Volume 19 — Minnesota Reports

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, and was tried by the court without a jury. The defendant Bickford, who alone answered the complaint, appeals to this court from the decretal order of the district court, directing that the. account to the plaintiff for the proceeds of certain real estate fraudulently conveyed to him by the defendant Lewis. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

In tbe month of March, 1870, one Colter, being then the owner of a tract of land in Washington county, subject to a mortgage for $4,000, sold and conveyed tbe same to the defendant G-riff H.’ Rogers, who agreed to assume tbe mortgage and to secure the unpaid purchase money by a mortgage for $2,250 on other lands belonging to him.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Ramsey county, and was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment was ordered for the defendant Ramsey, (who alone answered the complaint,) for the affirmative relief asked by him in his answer. The plaintiff appeals, from an order refusing a new trial. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

In the year 1855, the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff certain lands in Hennepin county by warranty deed, absolute in form but intended as a security for a loan then made, and further loans: to be made, by plaintiff to defendant. For the loans then and subsequently made the defendant gave to the plaintiff his promissory notes bearing various rates of interest, but all providing for interest after maturity at upwards of two per ce“nt. per month.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of the district court for Olmsted county. The action was in the nature of trespass de bonis asportatis, and as the only question discussed in this court, is as to whether the court below erred in its instruction to the jury in regard to the measure of damages, and such instruction is given at length in the opinion, further statement is unnecessary.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to determine the adverse claim of the defendants to certain unoccupied land in that county, which he claimed to own in fee. The defendants, (except Sumner W. Farnham,) in their answer denied plaintiff’s ownership of the land, claimed title in fee in themselves, and asked that their .title be quieted and confirmed. ' Upon the trial before the court, a jury being waived, the following facts appeared.

The defendant was tried in the district court for Fillmore couuty upon the indictment set forth at length in the following opinion, and was convicted of manslaughter in the fourth degree. The district judge reported the case to this court upon a motion in arrest of judgment for alleged insufficiency of the indictment, and for'errors at the trial. As the opinion deals only with the questions upon the indictment, it. is not necessary to state the exceptions taken at the trial.

The defendant was arraigned in the district court for Nicollet county upon an indictment charging that, at a time and place therein mentioned, he “ did falsely make, forge, alter and counterfeit a certain false, forged, altered and counterfeited accountable receipt for personal property, to-wit: an elevator ticket for wheat; which false, forged, altered and counterfeited accountable receipt for personal property, to-wit: an elevator ticket for wheat, is of the tenor…

<p>This was a proceeding commenced in this court, the nature of which is stated in the opinion.</p>

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Olmsted county. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This cause was tried in the district court for Hennepin county, and a special verdict rendered therein. The defendant moved for a judgment upon the record for the relief asked in the answer, and at the same time plaintiffs moved for •a new trial upon the case settled in the action. The court granted the new trial, without discussing or deciding the motion for judgment.

The relators are the purchasers and grantees of purchasers at the sale of certain real estate sold under order of sale of the probate court of Ramsey county, by the executor of John Spencer, deceased, and they seek in this proceeding to prevent the said court, by writ of prohibition, from setting aside the order of sale, and the proceedings thereunder, and confirmation of sale, and from entertaining an application for that purpose.

This action was brought in .the district court for Rams&y county, to recover the value of a quantity of wheat alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, and to have been converted by the defendants. The cause was tried before a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint. The defendants moved in the district court for an order to vacate and set aside such report, and for a new trial.

The plaintiffs, Charles F. Davis and Lewis Clark, partners as Davis & Clark, brought suit against Spratt in the district court for Stearns county, to recover for goods sold and delivered to him, and summoned Mendenhall as garnishee. The garnishee summons was duly served on the garnishee on the 26th May, 1871.

This is an action for partition, brought in the district court for Ramsey county by John B. Cook against Isaac W. Webb and the heirs of Stephen R. Champlin, deceased. A trial before the court resulted in a judgment for partition, from which the defendant Webb hppeals to this court.

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

The plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Wabasha county, alleging in their complaint that they were the owners in fee of -certain real estate therein described, and that the defendant had.unlawfully entered upon such premises, and cut and carried away timber, &c., therefrom; and claiming damages, &c. The defendant, in his answer, denied that the plaintiffs owned the -real estate, and claimed title in himself to the lands from which he cut the timber, &c.…

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the second indorsee of a negotiable note against the maker. The defendant in his answer alleged that the note was not transferred by the payee until after its maturity, and that, prior to such transfer, the defendant had become the assignee of a debt due from the payee to the defendant’s father, greater in amount than the sum due upon the note.

The plaintiff in this action was one of the defendants in the suit of McLean vs. Burbank, et al. reported 11 Minn. 277, and 12 Minn. 530, and is an assignee of the other defendants therein. Raving paid the amount of the judgment recovered in that snit, he brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover from the defendant the damages thereby sustained by him.

This is an appeal, by the plaintiff, from the order of the court of common pleas of the county of Ramsey, sustaining a general demmrer to the complaint. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

This action was brought in the district court for McLeod county to recover of the defendant certain moneys alleged to have been received by him as treasurer of said county, and which he had failed to pay over or account for. Defendant admitted the receipt of the money, &c., and alleged as matter of defense that the same had been stolen from a safe furnished him by the plaintiffs in which to deposit his funds.

The material allegations of the complaint in this action were substantially, that the plaintiffs are - the owners of certain lands therein described ; that one John C. Goss, plaintiffs’ grantor, before conveyance to them executed his promissory note and a mortgage upon the said lands to secure its payment to the defendant, then a minor; that Alexis Bailly, the guardian of the defendant, sold and transferred said note to the firm of Downer & Prindle; that the plaintiffs paid…

Ail appeal is taken in this case by the defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, denying his motion for a new trial. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Blue Earth county, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed to the district court for said county, upon questions of law alone, and the judgment of the justice was affirmed. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the district court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff brought this action in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county to recover damages for injuries occasioned by the overturning of his buggy as he was driving-through Seventh street in the City of St. Paul, at a place where that street crosses a deep ravine upon a high embankment, made by the city for the purpose of carrying the street across the ravine.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Ramsey county, to recover the value of certain stoves, plows and other goods, the property of the plaintiff, which were burned in the warehouse of the defendant at Willmar. The action was tried by .a jury, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. This appeal is taken by the defendant from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

On application of the defendant, commissioners were appointed to assess the compensation to be paid to tbe plaintiff, and other landrowners, for land sought to be taken by defendant for its railway. The commissioners made and filed their report on the 27th of September, 1871.

In August, 1872, the plaintiff in error, John S. Prince, was prosecuted, in the name of the city of St. Paul, before the city' justice, for acting as an agent of a foreign fire insurance company within said city, without payment of license as required # by ordinance passed by the common council of said city, under the revised charter of 1868.

The plaintiff in error, Samuel H. Chute, was indicted in the district court of Hennepin county. He demurred to the indictment, and his demurrer was overruled, and trial had, resulting in conviction. He removes the cause to this court by writ of error. The nature of the offense charged, and the alleged errors fully appear in the opinion of the court. I. Defendant’s demurrer to- the indictment should have been sustained. The indictment is bad on account of duplicity.

In this case, as in the cases of Simmons, and Grannis, against tbe same defendant, (18 Minn. 184; id. 194,) an appeal was taken from the report of commissioners appointed under the defendant’s charter to make an appraisal and award for lands taken by the defendant for the purpose of its road, to the district court for Goodhue county. Upon the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

This action was brought in the district court for Blue Barth county against the makers and endorsers of a promissory note, bearing date August 15, 1869, payable one year thereafter to the order of Thompson & Parsons, and endorsed in the name of that firm. The defendant Parsons alone answered the complaint.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court for Ramsey county, entered upon the report of a referee. The opinion and the cases cited therein contain a full statement of the origin of the thirteen bonds, upon one of which the present action is brought.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover damages for injuries occasioned, as he claimed, by his stepping into a hole in the sidewalk on Hennepin avenue, in the city of Minneapolis, while walking on said sidewalk on the night of the 11th of March, 1871.

This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county, and was tried before a referee, whose conclusion of law upon the facts found by him was, “ that the plaintiffs have no cause of action.” A motion for a new trial was made by the plaintiffs before the court, and from its order 'denying such motion they appeal.

After verdict for the plaintiffs in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county the defendants moved upon a bill of exceptions for a new trial, and they appeal to this court from the order denying such motion. The substance of the pleadings, and the exceptions taken at the trial, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Complaint was made in August, 1871, before tbe recorder of tbe borough of St. Peter, charging Jacob Bauer, tbe defendant, with selling spirituous liquors within said borough, without having obtained a license therefor, contrary to the ordinances of the borough. The recorder issued a warrant under which the defendant was arrested and brought before him, and thereupon a venire for a jury.

This action was commenced in the district court for Hennepin county, by Ann I. Hoag as plaintiff. During the pendency of the action she died, and Charles Hoag, sole devisee of her estate, and executor of her will, was substituted as plaintiff, by stipulation. The case comes to this court upon an appeal from an order overruling defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint.

This is an action of ejectment, brought in the district court, for Blue Earth county, to recover possession of the north half of the northwest quarter of section 32, in township 109, north of range 20, west, situate in said county.

The complaint alleges that on the 5th November, 1861, two judgments were recovered and docketed in said court in favor of plaintiff and against Isaiah.

This action was commenced in tbe district court for Scott county, and came to this court on an appeal taken by the plaintiff from an order of that court denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict which had been rendered therein for the defendants. Such order was reversed by this court, and said district court was by its mandate directed to enter judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note sued on, notwithstanding the verdict.

The plaintiffs, partners as “ Vose & Co.” brought this action in the district court for Washington county, to recover the value of certain goods, wares and merchandize alleged in the complaint to be their property, and to have been wrongfully taken and carried away by the defendant and converted to his own use.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Blue Earth county, to enforce the specific performance ■ of an alleged contract of the defendants for the conveyance of certain lands described in the complaint, and to recover the consideration already paid by him, in case the defendants, for want of title, should be unable to convey.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, denying a motion for a new trial. The case is fully stated in the opinion. cited (in addition to the cases cited and relied upon in the opinion,) Woods vs. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Wis.; Angle vs. M. & M. Ry. Co., 9 Iowa, 488. cited Converse vs. Norwich & N. Y. Trans.

This action was commenced in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, and was, by consent of parties, transferred to the district court for the same county and tried by the court without a jury. This appeal is taken by the plaintiffs from an order .denying their motion for a new trial. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the nature of the action, the substance of the pleadings and the disposition made of the case in the court below.

Paul, before whom the plaintiff in error had been convicted of &• violation of an ordinance of the city, and had been sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-four dollars. The ordinance is set forth at length in the opinion, with so much of the charter of the city as is necessary for a full understanding of the case.

In this action an appeal was taken by the defendant from the order of the court of common pleas of Ramsey county, denying his motion for a new trial. The appeal was argued at the January term 1S71. (Wintermute vs. Stinson, 16 Minn. 468.) After the appeal was argued, but before the decision was rendered, the defendant moved in the court below for a new trial on the ground of surprise occurring at the trial, and of newly discovered evidence.

This action was brought in the district court for Olmsted county. The complaint alleges that the defendants were agents of the plaintiff for the sale of sewing machines, under a written contract, set forth in the complaint, made between the plaintiff and the firm of Lord, Taylor & Compton, to which-firm the defendants, as the firm of Lord, Taylor & Co., had succeeded.

This is an appeal by defendants from an order of the district court, for Dakota county, denying tbeir motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiffs. Motions to dismiss the appeal, and to strike from the record the settled “ case,” were made to this court, on the grounds stated in the opinion.

Plaintiff, a sub-contractor, brought this action to recover for work and labor performed by him for defendants in the construction of the First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad. The schedule annexed to the complaint included, among other items, a charge for excavating 2,800 yards in January, 1869, and a charge for extra work on section 32. Both these items were put in issue by the answer.

This action was brought in the district court, for Olmsted county, to recover possession of two bales of cotton cloth, the property of plaintiffs ; the object of the action ’ being to test the constitutionality of Chap. 24, of the General Laws of 1871, entitled, “ An act- to regulate the carrying of freight and passengers on all railroads in this state,” which took effect, by its terms, May 1, 1871. ” The goods were sent by the plaintiffs from Chicago, Illinois, by railroad,…

Chapter 24 of the General Laws of 1871, after establishing maximum rates of freight for the carriage of goods and passengers on all railroads in the state, provides, sec. 9, “ If any railroad company shall demand or receive higher rates for such transportation than are established by this act, it shall be deemed to have misused its powers and violated the terms on which its charter and franchises were granted ; * * and it is hereby made the duty of the attorney general * * *…

This action was commenced in the district court for Dakota Bounty, to recover the purchase price of a reaper, and was afterwards transferred by stipulation to the district court for Ramsey county. The principal issue between tbe parties was as,to whether the reaper was sold to the defendant, or one Andrew Jordan, between whom and John Rhodes, one of the agents of the plaintiffs, the transaction in regard to the sale took place. The action, was tried before a referee.

This is an appeal by defendants from the order qf the district court for Chisago county, denying their motion for a new trial. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment commenced in the court of common pleas for Bamsey county. It was admitted that on the ó5th day of February, 1851, one Charles K. Smith, since deceased, was the owner of the premises in dispute. The plaintiffs claim as his widow, and heirs-at-law, the defendant, through intermediate conveyances, from the purchaser at a foreclosure sale under a mortgage executed by said Charles K. Smith to one Vetal Guerin.

In this case an appeal was taken by Lehmicke, as administrator of the estate of one Jacob M. Henry, deceased, to the district court for Ramsey county, from the report of the commissioners appointed to assess the damages arising to private individuals from the construction of the railroad of defendant under the provisions of Gen. Stat., ch 34, a portion 'of the lands belonging to said estate being embraced in said report.

The defendant, who was indicted, tried before a jury, and convicted of perjury in the district court for Blue Earth county, appeals from an order of that court denying his motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, to this court. The case, in respect to the errors complained of, is fully stated in the opinion.

This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county, upon a promissory note made by defendant, dated July 8, 1857, payable on demand. The action was commenced in July, 1872.

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county to recover damages for alleged injuries to plaintiff’s land, occasioned by the maintenance of defendant’s boom, and for an injunction restraining the commission of further injurious acts.

The railroad company duly instituted proceedings in the district court for Scott county, .to obtain' the right of way over the land of Richard G. Murphy, and commissioners were duly appointed, and their report was made andfiled. Murphy and the company each appealed to the district court, and both appeals were tried together resulting in a verdict in favor of Murphy for a sum greater than that awarded by the commissioners.

This action was brought in the district court for Olmsted county against the defendant, as a physician and surgeon, for malpractice, resulting in the loss of plaintiff’s right hand. The allegations of the complaint are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the trial the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered against the plaintiff for costs, &c. The case comes to this court by appeal from such judgment.

This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county, and, by consent of parties was referred to James Gilfillan, Esq., who reported a judgment for the defendant. A motion to set aside the report, and for a new trial, was denied by the district court, and judgment was entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. The findings of the referee are stated in the opinion.

Upon the trial of this action in the district court for Ramsey county, the greater part of the evidence offered by the plaintiffs was, under defendant’s objection, excluded by the court. The plaintiffshaving rested their case, the defendant thereupon moved to dismiss the action. The motion was granted, and, pursuant to the order of the court, judgment of dismissal and for costs was .entered in favor oí the defendant, from which judgment the plaintiffs appeal.

This action being at issue in the district court for Olmsted comity, the plaintiffs, on the 10th June, 1872, served upon defendants’ attorney a notice of trial for the special term of the court, appointed by the judge to be held June 24th, 1872, for the trial of civil and criminal cases, and the action, which had never been noticed for trial or placed on the calendar for any general term of the court, was entered on the calendar for such special term.

After the decision of the former appeal in this action (reported 17 Minn., 142), a new trial was had in the district court for Goodhue county, resulting in a verdict for the defendant, under the direction of the court. The plaintiff appeals from an order denying a motion for a new trial. ’ The action was brought to recover possession of a promissory note for $1,500, described in the complaint.