Volume 16 — Minnesota Reports

The defendants in this action appeal from a final order made therein by the district court for Carver coun ty, upon summary application of the plaintiff, after judgment. The nature of the order, and the circumstances in which it was made, are fully stated in the opinion.

This action was commenced in the district court for Stearns county, against the defendant, who was sheriff of the county, to recover possession of two horses and two halters.

This action was commenced in the district court for Mower county, to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title to certain lands in said county. The defendants Bawsons answered separately; the other defendants answered saying they had no interest in the premises. The following facts were found substantially, by the referee before whom the ease was tried.

This action was commenced in the district court for Hennepin county. A jury trial was had and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff by direction of the court. The defendant thereupon moved for a new trial upon the case, and appeals to tliis court from the order denying his motion. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Appeal by tbe defendants from a judgment of tbe court of common pleas for tbe county of Ramsey, and from an order of tbe court affirming tbe clerk’s taxation of tbe costs. Tbe issues made by tbe pleadings appear in tbe opinion. Tbe action was referred by order made in open court at a general term, upon consent of parties, and entered by tbe clerk in bis minutes, but not signed by the judge. The action was tried before tbe referee and finally submitted April 20th, 1868.

Tlie complaint, alleging that the plaintiff Abigail A. Atkinson was the owner in fee of certain lands in Meeker county, which had been mortgaged by the defendants to one James A. Cook, and purchased by Mrs. Atkinson at a sale on foreclosure by advertisement of said mortgage, prayed that a sheriff’s certificate of redemption, by the defendants, of the mortgaged lands, might be declared null and void, and that the plaintiffs’ title to the lands might be affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe district court for Carver county. So much of tbe pleadings, evidence and proceedings in the action as are necessary to a full understanding of tbe case, are stated in tbe opinion.

Motion to quash a writ of certiorari, issued upon the petition of the defendant, to the city justice of the city of St. Cloud, and in obedience to which the said city justice had made a return to this court of all the proceedings before, him in this case. Tlie facts alleged in the petition for the writ, and the points upon which the motion was decided, are folly stated .. in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought m the district court for Meeker county to recover rent of a grist mill let by plaintiffs to defendants ; to recover damages for non-performance by the defendants of certain articles contained in the agreement of lease; and to recover possession of the leased juemises, as upon a forfeiture of the lease by reason of such non-performance of their agreement by the defendants. The action was referred to Geo.

This action was brought by the assignee of one Hills, a bankrupt, upon a promissory note made by one Stone to the order of defendant Stevenson, and by him indorsed. Stone made default, and Stevenson defended on the ground that the, note was indorsed by him without consideration moving to him, and before the same was signed by the maker.

Writ of error to tbe district court for Nicollet county, in which court tbe defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, upon an indictment for murder in tbe first degree, and moved for a new trial, on the minutes of tbe court, which was denied. Tbe case is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.

This is an appeal from an order opening and setting aside a judgment entered in the district court for Hennepin county, upon default, and granting defendants leave to answer. The order appealed from was necessarily made by the judge of an adjoining district. The points presented by the appeal are folly stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, and was tried by a referee, who reported judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved in the court below for judgment, notwithstanding the report, and for a new trial, upon the ground that the report was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Le Sueur county in favor of defendants. This case was formerly in this court (14 Minn. 97), and as questions of practice only are considered in this appeal, which are stated, in the opinion, no further statement is necessary.

Action upon an account stated, commenced in the district court for Stearns county, against Myrick and one II. Gager, as co-partners in the firm of II. Gager. Myrick alone answered the complaint, interposing a general denial. Upon a trial by jury in the court below, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant Myrick appeals to this court from the order of the district court denying his motion for a new trial.

This action was brought in the district court for Dakota county, to recover the sum of $400, as money received by tbe defendant in three equal annual installments, from divers Baptist churches in the State of Minnesota, for the use oí the plaintiff and to be paid to him. The action was tried by a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff. Prom the judgment entered upon the report the defendant appeals. Wie case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Paul, before -whom the defendant had been convicted of a violation of a city ordinance of that city. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in tbe district court for Carver county, to recover the amount claimed to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant upon certain orders drawn by the defendant upon the treasurer of Carver county, and payable to the persons named therein or bearer.

Tbe defendant was convicted in tbe district court for Hennepin county, upon an indictment for grand larceny, and moved for a new trial upon a bill of exceptions. This appeal is taken from tbe order of the district court refusing a new trial. Tbe case is fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

This action was commenced in the court of common pleas of Kamsey county, against Henry Wambaugh and Alois Fox. Pending the suit Henry Wambaugh died and his administrators were substituted for him as defendants. The plaintiffs, in their complaint, asked that a certain mortgage executed by them to Henry Wambaugh, be decreed to be released as of the date of October 24-, 1858, and to be cancelled and discharged of record, and that a foreclosure of the same might be declared void.

The defendant, being the owner of a note secured by a mortgage upon lands in Hennepin county, executed by one Henry Sholl and wife, assigned the same to the plaintiff, receiving in exchange three notes made by the plaintiff to defendant as payee, and secured by a mortgage upon land of plaintiff in the same county.

The plaintiff, oemg m possession of certain premises in the city of St. Paul, brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, seeking to reform the descriptions in certain deeds forming a part of his chain of title, to quiet his title to the premises described in such deeds as sought to be corrected, and to bar the defendants from asserting any claim thereto The defendants answered, setting up title in themselves to certain premises described in the answer, (and…

This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Bamsey county, to compel the specific performance by the defendants of a contract to convey lands in that .county* The cause having been tried by the court without a jury, the judge found the facts as follows: On the first day of June, 1867, the defendants executed and delivered to the plaintiff a bond and agreement for a warranty deed of the premises described in the complaint, which were the separate property of. the…

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Washington county, against John Battin and wife, L. M. Brown, and R. W. Hamilton. The material facts alleged in the complaint are, as follows: Battin was the owner of certain real estate, upon which he and his wife executed a mortgage to defendant Hamilton. No note, bond, or other evidence of indebtedness accompanied the mortgage; it was never recorded and is lost.

The plaintiff brought this suit in the district court for Washington county.

A similar action between the same parties was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the same attorneys for the plaintiffs, and the same demurrer interposed therein to the complaint, as in this case, by the same attorneys for the defendants. Tho case in Hennepin county is reported 15 Minn. 406, and no further statement is necessary.

This action was brought'in the district court for Hennepin county, to restrain the defendants from selling on execution certain premises claimed by the plaintiff as his homestead. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-half of two lots in Brown & Jackin’s addition to Minneapolis, and had owned and occupied said premises as his homestead, residing thereon with his family, for the past seven years.

This action was commenced in the district court for Scott county. Held: occupied and received the rents, issues and profits thereof without the consent and against the will of said plaintiff, and her rights therein and thereto have been by said defendants wholly denied and disregarded, to the damage of said plaintiff in the sum of $ 100. “ Third.

This action was brought in the district court for Dakota county, and referred to George L. Otis, Esq., as sole referee; and tried before him. The facts as disclosed on the trial, were substantially as follows: The parties made a verbal agreement or an arrangement for the sale of certain real estate at a stipulated price, of which $1,000 was to be paid in cash at the time of the delivery of the deed, and the balance in one and two years, secured by a mortgage on the land.

This action was brought in the district court for Olmsted county and was dismissed upon the application of plaintiff before trial. The defendant appeals to this court from the order of dismissal.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Wright county, denying a motion for a new trial. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced in the district court for Ramsey county against John Curtis and Edgar Nash, partners as Curtis & Nash, to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. Judgment was recovered by the plaintiff in that court, and the defendants appeal. A very full statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county to recover of the defendant the sum of $100, as a subscriber of that amount to the following contract: “Whereas a negotiation is pending between Nicholas Pottgieser of Ramsey county and State of Minnesota, and the United States, for the sale to the United States of a site for a custom house or post office building for the city of St. Paul, in said county, on block eight'of said city, at the crossing of Fifth and…

The above parties to a matter in dispute, submitted the same to tbe district court for Washington county pursuant to section 7 of chapter 82 of General Statutes.

<p>Action commenced Dec. 27th, 1869, on a judgment recovered by appellant and G. against respondent Dec. 23, 1857. G. assigned to appellant in 1869. Kespondent had paid $275 on Aug. 31, 1865. Meld, that ch. 60, sea. 24 of the Compiled Statutes, which in the revision of the statutes was dropped, and Gen. Stat. oh. 66, see. 24 adopted in its place, was not applicable, the case not being within the provision of Gen. Stat. ch. 121, sea. 4, that the repeal of said statute should not affect any right accruing, accrued, or establish!, d when said General Statutes took effect.</p> <p>The jury were rightly instructed that the action could not be maintained urfiess the appellant proved a payment made on the judgment under such circumstances as would warrant the jury in inferring a promise on his part to pay the balance.</p> <p>They were also rightly instructed that such payment must be a part payment, and that it must be unaccompanied by any circumstances which repel the idea of an intention to pay the balance.</p> <p>The jury were instructed that if the $215 was paid in full of the judgment by respondent, and not merely as a part payment thereof, there was nothing to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations. Held, correct</p> <p>At the time of payment, appellant for himself and Gr. executed and delivered to respondent a paper, whereby “ for value received” they acknowledged satisfaction of said judgment, and authorized the same to be discharged of record. Held, competent evidence for the respondent upon the question as to whether said payment was made in full of said judgment, or only on account.</p> <p>Appellant offered to prove that before such payment he told Gr. that respondent was in town, and had $215, and said that was all he then had, and offered to pay it on the judgment, and if he became able to pay the balance, he would do it, and that G. told appellant to take the money ; and also G.’s statement that he never gave appellant any other authority to fix it up. Held, that as such evidence had no tendency to show how the payment was in fact afterwards made, it was inadmissible upon the issue as to whether or not the action was barred by the statute of limitations.</p>

This case was tried in the district court for Ramsey coun_ ty and a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals therefrom to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, denying a motion for a new trial. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendant in this action appeals from the judgment of the district court for Wabasha county. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in this case appealed from an award of commissioners assessing the damages for land taken by-defendant for its road. The appeal was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, giving him a much larger sum than the award as damages.The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was granted; and the plaintiff appeals from the order granting the same, to this court.

Upon the petition of the defendant, the Hon. S. J. B. McMillan, one of the associate justices of the supreme court, appointed commissioners to appraise lands taken or to be taken by defendant for the use of its road.

The defendant, Thomas Courtney, Edward McGovern, Edward J. Pauline and Benjamin P. Zaracher, were indicted together for murder, committed in the organized county of Saint Louis, to which the unorganized counties of Lake, Carlton and Itasca are attached for judicial purposes. The indictment was entitled in the counties of St. Louis, Lake, Carlton and Itasca, and the grand jury who found it were selected from such counties.

This case comes to this court from the court of common pleas, Ramsey county, and is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff m this action appeals to this court from a judgment of the district court for Nicollet county, entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The case is fully stated in .the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced in the district court for Washington county, and was tried before a referee.

This case comes to this court from the court of common pleas, Ramsey county, and is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Olmsted county, to recover the value of four horses and a buggy, alleged to be plaintiff’s property and detained by defendant, with damages. Both parties claimed title to the property by purchase from one Reynolds. A trial was had before a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, and from an order denying the same, he appeals to this court.

The defendant in this action appeals to this court from judgment of the district court for Dakota county. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff appeals to this court from an order of the district court for Blue Earth county denying its motion for a new trial. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Steele county, demanding damages for the overflowing of his land, occasioned by the defendant’s mill-dam, an injunction against the maintenance of the dam, and its abatement.

Tbis action was commenced in tbe court- of common pleas, Ramsey county, against the Minnesota Plastic Slate Roofing Company, a corporation, and three of the stockholders therein, to recover the amount of a judgment whioh had been recovered by the plaintiff in an action against the corporation alone, on which execution had been returned unsatisfied.

Two of the commissioners named in, the act of the legislature entitled “An act to locate and establish a state road from tbe city of St Paul, in the county of Ramsey, to the city of St. Anthony, in the county of Hennepin,” approved March 7, 1870, in pursuance of the provisions of said act, located and established said road across the lands of the plaintiffs.

This action was commenced in the district court of Hennepin county, and was tried before a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff- The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment was entered on the verdict. Notice of appeal was given by the defendant from the order denying the motion for a new trial, and from the judgment.

This action was commenced in the district court for Rice county. The complaint alleges that defendant executed to plaintiffs a promissory note in the following words: “ $200 00 Ninety days after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Sheffield & Leary two hundred dollars, at H Wilson & Co.’s bank, with interest at seven per cent. Faribault, April 3d, 1868.

The plaintiff, a minor, by Michael Power his guardian ad litem, brought this action in the district court for Waseca county, for the wrongful taking and conversion by defendant of' a span of horses, the property of the plaintiff. The complaint alleged the minority of the plaintiff, his ownership and possession of the horses, and the wrongful taking and conversion thereof by the defendant.

This action was brought in the district court for Carver county, issue was joined, and a trial had which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was granted as follows: “ The plaintiff does not appear to have been guilty of any fault in the premises, and must therefore be indemnified for his expenses.

Thir action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Rice county, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court.

action was commenced in the district court for Mower county, to recover damages for the wrongful taking and conversion of certain personal property. Issue was joined and the case tried before a referee.

A trial was had in this action in the court of common pleas, Ramsey county, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was enied, and he appeals from the order denying the same to this court. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of common pleas for Ramsey county. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendants in this action are W. W. Phelps, Theodore B. Sheldon, Christopher Cogel and Martin S. Chandler. Judgment was rendered therein January 30th, 1863, granting certain equitable relief to the defendants, Phelps and Sheldon, and other parties thereto, and adjudging that defendants Phelps and Sheldon pay to the plaintiff his costs. On the 9th day of July, 1870, the plaintiff caused execution to issue on said judgment for his costs.

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 seized in feo simple, and possessed of the title in and to certain lands described therein, and that the same is vacant and unoccupied land, and that the defendant claims some estate or interest therein adverse to the plaintiff; and demands judgment declaring the adverse claim void.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe court of common pleas of Ramsey county. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted in the district court for the county of Olmsted, for the crime of “uttering and publishing as true, a false and forged promissory note for the payment of money, knowing the same to be false and forged with intent to injure and defraud ” As a matter of fact, the note upon which the indictment was predicated, never had any internal revenue stamp attached to it, and to the end that the legal question might be determined without incurring the expense…

The defendant was indicted in the district court for Ramsey county, for keeping a house of ill-fame, resorted to for purposes of prostitution, in the city of Saint Paul. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled; and thereupon the defendant interposed the following pleas: “The defendant pleads that she is not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.

This action was Drought m the district court for Ramsey county, by the plaintiff, against Vm. F. Davidson, Joseph M. Marshall, and Joseph M. Marshall, trustee, &c., and others, and was tried without a jury, and resulted in a finding in favor of defendants. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and he appeals from the order denying the same to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court

This action was brought in tho district court for Blue Earth county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals to this court from the judgment entered upon such verdict. A sufficient statement of the case is given in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the defendants, from an order of the district court for Washington county. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Blue Earth county, sustaining a demurrer to the answer. It is impossible to give a fuller statement of the case, than is contained in the opinion of the court, without using more space than the importance of the case would justify.

In this case an appeal was taken by the plaintiff to tbe district court for Washington county, from an award of commissioners assessing damages for land-taken by defendant. The cause was tried, the jury rendering a verdict for plaintiff for a much larger sum than the award. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted, and from the order granting the same the plaintiff appeals to this court. The questions passed upon by this court are stated in the opinion.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Washington county, striking out a demurrer to the complaint as frivolous. The substance of the complaint appears in the opinion of the court.

Appeal by one of the defendants from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. A statement of the allegations of the complaint is unnecessary, as the case is fully presented in the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, made by the judge at chambers in supplementary proceedings on return of execution unsatisfied, requiring the defendant to appear .and disclose concerning his property.

This action was brought in the district court for Scott county, “to determine adverse claim to real property,” and was tried by the court, without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals therefrom to this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Courts will take judicial notice of public laws and treaties, and of tbe authority conferred by them upon the President of the United States, but not of the fact that authority conferred upon him to do an act affecting but a small number of persons, and those not citizens of the United States has been exercised.</p> <p>A complaint which alleges the sale of certain pieces of Chippewa land scrip, of a value stated, as a consideration for a promise to pay a certain sum of money, when the source or origin of the scrip does not in any manner appear, states a sufficient consideration for the promise.</p>

The defendant appeals from a judgment of the district court for Le Sueur county. As the case is decided upon a question of- practice simply, which appears fully in the opinion of the court, uo further statement is* necessary.