distinguished in Kaser v. Haas, 27 Minn. 409.
Cited in O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 137.
WARDER V. BOWEN, 31 Minn. 335, 17 N. W. 943.
Sale, 51,78.
WARDER-BUSHNELL & GLESSNER Co. v. MINNE-
SOTA & D. ELEVATOR Co., 44 Minn. 390, 46 N.
W. 773.
Liens, 6.
'Followed in O'Brien v. Findeisen, 50 N. W. 1036.
WARDER-BUSHNELL & GLESSNER Co. v. RUBLEE,
42 Minn. 23, 43 N. W. 569.
Principal and Agent, 75.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 23.
Trial, 196.
Cited in Warner v. Foote, 41 Minn. 493; Wil-
liams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 254; Deiber v.
Loehr, 44 Minn. 452; Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W.
657.
WARNER V. FOOTE, 41 Minn. 493, 43 N. W. 264
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
WARNER V. GRACE, 14 Minn. 487, (Gil. 364.)
Reward, 1, 2.
Cited in Day v. Putnam Ins. Co., 16 Minn. 412,
(Gil. 369.)
WARNER V. KENNING, 25 Minn. 173.
Fixtures, 4.
Cited in Stout v. Stoppel, 30 Minn. 58.
WARNER V. LOCKERBY, 28 Minn. 28, 8 N. W. 879.
Appeal and Error, 20.
Libel and Siander, 59.
Pleading, 286.
Cited in Lesher v. Getman, 30 Minn. 326; Hed-
derly v. Downs, 31 Minn. 186.
WARNER V. LOCKERBY, 31 Minn. 421, 18 N. W. 145.
821.
Appeal and Error, 601.
Libel and Slander, 47, 70, 83, 95.
Witness, 77.
WARNER V. MYRICK, 16 Minn. 91, (Gil. 81.)
Account Stated, 12.
Appeal and Error, 421.
Partnership, 6, 7.
Trial, 73.
Cited in Wharton v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 305;
Wass v. Atwater, 33 Minn. 85.
WARNER V. ROGERS, 23 Minn. 34,
Appeal and Error, 431.
Party-Walls, 1-3.
Words and Phrases, 150, 249.
Applied in Mackey v. Harmon, 34 Minn. 171,
2695
2696
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WARREN V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 18 | WASHBURN V. SHARP, 15 Minn. 63, (Gil. 43.)
Minn. 384, (Gil. 345.)
Appeal and Error, 111.
Constitutional Law, 40.
Eminent Domain, 1, 3, 140, 164, 166, 172, 173.
Words and Phrases, 646, 648.
Followed in Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co.,
20 Minn. 188, (Ĝil. 168;) Sherwood v. St. Paul
& C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 126. Distinguished in
Conter v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 315.
Cited in State v. Macdonald, 26 Minn. 449;
State v. Severance, 29 Minn. 270.
WARREN V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 21
Minn. 424.
Eminent Domain, 171, 222, 223.
Followed in Knauft v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,
22 Minn. 177. Applied in City of Minneapolis
v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 146, 149. Distinguished in
Contér v. St. Paul &. S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn.
314. Explained in Greve v. First Division St.
P. & P. Ry. Co., 26 Minn. 67, 69. Cited in
Whitacre v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn.
312, 313; Leber v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 260; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 229; Weaver v. Missis-
sippi & R. R. Boom Co., 30 Minn. 481; State
Park Com'rs v. Henry, 38 Minn. 269.
WARREN V. FISH, 7 Minn. 432, (Gil. 347.)
Execution, 119, 120, 130, 131.
Approved in Rutherford v. Newman, 8 Minn. 49,
(Gil. 30.) Cited in Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn.
293, (Gil. 220;) Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn.
176.
WARREN V. VAN BRUNT, 12 Minn. 70, (Gil. 36.)
Public Lands, 2, 129, 134.
Cited in Corbett v. Wood, 32 Minn. 510.
WARREN V. WESTRUP, 44 Minn. 237, 46 N. W. 347.
Assault and Battery, 8.
WARSOP V. CITY OF HASTINGS, 22 Minn. 487.
Injunction, 21.
Railroad Companies, 66, 71.
Followed in State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn.
414. Cited in State v. City of Hastings, 24
Minn. 83, 84; Hoyt v. Braden, 27 Minn. 494.
WASECA COUNTY V. SHEEHAN, (Board of County
Com'rs v. Sheehan,) 42 Minn. 57, 43 N. W. 630.
Counties, 41, 44.
WASECA COUNTY BANK v. MCKENNA, 32 Minn.
468, 21 N. W. 556.
Banks and Banking, 25.
WASHBURN V. CUTTER, 17 Minn. 361, (Gil. 335.)
Adverse Possession, 5-8, 15, 34.
Replevin, 2-5.
Words and Phrases, 22, 223.
Applied in Bazille v. Murray, 40 Minn. 51. Ex-
plained in Hinman v. Heyderstadt, 32 Minn.
251. Cited in Moon v. Avery, 42 Minn. 407.
WASHBURN V. MENDENHALL, 21 Minn. 332.
Conversion of Personal Property, 20.
Evidence, 206.
Followed in Morish v. Mountain, 22 Minn. 564.
Applied in Hardin v. Palmerlee, 28 Minn. 453.
Cited in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 206; Farmer
v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 462.
Appeal and Error, 477.
Judgment, 249.
Limited in Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 75.
Cited
in Frankoviz v. Smith, 35 Minn. 279, 280;
Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn, 534.
WASHBURN. VAN STEENWYK, (Washburn's Es-
tate, In re,) 32 Minn. 336, 20 N. W. 324.
Executors and Administrators, 143.
Wills, 64, 66.
Cited in Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 15, 18;
Sherman v. Lewis, 44 Minn. 108; Lowell v.
Doe, 44 Minn. 147: Bronson v. St. Croix Lum-
ber Co., 44 Minn. 319.
WASHBURN V. WINSLOW, 16 Minn. 33, (Gil. 19.)
Accord and Satisfaction, 10, 13.
Appeal and Error, 252, 325.
Cited in Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn. 163, (Gil.
146;) Nelson v. Thompson, 23 Minn. 510; Hin-
kle v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 31 Minn.
437; Egan v. Menard, 32 Minn. 275.
WASHBURNE V. LUFKIN, 4 Minn. 466, (Gil. 362.)
Arbitration and Award, 21.
Words and Phrases, 715.
WASHBURN'S ESTATE, IN RE, (Washburn v. Van
Steenwyk,) 32 Minn. 336, 20 N. W. 324.
Executors and Administrators, 143.
Wills, 64, 66.
Cited in Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 15, 18;
Sherman v. Lewis, 44 Minn. 105; Lowell v.
Doe, 44 Minn. 147; Bronson v. St. Croix Lum-
ber Co., 44 Minn. 349.
WASHBURN'S ESTATE, IN RE, 45 Minn. 242, 47 N. W.
790. See Putnam v. Pitney.
WASHINGTON COUNTY V. GERMAN-AMER. Bank, 28
Minn. 360, 10 N. W. 21.
Taxation, 75, 146.
WASHINGTON COUNTY V. JEFFERSON'S ESTATE, (Jef-
ferson's Estate, In re,) 35 Minn. 215, 28 N. W.
256.
WASS
Executors and Administrators, 43, 63.
Taxation, 25, 62.
V. ATWATER, 33 Minn. 83, 22 N. W. 8.
Factors and Brokers, 9.
New Trial, 15.
Trial, 62.
WASS V. SMITH, 34 Minn. 304, 25 N. W. 605.
Taxation, 230.
WATERMAN V. MILLARD, 22 Minn. 261.
Executors and Administrators, 16.
Distinguished in Forepaugh v. Hoffman, 23 Minn.
298; Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 161.
WATIER V. CHICAGO, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.,
(Watier v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,) 31
Minn. 91, 16 N. W. 537.
Railroad Companies, 276.
Cited in Moser v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 42 Minn.
482.
WATKINS V. HACKETT, 20 Minn. 106, (Gil. 92.)
Mortgages, 180, 181, 432, 433.
Distinguished in Dick v. Moon, 26 Minn. 312;
Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 340. Cited in
Taylor v. Burgess, 26 Minn. 551.
WATKINS V. MINNESOTA THRESHER MANUF'G Co.,
41 Minn. 150, 42 N. W. 862.
Receivers, 9.
2697
2698
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WATSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., 46 Minn. | WEBB V. MICHENER, 32 Minn. 48, 19 N. W. 82.
321, 48 N. W. 1129.
Constitutional Law, 123.
Dedication, 50.
Ejectment, 37.
Frauds, Statute of, 52.
Parties, 11.
Railroad Companies, 70.
Trial, 148.
Followed in Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Minneapolis
& St. L. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 330.
WATSON V. ST. PAUL CITY Rr. Co., 42 Minn. 46, 43
N. W. 904.
Appeal and Error, 467.
Carriers, 99.
Jury, 51.
Witness, 95.
Cited in State v. Adamson, 43 Minn. 199; Mykle-
by v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 52 N.
W. 213.
WATSON V. WARD, 27 Minn. 29, 6 N. W. 407.
Appeal and Error, 756.
Justices of the Peace, 21.
Words and Phrases, 30.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 57.
Evidence, 229, 233.
Negotiable Instruments, 199.
Cited in Branch v. Dawson, 36 Minn. 194; King
v. Lacrosse, 42 Minn. 489.
WEBB V. O'DONNELL, 28 Minn. 369, 10 N. W. 140.
Assignment, 31.
Pleading, 98.
WEBB V. PAXTON, 36 Minn. 532, 32 N. W. 749.
Appeal and Error, 741.
Principal and Agent, 11.
Cited in Tilleny v. Wolverton, 46 Minn. 258;
Crump v. Ingersoll, 47 Minn. 181.
WEBER V. CLARK, 24 Minn. 354.
Contracts, 126.
Cited in Nelichka v. Esterly, 29 Minn. 146.
WEBER V. MCCLURE, 44 Minn. 407, 47 N. W 150.
Trial, 93.
WEBER V. TIMLIN, 37 Minn. 274, 34 N. W. 29.
Injunction, 10.
Applied in State v. Larson, 40 Minn. 64. Cited WEBSTER V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 26 Minn. 220,
in Closen v. Allen, 29 Minn. 87.
W. B. CLARK INVEST. Co. v. MCNAUGHTON, 46 Minn.
8, 48 N. W. 412.
Usury, 3, 47.
1
WEAVER V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co., 28
Minn. 534, 11 N. W. 114.
Eminent Domain, 247.
Trespass, 18.
Words and Phrases, 728.
Applied in McKenzie v. Mississippi & R. R.
Boom Co., 29 Minn. 292. Distinguished in
Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42
Minn. 537. Cited in Osborne v. Knife Falls
Boom Corp., 32 Minn. 422.
WEAVER V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOм Co., 28
Minn. 542, 11 N. W. 113.
Trespass, 13, 17.
Cited in Donlan v. Evans, 40 Minn. 504.
2 N. W. 697.
Highways, 20.
Cited in State v. District Court of Hennepin
County, 52 N. W. 223.
WEED V. LITTLE FALLS & D. R. Co., 31 Minn. 154,
16 N. W. 851.
Corporations, 60.
WEEKS V. BRIDGMAN, 41 Minn. 352, 43 N. W. 81.
Public Lands, 78–82.
Words and Phrases, 71.
Affirmed in Weeks v. Bridgman, 46 Minn. 390.
Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Ward, 47
Minn. 43, 44.
WEEKS V. BRIDGMAN, 46 Minn. 390, 49 N. W. 191.
Public Lands, 78-82.
Affirming Weeks v. Bridgman, 41 Minn. 352.
WEIBELER V. SULLIVAN, 34 Minn. 317, 25 N. W. 638.
Injunction, 5.
WEAVER V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOM Co., 30 WEIDE V. DAVIDSON, 15 Minn. 327, (Gil. 258.)
Minn. 477, 16 N. W. 269.
Appeal and Error, 70.
Eminent Domain, 7.
Injunction, 32.
Cited in Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 517.
Appeal and Error, 489, 627.
Carriers, 6.
Evidence, 242.
Trial, 20.
Cited in Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 206,
(Gil. 180.)
WEAVER V. MISSISSIPPI & R. R. Booм Co., 31 WEIDE V. GEHL, 21 Minn. 449.
Minn. 74, 16 N. W. 494.
New Trial, 13, 14.
WEBB V. BARNARD, 36 Minn. 333, 31 N. W. 214.
New Trial, 54.
WEBB V. BIDWELL, 15 Minn. 479, (Gil. 394.)
Evidence, 2.
Pleading, 108.
Taxation, 85, 275–279.
Words and Phrases, 15, 49.
Cited in Hoag v. Mendenhall, 19 Minn, 337, (Gil.
291;) Curtiss v. Livingston, 36 Minn. 381.
WEBB V. KENNEDY, 20 Minn. 419, (Gil. 874.)
Appeal and Error, 507.
Evidence, 16, 17.
New Trial, 85.
WEBB V. LEWIS, 45 Minn. 285, 47 N. W. 803.
Mortgages, 157, 158.
Adverse Claim, 18, 37.
Mortgages, 6, 69.
WEIDE V. PORTER, 22 Minn. 429.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 69.
Pleading, 25.
WEIR V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155,
(Gil. 139.)
Eminent Domain, 3, 4, 41, 42, 51, 115, 262.
Words and Phrases, 81, 253, 254.
Followed in Warren v. First Division St. P. &
P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 396, (Gil. 357;) Lehmicke v.
St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 476, (Gil.
410.) Explained in Rheiner v. Union Depot,
St. Railway & Transfer Co., 31 Minn. 295.
Cited in Curtis v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 498; In re St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.,
37 Minn. 167; Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, 46
Minn. 542.
2699
2700
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WEISBERGER V. TENNY, 8 Minn. 456, (Gil. 405.)
Public Lands, 15, 37.
Cited in City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 134,
(Gil. 84;) Čarson v. Smith, 12 Minn. 562, 566,
(Gil. 476, 479;) Coy v. Coy, 15 Minn. 123, (Gil.
92;) Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 223, (Gil. 200;) Village of Mankato v.
Meagher,17 Minn. 272, (Gil. 248.)
WEISSNER V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 47 Minn. 468,
50 N. W. 606.
Horse and Street Railroads, 7.
Negligence, 70.
WEITZNER V. HYDE, (Hyde v. Weitzner,) 45 Minn.
35, 47 N. W. 311.
Insolvency, 31.
WELCH, IN RE, (Welch v. Bradley,) 43 Minn. 7, 44
N. W.667.
Insolvency, 92, 99, 105.
Applied in Re Shotwell, 43 Minn. 392.
WELCH V. BRADLEY, 45 Minn. 540, 48 N. W. 440.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 88, 112.
Cited in Peterson v. Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 116.
WELCH V. HUNTINGTON, 23 Minn. 89.
Husband and Wife, 35.
WELCH V. KETCHAM, 51 N. W 113.
t
Tenancy in Common and Joint Tenancy, 7.
Vendor and Purchaser, 165.
WELCH V. MARKS, 39 Minn. 481, 40 N. W. 611.
Partition, 10.
WELD V. WELD, 27 Minn. 330, 7 N. W. 267.
Divorce, 7.
Words and Phrases, 213.
WELD V. WELD, 28 Minn. 33, 8 N. W. 900.
Divorce, 34.
WELLS V. ATKINSON, 24 Minn. 161.
Deed, 43, 50.
Ejectment, 6.
Mortgages, 269.
Applied in Scott County v. Hinds, 52 N. W. 524.
Cited in Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v.
Brackett, 37 Minn. 59.
WELLS V. GIESEKE, 27 Minn. 478, 8 N. W. 380.
Judgment, 8, 12, 14, 15.
Followed in Auerbach v. Gieseke, 40 Minn. 259,
261, 262; Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank,
45 Minn. 351. Cited in Coolbaugh v. Roemer,
30 Minn. 427; Hunter v. Cleveland Co-oper-
ative Stove Co., 31 Minn. 510.
WELLS V. MASTERSON, 6 Minn. 566, (Gil. 401.)
Ejectment, 12.
Cited in Curtiss v. Livingston, 36 Minn. 381.
WELSH V. COOLEY, 44 Minn. 446, 46 N. W. 908.
Mortgages, 161.
WELSH V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 25
Minn. 314.
Abatement and Revival, 5.
Interest of Money, 23.
Railroad Companies, 98, 141, 142, 151, 152.
Cited in City of Winona v. Minnesota Ry. Const.
Co., 29 Minn. 77; Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn.
124; Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 425.
WELSH V. WILSON, 34 Minn. 92, 24 N. W. 327
Sheriffs and Constables, 2, 44.
WELTER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 40 Minn. 460, 42 N.
W. 392.
Municipal Corporations, 94.
WELTER V. NOKKEN, 38 Minn. 376, 37 N. W. 947.
Appeal and Error, 739.
WELLCOME V. TOWN OF MONTICELLO, 41 Minn. 136, WEMPLE V. KNOPF, 15 Micn. 440, (Gil. 355.)
42 N. W. 930.
Poor and Poor-Laws, 4, 5.
WELLER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 5 Minn. 95, (Gil. 70.)
Constitutional Law, 176.
Municipal Corporations, 247, 285–287, 304.
Quieting Title, 7.
Followed in Morrison v. City of St. Paul, 5 Minn.
118, (Gil. 84.) Distinguished in Griggs v. City
of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 312, (Gil. 217.) Cited in
Armstrong v. Sanford, 7 Minn. 53, (Gil. 38:)
Prindle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 220, (Gil. 205;)
Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 499, (Gil. 377 ;) Conkey
v. Dike, 17 Minn. 463, (Gil. 442;) Minnesota
Linseed-Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20 Minn. 474, (Gil.
428;) Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn. 272; Ma-
loney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 71.
·
WELLER V. EAMES, 15 Minn. 461, (Gil. 376.)
Indemnity, 1.
Words and Phrases, 371, 372.
Applied in Campbell v. Rotering, 42 Minn. 117.
Distinguished in Howe v. Freidheim, 27 Minn.
295; Houston v. Nord, 39 Minn. 493. Cited in
Simmonson v. Grant, 36 Minn. 442.
WELLER V. HAMMER, 43 Minn. 195, 45 N. W. 427.
Judgment, 56.
Cited in Carlson v. Carlson, 52 N. W. 215.
WELLES V. BALDWIN, 28 Minn. 408, 10 N. W. 427.
Execution, 20.
Vendor and Purchaser, 59.
Followed in Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 30 Minn. 428.
Cited in Berryhill v. Potter, 42 Minn. 280,
Evidence, 304.
Frauds, Statute of, 41.
Followed in Kessler v. Smith, 42 Minn. 495.
Cited in Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 99, (Gil. 82;)
American Manuf'g Co. v. Klarquist, 47 Minn.
346.
WENDELL V. LEBON, 30 Minn. 234, 15 N. W. 109.
Constitutional Law, 115, 139.
Insolvency, 1-4.
Explained in Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 487.
Cited in Re Mann, 32 Minn. 64; Simon v. Mann,
33 Minn. 414; Jenks v. Ludden, 34 Minn. 484,
485; Daniels v. Palmer, 35 Minn. 349; State v.
Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 217;
MacDonald v. First National Bank, 47 Minn.
68, 69.
WENDLANDT v. SOHRE, 37 Minn. 162, 33 N. W. 700.
Principal and Surety, 1, 2.
Words and Phrases, 723.
WENTWORTH V. GRIGGS, 24 Minn. 450.
Costs, 27-29, 33.
WENTWORTH V. WENTWORTH, 2 Minn. 277, (Gil.
238.)
Appeal and Error, 412.
Frauds, Statute of, 51, 63, 65.
Judgment, 239.
Pleading, 21.
Trusts, 13, 14.
Followed in Evans v. Folsom, 5 Minn. 434, (Gil.
355.) Considered in Irvine v. Marshall, 7 Minn.
298, (Gil. 228;) Sumner v. Sawtelle, 8 Minn,
323, (Gil. 284.) Cited in Nutting v. McCutch
2701
2702
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WENTWORTH V. WENTWORTHI—Continued.
eon, 5 Minn. 389, (Gil. 314;) Walsh v. Katten-
burgh, 8 Minn. 131, (Gil. 102;) Catlin v. Fletch-
er, 9 Minn. 88, (Ġil. 78;) Gill v. Newell, 13
Minn. 469, (Gil. 434;) Johnson v. Johnson, 16
Minn. 514, (Gil. 464;) Randall v. Constans, 33
Minn. 333.
WERNER V. SCHROEDER, 33 Minn. 321, 37 N. W. 449.
Appeal and Error, 527.
WESSBECHER V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. Rr. Co., 32
Minn. S9, 19 N. W. 393.
Railroad Companies, 51, 239.
WEST V. EUREKA IMPROVEMENT CO., 40 Minn. 394,
42 N. W. 87.
Corporations, 76.
Costs, 56.
WEST V. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ST. PAUL,
41 Minn. 94, 42 N. W. 922.
Religious Societies, 10-13.
WEST V. HANRAHAN, 28 Minn. 385, 10 N. W. 415.
Libel and Slander, 10.
WESTON V. LOYHED, 30 Minn. 221, 14 N. W. S92.
Insolvency, 1, 55, 65.
Words and Phrases, 151, 517.
Followed in Wendell v. Lebon, 30 Mina. 238.
Cited in Weston v. Sumner, 31 Minn. 457;
State v. State Medical Exam. Board, 32 Minn.
328; Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
33 Minn. 422; Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 169; Rail-
way Transfer Co. v. Railroad & Warehouse
Commission, 39 Minn. 235; Maylone v. City of
St. Paul, 40 Minu. 407.
WESTON V. SUMNER, 31 Minn. 456, 18 N. W. 149.
Insolvency, 56.
Cited in Bliss v. Doty, 36 Minn. 168; Chickering
& Sons v. White, 42 Minn. 462.
WEST PUBLISHING Co. v. BOTTINEAU, 34 Minn. 239,
25 N. W. 405.
Replevin, 18.
WETHERELL V. STEWART, (Witherell v. Stewart,)
35 Minn. 496, 29 N. W. 196.
Judgment, 164.
Chattel Mortgages, 104.
WEST V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 189, WETHERILL V. STONE, 12 Minn. 579, (Gil. 499.)
41 N. W. 1031.
New Trial, 101.
Taxation, 118, 252.
WEST DULUTH LAND CO. v. Kurtz, 45 Minn. 380, 47
N. W. 1134.
Guardian and Ward, 1, 2, 28.
Cited in Kurtz v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 51 N. W.
221.
WESTERN LAND ASS'N V. MCCOMBER, 41 Minn. 20,
42 N. W. 543.
Taxation, 190, 195.
Applied in Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 348.
Cited in Parker v. Branch, 42 Minn. 156; Rob-
ert v. Western Land Ass'n, 43 Minn. 5; Casey
v. McIntyre, 45 Minn. 530; McQuade v. Jaf-
fray, 47 Minn. 328; Mitchell v. McFarland, 47
Minn. 536.
WESTERN LAND ASS'N V. READY, 24 Minn. 350.
Corporations, 33, 35.
Estoppel, 41.
WESTERN R. Co. v. DE GRAFF, 27 Minn. 1, 6 N. W.
341.
Constitutional Law, 24.
Public Lands, 90.
Approved in State v. Braden, 40 Minn. 175. Ap-
plied in State v. Whitcomb, 23 Minn. 51. Cited
in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 554; Morrison
County v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn.
453.
WESTERVELT v. KING, 4 Minn. 320, (Gil. 236.)
Appeal and Error, 122.
Cited in Entrop v. Williams, 11 Minn. 382, (Gil.
277;) People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 52 N. W.
219.
WESTMAN V. KRUMWEIDE, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W.
255.
Evidence, 309, 310.
Followed in Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 50,
51. Applied in Merchants' Exchange Bank v.
Luckow, 37 Minn. 543. Distinguished in Mc-
Cormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson,
39 Minn. 469; Minneapolis Threshing Machine
Co. v. Davis, 40 Minn. 114.
Constitutional Law, 85.
Followed in Dana v. Porter, 14 Minn. 480, (Gil.
357.)
WEYL V. CHICAGO, M. & St. P. Rr. Co., 40 Minn.
350, 42 N. W. 24.
Municipal Corporations, 46.
Railroad Companies, 200.
WEYMOUTH V. GREGG, 40 Minn. 45, 41 N. W. 243.
Judgment, 48.
WHALLEY V. ELDRIDGE, 24 Minn. 358.
Limitation of Actions, 53.
Mortgages, 334.
Cited in Rogers v. Benton, 30 Minn. 42; Bard-
well v. Collins, 44 Minn. 101: Foster v. Johnson,
44 Minn. 293; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 168.
WHALLON V. BANCROFT, 4 Minn. 109, (Gil. 70.)
Constitutional Law, 130.
Courts, 13.
Elections and Voters, 45, 46.
Followed in Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 126.
Cited in Ford v. Wright, 13 Minn. 520, (Gil.
487;) St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Gardner, 19
Minn. 140, (Gil. 105;) Ames v. Lake Superior &
M. R. Co., 21 Minn. 292; Commissioners Mille
Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 180, 181; In
re Howes, 38 Minn. 405; State v. Minnesota
Thresher Manuf'g Co., 40 Minn. 216, 217;
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 453.
WHALON V. ALDRICH, 8 Minn. 346, (Gil. 305.)
Appeal and Error, 205, 320.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 48.
Damages, 47.
Applied in Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 510,
(Gil. 421.) Distinguished in Koempel v. Shaw,
13 Minn. 492, (Gil. 453.) Cited in Taylor v.
Parker, 17 Minn. 472, (Gil. 450;) Paine v. Sher
wood, 19 Minn. 323, (Gil. 277;) Trainor v. Wor-
man, 33 Minn. 486.
WHARTON V. ANDERSON, 28 Minn. 301, 9 N. W. 860.
Account Stated, 5.
Landlord and Tenant, 59.
WHEATON V. BRIGGS, 35 Minn. 470, 29 N. W. 170:
Mortgages, 341.
2703
2704
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WHEATON V. THOMPSON, 20 Minn. 196, (Gil. 175.)
Attachment, 51, 61, 62, 76-79.
Followed in O'Farrell v. Heard, 22 Minn. 192.
WHEATON V. WHEELER, 27 Minn. 464, 8 N. W. 599.
Principal and Surety, 14.
Cited in Allis v. Ware, 28 Minn. 170; Campion v.
Whitney, 30 Minn. 178.
WHEELER V. DAY, 23 Minn. 545.
Garnishment, 13.
WHEELER V. JOHNSON, 21 Minn. 507.
Action, 7.
WHITE, IN RE, (State v. Redmon,) 43 Minn. 250, 45
N. W. 232.
Habeas Corpus, 13.
Hawkers and Peddlers, 3.
Municipal Corporations, 40.
Cited in Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 43 Minn.
422; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 437;
Willis v. Standard Oil Co., 52 N. W. 654.
WHITE V. BALCH, 24 Minn. 264.
Appeal and Error, 241.
WHITE V. CULVER, 10 Minn. 192, (Gil. 155.)
Appeal and Error, 443.
Pleading, 169.
WHEELER V. MERRIMAN, 30 Minn. 372, 15 N. W. 665. WHITE V. HARRIGAN, 41 Minn. 414, 43 N. W. 89.
Ejectment, 40, 47.
Taxation, 20.
Explained in Hall v. Torrens, 32 Minn. 528.
Cited in Polk County v. Hunter, 42 Minn. 314.
WHEELER v. ODD-FELLOWS' MUT. AID & Acc.
Ass'N, 44 Minn. 513, 47 N. W. 149.
Insurance, 160.
WHELAN V. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS SIBLEY
COUNTY, 28 Minn. 80, 9 N. W. 175.
Pleading, 37.
WHITACRE V. CULVER, 6 Minn. 297, (Gil. 203.)
Estoppel, 47, 60.
Cited in Whitacre v. Culver, 8 Minn. 135, (Gil.
105;) Sutton v. Wood, 27 Minn. 363.
WHITACRE V. CULVER, 8 Minn. 133, (Gil. 103.)
Estoppel, 28.
Cited in Sutton v. Wood, 27 Minn. 363.
WHITACRE V. CULVER, 9 Minn. 295, (Gil. 279.)
Abatement and Revival, 29.
Appeal and Error, 547.
Negotiable Instruments, 210.
Distinguished in Chisholm v. Clitherall, 12
Minn. 380, (Gil. 259;) Torinus v. Buckham, 29
Minn. 131. Cited in Leighton v. Grant, 20
Minn. 354, (Gil. 306.)
Appeal and Error, 341.
Contracts, 93.
WHITE V. ILTIS, 24 Minn. 43.
Appeal and Error, 27.
Interest of Money, 14, 15.
Summons, 8.
Distinguished in Harris Manuf'g Co. v. Anfin-
son, 31 Minn. 183. Cited in Holbrook v. Sims,
39 Minn. 124.
WHITE V. ISELIN, 26 Minn. 487, 5 N. W. 359.
Guardian and Ward, 36, 37.
Words and Phrases, 794.
WHITE V. JOHNS, 24 Minn. 387.
Alteration of Instruments, 1.
Bonds, 4.
Cited in Coles v. Yorks, 28 Minn. 466.
WHITE V. PHELPS, 14 Minn. 27, (Gil. 21.)
Negotiable Instruments, 163, 173.
Pledge, 17.
Applied in Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Minn.
88. Cited in Goldsmidt v. First Methodist
Episcopal Church, 25 Minn. 205.
WHITE V. ROBBINS, 21 Minn. 370.
Assignment, 11.
Insurance, 30.
Words and Phrases, 558.
WHITACRE V. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. WHITELY V. MISSISSIPPI WATER-POWER & BOOM
311.
Eminent Domain, 171, 220, 222.
Cited in City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn.
145, 146; Sherman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
30 Minn. 229.
WHITAKER V. HESLER, 26 Minn. 73, 1 N. W. 577.
Contracts, 72.
WHITAKER V. MCCLUNG, 14 Minn. 170, (Gil. 131.)
Judgment, 76.
New Trial, 90, 104.
Co., 38 Minn. 523, 38 N. W. 753.
Appeal and Error, 160.
Eminent Domain, 120, 139, 234.
WHITEMAN V. Severance, 46 Minn. 495, 49 N. W.
255.
Public Lands, 112-114.
WHITING V. WHITING, 42 Minn. 548, 44 N. W. 1080.
Wills, 50.
Words and Phrases, 398.
Distinguished in Lamprey v. Henk, 16 Minn. 407, WHITMAN V. ST. PAUL & P. R. Co., 8 Minn. 116.
(Gil. 364.)
WHITAKER V. RICE, 9 Minn. 13, (Gil. 1.)
Limitation of Actions, 72.
Words and Phrases, 268, 441.
Overruled by statute in Willoughby v. Irish, 35
Minn. 65, 66. Cited in Brisbin v. Farmer, 16
Minn. 219, 222, (Gil. 191, 195.)
WHITCOMB V. SHAFER, 11 Minn. 232, (Gil. 153.)
Appeal and Error, 476.
Cited in Frasier v. Williams, 15 Minn. 293, (Gil.
224.)
(Gil. 90.)
Injunction, 19.
WHITNEY V. BURD, (Whitney v. Bird,) 29 Minn.
203, 12 N. W. 530.
Mortgages, 387.
WHITNEY V. HUNTINGTON, 34 Minn. 458, 26 N. W
631.
Execution, 95.
Words and Phrases, 806.
Cited in Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn. 202
Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 175.
2705
2706
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WHITNEY V. HUNTINGTON, 37 Minn. 197, 33 N. W. | WIGHTMAN, IN RE, (Holbrook v. Wightman,) 31
561.
Damages, 66, 68.
Mortgages, 378.
Words and Phrases, 335.
Followed in King v. Merriman, 38 Minn. 54, 55.
Cited in Viliski v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn.
308; Hoxsie v. Empire Lumber Co., 41 Minn.
550.
WHITNEY V. REESE, 11 Minn. 138, (Gil. 87.)
Limitation of Actions, 62.
Partnership, 50, 90.
Applied in Denny v. Marrett, 29 Minn. 362; Drake
v. Sigafoos, 39 Minn. 368. Distinguished in
Town v. Washburn, 14 Minn. 272, (Gil. 199.)
Cited in Conway v. Wharton, 13 Minn. 161,
(Gil. 149.)
WHITNEY V. SALTER, 86 Minn. 103, 30 N. W. 755.
Estates, 3, 4,
WHITNEY V. SMITH, 33 Minn. 124, 22 N. W. 181.
Equity, 23.
WHITNEY V. SWENSEN, 43 Minn. 337, 45 N. W. 609.
Replevin, 12.
WHITTACRE V. FULLER, 5 Minn. 508, (Gil. 401.)
Mortgages, 32, 59, 76, 349.
Overruled in Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 75, (Gil. |
49.) Distinguished in Mills v. Kellogg, 7 Minn.
476, (Gil. 382.) Cited in Johnson v. Carpenter,
7 Minn. 184, (Gil. 128;) Lash v. Edgerton, 13
Minn. 217, (Gil. 203.)
WHITTAKER V. COLLINS, 34 Minn. 299, 25 N. W. 632.
Parties, 16.
Cited in Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 56.
WHITTIER V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 24
Minn. 394.
Negligence, 83.
Railroad Companies, 231, 232.
Followed in Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 428, 429. Cited in Whittier v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 26 Minn. 485;
Fleming v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 115;
Schubert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.,
27 Minn. 361.
Minn. 168, 17 N. W. 280.
Homestead, 46, 47.
Words and Phrases, 350.
Cited in McCarthy v. Van Der Mey, 42 Minn. 193.
WILCOX V. BOARD COUNTY COM'RS SIBLEY COUNTY,
34 Minn. 214, 25 N. W. 351.
Clerk of Court, 9.
Followed in Rasmusson v. Clay County, 41
Minn. 284.
WILCOX V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. Co., 24 Minn.
269.
Carriers, 10, 12.
Principal and Agent, 1.
Trial, 85, 88.
Applied in Graves v. Horton, 38 Minn. 68.
WILCOX V. COMSTOCK, 37 Minn. 65, 33 N. W. 42,
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 34.
Cited in Little v. Simonds, 46 Minn. 381.
WILCOX V. DAVIS, 4 Minn. 197, (Gil. 139.)
Estates, 2.
Mortgages, 128, 342.
Pleading, 31.
Cited in Davis v. Pierce, 10 Minn. 378, (Gil. 303.)
WILCOX V. DAVIS, 7 Minn. 23, (Gil. 12.)
Civil Rights, 1.
WILCOX V. LANDBERG, 30 Minn. 93, 14 N. W. 365. ·
Appeal and Error, 527.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 40.
Followed in Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 294; Cros-
by v. City of St. Paul, 34 Minn. 414. Distin-
guished in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn.
223.
WILCOX V. LEOMINSTER NAT. BANK, 43 Minn. 541,
45 N. W. 1136.
Judgment, 191.
Vendor and Purchaser, 146.
Cited in Welch v. Ketcham, 51 N. W. 115.
WILCOX. V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., 35 Minn. 439.
29 N. W. 148.
Eminent Domain, 94, 159, 184.
Cited in Peck v. Superior Short Line Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 344; In re Minneapolis Railway Termi-
nal Co., 38 Minn. 161; Cameron v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 76; Koerper v. St.
Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 340.
WHITTIER V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 26 WILDER V. BROOKS, 10 Minn. 50, (Gil. 32.)
Minn. 484, 5 N. W. 372.
Railroad Companies, 250.
Husband and Wife, 65-67.
Cited in Fleming v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 WILDER V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 12 Minn. 192, (Gil.
Minn. 115.
WICKHAM V. DAVIS, 24 Minn. 167.
Partnership, 73, 74.
WIEBELER V. MILWAUKEE MECHANICS' MUT. INS.
Co., 30 Minn. 464, 16 N. W. 363.
Frauds, Statute of, 9.
Insurance, 15.
WIELAND V. SHILLOCK, 23 Minn. 227.
Appeal and Error, 537.
Judgment, 269.
Followed in Wieland v. Shillock, 24 Minn. 347.
WIELAND V. SHILLOCK, 24 Minn. 345.
Constitutional Law, 125.
Equity, 3, 4.
Judgment, 240, 254.
Followed in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 66. Cited
in Spooner v. Spooner, 26 Minn. 139.
116.)
Adverse Claim, 5, 21, 41.
Dedication, 1, 8-10, 24, 28, 32, 35, 39, 40, 51.
Deed, 87.
Easements, 9.
Evidence, 200, 351.
Municipal Corporations, 6.
Followed in Village of Mankato v. Willard, 13
Minn. 18, (Gil. 6.) Distinguished in Village of
Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn. 271, 278, 281,
(Gil. 247, 254, 257.) Cited in Dawson v. St.
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 15 Minn. 145, (Gil.
111; Murphy v. Hinds, 15 Minn. 183, (Gil. 140;)
Commissioners Hennepin County v. Robinson,
16 Minn. 386, (Gil. 344;) Gesner v. Burdell, 18
Minn. 505, (Gil. 453;) Downer v. St. Paul & C.
R. Co., 23 Minn. 274; Walton v. Perkins, 28
Minn. 415; Greene v. Dwyer, 33 Minn. 404;
Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 36, 37; Sherin v. Brack-
ett, 36 Minn. 153.
3
2707
2708
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WILDER V. DE Cou, 18 Minn. 470, (Gil. 421.)
Deceit, 9, 12.
Negotiable Instruments, 27, 219.
Sale, 153.
Cited in Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 475; Bus-
terud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 321, 322;. Clark
v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 121; Bullitt v. Farrar, 42
Minn. 11, 12.
WILDER V. DE COU, 26 Minn. 10, 1 N. W. 48.
Evidence, 124.
Highways, 65.
Waters and Water Courses, 2.
Words and Phrases, 626.
WILKINS V. STATE INS. Co., 43 Minn. 177, 45 N.
W. 1.
Insurance, 118.
Words and Phrases, 139.
WILKINSON V. CLAUSON, 29 Minn. 91, 12 N. W. 147.
Landlord and Tenant, 17, 18, 72.
Words and Phrases, 210.
Followed in Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 387.
WILKINSON V. TOUSLEY, 16 Minn. 299, (Gil. 263.)
Gaming, 1, 4.
Cited in Bates v. Clifford, 22 Minn. 52.
Cited in Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., WILKINSON V. WINNE'S ESTATE, 15 Mian. 159, (Gil.
29 Minn. 43.
WILDER V. HAUGHEY, 21 Minn. 101.
Homestead, 10, 68.
Mortgages, 354.
Words and Phrases, 537.
Followed in Smith v. Lackor, 23 Minn. 456. Ap-
123.)
Executors and Administrators, 12, 48, 81-
83, 130, 131.
Words and Phrases, 511, 808.
Cited in Bryant v. Livermore, 20 Minn. 319, (GN.
274.)
Minn. 61.
}
plied in Kaser v. Haas, 27 Minn. 408; Reynolds WILLARD V. COMMISSIONERS REDWOOD COUNTY, 22
v. Fleming, 43 Minn. 515; Law v. Butler, 44
Minn. 485. Cited in Hartman v. Munch, 21
Minn, 108; Ferguson v. Kumler, 27 Minn. 161;
Holbrook v. Wightman, 31 Minn. 172; Jelinek
v. Stepan, 41 Minn. 413.
WILDER V. PEABODY, (Bristoll, In re,) 37 Minn.
248, 33 N. W. 852.
Insolvency, 79.
Applied in Daniels v. Palmer, 41 Minn. 121.
Cited in Re Shotwell, 51 N. W. 911.
WILDNER V. Ferguson, 42 Minn. 112, 43 N. W. 794.
Exemptions, 15, 16.
Garnishment, 42.
Words and Phrases, 426.
Applied in Boyle v. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 32.
WILEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINNEAPOLIS,
11 Minn. 371, (Gil. 268.)
Municipal Corporations, 309, 310, 327-330.
Cited in Folsom v. Chisago County, 28 Minn. 325.
WILKIN V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 33 Minn. 181, 22 N.
W. 249.
Municipal Corporations, 238.
Action, 16.
Constitutional Law, 178.
Taxation, 83.
Cited in State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 233.
WILLARD V. FINNEGAN, 42 Minn. 476, 44 N. W. 985.
Mortgages, 257, 391.
Followed in Ryder v. Hulett, 44 Minn. 354.
WILLIAMS, IN RE, (State v. Stordock,) 39 Minn.
172, 39 N. W. 65.
Criminal Law, 129.
WILLIAMS V. ANDERSON, 9 Minn. 50, (Gil. 39.)
Judgment, 60, 63.
Master and Servant, 7.
Cited in Lough v. Bragg, 18 Minn. 123, (Gil. 108;)
Horn v. Western Land Ass'n, 22 Minn. 237;
Nelichka v. Esterly, 29 Minn. 146.
WILLIAMS V. CENTRAL LAND Co., 32 Minn. 440, 21
N. W. 550.
Taxation, 132.
Cited in Robinson v. City of St. Paul, 40 Minn. WILLIAMS v. CLARK, 47 Minn. 53, 49 N. W. 398.
228.
WILKIN V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 16
Minn. 271, (Gil. 244.)
Eminent Domain, 2, 132, 135.
Cited in Hursh v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 443, (Gil. 422;) Weir v. St. Paul, S. &
T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 167, (Gil. 150;) Warren
v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 18 Minn.
388, 392, 393, 395, (Gil. 350, 354, 355, 356;) In re
St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 167; Fair-
child v. City of St. Paul, 46 Minn. 542.
WILKIN V. ST. PAUL, S. & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn.
177.
Appeal and Error, 333.
Eminent Domain, 169, 179, 180, 182, 222.
Husband and Wife, 92.
WILKINS V. BELL, 43 Minn. 219, 45 N. W. 160.
Vendor and Purchaser, 147.
WILKINS V. BEVIER, 43 Minn. 213, 45 N. W. 157.
Vendor and Purchaser, 147.
Cited in Wolf v. Zabel, 44 Minn. 92.
Evidence, 127.
Insolvency, 57.
WILLIAMS V. DAVENPORT, 42 Minn. 393, 44 N. W.
311.
Libel and Slander, 14.
Followed in Lotto v. Davenport, 42 Minn. 395.
Cited in Lotto v. Davenport, 52 N. W. 130.
WILLIAMS V. FROST, 27 Minn. 255, 6 N. W. 793.
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, 40,
41.
Cited in Bigelow v. Livingston, 28 Minn. 60;
Hanson v. Metcalf, 46 Minn. 27.
WILLIAMS V. JOURNAL PRINTING Co., 43 Minn. 537,
45 N. W. 1133.
Evidence, 326.
Principal and Agent, 10.
WILLIAMS V. LANGEVIN, 40 Minn. 180, 41 N. W. 936.
Evidence, 10.
Specific Performance, 27, 85.
Cited in Borer v. Lange, 44 Minn. 285.
2709
2710
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WILLIAMS V. Lash, 8 Minn. 496, (Gil. 441.)
Counties, 65.
Execution, 122–124.
Words and Phrases, 621.
Followed in Shelley v. Lamb, 14 Minn. 503, (Gil.
877;) James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 310, 311.
Overruled in Shepard v. Murray County, 33
Minn. 520. Cited in Goodnow v.
Cited in Goodnow v. Commission-
ers Ramsey County, 11 Minn. 40, (Gil. 19;)
Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 140, 141; Willis
v. Jelineck, 27 Minn. 20; Pamperin v. Scanlan,
28 Minn. 349; Borough of Henderson v. Sibley
County, 28 Minn. 519.
WILLIAMS V. LIVINGSTON, (Bigelow v. Livingston,)
28 Minn. 57, 9 N. W. 31.
Deed, 6, 46.
Powers, 14.
Applied in Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 257.
WILLIAMS V. MCGRADE, 13 Minn. 46, (Gil. 39.)
Evidence, 199.
Execution, 63.
Husband and Wife, 14.
Judgment, 83.
Torts, 1.
Applied in Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn.
534. Distinguished in Leighton v. Sheldon,
16 Minn. 246, (Gil. 218.) Cited in Kingsley v.
Gilman, 15 Minn. 61, (Gil. 42;) Hodgins v.
Heaney, 15 Minn. 191, (Gil. 146;) Thompson v.
Bickford, 19 Minn. 27, (Ġil. 9;) Spencer v. Shee-
han, 19 Minn. 346, (Gil. 299;) Smith v. Valen-
tine, 19 Minn. 455, (Gil. 397;) Herrick v. But-
ler, 30 Minn. 158; McNally v. Weld, 30 Minn.
212; Ladd v. Newell, 34 Minn. 109.
WILLIAMS V. MCGRADE, 13 Minn. 174, (Gil. 165.)
Appearance, 8.
Execution, 27, 60, 61.
Sale, 5.
WILLIAMS V. MCGRADE, 18 Minn. 82, (Gil. 65.)
Abatement and Revival, 2.
Pleading, 59.
New Trial, 18.
Replevin, 25.
Trespass, 1.
WILLIAMS V. SCHEMBRI, 44 Minn. 250, 46 N. W. 403.
Specific Performance, 42.
Trial, 197.
Cited in Smith v. Kipp, 51 N. W. 657.
WILLIAMS V. STEWART, 25 Minn. 516.
Mortgages, 383, 410.
Specific Performance, 24, 50.
Distinguished in Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn.
350. Cited in Martin v. Sprague, 29 Minn. 55;
Bradford v. Menard, 35 Minn. 199.
WILLIM V. BERNHEIMER, 5 Minn. 288, (Gil. 229.)
Mechanics' Liens, 57.
WILLIS V. DAVIS, 3 Minn. 17, (Gil. 1.)
Negotiable Instruments, 113.
Followed in Moss v. Pettingill, 3 Minn. 219, (Gil
147;) Huey v. Pinney, 5 Minn. 317, 322, (Gil
251, 257;) Schmidt v. Coulter, 6 Minn. 495, (Gil
343;) Pence v. Gale, 20 Minn. 259, (Gil. 233.)
WILLIS V. ERIE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE Co., 37
Minn. 347, 34 N. W. 337.
Telephone Companies.
WILLIS V. JELINECK, 27 Minn. 18, 6 N. W. 373.
Constitutional Law, 102.
Judgment, 278.
Mortgages, 400, 401, 412, 419.
Words and Phrases, 288.
Followed in Hospes v. Sanborn, 28 Minn. 49%
Cited in Martin v. Sprague, 29 Minn. 56;
O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 138, 140; Lowry v.
Mayo, 41 Minn. 390.
WILLIS V. ST. PAUL SANITATION Co., 50 N. W. 1110.
Constitutional Law, 113.
Corporations, 134, 135.
Insolvency, 112.
Statutes, 47.
Words and Phrases, 437.
Followed in McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.,
50 N. W. 1114.
WILLOUGHBY V. IRISH, 35 Minn. 63, 27 N. W. 379.
Limitation of Actions, 73.
Cited in Flanigan v. Phelps, 42 Minn. 187.
WILLIAMS V. MATHEWS, 30 Minn. 131, 14 N. W. 577. WILLOUGHBY V. STANTON, 3 Minn. 150, (Gil. 94.)"
Replevin, 35,
WILLIAMS V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. Co., (Wil-
liams v. Pomeroy,) 27 Minn. 85, 6 N. W. 445.
Appeal and Error, 307.
Garnishment, 23.
Distinguished in Mansfield v. Stevens, 31 Minn.
42. Cited in Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 246.
WILLIAMS V. MOODY, 35 Minn, 280, 28 N. W. 510
Homestead, 51.
Cited in Stewart v. Rhoades, 39 Miun. 194.
WILLIAMS V. Murphy, 21 Minn. 534.
Ejectment, 10, 11.
Vendor and Purchaser, 97, 93.
Cited in Becker v. Northway, 14 Minn. 62.
WILLIAMS V. POMEROY, (Williams v. Minneapolis
& St. L. R. Co.,) 27 Minn. 85, 6 N. W. 445.
Appeal and Error, 307.
Garnishment, 23.
Distinguished in Mansfield v. Stevens, 31 Minn.
42. Cited in Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 246.
Appeal and Error, 398.
WILLS V. SUMMERS, 45 Minn. 90, 47 N. W. 463.
Landlord and Tenant, 25, 42.
WILMES V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. Rr. Co., 29 Minn.
242, 13 N. W. 39.
Eminent Domain, 89.
Words and Phrases, 732.
Cited in Sheldon v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 320; Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry.
Co., 35 Minn. 441; Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. Ŵ.
Ry. Co. v. Ryan, 37 Minn. 39.
WILSON, IN RE, (Wilson v. Procter,) 28 Minn. 13,
8 N. W. 830.
Executors and Administrators, 37.
Homestead, 19, 43.
Words and Phrases, 448.
Applied in Lundberg v. Sharvey, 46 Minn. 351.
Cited in Holbrook v. Wightman, 31 Minn. 171;
Baldwin v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 245; Winston
v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 405.
2711
2712
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WILSON, IN RE, 32 Minn. 145, 19 N. W. 723.
Certiorari, 1.
Municipal Corporations, 41.
Followed in State v. Mayor of St. Paul, 34 Minn.
250. Explained in State v. Kantler, 33 Minn.
76, 80. Cited in Minneapolis Gas-Light Co. v.
City of Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 161; Lemont v.
Dodge County, 39 Minn. 385; Christlieb v.
Hennepin County, 41 Minn. 143; In re White,
43 Minn. 251; Moede v. Stearns County, Id. 313.
WILSON V. BELL, 17 Minn. 61, (Gil. 40.)
Powers, 2.
Trusts, 40.
Cited in Thompson v. Howe, 21 Minn. 1.
WILSON V. BUCKMAN, 13 Minn. 441, (Ġil. 404.)
Bounties, 1.
WILSON V. CLARKE, 20 Minn. 367, (Gil. 318.)
Contracts, 151, 156.
Cited in Burns v. Jordan, 43 Minn. 26.
WILSON V. DUBOIS, 35 Minn. 471, 29 N. W. 68.
Libel and Slander, 98.
WILSON V. EIGENBRODT, (Wilson v. Wallace,) 30
Minn. 4, 13 N. W. 907.
Mortgages, 114, 116.
Followed in Hall v. McCormick, 31 Minn. 282.
Distinguished in Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn.
225, 226.
WILSON V. FAIRCHILD, 45 Minn. 203, 47 N. W. 642.
Counterclaim and Set-Off, 58.
Deed, 1.
Vendor and Purchaser, 50, 57, 58.
WILSON V. GADIENT, (Wilson v. Jamison,) 36 Minn.
59, 29 N. W. 887.
Mortgages, 81, 331.
WILSON V. HAYES, 40 Minn. 531, 42 N. W. 467.
Alteration of Instruments, 8, 10.
Mortgages, 429, 430.
Words and Phrases, 66.
Followed in Sardeson v. Menage, 41 Minn. 316.
Cited in Todd v. Johnson, 52 N. W. 865.
WILSON V. HENTGES, 26 Minn. 288, 3 N. W. 338.
Patents for Inventions, 2, 4.
WILSON V. HENTGES, 29 Minn. 102, 12 N. W. 151.
Assignment, 16.
Frauds, Statute of, 24.
Cited in D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Baker, 34 Minn.
308; Crane v. Wheeler, 50 N. W. 1033.
WILSON V. JAMISON, (Wilson v. Gadient,) 36 Minn.
59, 29 N. W. 887.
Mortgages, 81, 331.
WILSON V. MCCORMICK, 10 Minn. 216, (Gil. 174.)
Trial, 171.
WILSON V. MINNEAPOLIS & N. W. R. Co., 31 Minn.
481, 18 N. W. 291.
Attorney and Client, 2, 44.
Estoppel, 43..
Evidence, 36.
Cited in Magie v. Herman, 52 N. W. 909.
WILSON V. MINNESOTA FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS.
Ass'n, 36 Minn. 112, 30 N. W. 401.
Appeal and Error, 200, 351.
Insurance, 79.
Principal and Agent, 80.
Followed in Fredericksen v. Singer Manuf'g Co.,
38 Minn. 356. Cited in Barker v. Todd, 37
Minn. 370; State v. Hays, 38 Minn. 477; In re
Grandstrand, 52 N. W. 41.
WILSON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278.
3 N. W. 333.
Appeal and Error, 462.
Carriers, 93, 126.
Negligence, 83.
Cited in Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
28 Minn. 72; Greene v. Minneapolis & St. L.
Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 253; Smith v. St. Paul Ry.
Co.. 32 Minn. 3; Stone v. Evans, 32 Minn. 247,
Purcell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 50 N. W. 1035.
WILSON V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 43 Minn. 519,
45 N. W. 1132.
Railroad Companies, 302.
WILSON V. POWERS, 21 Minn. 193.
Execution, 35, 36.
WILSON V. PRoctor, (Wilson, In re,) 28 Minn. 13,
8 N. W. 830.
Executors and Administrators, 37.
Homestead, 19, 43.
Words and Phrases, 448.
Applied in Lundberg v. Sharvey, 46 Minn. 351
Cited in Holbrook v. Wightman, 31 Minn. 171,
Baldwin v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 245; Winston
v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 405.
WILSON V. RED WING SCHOOL DIST., 22 Minn. 488.
Ejectment, 46.
Words and Phrases, 570.
Cited in Wieland v. Shillock, 24 Minn. 349; Mad-
land v. Benland, 24 Minn. 378; Wheeler v. Mer-
riman, 30 Minn. 377; State v. Hill, 32 Minn.
276.
WILSON V. REEDY, 32 Minn. 256, 20 N. W. 153.
Damages, 4.
Negotiable Instruments, 205.
Cited in Wilson v. Reedy, 33 Minn. 503; Merrick
v. Wiltse, 37 Minn. 42.
WILSON V. REEDY, 33 Minn. 503, 24 N. W. 191
Evidence, 69, 136.
Sale, 108, 170.
WILSON V. RICHARDS, 28 Minn. 337, 9 N. W. 872.
Appeal and Error, 449.
Negotiable Instruments, 139, 140.
Partnership, 43.
Venue in Civil Cases, 15.
Cited in Bettis v. Schreiber, 31 Minn. 332.
WILSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. Co., 41 Minn
56, 42 N. W. 600.
License, 3.
WILSON V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. Ry. Co., 44 Minn.
445, 46 N. W. 909.
Pleading, 61.
WILSON V. SHERFFBILLICH, 30 Minn. 422, 15 N. W.
876.
Estoppel, 63.
WILSON V. THOMPSON, 26 Miun. 299, 3 N. W. 699.
Executors and Administrators, 110.
Words and Phrases, 494.
Cited in State v. Board of County Com'rs of
Scott County, 43 Minn. 324.
WILSON V. WALLACE, (Wilson v. Eigenbrodt,) 30
Minn. 4, 13 N. W. 907.
Mortgages, 114, 116.
Followed in Hall v. McCormick, 31 Minn. 282.
Distinguished in Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn
225, 226.
WILSON V. WILSON, 43 Minn. 398, 45 N. W. 710.
Husband and Wife, 1.
2713
2714
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WILSON V. WINONA & ST. P. R. Co., 37 Minn. 326, | WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. ST. PAUL & S. C. R.
33 N. W. 908.
Co., 26 Minn. 179, 2 N. W. 489.
Master and Servant, 144, 150.
Cited in Doyle v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42
Minu. 83; Smith v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.,
42 Minn. 90.
WILSON S. M. Co. v. SCHNELL, 20 Minn. 40, (Gil.
33.)
Frauds, Statute of, 34-36.
Explained in D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Baker, 34
Minn. 311. Cited in Highland v. Dresser, 35
Miun. 346; Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn. 434.
WINDOM V. SCHUPPEL, 39, Minn. 35, 38 N. W. 757.
Deed, 59.
Taxation, 274.
Cited in Jellison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 488;
Abraham v. Holloway, 41 Minn. 164; Burke v.
Lacock, 41 Minn. 251.
WINDOM V. WAGNER.
See Windom v. Schuppel.
WINDOM V. WOLVERTON, 40 Minn. 439, 42 N. W. 296.
Adverse Claim, 47.
WINGER V. FIRST DIVISION ST. P. & P. R. Co., 22
Minn. 11.
Railroad Companies, 230.
WINLAND V. HOLCOMB, (Umland v. Holcombe,) 26
Minn. 286, 3 N. W. 341.
Homestead, 34.
Cited in Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 41
Minn. 230.
WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. DENMAN, 10 Minn. 267,
(Gil. 208.)
Appeal and Error, 644.
Eminent Domain, 65, 69, S3, 97.
Words and Phrases, 126.
Followed in Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron,
11 Minn. 530, 533, 540, (Gil. 405, 408, 415;) Min-
nesota Valley R. Co. v. Doran, 15 Minn. 235,
(Gil. 181;) St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Matthews,
16 Minn. 344, (Gil. 305;) Hursh v. First Divi-
sion St. P. & P. R. Co., 17 Minn. 449, (Gil. 426;)
Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn.
125; Wilmes v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 245. Applied in Greve v. First Divi-
sion St. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 68; Carli v.
Stillwater St. Ry. & Transfer Co., 28 Minn.
875; Blue Earth County v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry.
Co., 28 Minn. 510. Cited in Carli v.
Cited in Carli v. Stillwater
& St. P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 266, 268, (Gil. 239,
240;) Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 18
Minn. 170, (Gil. 153;) Simmons v. St. Paul &
C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 190, (Gil. 174;) Colvill v.
St. Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn. 287, (Gil. 243;)
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn.
509, 510, (Gil. 440, 441;) Trogden v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 201; Whitacre v. St.
Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 312; Leber v.
Minneapolis & N. W. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 260;
City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 146;
Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn.
441.
WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. RANDALL, 29 Minn. 283,
13 N. W. 127.
Public Lands, 1, 71.
Applied in Radke v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39
Minn. 264.
WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. ST. PAUL & S. C. R.
Co., 23 Minn. 359.
Public Lands, 76.
Trusts, 29.
WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. ST. PAUL & S. C. R.
Co., 27 Minn. 128, 6 N. W. 461.
Public Lands, 59.
Affirmed in St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co., 5 Sup. Ct. 334, 112 U. S. 720.
WINONA & ST. P. R. Co. v. WALDRON, 11 Minn.
Waldron,
515, (Gil. 392.)
Constitutional Law, 181.
Eminent Domain, 98, 114, 117, 188, 210.
Statutes, 34.
Followed in Minnesota Cent. R. Co. v. McNa-
mara, 13 Minn. 515, (Gil. 477.) Applied in
Greve v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 26-
Minn. 69; Arbrush v. Town of Oakdale, 28 Minn.
61, 62. Éxplained in Carli v. Stillwater & St.
P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 268, 270, (Gil. 240, 243.)
Cited in Minnesota Valley R. Co. v. Doran, 17
Minn. 197, (Gil. 170;) Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T.
F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 170, (Gil. 153;) Colvill v.
St. Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn. 287, (Gil. 243;)
St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn.
516, (Gil. 447:) Blake v. Winona & St. P. R.
Co., 19 Minn. 426, (Gil. 370;) Sherwood v. St.
Paul & C. Ry Co., 21 Minn. 129; Tennes v.
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 Minn. 270;
Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 505; State v. District Court of Ramsey
County, 42 Minn. 249.
WINSLOW v. BOYDEN, 1 Minn. 383, (Gil. 285.)
Negotiable Instruments, 68, 73.
Pleading, 39.
Distinguished in Peckham v. Gilman, 7 Minn.
448, (Gil. 356.) Cited in Keru v. Von Phul, 7
Minn. 430, (Gil. 345.)
WINSLOW V. DAKOTA LUMBER CO., 32 Minn. 237, 20
N. W. 145.
Appeal and Error, 489.
Evidence, 234, 375.
Words and Phrases, 766.
WINSLOW V. MINNESOTA & P. R. Co., 4 Minn. 313,
(Gil. 230.)
Trusts, 41.
Cited in Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 285.
WINSLOW V. WILKINSON, 1 Minn. 362, (Gil. 267.)
Memorandum decision. No opinion.
WINSLOW BROS. Co. v. HERZOG MANUF'G Co., 46
Minn. 452, 49 N. W. 234.
Evidence, 314.
WINSTON V. JOHNSON, 42 Minn. 398, 45 N. W. 958.
Easements, 1, 2.
Taxation, 18.
Words and Phrases, 25, 266, 658.
WINSTON V. YOUNG, 47 Minn. 80, 49 N. W. 521.
Deceit, 10.
WINTERMUTE V. STINSON, 16 Minn. 468, (Gil. 420.)
Appeal and Error, 192.
Money Lent, 1.
WINTERMUTE V. STINSON, 19 Minn. 394, (Gil. 340.)
Appeal and Error, 471.
WISCHSTADT V. WISCHSTADT, 47 Minn. 358, 50 N. W.
225.
Libel and Slander, 75.
Witness, 71.
2715
2716
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
Fixtures, 3.
WISCONSIN CENT. Co. v. L. T. SOWLE ELEVATOR | WOLFord v. Baxter, 33 Minn. 12, 21 N. W. 744.
Co. See National Bank of Commerce v. Chi-
cago, B. & N. R. Co.
Carriers, 7, 8.
WISCONSIN RED PRESSED-BRICK Co. v. ST. PETER
ST. IMP. Co., 46 Minn. 231, 48 N. W. 1022.
Mechanics' Liens, 159.
WISTAR V. FOSTER, 46 Minn. 484, 49 N. W. 247.
Constitutional Law, 81.
Husband and Wife, 48.
Words and Phrases, 331.
WISWELL V. WISWELL, 35 Minn. 371, 29 N. W. 166.
Executors and Administrators, 31.
Cited in Huntsman v. Fish, 36 Minn. 150.
WITHERELL V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. Rr. Co., 24
Minn. 410.
Appeal and Error, 489.
Railroad Companies, 257-260.
Followed in O'Connor v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 168. Approved in Palmer v.
Northern Pac. R. Co., 37 Minn. 224. Distin-
guished in Watier v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.
Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 92. Cited in Stacey v. Wi-
nona & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 160.
WITHERELL V. STEWART, (Wetherell v. Stewart,) 35
Minn. 496, 29 N. W. 196.
Chattel Mortgages, 104.
Judgment, 164.
WITHERSPOON V. PRICE, 17 Minn. 337, (Gil. 313.)
Appeal and Error, 727.
WITT V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 404, 29
N. W. 161.
Appeal and Error, 113.
Eminent Domain, 159.
Followed in Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35
Minn. 439, 443.
WITT V. ST. PAUL & N. P. Rr. Co., 38 Minn. 122,
35 N. W. 862.
Adverse Possession, 28.
Deed, 30.
Eminent Domain, 58.
Trespass, 3.
Cited in Grueber v. Lindenmeier, 42 Minn. 100;
Cannon v. Emmans, 44 Minn. 298; Ramsey v.
Glenny, 45 Minn. 405.
WOHLWEND V. J. I. CASE THRESHING-MACh. Co.,
42 Minn. 500, 44 N. W. 517.
Parties, 34.
WOLF V. BANNING, 3 Minn. 202, (Gil. 133.)
Appeal and Error, 51.
Husband and Wife, 21, 75.
Mortgages, 343.
Cited in Kennedy v. Williams, 11 Minn. 319, (Gil.
223.)
WOLF V. ZABEL, 44 Minn. 90, 46 N. W. 81.
Vendor and Purchaser, 135, 149.
Words and Phrases, 299.
Followed in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Min-
neapolis E. & M. Works, 35 Minn. 544, 547.
Cited in Pond Machine Tool Co. v. Robinson,
38 Minn. 276.
WOLFORD V. FARNHAM, 44 Minn. 159, 46 N. W. 295.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 34, 100.
Trial, 44.
Trusts, 10.
Witness, 6, 7.
Cited in Wolford v. Farnham, 47 Minu. 96.
WOLFORD V. FARNHAM, 47 Minn. 95, 49 N. W. 528.
Evidence, 183.
WOOD
Fraudulent Conveyances, 4, 35.
Trial, 8.
V. CULLEN, 13 Minn. 394, (Gil. 365.)
Appeal and Error, 642.
Evidence, 41.
Limitation of Actions, 25.
Partnership, 10, 71.
Public Lands, 38.
Cited in Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 509.
WOOD V. MYRICK, 9 Minn. 149, (Gil. 139.)
Certiorari, 12.
Followed in State v. Milner, 16 Minn. 56, (Gil.
44.) Cited in Bryant v. Livermore, 20 Minn.
325, (Gil. 279.)
WOOD V. MYRICK, 16 Minn. 494, (Gil. 447.)
Descent and Distribution, 8, 11.
Executors and Administrators, 16.
Limitation of Actions, 44.
Words and Phrases, 195, 541, 664.
Followed in Waterman v. Millard, 22 Minn. 261;
Lanier v. Irvine, 24 Minn. 124. Distinguished
in Forepaugh v. Hoffman, 23 Minn. 298; Balch
v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 161. Limited in Litch-
field v. McDonald, 35 Minn. 169. Cited in
Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 54; Greenwood v.
Murray, 28 Minn. 122.
WOOD V. MYRICK, 17 Minn. 408, (Gil. 386.)
Executors and Administrators, 91.
Wood v. RUSHER, 42 Minn. 389, 44 N. W. 127.
Vendor and Purchaser, 93.
WOOD V. ST. PAUL CITY RY. Co., 42 Minn. 411,
44 N. W. 308.
Mechanics' Liens, 93.
Distinguished in Hickey v. Collom, 47 Minn. 568.
WOOD V. SPRINGER, 45 Minn. 299, 47 N. W. 811.
Adverse Possession, 21.
WOODARD V. GRIFFITHS-MARSHALL GRAIN COMMIS-
SION Co., 43 Minn. 260, 45 N. W. 433.
Negotiable Instruments, 98, 115.
WOODBURY V. DAY, 24 Minn. 463.
Appeal and Error, 197.
WOLFF V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. Rr. Co., 34 Minn. | WOODBURY V. DORMAN, 15 Minn. 338, (Gil. 272.)
215, 25 N. W. 63.
Railroad Companies, 303.
WOLFORD V. ANDREWS, 29 Minn. 250, 13 N. W. 167.
Negotiable Instruments, 144.
Payment, 39.
Words and Phrases, 612.
Applied in Lockwood v. Bock, 52 N. W. 392.
Public Lands, 141, 142, 146.
Overruled in Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 514, 515,
(Gil. 424, 425.)
WOODBURY V. DORMAN, 15 Minn. 341, (Gil. 274.)
Appeal and Error, 210, 211.
Followed in Aver v. Stewart, 16 Minn. 91, (Gil.
80.)
2717
2718
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WOODBURY V. LARNED, 5 Minn. 339, (Gil. 271.)
Appeal and Error, 455.
Negotiable Instruments, 114.
Principal and Agent, 52.
Principal and Surety, 16.
Trial, 12.
Cited in Eddy v. Caldwell, 7 Minn. 230, (Gil. 171;)
Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 316, (Gil. 206;)
Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 54.
WOODCOCK V. CARLSON, 41 Minn. 542, 43 N. W. 479.
Landlord and Tenant, 95.
Cited in Suchaneck v. Smith, 45 Minn. 27; Wood-
cock v. Carlson, 52 N. W. 142.
WOODCOCK V. JOHNSON, (Woodcock v. Woodcock,)
36 Minn. 217, 30 N. W. 894.
Deed, 104.
Evidence, 156.
Insanity, 6.
Cited in Hammond v. Dike, 42 Minn. 276.
WOODFORD V. REYNOLDS, 36 Minn. 155, 30 N. W. 757.
Judgment, 218.
WOODHAM V. FIRST NAT. Bank of CrooksTON, 50
N. W. 1015.
Fixtures, 2.
WOODLING V. KNICKERBOCKER, 31 Minn. 268, 17 N.
W. 387.
Libel and Slander, 24, 30.
Practice in Civil Cases, 9.
Followed in Zier v. Hofflin, 33 Minn. 67. Distin-
guished in Duluth Chamber of Commerce v.
Knowlton, 42 Minn. 232; Williams v. Schem-
bri, 44 Minn. 254. Cited in Andrews v. School-
District, No. 4, 35 Minn. 71; Chickering &
Sons v. White, 42 Minn. 459.
WOOD MOWING & REAPING MACH. Co. v. MINNE-
APOLIS & N. ELEVATOR CO. See Walter A.
Wood Mowing & Reaping Mach. Co. v. Minne-
apolis & N. Elevator Co.
Woodruff v. Town of GLENDALE, 23 Minn. 537.
Highways, 28.
Cited in Woodruff v. Town of Glendale, 26 Minn.
79; Peters v. Town of Fergus Falls, 35 Minn.
550; Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44 Minn.
537.
Woodruff v. Town of GLENDALE, 26 Minn. 78, 1
N. W. 581.
Eminent Domain, 36.
Cited in Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44
Minn. 537.
WOODS V. ST. PAUL & D. R. Co., 39 Minn. 435, 40
N. W. 510.
Master and Servant, 48, 149.
WOODS V. WOODS, 16 Minn. 81, (Gil. 69.)
Appeal and Error, 477.
Judgment, 47.
WOOLFOLK V. BIRD, 22 Minn. 341.
Usury, 33.
Followed in Cornell v. Smith, 27 Minn. 133, 134.
Cited in Taylor v. Burgess, 26 Minn. 550.
WOOLFOLK V. BRUNS, 43 Minn. 296, 45 N. W. 444.
See Butts v. Moorhead Manuf'g Co.
WOOLFOLK v. BRUNS, 45 Minn. 96, 47 N. W. 460.
Appeal and Error, 633.
Cited in Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N. W. 1020.
WOOLSEY V. BOHN, 41 Minn. 235, 42 N. W. 1022.
Evidence, 235.
Mechanics' Liens, 154.
Mortgages, 147.
WOOLSEY V. O'BRIEN, 23 Minn. 71.
Costs, 18.
Words and Phrases, 159.
WORDEN V. HITTER, 35 Minn. 244, 28 N. W. 508.
Sale, 168.
WORLEY V. NAYLOR, 6 Minn. 192, (Gil. 123.)
Mortgages, 232, 253.
Words and Phrases, 224, 279, 699.
Cited in Goenen v. Schroeder, 18 Minn. 73, (Gil.
58;) Coe v. Caledonia & M. Ry. Co., 27 Minn.
202; State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 427.
WRIGHT V. AMES, 28 Minn. 362, 10 N. W. 21.
Trial, 97.
Followed in Lesher v. Beesmeire, 30 Minn. 107.
WRIGHT V. BURNHAM, 31 Minn. 285, 17 N. W. 479.
Public Lands, 94.
WRIGHT v. DAVIDSON, 13 Minn. 449, (Gil. 415.)
Partnership, 6.
Cited in Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 94, (Gil. 84.)
WRIGHT V. FERGUS FALLS NAT. BANK, 50 N. W.
1030.
Insolvency, 61.
Wright V. GRIBBLE, 26 Minn. 99, 1 N. W. 820.
Forcible Entry and Detainer, 19.
WRIGHT V. JEWELL, (Jewell v. Wright,) 33 Minn.
505, 24 N. W. 239.
Pleading, 209.
Cited in City Bank v. Doll, 33 Minn. 507; Smith
v. Betcher, 34 Minn. 219.
WRIGHT V. LEVY, 22 Minn. 466.
Continuance, 4.
WUOTILLA V. DULUTH LUMBER Co., 37 Minn. 153,
33 N. W. 551.
Master and Servant, 118, 119, 170.
Distinguished in Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co.,
47 Minn. 363. Cited in McDonald v. Chicago,
St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 41 Miun. 443; Doyle v.
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 83; Carroll
v. Williston, 44 Minn. 288.
WOODSON V. MILWAUKEE & ST. P. R. Co., 21 W. W. KIMBALL Co. v. Coon, 45 Minn. 45, 47 N.
Minn. 60.
Pleading, 88.
Railroad Companies, 284, 298.
W. 315.
Insolvency, 109.
Cited in Karsen v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., WYCKOFF V. HORAN, 39 Minn. 429, 40 N. W. 563.
29 Minn. 14.
Damages, 94.
WOODWARD V. Glidden, 33 Minn. 108, 22 N. W. WYKOFF V. IRVINE, 6 Minn. 496, (Gil. 344.)
127.
Damages, 91.
Cited in Dennis v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 302.
Banks and Banking, 10.
Evidence, 337.
Cited in Cummings v. Baars, 36 Minn. 353.
2719:
2720
CASES REPORTED, CITED, ETC.
WYMAN V. ERICKSON, 35 Minn. 202, 28 N. W. 240.
Appeal and Error, 365.
WYVELL V. BARWISE, 43 Minn. 171, 45 N. W. 11.
Judgment, 225.
WYMAN V. NORTHERN PAC. R. Co., 84 Minn. 210, WYVELL V. JONES, 37 Minn. 68, 33 N. W. 43.
25 N. W. 349.
Carriers, 65, 134.
Distinguished in Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, M. &
M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 4, 5.
Appeal and Error, 418.
Vendor and Purchaser, 109.
Cited in Pressnell v. Lundin, 44 Minn. 552.
YAGER V. MERKLE, 26 Minn. 429, 4 N. W. 819.
Husband and Wife, 51.
Cited in Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 243.
YALE V. EDGERTON, 11 Minn. 271, (Gil. 184.)
Appeal and Error, 630.
Appearance, 2.
Practice in Civil Cases, 29.
Y.
Applied in State v. Macdonald, 26 Minn. 450.
Cited in Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 337,
(Gil. 257;) State v. Churchill, 15 Minn. 456,
(Gil. 372;) Johnston v. Higgins, 15 Minn. 488,
(Gil. 402;) Ives v. Phelps, 16 Minn. 453, (Gil.
408.)
YALE V. EDGERTON, 14 Minn. 194, (Gil. 144.)
Appeal and Error, 555.
Frauds, Statute of, 19.
Pleading, 19.
Witness, 102.
Cited in Holm v. Sandberg, 32 Minn. 428.
Yoss v. DE FREUDENRICH-Continued.
307, (Gil. 235;) Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn.
380.
YOST V. COMMISSIONERS SCOTT COUNTY, 25 Minn.
366.
Counties, 61.
Words and Phrases, 691.
Cited in Doe v. Washington County, 30 Minn. 392.
YOUNG v. Davis, 30 Minn. 293, 15 N. W. 174.
Appeal and Error, 527.
Applied in Jacobson v. Williams, 84 Minn. 23;
Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 414.
YOUNG V. PERKINS, 29 Minn. 173, 12 N. W. 515.
Limitation of Actions, 74.
Words and Phrases, 542.
Cited in Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 66; Er-
pelding v. Ludwig, 39 Minn. 519.
YOUNG V. SHUNK, 30 Minn. 503, 16 N. W. 402.
Principal and Surety, 31.
Yallop-De GrooT Co. V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. YOUNG V. VILLAGE OF WATERVILLE, 39 Minn. 196,
Co., 33 Minn. 482, 24 N. W. 185.
Replevin, 66.
Sale, 28.
Cited in Stevens v. McMillin, 37 Minn. 511.
YEAGER V. KELSEY, 46 Minn. 402, 49 N. W. 199.
Factors and Brokers, 31.
YOERG V. HOLCOMBE, 38 Minn. 46, 35 N. W. 718.
Deed, 62.
Mortgages, 162.
Yoss v. DE FREUDENRICH, 6 Minn. 95, (Gil. 45.)
Pleading, 146.
Vendor and Purchaser, 70, 71.
Distinguished in Belote v. Morrison, 8 Minn. 92,
(Gil. 66.) Cited in Drew v. Smith, 7 Minn.
39 N. W. 97.
Municipal Corporations, 151.
YOUNG V. YOUNG, 17 Minn. 181, (Gil. 153.)
Appeal and Error, 126.
Divorce, 18, 22.
YOUNG V. YOUNG, 18 Minn. 90, (Gil. 72.)
Affidavit, 2, 6.
Appeal and Error, 421, 440.
Divorce, 14, 15.
Pleading, 35.
Practice in Civil Cases, 53.
Reference, 1, 15.
Summons, 25.
Cited in State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 118.
ZIEBARTH V. NYE, 42 Minn. 541, 44 N. W. 1027.
Trespass, 24-27.
ZIER V. HOFFLIN, 33 Minn. 66, 21 N. W. 862.
Libel and Slander, 25, 28, 29.
Z.
ZIMMERMAN v. BLOOM, (Vogely v. Bloom,) 43
Minn. 163, 45 N. W. 10.
Evidence, 99.
ZIMMERMAN V. LAMB, 7 Minn. 421, (Gil. 336.)
Appeal and Error, 356, 537.
Attachment, 58.
Conversion of Personal Property, 29, 43.
ZIMMERMAN V. LAMB-Continued
Evidence, 88.
Fraudulent Conveyances, 53.
Followed in Merritt v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn.
231, (Gil. 152;) Jacoby v. Drew, 11 Minn. 409,
(Gil. 301.) Distinguished in Hinkley v. St.
Anthony Falls Water-Power Co., 9 Minn. 60,
(Gil. 49;) Braley v. Byrnes, 20 Minn. 441, (Gil.
393.) Cited in Adler v. Apt, 30 Minn. 46.
ZIMMERMAN V. MORROW, 28 Minn. 367, 10 N. W. 139.
Sale, 55.
Cited in Torkelson v. Jorgenson, 28 Minn. 384;
Warder v. Bowen, 31 Minn. 336.
WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS AND STEREOTYPER-, ST. PAUL, MINN.

た
​
0123456
0123456
0123456
QUAWN
4
2
3
1
QUAWN--
EXTAWN-I

654321
A4 Page 8543210
AIIM SCANNER TEST CHART #2
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
Spectra
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",/?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:”,./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:',./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
Times Roman
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:'../?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
Century Schoolbook Bold
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
4 PT
6 PT
News Gothic Bold Reversed
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:'',/?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:',./?$0123456789
8 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
Bodoni Italic
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?80123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΡΣΤΥΩΝΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπορστνωχ ζ=7",/St=#°><ΕΞ
Greek and Math Symbols
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπφροτυωχψί=7",/S+=#°><><><=
ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧ Ζαβγδεξθηικλμνοπόρστυωχψίπτ",./St##°><><><Ξ
10 ΡΤ ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπορστνωχ ίΞτ",/St=#°><><=
White
MESH HALFTONE WEDGES
I
|
65
85
100
110
133
150
Black
Isolated Characters
e
3
1
2
3
a
4
5
6
7
о
8
9
0
h
B
O5¬♡NTC
65432
A4 Page 6543210
A4 Page 6543210
©B4MN-C
65432
MEMORIAL DRIVE, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14623
RIT ALPHANUMERIC RESOLUTION TEST OBJECT, RT-1-71
0123460
மய
6 E38
5 582
4 283
3 32E
10:
5326
7E28
8B3E
032E ▸
1253
223E
3 3EB
4 E25
5 523
6 2E5
17
分
​155自​杂
​14 E2 S
1323S
12E25
11ES2
10523
5836
835E
7832
0723
SBE 9
OEZE
1328
2 E32
3 235
4 538
5 EBS
6 EB
15853
TYWES
16 ELE
14532
13823
12ES2
11285
1053B
SBE6
8235
7523
◄ 2350
5 SER
10 EBS
8532
9538
7863
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ONE LOMB
PRODUCED BY GRAPHIC ARTS RESEARCH CENTER