Volume 12 — Minnesota Reports

This action was commenced, in the District Court for Pice County, on the 27th day of March, A. D. 1865.

This was a prosecution commenced before the city justice of the city of Saint Paul, for the violation of an ordinance in relation to' butchers, passed May 4th, 1865, and published Sept. 9th, 1865, the material portions of which are as follows : “No person shall Keep a butcher’s stall, or vend fresh or butcher’s meat, in less quantities than the quarter, within the limits of the city of Saint Paul, without first having obtained a license for that purpose as hereinafter…

It appears from tlie complaint that plaintiff was a member of the firm of Judd, Walker & Co., composed of the plaintiff, the said defendants and one Albert H. Judd; that said firm was dissolved, and plaintiff sold out his interest therein to the other members of the firm, who continued the business under the same firm name; that Albert II. Judd is now deceased.

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

This action was brought in the District Court for Nicollet County, for the purpose of setting aside certain deeds conveying certain premises owned by defendant John Johnston, from him, through the defendant Pratt, to the defendant Ellen S. Johnston, wife of said John Johnston, as void as against the plaintiff. The defendant Pratt did not appear or answer in the action; the other defendants answered, and issue was joined.

This action was brought in the district court for Bine Earth County, against the representatives of George M. Yan Brunt, deceased. The. relief sought was that the defendants be required to convey to plaintiff a certain forty acre tract of land according to legal subdivisions, to which he claimed defendants held the legal title in trust for his use and benefit.

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, whereby the defendant agreed to purchase three pipes of plaintiff, to be of like quality as certain pipes in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff procured the pipes and tendered them to the defendant, who refused to accept or pay for tbe same.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Hennepin County, which is and was at the time the action was commenced in the fourth judicial district. The summons, so far as material, was as follows: “District Cowrt, 3d Dist/riot, LLeovnepi/n Cownty, Mw/nesotct Territory. Joshua Hanna * * * vs. * * * Roswell P. Russell. * * * To the above named Defenda/nts : Yon and each of you are hereby summoned,” &o. The summons bore date May 18, 1858.

The plaintiff alleges -that he is the owner of certain land, .on'which was a barn belonging to him, and that on the 14th July, 1861, “one D. A. J. Baker, wrongfully and forcibly severed said barn from said land, and carried the same away, and located, and has ever since used and occupied the same upon the S. W. quarter of Sec. 33, &c., which last described land then was owned by one Charles Ennis, and was in the possession of said Baker as the tenant of said Ennis, and…

Tbis action was commenced before a justice of the peace and removed to the district court for Dakota County by appeal. Upon trial in the district court a verdict was returned for the defendant, whereupon the plaintiff moved the court for a new trial, which motion was denied, and from the order denying the same the plaintiff appeals to this court. A sufficient statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant from a judgment of the District Court for Elmore county rendered against him. A full statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought in the district court for Stearns county: issue was joined, and the cause tried before the court without a jury.

This is an appeal by tbe plaintiff from an order of tbe District Court, for Washington County, sustaining a demurrer interposed by tbe defendants, Mackey and McLane, to tbe complaint, on tbe ground that tbe same did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe allegations of tbe complaint are sufficiently stated in the opinion of tbe Court.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of the District Court for Olmsted County, of which the following is a copy, viz: “April 23d, 1866, General Term, Olmsted County.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a resident and tax payer of the town of Baytown, Washington County, on behalf of himself and other residents of the said town, praying for an injunction restraining the collection of the interest on certain bonds purporting to have been issued by the Supervisors of said town, and the farther issue of such bonds, &c. Issue was joined in the action, and the same was submitted to the District Court of Washington County upon a…

The defendant was arrested and brought before a justice of the peace, of Olmsted county, upon a charge of assault and battery, alleged to have been committed upon the person of one Frederick A. Coffin. The defendant was found guilty and fined by said justice, and took an appeal to the district court for that county. Hpon the trial in the district court, substantially the following facts appeared from the testimony.

This action was brought in the District Corn-t for Hennepin County, on the 11th day of September, 1865, to remove so much of the dam of the St. Anthony Falls Water Power Company, as causes the water of the Mississippi river to flow above its natural level upon the shore of Nicollet Island, in said river, owned by plaintiffs, and thereby destroying plaintiffs’ water, power, and to restrain the defendants from ever erecting or maintaining any dam so as to obstruct the natural…

This cause comes to this Court, by writ of error sued out by defendants, from the final judgment of the District Court for Meeker County.

This action was brought in -the district court for Mower county.

This action was commenced in the district court for Dakota county.

This action was brought in the district court for Kamsev county.

The defendant, Frank Pulle, with others, was indicted at the May term, 1866, of the district court for Ramsey county, for the crime of conspiracy.

This is an appeal, by the defendant, from an order of the District Court for Wabashaw County, sustaining a demurrer to tbe amended answer. A full statement of tire case, and tlie points raised, will be found in tbe opinion of tlie Court.

Plaintiff brought Ms action in the district court for Fillmore county, for the return of a colt alleged to be of the value of $140, claimed by the plaintiff, and demanded judgment for the return of the property, and for damages for ■detention of the same. The plaintiff gave the usual bond, and the sheriff replevied the colt. The defendant having taken the necessary proceedings, demanded a return of the colt, and the sheriff re-delivered the same to the defendant.

This action was brought in the District Court for Ramsey County, under chapter 75 of the General Statutes, to determine the adverse claim of the defendant to a certain strip of land in the city of Saint Paul, known as “Saint Charles street,” of which the plaintiff alleged he was the owner and in possession.

This action was brought for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property of the plaintiff, under an execution issued in an action wherein defendant Reynolds was plaintiff, and the said plaintiff was defendant. The plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction, which the defendants moved to dissolve, and the court below granted such motion, and the plaintiff appeals from the order dissolving the injunction, to this court.

This action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace in Wright County, to recover the amount alleged to have been paid in exchange for a bank bill which plaintiff received from defendant as good money, but which he alleges was worthless. The case was tried by' a jury who found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon. The defendant, removed the cause to the District Court for that county by writ of certiorari.

This is an appeal from an order of tbe district court for Hennepin county, granting the relief demanded in the complaint, on motion, after failure to answer. A sufficient statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court for Winona county. The action was upon a promissory note, and issue was joined therein, and the cause tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The pleadings, and the points presented in the case, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant from the judgment entered in this case in favor of the plaintiff in the District Court for Hennepin County, upon the order of the Court after trial before the Court, without a jury. The facts as found by the Court below, fully appear in the opinion of the Court.

This action was commenced in June, 1860, by William D. Lowry, in the district court for Olmsted county, against James II. Harris and Samuel B. Woodbury. The plaintiff, William D. Lowry, dying during its pendency, the children of the deceased (present plaintiffs) were substituted parties plaintiffs.

This action was commenced in tlie district court for Ramsey county, to cancel a certain instrument, purporting to be a mortgage deed, executed by tlie plaintiffs to tbe defendants upon certain real estate in Ramsey county, and duly recorded, and tlie conveyance from tbe sheriff of said county to defendants upon foreclosure thereof, upon the ground that said mortgage was never executed.

The plaintiff after recovering judgment against the defendants commenced garnishee proceedings against the “ Home Insurance Company” in the District Court for Eamsey County; from the disclosure of the garnishee it appears that the defendants were insured by the garnishee against loss by fire, and that a loss had occurred previous to the service of the garnishee summons, but no notice had been given, or proof of the loss, made by the insured, which were required by the policy…

This action was brought iu the district court for Washington county to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendants to one Hamilton, which mortgage the plaintiff claims has been assigned and transferred to him; issue was joined and the cause tried by a referee who reported in favor of defendants, and judgment was entered pursuant to the report; from such judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court.

The defendant was indicted in June, 1865, by tbe grand jury of Wabasbaw county, for the crime of petit larceny. Tbe indictment was in tbe form prescribed by statute, and charged tbat tbe defendant, &c., “ did feloniously steal, take and carry away, one set of black mounted double harness, of tbe value of thirty dollars, tbe property of O. A. Leland,” &c. Tbe defendant was convicted, and appeals to this court for a new trial.

This action was commenced by Van B. Humphrey and Laura M. P. his wife, against Palmer E. Havens, Betsey E. his wife, John McConkey and Harriet E. B. his wife, Andrew M. Torbet, James K. Humphrey, J. W. Selby and Benjamin Allen, in the District Court for Bamsey Co. to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate, and to hold the defendant Havens, with other defendants, personally liable for any balance of the mortgage debt which might remain after the sale of the mortgaged…

This action was brought before a Justice of the Peace in Gooclhue County, to recover the sum of $70, part of the purchase price of certain real estate alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. The complaint alleges substantially, that the parties entered into a verbal contract for the purchase and sale of certain real estate, for which the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendants the sum of $250.

Tbis action was commenced in July, 1865, in tbe district court for Washington county, against Patrick Fox and John O’Brian, partners as O’Brian & Fox, Elias W. Holman and William II. 0. Folsom. Tlie complaint alleges that on and prior to the 16tli June, 1858, the defendant Fox and one Taylor were owners in fee of certain described lands in Pine county.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Eice county ; during the progress of the trial the defendant offered certain testimony to establish a second and third defense set up in his answer; the plaintiff objected to its reception, and his objections were sustained by the court. The defendant then moved that he be allowed to introduce testimony to prove the allegations in said second and third defense; the motion was denied by the court, and the defendant excepted.

This action was commenced in the district court for Eamsey county. Upon the application of the plaintiff an order was made by the Judge of said court at Chambers, allowing a temporary injunction; the defendants appeal from such order to this- court. The plaintiff moves that the appeal be dismissed.

This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff from the order of the District Court for Dodge County, affirming the decision and report of the commissioners appointed to audit claims against the estate of Rice II. Moulton, deceased, disallowing certain claims presented by him against said estate. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

This, and several other actions, were brought in the district court for Dakota county, to recover damages for personal inj uries alleged to have been caused by the explosion of the boiler of the steamboat “ John Eumsey.” It is alleged in the several complaints substantially, that the said steamboat “John Eumsey ” and the steamboat “ Albany,” were both owned in part by the defendant, and at the time of the explosion or bursting of the boiler of the “ John Eumsey,” were…

This is an appeal taken by tbe plaintiff, from an order of tbe district court for Scott county, setting aside and vacating tbe decree which had been entered in tbe action. The case is fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for Ramsey County, allowing a peremptory writ of mandamus. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>Plaintiff is the owner of land in Steele County, over which the defendant’s road was laid. Commissioners appointed under the statute to assess the damages occasioned by the location of the road, made their award, from which an appeal was taken to the District Court of said county, and in that Court the verdict rendered by the jury in the case was set aside, and a new trial ordered. For the purpose of reviewing the order granting a new trial, the appellant attempted to remove the cause to this Court by appeal. "When said order was made, — February 9th, 1867 — :it was not appealable, but the legislature by an act approved March 1, 1867, authorized an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Held: That said act of March 1st, allowed an appeal from orders made prior to its passage. That the act under which the plaintiff’s damages were assessed, {Chap. 2 Special Laws, 186-1,) does not allow an appeal from the District Court to this Court. That Chapter 86 of the General Statutes does not allow an appeal in special proceedings except from a final order affecting a substantial right; that an order granting a new trial is not a final order affecting a substantial right. That Chapter 86 only allows appeals from judgments or orders m a civil action, made or rendered by a district court, except as expressly provided in Subdv. 6, Sec. 8. That the appeal from the assessment of damages was taken to the District Court, aud the power of such Court to grant a new trial, is not, like the right to appeal under our law, conferred by statute; such power is inherent in courts of general jurisdiction, not given, but regulated by statute.</p>

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the District Court for Scott County overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.

The parties to this action agreed upon a case containing the facts upon which this controversy depended, and presented a submission of the same to the District Court for Wright County for its determination under the statute. The Court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants remove the cause to this Court by appeal.

This action was commenced in the district court for Olmsted county, and comes to this court by appeal, taken by the plaintiffs, from the judgment of the court below. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in tbe District Court for Eamsey County, to recover from the defendant damages for the loss of — as alleged in the,complaint — “certain goods the property of the plaintiff, ” which it is charged were delivered to the defendant, who being a common carrier, undertook and agreed to transport the same, on its railroad, from Elk River station to St. Paul; issue was joined and the cause tried 'before a jury; at the close of the testimony, various requests…

.An attachment was issued in this action, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff, and also of one J. 0. Chandler, against the property of the defendant. A motion to dissolve the attachment was made in the district court for Olmsted county, upon certain grounds specified in the notice of motion, which motion was granted, and an order made dissolving such attachment. The plaintiff appeals to this court from such order.

This action was commenced in the district court for Fillmore county, was tried before a jury, and verdict was rendered for plaintiff. The defendants appealed from the taxation of costs by the clerk to the court. The cause is removed to this court by appeal, taken by defendants, from the order of the court below, sustaining the taxation by the clerk. All the facts, necessary to a full' understanding of the case, appear in the opinion of the court.

Tbis action was brought in the District Court for Namsey County.

This action was brought in the District Court for Ramsey County, issue was joined and the cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered for the defendant. A motion was made by the plaintiff for a new trial.

A. judgment in this action was entered in the District Court for Ramsey County, in favor of tbe defendants, Henry A. •Swift and John B. Sanborn; a motion was made by plaintiff to set aside and vacate the judgment, and for leave to amend tbe complaint; tbe Court denied tbe motion, and from tbe order denying tbe same, tbe plaintiff appeals to tbis Court. Tbe case is fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Eamsey County; issue was joined and upon a trial a verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff. The cause comes to this Court, by appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. A sufficient statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought in the District Court for Washington County, on a special contract for services as teacher; on the trial it appeared, that at the time the contract was made the plaintiff had not procured a certificate of qualification as teacher, as required by statute. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff removes the cause to this Court by appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, in May, 1863, to recover damages for an alleged overflow of plaintiff’s land, caused, as is claimed, by a dam erected and maintained by defendants, on their own land; and for an abatement of the dam as a nuisance; issue was joined and the cause brought to trial.

Tbis action was commenced in tbe District Court for Bamsey County, against tbe Steamboat Otter, under Chapter 83 of the General Statutes, authorizing proceedings against boats and vessels, to recover damages for the breach of a contract for the transportation of certain goods on the defendant from Henderson to Mankato on the Minnesota River.

This action was brought in the District Court for Dakota County, and is removed to this court by appeal, taken by the defendant from the judgment which was rendered against him in the court below. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

An indictment for the crime of polygamy was found against the defendant in the District Court for Winona county, under which he was tried, convicted and sentenced. The defendant removes tbe cause to this court by writ' of error. Tbe case is fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

An indictment was found against the defendant in the District Court for Nicollet County for the crime of extortion; the defendant interposed a demurrer to the indictment, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant was tried and convicted. A motion was made in behalf of defendant in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, upon the ground, that 1, the indictment does not charge an offense. 2, the offense sought to be charged is not indictable.

This is an action for slander brought in the District Court for Stearns County. The slanderous words alleged in the complaint are, “You (meaning this plaintiff) are a thief, you (meaning this plaintiff) are a robber, and a public robber, and you (meaning this plaintiff) robbed the town of St. Cloud, and you (meaning this plaintiff) stole from the town of St. Cloud. ” The cause was tried, and the jury found for the defendant.

This action was brought in the District Court for Bamsey county. Issue was joined, and the cause referred to a referee, who tried the same, and reported in favor of the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made to the said District Court upon a case made and settled, which was granted.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for Hennepin County, striking out a portion of the answer of the defendant Gilman. The case is fully stated in the opinien.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Ramsey County, and was tried by a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered upon the report, and the defendant appeals to this Court. The nature of the action and the findings of the referee, are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

This action was commenced in the District Court for Dakota County, and comes to this court by appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside the judgment, (which had been entered on default,) and for leave to answer. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case has been before the Supreme Court, upon an appeal from an order granting a new trial, which order was affirmed. The case is fully reported in 11 Mmn., 2Li. A new trial was had in the District Court for Washington county, and result-eel in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants now appeal from an order refusing to grant a new trial. The new points raised by this second appeal are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted in the District Court for Le Sueur County for murder in the first degree, and tried and found guilty of murder in the second degree; he removes the cause to this Court by writ of error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real estate, alleged to hare been made by the defendant Orrin Smith, by Henry D.. Huff his attorney, with the plaintiffs, and to compel payment of the value of certain portions thereof, subsequently sold by said defendant. This real estate, at the time of the. execution of the alleged contract, was situate in Fillmore County, but by the Act of Feb. 23, 1854, (Rub.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the District Court of Iiamsey Comity sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

On tbe 26th of August, 1859, Richard Ireland being then the owner of certain real estate in this State, duly conveyed the same to Thomas Grace, the plaintiff. On the 29th day of June, 1859, Patrick Donovan, the defendant, recovered a judgment against Ireland in the District Court for Ramsey Comity, which was on the 6th day of July, 1859, docketed in Le Sueur County, where the said real estate is situated.