Volume 10 — Minnesota Reports

The complaint in this action states that the Plaintiffs were co-partners engaged in a general banking and exchange business under the… Held: that “ upon error from a judgment rendered upon the report of a referee, where no exceptions are taken upon the trial, or to the finding, and the evidence is not reported, the only question which this Court can consider i II. —The report of the referee in this cause finds upon all the facts in issue: “ The general conclusion of the…

TMs action was commenced in tbe Houston County District Court. The Plaintiff in Ms complaint alleges a grant to Mm from the Legislature of the exclusive right to establish and maintain a ferry across the Mississippi River within certain limits; his compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant, and that Defendants have infringed upon his rights under said grant by establishing another ferry within such limits.

This is a motion to the Supreme Court by Faribault and La Croix, for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the District Court of Rice county.

This action was brought in the District Court of Carver county ■ upon a recognizance entered into before the lion.- Lafayette Emmett, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, at Chambers, in certain proceedings upon a writ of habeas corpus allowed by said Justice on the application of Defendant Pittman. The certificate of the Chief Justice, the recitals, and condition of the recognizance sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought in the District Court of Ramsey county to remove an alleged cloud on the title to certain real estate situate in said county, owned by the Plaintiffs, caused by a judgment lien of the Defendants. The cause was tried by said District Court without a jury.

This action was brought in the Ramsey County District Court, under See. 1, Chap. 64, Pub. Stat., to determine the adverse claim of the defendant to certain real estate in the city of St. Paul, of which, the plaintiff claimed to be in possession. The case was tried in the court below by a referee, who found in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered up against the defendant, who sued out a writ of error, aud brought the cause to this court.

In a proceeding under the provisions of Chap. 19, Comp. Slat., before a Justice of the Peace in Le Sueur County, Corbett Hill, defendant, was ordered to enter into recognizance for his appearance at the District Court of that county, or in default thereof to stand committed. Default being made, Hill was taken into custody by a constable of said county.

This action was commenced in the District Court of Le Sueur County, against the Auditor and Treasurer of that county, and Erastus Edgerton and A. S. Cowley.

This is an action for damages for an assault and battery. The complaint alleges that on the 4th day of November, 1862, at Wabashaw, “the said defendant with force and arms assaulted this plaintiff, and with force and violence with his fists, gave and struck this plaintiff a great many blows and strokes on and about divers .parts of his body, and with great force and violence struck and pulled about the said plaintiff, and cast and threw the said plaintiff down to and upon…

This action was brought iu the District Court of Mower county, upon an undertaking on appeal, executed by the defendants in a certain action in said Court, wherein the above named Albert Galloway was plaintiff, and William Litchfield, Valorus P. Lewis and Franklin D. Lewis were defendants, which recites that a verdict was returned in said action in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants therein, for $105.60 ; that the defendants in said action moved to set…

At a session of the Legislature of this State in 1865 the following resolution was adopted 'by the Senate, to-wit; “Resolved, That the Supreme Court be and they are hereby respectfully requested to furnish the Senate their opinion upon the following questions: “ 1.

The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of lots 11 and 12 in block 29, St. Paul, brought this action in the Ramsey County District Court to restrain the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, its… Held: 9 Eng. Law and Equity, 104; Corning vs. Powerre, 6 Johns. Ch., 440 ; Gatlin vs. Valentine, 9 Paige, 515. In the case at bar there are two aspects, in which the acts and works of the defendants are a public nuisance: 1. The defendants are obstructing a public street.

This is a proceeding under the provisions of sec. 56 of chapter 15 of the Laws of 1861, contesting the validity of an election held at a general election on the 3d day of November, 1863, submitting to the electors of Chisago County, for their approval or rejection, the question of the removal of the county seat of that county from Taylor’s Falls to Chisago City, in pursuance of an act of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, approved March 3, 1863.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Dakota County dismissing the action. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court.

This action was commenced in the Ramsey County District Court by the plaintiff, a married woman, who sued by her next friend, to collect of the defendant certain interest coupons which were attached to and made a part of a certain bond of the county of Carver.

This is an appeal from an order made by the District Court of Hennepin County stxiking out certain portions of the complaint on motion of defendants. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court.

This action was- brought to determine the title to certain lands in Wabasliaw county, being a portion of the Half Breed Reservation. The action was tried at the December Term, 1863, of the District Court in said county by the Court without a jury.

The facts in this case as they appear from the admissions in the pleadings and the stipulation of the parties, are substantially as follows : The plaintiff was owner of a certain lot of land in the city of Rochester, on which prior to January 1, 1881, he had erected a brick building, two stories high, with basement.

This action was brought in the Ramsey County District Court.

This action was couimenced in the Steele County District Court. The garnishee was summoned to appear before the Judge of said Court at Owatonna, December 5, 1864, which was the first day of a general term; no fees were paid the garnishee, nor was their payment waived.

The complaint in this . action alleges the making of a contract on the 5th of December, 1863, between the plaintiff and defendant, by which the defendant, in consideration of $625 theretofore paid to him by plaintiff, agreed to transport and convey 350 cords of wood then owned by plaintiff — about 150 cords from Chaska, and 200 cords from Carver, in the State of Minnesota, and to deliver the same to plaintiff at St. Paul, on or before the 1st July, 1864, without any other…

This action was brought in the Ramsey County District Court, for the redemption of certain real estate situate in St. Paul, sold under a mortgage foreclosure.

The complaint in this action states that the defendant was during the year 1863, and now is a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of Wisconsin, and engaged in business in this State and elsewhere, carrying and transporting goods, &o., and for that purpose owning and running a great number of steamboats. Four separate causes of action are stated in the complaint, the first three of which are upon contract, and the fourth is in the following words, to-wit:' “4th.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace in Wabashaw County.

The complaint in this action states in substance that the plaintiffs, White & Marks, had an interest in a certain judgment or decree against one A. M. Fridley, in Benton County, on the 15th January, 1856, to the amount of §5083.58; and that in March, 1856, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendant Culver, that he should collect the amount due them in said decree on shares, and a receipt or paper was executed by said Culver, embracing the terms of said…

<p>This action was commenced by Jonathan S. Fish, plaintiff, against Peter Berkey, John R. Irvine, George Culver, Fenner & Crumby, E. W. Eddy, Charles C. Lund, Robert A. Smith, J. W. Selby, John Nicols, T. R. B. Eldridge, George Gruber, A, Yon Glahn, and Peter Berkey, Trustee, for aforesaid defendants. The complaint alleges substantially that on the 24th day of April, 1861, plaintiff and Samuel and James Mayall were in the possession of certain furniture of the value of $27,662.50; the plaintiff as owner, the Mayalls as a pledge to secure $4,000, and Samuel Mayall against liability as maker of a promissory • note, endorsed by Stephen Long and owned by defendant, Yon Glahn, on which $3,719 was due. That defendants Berkey, Irvine, Culver, Fenner & Crumby, Eddy, Lund, Smith, Selby, Armstrong, Nicols, Eldridge and Gruber as parties of the second part, entered into a contract in writing with-the plaintiff, the said Mayalls, and Stephen and Edward Long, as parties of the first part; whereby súá parties of the first part for the nominal consideration of $7,719, and to secure to the parties of the second part the sum of $5,000, advanced by them, $4,000 to pay said Mayalls’ claim, and $1,000 on said Yon Glahn note, and to secure the balance due on said note, sold and conveyed said furniture to said parties of the second part, and whereby the said Longs were to open and keep a certain hotel in St. Paul, known as the Winslow House, and whereby the parties of the second part leased to said Longs for six months, a certain portion of said furniture therein specified of the value of $18,838, at the rent of 10 per cent on the said sum of $7,719, less the amount that should be paid thereon by a sale of the residue of .said furniture, and whereby the plaintiff agreed to have that portion of said furniture leased insured in the sum of $8,000 against loss by fire, and to assign the policy of insurance to the trustee of the parties of the second part, for their use within ten days after said Longs should take possession thereof, and to keep up such insurance during the term of said lease, and of any renewal thereof, and whereby it was mutually agreed by the parties thereto, that the remainder of said furniture of the value of $8,724.50, should be sold by the agent of said parties of the second part, in the manner he deemed best for the interests of the parties, and of the net proceeds $1,000 should be paid on the Yon Glahn note, and the residue applied pro rata upon the balance due on said note, and said advance of $5,000, and that the furniture so leased should be reoonveyed to plaintiff if within six months thereafter he should pay the balance of said advance then due, the amount then due on the Yon Glahn note, and $572.25 with interest, <fcc., to Peter Berkey; and that if default should be made in the conditions of said lease, or in the payment of said sums of money, or either of them, then the parties of the second part, their agent, or trustee, should take possession of said furniture, and sell the same in manner as the parties of the second part, or their agent, or trustee, might determine, and in case of sale the proceeds should be applied pro rata to the payment of said advance, and the balance due on the Yon Glahn note, and out of the residue the said sum to Peter Berkey, and the balance if any to plaintiff; that Peter Berkey should be the agent, and trustee of the parties of the second part, with full powers to act for them. The complaint further alleges the filing of said contract as a chattel mortgage, that said $5,000 was advanced, and disbursed according to the contract, and said furniture leased with a portion of the residue, (with the consent of the parties,) and said hotel opened and kept, and the rents of said furniture paid, and that plaintiff caused said furniture to be insured in the sum of $8,625 in manner as agreed; that said trustee accepted the trusts, and entered upon the duties specified in said contract; that at the expiration of six months said contract was renewed and continued in force by the consent of all the parties ; that said rents continued to be paid and received pursuant to said contract; that said insurance was kept up by plaintiff, and on the 11th day of October, 1862, said contract was in full force, and then acted upon and under by all the said parties; that on that day a portion of said furniture so leased of the value of $14,119.14 was accidentally destroyed by 'fire, and the balance injured thereby to the sum of $931.06; that said parties of the second part did not attempt to recover the full amount of said insurance, and did not cause to be made a true statement of said loss and damage, but caused statements thereof to be, rendered to the insurers, which they, and said trustee well knew to be false, and too low, and they and said trustee in bad faith compromised with the insurers for $4,343.94, and converted the residue of said furniture saved from the fire of the value of $4,21l7.06, to their own use; that said parties of the second part have received from sales, &c., of the portion of said furniture not used in said hotel, $8,'724.50; from rents from said Longs, $4,225.31 ; that plaintiff has often demanded of said defendants, and said trustee, an account of their doings, and that they pay over to him such sum as he is entitled to ; that they refuse to account, or j>ay over any sum whatever. Said complaint demands that defendants and said trustee be required to render an account of their doings, that they may be chai'ged with the full amount of said insurance, and that they may be adjudged to j»ay over to plaintiff the balance- found due him. To this complaint the defendants demurred upon substantially the following grounds : First, defect of parties ■ defendant, in that Samuel Mayall, James A. Mayall, Stephen Long and Edward H. Long were not made parties defendant. • Second, because several causes of action have been improperly united therein, to-wit: one against a defendant as trustee, with one against him personally; a cause of action against a defendant as trustee, with one against other defendants personally. Third, because the pretended causes of action are not separately stated therein, and do not belong to any one of the classes authorized by statute. Fourth, because said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p> <p>The demurrer was sustained by the Court below, and judgment" against the plaintiff entered-therein. Plaintiff sued out a writ of error, and removed the cause to this Court.</p>

. This action was commenced in the District Court of Wabashaw County to recover the possession of certain real estate in said county, to which the plaintiff claims title from the United States through Pauline Monette and Oliver Monette, her husband, to-wit: a certain portion of lot 4, section 20, township 111, north range 10 west.

This action was commenced in the District Court of Le Sueur County. The complaint sets out for a cause of action, an alleged indebtedness of 37.10.

This action was brought in the District Court of Fillmore County.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant, before a justice of tlie peace of Freeborn County. At the instance of the defendant an appeal was allowed by the justice to tlie District Court of said county. In' the District Court a motion made by the plaintiff to dismiss such appeal, was granted. Defendant appeals to this Court. A sufficient statement of the points presented appear in the opinion of the Court.

This is an application on the part of the defendant to the Supreme Court for .a new trial, under seo. C,p. 777, Comp. Stat. The defendant was tried upon an indictment for the murder of Frederick Raymond, at the October term of the Wright County District Court, 1864, and convicted of murder in the first degree. The indictment was in the form prescribed by statute, but was not signed on the face by the foreman of tho grand jury, but was indorsed as follows: “A true bill.

'The complaint in this action alleges the conveyance of certain real estate to the plaintiff, Maria B. Dayton, by the defendant John E. Warren and wife, by deed dated July 15, 1858, with covenants of seizin and warranty of title, for the consideration of $8000; that said sum of $8000 was.the price and value of certain real estate owned by said Maria B., which was on the same day-conveyed by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

Proceedings were had before the board of county commissioners of Winona county, for the laying out of a county road. Kcenig presented a remonstrance against laying out the road, claiming that he would be damaged thereby $857.50. The county commissioners laid out the road and assessed Koenig’s damages at $100; from their decision Koenig appealed to the District Court of Winona County.

The complaint alleges in substance that the defendant is a steamboat, and used and employed by the masters, owners, &c., thereof, in carrying and transporting passengers and freight for hire as a regular business and public employment on the Mississippi River from St. Paul, Minnesota, to La Crosse, Wisconsin, &c., and has been so used and employed for more than three years last past, and is now lying at the port of St. Paul in said county, &c.; that one David R. Reynolds oh…

This was an action brought by Blake against McKusick to recover a balance clue on a promissory note. Issue was joined in the action, and the same was tried at the District Court in Washington County at the November Term, 1868, by the Court, without a jury.

This action was commenced in the Hennepin County District Court, by the plaintiff, against Samuel Stanchfield' and William Brown, late partners as Stanchfield & Brown, and John Dudley, defendants.

This is an appeal taken by the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company from an order of the District Court of Winona County denying a motion for a new trial.

A motion was made at a special term of tbe District Court of Hennepin County on tbe part of tbe plaintiffs, for an order to change tbe place of trial of this action, based upon tbe affidavit of one of tbe plaintiffs, and tbe reply in tbe action.

A motion was made 'at a general term of the District Court of Hennepin county, in May, 1864, on the part of the defendants, upon the affidavit of defendant Mayall, to change the place of trial of this action. The Court denied the motion, and filed the following decision, viz: “This motion is made to change the place of trial of this action for alleged prejudice of the presiding judge.

This is an appeal from an order of tho Ramsey County District Court sustaining a demurrer to tho complaint. The allegations of tho complaint and grounds of demurrer are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

This was a submission of a controversy without action, to the District Court of Hennepin County.

John Cunningham, the respondent, brought an action against the La Crosse & St. Paul Packet Company, appellant, before a Justice of the Peace of Ramsey County, and recovered a judgment therein on the 28th day of November, 1862.

This is an action of ejectment. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is seized and possessed of the title in fee simple, to certain real estate in Shalcopee; that the defendants are in possession and occupancy of the same, and refuse to deliver possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demands judgment for j>os~ session, &c. The answer denies the plaintiff’s title, and alleges title in the defendants.

The complaint in this action states substantially that on and prior to the 13th day of September, 1855, the plaintiff owned and was seized in fee of certain real estate in Dakota County, and still owns and holds the fee thereof; that Edward C. Agnew, the husband of plaintiff, on or about said 13th September, negotiated a loan of §600 of one Ira Bidwell, for his individual use and benefit; that the joint promissory note of said plaintiff and said Edward C. Agnew was given to…

The defendant was tried before a Justice of the Peace of Nicollet County for petit larceny, and found guilty. He ajipealed from the judgment of the Justice to the Nicollet County District Court.

This cause was at issue, and noticed for trial by the plaintifF’s attorneys, and placed on the calendar for the term of the District Court in Olmstead county, in October, 1862. At said term, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint, which was allowed, and the complaint was amended. There was also an amended answer and reply in said cause. No notice of trial, other than the one for said October term, was ever served.

This action was commenced in the District Court of Ramsey County. The complaint sets out, with the usual averments, a cause of action upon four promissory notes executed by the defendants and one Anderson (since deceased) to the plaintiff, bearing date November 15, 1856, each for $695 with interest, and becoming due in one, two, three and four years respectively. The defendants set up two defences: 1.

This action was commenced in the Ramsey County District Court. The allegations of the complaint which are material to the points decided are: that on the 9th day of February, 1864, a writ of execution duly issued out of said Court upon a judgment recovered therein by McDonald, Graham &¡ Co., against The.

The complaint in this action states that on and before the 30th of July; 1856, there was an Association, composed of several hundred persons, organized under a certain constitution for the purpose of acquiring homesteads for the several members thereof upon the public lands in one of the Northwestern States or Territories, &c., with a prospect of final incorporation for such purpose, &c., and that such Association was known as the German Land Association of Minnesota; that…

This action was brought in the district court of Anoka county.

This action was brought iu the-Fillmore County District Court for malicious prosecution. Issue was joined therein, and the cause was tried at the December term, 1863, and resulted in a verdict in favor-of plaintiff for $1,500. During the trial various exceptions were taken to the admission of testimony, both by the plaintiff and defendant, and also an exception by the defendant to the charge of the Judge.

In August, 1859, defendant, Arphaxed Loomis, commenced a suit in the District Court for Olmsted county, against plaintiff and one Stephen Breden. An order was procured for the service of the summons by publication, upon affidavits, and the summons was so served. On the 14th day of October, 1859, judgment was entered on failure to answer, in favor of the plaintiff in said action; execution was issued and the real estate of said Harrington sold thereunder to Hiram T. Horton.

The petitioner, R. F. Crowell, claimed to have been duly elected to the office of Judge of Probate for Ramsey County, at the general… Held: that Crowell had duly qualified and made the demand as stated, and the refusal to comply therewith, was not denied; but it was claimed that the contest pending, suspended or stayed the right of Crowell to take possession of the office until the contest should be determined, and that the title of Crowell to the office as set up in his…

This action was commenced in the Ramsey County District Court. At the trial a jury was waived and the cause tried before the Court. The facts as found by the Court are substantially as follows: The defendant, Allen Pierce, sold a large amount of real estate in Ramsey County to the plaintiff, and conveyed the same by two separate deeds, one dated May 22, 1855, and one April 80, 1856.

This action was brought in the District Court of Rice County, to set aside certain mortgage foreclosure sales, &c. The cause was tried by a jury and a special verdict rendered therein.

This action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace in Scott County, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the District Court of that county. When the‘cause came onto be heard, the plaintiff moved the Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there should have been a “TJ.

This action was brought in the District Court of Dakota county..

This action was commenced in the Ramsey County District Court.

Proceedings were instituted by D. W. Ingersoll & Co., plaintiffs, against the First National Bank, Garnishee of S. S. Eaton, defendant. Testimony was taken before a referee on the 5th of January, 1865, pursuant to an order of the District Court of Ramsey county.

The plaintiff (Howes) brought an action of ejectment against the defendant, (Gillett,) and judgment was rendered in the District Court of Dakota County, against the plaintiff for costs and disbursements. Plaintiff paid'the judgment, and served a written demand for another trial, and made a motion to said Court for> an order to place said cause on the calendar for another trial thereof, which motion was granted and such order entered. The defendant appeals from said order.

The complaint in this action alleges the assignment of a judgment against one Henry H. Williams, to the plaintiff, Harriet R. Holmes, and the defendant, to be by said assignees held and owned jointly, with authority to them or either of them to collect the same to their own use; that defendant caused execution to issue on said judgment, under which certain real estate of the judgment debtor was levied upon and sold; that defendant bid off such real estate at the sale, and…

The defendant was indicted in the Hennepin County District Court' for an assault with intent to do great bodily harm, being armed with a dangerous weapon. After the trial, at the request of the defendant, the Judge of the Court below reported the caso to the Supreme Court, for its decision of certain questions of law arising upon the trial. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court. I. —The indictment is not bad for duplicity.

This is an appeal from ail order oí the District Court of Ramsey County, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. A sufficient statement of the allegations of the complaint, and the demurrer thereto, appears in the opinion of the Court. The bill of lading on which plaintiff’s action is based, shows on its face- — • First — That the carriage in this case was gratuitous. Second — That the goods were carried at the owner’s risk.

This action was brought before a Justice of the Peace in Olmsted County.

This action was brought in the 'District Court of Scott County by the plaintiffs, against A. B. Jones, Mary M. Jones his wife, and others, to foreclose a mortgage purporting to be executed by defendants A. B. Jones and Mary M. Jones his wife. The only, issues made in the pleadings material to the points decided, are in regard to the execution and acknowledgment of the mortgage by defendant Mary M. Jones.

This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus, upon the relation of David A. Secombe, to compel the City Council of St. Anthony to levy a tax, &c. The contents of the information upon which such writ is prayed for are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Court.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Hennepin County.

This action was brought in the Dakota County District Court, by the plaintiff against the defendants, George W. Tapley, Martin O. Walker, Samuel S. Carll and Robert Buck. The material allegations of the complaint are substantially as follows : On or about the 25th November, 1858, the plaintiff (then Mary E. Bar-_ ker,) intermarried with defendant, George W. Tapley.