Volume 15 — Minnesota Reports

This action was brought in the district court for Pice county to recover the sum of $395, alleged to be due the plaintiff from defendant, as an unpaid balance of $552.50, tiie contract price for carrying the mails on route number 13,593, from August 9th, 1867, to April 9th, 1868, at the rate of $780 per year. M. O. Walker was the contractor with tbe P. O. Department, and the defendant a sub-contractor at the rate of $790 per year.

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, to cancel and set aside a deed for certain real estate executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, and to compel the defendant to receive a reconveyance of the premises, and repay the plaintiff the purchase money, with interest. A general demurrer to the complaint was interposed, which was overruled by the court below, and'from the order overruling the demurrer the defendant appeals to this court.

This action was brought in the District Court for Stearns county, to recover the sum of $1^2.34, which amount the plaintiff paid to the defendant, as treasurer of Stearns county, for and on account of taxes upon certain real estate owned by plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the taxes were illegal, and that his payment thereof was an involuntary payment, and on this ground bases his right to recover back the money paid.

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

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, to compel the specific performance of an executory contract for the conveyance of land ; the contract being a bond for a deed executed by Remembrance R. Gilman and her husband, to the plaintiff, for certain lands owned by Mrs.. Gilman as her separate property. The action was tried by the court, without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, and from which the plaintiff appeals to this court.

This is an appeal taken by the plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Morrison county setting aside the judgment entered in the case on default, after service of summons by publication, and allowing defendants to put in an answer and defend. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

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

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, and judgment entered by default against defendant. The defendant appeals from such judgment to this court, where the point is raised for the first time that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A sufficient statement of the nature of the action, and of the complaint, appear in the opinion of the court.

An appeal was taken in this case by the defendant from the judgment of the district court of Dakota county. The trial was had before the court without a jury, and a bill of exceptions was settled and allowed. The findings of the court below appear substantially in the opinion of the court, with such matters from the bill of exceptions as are necessary to give a full understanding of the case, which render a further statement unnecessary.

This action was brought in the district court for Goodhue county, to recover the amount due upon a promissory note made by the defendant. The summons was served upon the defendant, who admitted service in the following words endorsed upon the summons: “ R.ed Wing, Minnesota, May 31st, 1869. Due and personal service of the within summons admitted this 31st day of May, 1869.

The plaintiff commenced an action in the district court for Scott county, against Charles B. Tyler, William A. Baldwin, and Metzner & Black. The defendants Metzner & Black demurred to the complaint, and their demurrer was overruled: they appeal from the order overruling the same to this court. The complaint, and the grounds of demurrer thereto, are sufficently stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the district court for Carver county, to determine an adverse claim of the defendant upon certain real estate. (See diagram in the opinion of the court.) The plaintiff owned and cultivated the land described in the diagram as the “ E \ of S. W. J of section 32, ” but never resided thereon, and upon which there has never been a building of any description. Plaintiff’s dwelling house is upon the “ 8.

This action was commenced in the district court for Blue Earth county by William A. Coy, James B. Coy, Amelia B. Coy, and Florence Coy, against Julia A. Coy, Lewis Branson, Christiana Heinze, and Charles Heinze her husband, Z. Paddock, and William A. Boynton. The plaintiffs’ complaint is as follows: “ 1.

This action was commenced in tlie district court for Ramsey county, and was tried before a referee. The facts are substantially as follows: In 1865 one Williams sued defendant McGrade, as sheriff of Scott county, for the recovery of certain sheep or their value. In March, 1867, Williams transferred his interest in the suit to the plaintiff, and the suit proceeded without substitution of parties. In July, 1867, judgment was rendered in the action against the defendant McGrade.

This action was brought in the district court for Bamsey county. A general demurrer to the complaint was interposed, which was overruled by the court below, and the defendant appeals to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Spencer brought this action in the district court for Dakota county, for work and labor performed for the defendant. The defendant answered, in substance, that he, as one of the building committee of the First Baptist Church of Hastings, employed the'plaintiff to work for said church, and that such work and labor was done and performed for said church, of which fact the plaintiff had full knowledge.

.This action was commenced in the district court for Ramsey county, and was tried before a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and he appeals from the order denying the same to this court. ■ A full statement of the case, so far as the questions raised on the appeal are concerned, appears in the opinion of the court.

It appears from the agreed statement of facts in this case, that Wilkinson, Stetson & Co., were the owners and holders of a promissory note made by said Peter Winne and one Cooley as partners, dated March 21, 1856, payable nine months after date. Winne died before the note matured, and was at the time of his death a resident of Pamsey county, where he left real and personal property.

This action was brought in the district court for Washington county, against George W. Taylor, Mackey and others, to set aside a foreclosure sale of certain real estate mortgaged by the plaintiff to the defendant Taylor, and all deeds and agreements respecting such real estate subsequent to such' foreclosure, and for leave to redeem the property, &c. The facts are substantially as follows : On the 23d January, 1861, the plaintiff executed to the defendant Taylor a 'mortgage…

The plaintiff applied to the district court for Ramsey county for a writ of mandamus, to be directed to ¥m. R. Marshall, president, Peter Berkey, treasurer, and ¥m. H. Kelley, secretary of the St. Paul Bridge Company, commanding them to issue to the plaintiff certificates for 17i[-shares of the capital stock of said company. An alternative writ of mandamus was granted.

This action was brought in the district court for Scott county and was tried by the court, without a jury. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner in fee, and in possession of certain lands described therein, and that the defendant claims some estate or interest in the land adverse to the plaintiff, and that the claim of defendant is unfounded in fact and in law, or in equity, and is a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title.

Mrs. Kate C. Howe, wife of L. C. Howe, held by assignment a certificate of sale of certain school lands situated in Olmsted county, issued by the State of Minnesota, entitling her to a patent therefor, on payment of the purchase money, as therein mentioned; this she assigned, by an instrument in writing, executed by herself and husband, to the defendant.

The plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendant before a justice of the peace. The defendant appealed to the district court for McLeod county.

Upon tbe relation of David Loring, an order to show-cause was made by the Hon. John M. Berry, associate justice of this court, requiring Fred. B. Benedict, county auditor for Winona county, and Samuel S. Beman, to appear in this court, at the January term, 1870, and show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding the said Fred. B. Benedict to issue and deliver to the relator, a certificate showing his election to the office of register of deeds of said county.

This action was commenced in the court of common pleas of the county of Ramsey, by Anna Burke and William Burke, her husband, in January, 1869, to recover damages of the defendant, for alleged breaches for covenants in deed executed by the defendant to the said Anna Burke, in June, 1859. Issue was joined, and the cause tried before a jury who found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

This action was brought -iii the district court for Hennepin county to foreclose a'mortgage.

This action was commenced in the district court for Pice county, to recover the amount of certain pieces of scrip issued by the town of Freedom to pay bounty to soldiers volunteering from said town to serve in the army of the United States, with accrued interest thereon. The defendant demurred to the complaint.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court upon the relation of John F. Atherton, directed to Lyman A. Sherwood, commanding him’ to deliver to said relator, the seal, books, records, papers, and all other things whatsoever belonging to the office of clerk of the district court of Mower county, Minnesota, or that he appear before the court and show cause, &c. The matters recited in the writ, and the proceedings in this court are fully stated in the opinion…

The district court for the county of LeSueur, upon the petition of the plaintiff, appointed commissioners to ascertain and determine the compensation to be paid the defendant for the right of way for plaintiff’s railroad over certain lands of the defendant, described in the petition, consisting of a farm and certain town lots. The defendant appealed to said court from the award of said commissioners, and a trial was had therein before a jury.

A full statement is made in this case on the appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. (See statement preceding last opinion.) After judgment was entered upon the verdict, the plaintiff made a motion .to set aside the judgment, and all subsequent proceedings, which was denied, and it appeals from the order denying the same to this court.

The plaintiff commenced an action in the district court tor Kamsey county, to recover of the defendants the sum of $109.05, with interest.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in the district court for Pice county, who claimed to be in possession of certain real estate in that county, against the defendant as one claiming “an estate or interest therein, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate or interest.” The cause was tried before a referee, who found for the defendant, and judgment was entered for the dismissal of the action, and for costs against the plaintiff.

This action was brought in the district court for Washington county, by Tozer & Schow as plaintiffs and partners, to recover for certain logs alleged to have been sold to the defendants Cover & Hershey as partners. The defendant Hershey answered, denying all the allegations of the complaint, except the allegation of the partnership of the plaintiffs.

This action was commenced in the district co'nrt for Blue Earth county, and was tried before a referee, who states the issues and his findings of facts in the case as follows : This is an action' brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, the American Express Company, as a common carrier of goods, wares and merchandise, and charging that the said defendant as such carrier, on the 29th of April 1867, in consideration of a reasonable compensation to be paid therefor,…

An appeal is taken in this case, by the defendant, from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, denying his application to open a judgment entered against him, on default, and to allow him to defend the action. The questions raised on the appeal are fully presented in the opinion of the court. I. — The appellant claims that the summons and complaint in this action were served upon him on the 19th clay of May, 1869.

James M. Thompson, as treasurer of Blue Earth county, instituted proceedings under seo. 93, oh. 11, Gen. 8tat. against James B. Tinkcom for the collection of certain taxes assessed to said Tinkcom upon personal property. The proper affidavit was filed, and the usual order to show cause was duly issued. Tinkcom duly appeared and filed his answer. IJpon the hearing the court below ordered a dismissal of the proceedings, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, to recover damages to his property and business, occasioned by the falling of a building in process of erection by the. defendants, as contractors, upon a lot adjoining the premises of the plaintiff.

Chester B. Dike brought this action in the district court for Bice county, against Hiram Pool, Charles A. Nazro, Bichard C. Kimball, A. A. Comstock and P. Clement, Jr., as partners under the name of Pool, Nazro, Kimball & Co. Issue was joined, the defendant Clement answering separately, the other defendants jointly. Trial was had before a jury, who found a verdict for plaintiff for $600. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, from which the defendants appeal to this court.

The plaintiff presented a bill to the defendants for certain services as sheriff of Scott county. The commissioners allowed the bill, and the county attorney for that county took an appeal to the district court. In the district court, the cause was dismissed, and the defendants had judgment for costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Tbe plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Namsey county, to recover damages against the defendants, as common carriers, for injury to certain goods of the plaintiffs’ delivered to the defendants at La Crosse to be by them transported to St. Paul. During the progress of the trial certain objections were interposed by the defendants to the admission of evidence, which were overruled by the court, and exceptions taken by defendants.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas, Ramsey county, by the heirs of Gabriel Franchere, against certain hejrs of Charlotte S. Franchere and the administrator of her estate, to compel the conveyance of certain real estate, the title to which, plaintiffs claim, is held by defendants, in trust for them. The court below granted the relief demanded in the complaint, and the defendants appeal from its judgment to this court.

A judgment was entered in this action in the district court for Scott county, in favor of the plaintiff, upon the report of a referee before whom the cause was tried. The defendant appeals from such judgment to this court. The point in the case presented for the decision of the court arises upon the application of the law, to the facts as found by the referee, and such facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The rule, as to the re-argument of cases in this court laid down in Derby & Day vs. Gallwp, 5 Minn. 140, followed.</p>

The defendants were indicted jointly in the district court for Blue Earth and Watonwan counties, in the 6th judicial district, in May, 1867, for maiming one Stevens. The case was brought to trial at the May term, 1868, of said court at Mankato, and resulted in a disagreement of the jury.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Hennepin county, and removed to the district court for that county, where a trial was had before a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff .for $85. The defendant made a motion for a new trial which was denied, and it appeals from the order denying the same to this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the .opinion.

This was an application made to the supreme court for a writ of prohibition directed to the respondents. The application was based upon the following statement in the petition. An Indian chief named Que-we-zance, but who was commonly called Hole-in-the-day, was chief of the Mississippi, Pillager and Lake Winnebagoshish bands of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota.

Tliis action was brought in the district court for Dakota county. The cause was tried before George L. Otis, Esq., referee, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. A case, with exceptions, was settled and allowed on the part of the defendants, and a motion made upon the same to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. The motion was denied, and the defendants appeal to this court. The case is sufficiently presented in the opinion of the court.

The defendants appeal to this court from the judgment of the district court for Blue Earth county. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case.

.This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the plaintiffs Adele Buckholz and Emil Buckholz, her husband, against the defendants, to set aside a.deed executed by the said Adele, to the defendants, on the ground of fraud.

This was a proceeding instituted by the treasurer of Blue Earth county pursuant to Seo. 93, Ohap. 11, Gen. Stat. to enforce the collection of certain taxes against Wm. F. Davidson. A trial was had before the district court for said county, Hon. Horace Austin, judge, presiding, without a jury.

This was an action commenced in the district court for Ramsey county, to foreclose a mortgage executed by Mary S. Lambert and Henry A. Lambert, her husband, to the plaintiff. Since the execution of the mortgage, both of the mortgagors have deceased, and the suit was brought against their heirs, and other parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises.

This action was commenced in the court of common pleas, Ramsey county.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Nice county. The nature of the action, and the points raised upon the appeal, are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Wabasha county, and removed to another justice, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff; defendants appealed to the district court for that county. The district court on motion of defendants, dismissed the action; plaintiff appeals from the order of dismissal to this court. The case, so far as the questions raised by the appeal are concerned, is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The relator, claiming to have been legally elected, at the general election in November, 1869, to the office of treasurer of Morrison county, and that the auditor 'of said county refused to issue to him &■ certificate of his election, applied to the district court for that county, upon affidavit, for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring said auditor to issue to him such certificate.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas, Ramsey county. The defendant Eames only, appeared and answered. The cause was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. It appears (from the paper book) that on the 20th of N ovember, 1867, the plaintiff, who was master of the steamboat “Ben.

This action was brought in the district court for Goodhue county, and was taken to this court by the defendants who appealed from an order of that court denying their motion' for a new trial.

This action was brought in the district court for Pamsey county, under section 8, of chapter 4, of the laws of 1862, to enforce an alleged lien for taxes levied for the years 1857, 1858 and 1859, by the city of Saint Paul, on two lots belonging to the defendant in said city, and paid by the plaintiff, through a purchase of said lots at a tax sale on the 21st day of March, T863.

This action was commenced in the district court for Wabasha county, in the third judicial district, and a writ of attachment was allowed by the court commissioner for that county on the 2d day of April, 1869.

The plaintiffs sued in the district court for Olmsted county, to recover damages of the defendant, for the non-performatice of a contract.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas, Ramsey county, resulting in a verdict for plaintiffs. Defendant' moved for a new trial, which was denied and he appeals to this court.

This action was commenced in the district court for Meeker county, and was tried- before the court without a jury. The facts were substantially. as follows: The defendant Tainter furnished one Robinson Jones with a land warrant, which he used in paying the United States for certain land applied for and purchased by him under the preemption act of September 4,1841.

This action was brought in the district court for Dakota county, against the defendant Davidson, and Harvey T. Eumsey, to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by the explosion of the boiler of the steamboat “John Eumsey,” and is of the same character as that of McMahan vs. Davidson, 12 Mmn. 35J, and of Fay vs. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523; the explosion in this case being the one mentioned in said cases.