Volume 2 — Minnesota Reports

Tbis was an application by tbe “ Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company,” for a Writ of Mandamus to compel tbe Governor of tbe State of Minnesota to issue bonds to said Company, under tbe provisions of tbe State Constitution, (as amended) providing for the loan of the credit of the State, &c. The Company claimed that they had complied with all the requirements of the Constitution, in the securities tendered to the State, while the Governor claimed that the Deeds of Trust…

This was a judgment in the District Court of Bamsey County, upon a demurrer to an answer. The issue presented in the pleadings, are set forth in the opinion of the Court. (The points and authorities for the respective parties are not on file.)

This was an appeal from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, sustaining a demurrer. The appeal was dismissed, and the points made by counsel on the argument of the cause, were not considered in this Court.

The issues arising in this Court, were presented by the Bill of Exceptions, containing the proceedings had at the trial, and the evidence of the several witnesses examined. Sufficient reference to the Bill of Exceptions is made in the opinion filed, to explain the points decided. The following were the points and authorities of the Appellant’s Counsel: The Court below erred in refusing the motion for a new trial in this cause._ Fi/rst.

Tbis was a writ of error to the District Court of Bamsey County. The Plaintiffs in tbe Court below, Austin Sumner & Co., brought their suit to recover tbe amount of three several promissory notes made by the Defendants, payable to one Daniel Wilson, or bearer, who transferred them to the Plaintiffs after maturity. The notes amounted to thirty-one hundred dollars and interest.

This was an appeal from an order of the Judge.of tbe District Court of Bamsey County, requiring a Plaintiff to enter judgment upon an order overruling a demurrer to a complaint, without waiting to take proofs under an order of reference made in the cause; the complaint being founded upon an equitable cause of action. The following are the points and authorities of counsel for Appellant: First.

This was a Writ of Error to the District Court of Ramsey County, to review a judgment entered in said Court, by virtue of the order appealed from, in the case of Deuel, Appellant, against Hawke, Respondent, decided at this term (ante page 50). The judgment referred to, simply adjudged that the demurrer be overruled with costs to be taxed.

This was an application made by the State Printer, E. S. Goodrich, to the District Court of Eamsey County, for a Writ of Injunction to restrain the Defendant Moore from proceeding with the publication of the journals and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, presided over by the Hon. St. A. D. Ealcombe, during the months of July and August, 1857, which journals and proceedings the Plaintiff claimed, were part and parcel of the printing required by law to be done by…

This is a question of costs. It appears from the judgment roll in the Court below, that the Defendant (Gressy,) was entitled to costs against the Plaintiff, and served his notice of taxation thereof upon Plaintiff’s Attorneys, for the last day of April, 1858, and claims allowance of the following items, to wit: Costs by Statute before notice of trial, - $5,00 Subsequent proceeding before trial, ... 7,00 Trial Fee,.........15,00 Witness Fees — F. J. Becknell 6 days, 12 miles,…

This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Ramsey County. The facts stated in the complaint are briefly stated in the opinion of the Court. Issue was joined upon a portion of these allegations, hut upon the trial of the cause, the Defendants below moved to dismiss the cause, because the complaint did not contain facts sufficient to constitute á cause of action. The motion was sustained and judgment rendered against the Plaintiff for the costs of the action.

The following is the description of the note upon which this action was brought, as contained in the complaint: “ That the Defendants heretofore at St. Paul, made their promissory note in writing, bearing date the eleventh day of July, 1855, whereby they promised to pay McLagan & Still-man the sum of ninety-two dollars and fifty cents, twenty days after the date thereof, ” and Plaintiffs claimed that “ the Defendants are justly indebted to them thereon, in the sum of…

This was an action of Replevin commenced in the District Court of Ramsey County, by the Plaintiff Grimes against Defendant Bryne, to recover the possession of a stock of goods and groceries which the Defendant had levied upon “under a warrant of attachment issued by a Justice of the Peace of said County, in an action therein pending wherein the said Grimes was a Defendant.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Bamsey County. The issues in this Court are set forth in the opinion. The Plaintiff filed the following points, on Appeal to the Supreme Court: ' First. The only statutory ground of demurrer specifically assigned is, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Second.

The issues raised in the pleadings, and the facts in the case, are fully stated in the Opinion. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by counsel for the Plaintiff in Error: First. Notwithstanding the verdict, the Plaintiff in Error was entitled to judgment on the pleadings, for these reasons: 1. The Plaintiff below cannot recover in this form of action. He should have sued upon the special contract. 2.

This was an Appeal from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County modifying an order granting a new trial. A motion was made to dismiss the Appeal in this Court, because the order appealed from was not an appealable order. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Appellants.: First.

The facts in this case appear at length in the opinion of the Court. The Appellant’s points and authorities are not on file. The following are the points and authorities of counsel for Respondent: Fvrst.

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY, PROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON REPEREE’S REPORT. The facts appear in the Opinion of the Court. The following are the points relied on by the Appellant: First. The Referee erred in letting in proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witness without showing due diligence in an effort to procure (him) the witness. No foundation was Md for the introduction of secondary testimony. 19 Wendall, 162. Second.

This is an Appeal from a judgment of tbe District Court of Ramsey County, upon a demurrer of an Answer. Tbe issues raised in tbis Court will appear at length in tbe Opinion of tbe Court. The following are the points and authorities of counsel for Appellants: The Court below erred in sustaining the Plaintiff’s demurrer to the Defendant’s answer, in that First. The facts stated in said Defendant’s answer, constitute a good and valid defence to the action.

This was a writ of Error to the District Court of Ramsey County. The issues in this Court are fully stated in the Opinion of the Court. Held: prima facia, either as surety for consideration or as maker, original joint promissor. The facts make the party thus liable.

<p>Sections 1 & 2, Chap. 74, page 388 of Revised Statutes, clearly intends that any one who has the actual possession of land, and consequently is prima fade the owner of the same, may upon that fact alone institute an action against any one who casts a cloud upon his title. The actual possession of the land is the only fact necessary to constitute a cause of action, under the Statute. It is unnecessary to plead all the facts upon which his right to possessionis founded.</p>

Tbis was an Appeal from a judgment in tbe District Court of Hennepin County. Held: That this clause did not apply to a sale • and transfer of a mere settlement and the improvements by a settler, who had not complied with the conditions of the act, and obtained a certificate from the Land Office; but only to rights secured by the act, and evidenced by the certificate.” Vide Taylor vs. Baker, 1st Branch, p. 245.

This was a Writ of Error to the District Court of Ramsey County. The action was commenced in that Court by complaint under Chap. 86, Rev. Statutes, against the Steamboat Reveille by name.

All the facts in these cases appear in the Opinion of the Court. The following are the points and authorities presented by Counsel for the Petitioner: First. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue the writ. Constitution, Art. VI. Sec. 2; R. S., Sec. 5, p. 286. Second. The writ of Mandamus is the proper remedy. 3 Black. Com., 110; Jacob's Law Dic. vol. 4, p. 223; People vs. Steele, 2 Barb, 418. Third.

This was a prosecution on the'part of the City of Saint Paul before 0. Simons, Esq., City Justice of said city agaist Joseph Laidler for a breachof Ordinance No. 19, of said City, the following portions of which applicable to this case, are quoted to wit: “Devised Ordinance, No. 19. An Ordinance regulating the Markets in the City of Saint Paul. “ The Common Council of the City of Saint Paul, do ordain as follows: “ Section 1.

Tbis was a writ of Error _ to tbe District Court of Bamsey County. Tbe issues in tbis Court are presented in tbe Opinion. [Tbe points and authorities of tbe Plaintiffs'Tn Error are not on file.] Tbe following are tbe points and authorities relied on by tbe Defendants in Error. Tbe Court below erred in overruling the Defendants’ demurrer to tbe Plaintiffs’ complaint and in entering j ndgment therein in that, First.

The complaint set forth a bond for a deed for certain lands in Scott County, alleging performance of conditions precedent on tbe part of tbe Plaintiff, and demanding a conveyance of tbe property, by warranty deed, from the Defendant; also, setting forth certain clerical errors in tbe description of tbe lands included in tbe bond, and demanding a specific performance, according to tbe true intent of tbe parties.

Writ of Error to the District Court of Eamsey County. The Defendants • answer was stricken out on motion, with leave to answer, «fee. Judgment was entered upon default. The points and authorities of the respective parties are not on file.

This was a Writ of Error to the District Court of Ramsey County, upon a judgment on demurrer to an indictment. The counsel for the Defendant moved to dismiss the writ, on the ground that a judgment of the District Court cannot be reviewed in this Court on behalf of the People.

This was an appeal from an order of the District Court of Nicollet County, g ranting a new trial. The record contains a Bill of Exceptions containing a full history of the conduct of the trial below, but the only question before this Court, arises upon the correctness of an instruction given to the jury by the Court below, upon the measure of damages under the pleadings, which instruction, is quoted in full in the opinion filed in this Court.

<p>The Act of 1851, page 330, Chap. 70, of Revised Statutes, requiring an action upon a judgment or decroo of a Court of the United States, or of any S tate or Territory of the United States, to be commenced within ten years, is not to be treated as an original act, but as amendatory, and to bo construed with reference to the former law. Where a Statute of limitations has once commenced to run against a cause of action, any change or amendment of tho law, as to the time limited, necossarily applies to such cause of action — subject to the restriction against impairing tho obligation of contracts, and to the right to a reasonable timo, after the passage of the act, for tho commencement of actions on such demands.</p> <p>A denial, in an answer, that tho judgment upon which the action is biased is the proporty of tho Plaintiff, and an allegation that it was the property of another person at the time of the commencement of the action, raises a good issue, without setting out the facts of the assignment of tho judgment to such third person.</p>

Tliis case comes to this Court by Writ of Error to the District Court of Eamsey County. The case was tried by jury and the errors complained of arise upon exceptions taken to the admission and rejection of certain evidence, and to the charge of the Court to the jury, which appear at length on the Bill of Exceptions contained in the record certified to this Court. A motion for a new trial was denied by the Court below, and judgment entered upon the verdict.

The facts appear in full in the opinion of the Court!*' The Defendants below moved to dissolve the injunction in the cause, upon the grounds stated in the points of Respondent. Motion granted.

This was a writ of Error to the District Court of Bamsey County. It appears from the complaint that, on the 14th day of September, 1857, one Charles W. Pairo was the owner of certain real estate in the County of Bamsey, Minnesota, and on that day conveyed the same by deed of trust to the Plaintiff Edes. The deed of trust is made a part of the complaint, and was recorded in Bamsey County on the 21st day of September, 1857.

This was an appeal from an order of the District Court of Washington County, allowing amotion in arrest of judgment.

This action was commenced in the District Court of Ramsey County, to recover a balance on account for lumber furnished by the Rotary Mill Company to the Defendants, which lumber was used by the Defendants in the erection and construction of a certain house on two lots in St. Paul. The Plaintiffs asked judgment for the balance due, and that the judgment should hold as a lien upon the premises from the date of furnishing the materials.

This was an Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Bamsey County, upon an order sustaining a demurrer to a reply. The contents of the Beply, and the objections thereto taken advantage of by the demurrer, are set forth in the Opinion. [The points and authorities of the Appellant are not on file.] The following are the points and authorities of Counsel for Bespondent: First.

This action was brought to recover the amount of a street certificate, issued by the street commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, to a contractor, who had graded the street bordering upon a lot owned by Defendant, under contract with the said commissioners, under Sec. 5, Chap. 1 of the Charter of the City of-Saint Paul.

This was a proceeding in the District Court of Ramsey County, against the Plaintiff in Error, as garnishee of one John O’Sullivan, under Chap. 91, page 405 of the Revised Statutes of Minnesota. Dpon the disclosure before the Referee, the garnishee testified as follows: At the time the garnishee summons in this action was served upon me, Mr. O’Sullivan, the principal Defendant, had been working for me about a week under contract.

This was a writ of Error to the District Court of Hennepin County.

This was an appeal from a judgment of tbe District Court of Winona County. The following is the substance of the complaint in the action: The Plaintiff says that he, on the fifteenth day of November, 1850, in the Supreme Court, in and for the County of Steuben and State of New York, recovered a final judgment by due course of law, against the Defendant for the sum of $250, with $37,86 costs, amounting in all to $287,86.

Tlie Complaint in this action charges the Plaintiffs with having negligently discharged a mortgage, by entering satisfaction thereof,-of record, which mortgage was given to secure a promissory note which was drawing interest at the rate of four per cent per month.

This was an application by' the Board of Supervisors of Ramsey County, against Edward Heenan, Register of Deeds of said county, for a peremptory writ of Mandamus, requiring Mm to deliver up certain books and papers in Ms office relating to sales of lands for taxes; to the custody of which books and papers the Petitioners claimed to be entitled, by virtue of their organization under the “Township Act” of August 13,1858.

This was an application for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against the Board of Supervisors of Scott County. The grounds upon which the application was made, appear in the opinion of the Court.

This was an application for a peremptory writ of Mandamus, against the Despondent, commanding him to deliver to the Petitioner the books and papers pertaining to the office of the Register of Deeds of Scott County, which office the applicant claimed by virtue of his election thereto.

The original application and record in tbis cause having been removed from the files of the Clerk’s office, we must rely upon the history of the case as given in the opinion of the Court, which is sufficient to enable us to understand the points upon which the decision is made. f

This action was commenced in the District Court of Kamsey County, upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $151,50. St. Paul, Minn., Nor. 1st, 1857.

The note in this case was for “ four thousand dollars, with interest at three per cent a month, after due five per cent a month until paid. ” The same points were made, and authorities cited by the respective counsel, as in the case of Mason, Craig et al. vs. Cal-lender, Flint & Co., ¿rofepage 350.