Volume 21 — Minnesota Reports

<p>Appeal from the district court for the counties of Watonwan, etc.</p>

Action for the conversion of certain cigars, which the plaintiff alleged were included in a sale to him, by defendant, of personal proiierty in a hotel at Hastings, but which the defendant, after the sale to plaintiff, returned to the person from whom he had himself bought them. At the trial jnthe district court for Dakota county, before Grosby, J., the plaintiff had a verdict, upon ivhich judgment was entered, a motion for a new trial having been denied.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., presiding, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The complaint alleges that on March 4, 1872, the plaintiff contracted with the defendant to drive certain logs of defendant from the Mike Drew Brook, so called, into the Anoka Boom, for which defendant agreed to pay him at the rate of one dollar and twenty cents per thousand feet, to be x>aid in full when the logs were in the boom; that the plaintiff drove about 360,000 feet of said logs into the boom in July, 1872, and the further amount of about 863,000 feet in June, 1873,…

In this action the plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant Moses Herrick, sought to have a trust declared in his favor in a certain eighty acres of land in Wabasha county, alleged to have been conveyed, on November 21, 1872, by one J. C. Hassinger and his wife to the defendant Sarah, for a consideration paid by the defendant Moses, and in fraud of the latter’s creditors.

Action on a promissory note, alleged in the complaint to have been made to the plaintiff by Bell & Poison, as principals, and the defendant Johnson, as surety, for a valuable consideration, to wit: the surrender and cancellation of a certain promissory note payable to the plaintiff, made by Bell & Poison, as principals, and by the defendant Johnson, as surety.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. 1. That there was no mutual contract between the parties ; that the defendant’s obligation was unilateral, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to a specific performance. Bodine v. Glading, 21 Penn.

The defendant was tried in the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, upon the following indictment : “ Michael Welch is… Held: under and by virtue of the said act of the legislature above mentioned, and the acts amendatory thereof, and in accordance with law and the statutes in such cases made and provided, for the purpose of electing the officers of said municipal corporation, the said city of Stillwater, as provided and required by said act of the…

This action was brought in a justice’s court, where the plaintiff had judgment. The defendant appealed, upon questions of law, to the district court for Fillmore county, Waterman, J., presiding, where the judgment of the justice was reversed, and judgment entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. The case is stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff brought tbis action in the district court for Dakota county to recover tbe sum of $200, as tbe arrears of rent, for tbe year 1871, of certain premises alleged to have been let by tbe plaintiff to the defendant, at a yearly rent of $800. A jury was waived, and tbe action tried before Orosby, J., upon whose findings judgment was entered for the defendant, a motion for a new trial having been denied.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Washington county, Orosby, J., presiding, refusing to appoint a receiver.

Davis & O’Brien having been summoned as garnishees of the defendant Heagerty, it appeared by their disclosure, on November 12, 1873, that in December, 1872, they were retained by him as attorneys to prosecute a claim against the quartermaster’s department of the United States army.

The defendant, having been convicted, before a justice of the peace, of the offence of keeping a disorderly place, appealed, upon questions of law, to the court of common pleas for Hennepin county, A. II. Young, J., presiding, where the conviction was affirmed, and he appealed to this court from the judgment of the court of common pleas.

Appeal by plaintiff, and by one Schulenbnrg, from an order of the district court for Washington county, Grosby, J., presiding, allowing an amendment of a judgment.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district ■court for Carver county, the action having been tried before Ohatfield, J., and a jury.

Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe court of common pleas for Ramsey county, Hall, J. presiding, refusing a new trial.

This action was brought in the district court for Mower county, to recover damages for the destruction of a stack of hay, on hind of the plaintiff adjoining the defendant’s railroad, by fire alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence in operating its road.

<p>Municipal Corporation — Neglect to Keep Streets Safe for Travel. — Second street, a much frequented street in the city of Mankato, was crossed by an open ditch, three feet deep, about three feet wide at the bottom, and from six to eight feet wide at the top. The usually travelled track was at one side of the street, and crossed the ditch, upon abridge a few feet from the sidewalk. The street commissioner of the city removed this bridge to a point nearer the centre of the street, leaving the ditch at the side of the old bridge partly uncovered, and partly covered by the new bridge, and leaving the spot from which the old bridge had been removed, entirely unguarded. This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the overturning of his wagon into the ditch, at the point uncovered by the removal of the bridge. Held, that the city was guilty of gross and culpable neglect of the duty, imposed by its charter, of keeping its streets in a safe condition.</p> <p>Negligence — Evidence of Subsequent Acts of Defendant. — Evidence that after the accident to the plaintiff, the city covered the exposed portion of the ditch at the place of the accident — held admissible, as having some tendency to show the propriety of covering the ditch at that point.</p> <p>Refusal to Give Instructions Already Given in General Charge. — -The refusal to give certain instructions requested by the defendant, considered, and held to furnish no ground for a new trial — a part of the instructions requested being covered by the general charge of the court, and the others being inapplicable to the evidence in the case.</p>

Complaint, that on December 21, 1871, at St. Paul, the plaintiff was carrying on the business of purchasing venison for the Eastern markets ; that defendant, with knowledge of' plaintiff’s business, then and there brought to him seventy-eight saddles of venison, of the weight of 4,850 pounds, and represented that the same were properly dressed and prepared for shipment to said markets ; that he had fattened the deer from which the same were cut, and that for these-reasons…

<p>Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Stearns county, entered upon the report of a referee.</p>

<p>Slander of Person Holding Office. — In order to render defamatory words actionable, in themselves, when spoken in reference to the official character or action of a person holding an office of profit, it is not necessary that they should charge a crime; it is sufficient if they charge incapacity, or want of integrity, or corruption in the officer.</p> <p>Slander of Justice of Peace. — -In an action for slander, the complaint alleged that the slanderous discourse was “ of and concerning said plaintiff in the execution of his said office of justice of the peace, and of and concerning a decision the plaintiff had then recently made, in a, suit before him'as such justice of' the peace, wherein O. P. W. was plaintiff, and the said defendant was defendant, etc.” Held, on demurrer to the complaint, that these allegations of the-complaint import that the plaintiff, as a. justice of the peace, had jurisdiction of the action mentioned therein, and had made the decision therein refevredto as such justice of the peace.</p> <p>Same. — Spoken of the plaintiff as a justice of the peace, and in the execution of his office, the following defamatory words, laid in the complaint with proper averments and innuendoes, are actionable in themselves, to wit: “Goveperjured himself in deciding the suit of 'Whitcomb against mo, * * * *■ and I will be d — d if I will believe him under oath, for ho has decided against me contrary to all law and evidence, and it is the G — d d — est erroneous-decision I ever saw any justice give, and it was a d — d outrage, and it was done for spite.” These words charge the plaintiff, (1) with having violated his official promissory oath, (2) with having made a corrupt and malicious decision against the defendant in the case referred to.</p>

Appeal by defendant from an' order of the court of common jileas for Hennejiin county, A. H. Young, J., jiresiding, refusing a new trial.

Plaintiff brought this action in the court of common pleas-for Kamsey county, to recover the sum of $22,600, being the unpaid balance of the sum of $65,000, alleged in the complaint to be the reasonable value of work done and materials furnished in the construction of a portion of defendant’s railway.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for the counties of Watonwan, etc., entered upon the report of a referee. The only evidence returned to this court is contained in a statement certified by the referee to be ‘ ‘ the evidence and the whole thereof, in substance, adduced upon the trial in said action before me,” — the return containing no case or bill of exceptions.

This action was brought in the district court of Washington county, and was tried before E. M. Crosby, Esq., as referee, who reported a judgment for the plaintiffs and denied a motion for a new trial, whereupon the defendant appealed from the order refusing a new trial.

Appeal by defendants, from a judgment of the district •court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, the ■action having been tried by the court without a jury.

This action was brought in the district court for Sibley county, to recover possession of a tract of land in that county, containing eighty acres, and was tried before Ghat-field, J. and a jury. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff having established the facts stated in the following opinion, the action was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, and a judgment of dismissal and for costs was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Wilkin, J. presiding, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court, a jury having been waived.

Action for specific performance. The defendant Austin demurred to the complaint; the defendant McGregor answered ; and the issues of fact were tried before llameóme, J., without a jury, resulting' in a judgment for the defendant McGregor, from which the plaintiff appeals.

Action under the statute (Gen. Stat. ch. 75, § 1,) to determine the adverse claim of the defendants to certain real property in possession of the plaintiffs, and described in the opinion. The defendant Davidson alone answered the complaint, and a trial was had in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, before Hall, J., resulting in a. judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant Davidson appeals.

<p>Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court, for Winona county.</p>

<p>Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Winona county.</p>

Plaintiff held two mortgages, each embracing a tract of 80 acres in section 13, and another tract in section 12, township 106, range 28, in Blue Earth county. Defendants Lewis & Shaubut held a mortgage, of later date than either of plaintiff’s mortgages, on the 80 acre tract in section 13. Plaintiff foreclosed his two mortgages by advertisement, the sales taking place March 15, 1871.

This action was brought, in tbe district court for Blue Earth county, to restrain the defendant from foreclosing by advertisement a mortgage made by the plaintiffs. Pending the suit, the foreclosure sale took place, the defendant becoming the purchaser, and receiving the usual certificate.

This action was brought in the district court for Wabasha county, and was tried before Van Dylce, J. Upon the verdict of the jury, judgment was entered for plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

Plaintiffs brought this action in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county to recover the sum of $250, with interest from July 15, 1870, being the damages alleged to have been sustained by them in consequence of the defendant’s negligent delay in transmitting a message.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the court of common pleas for Bamsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

The plaintiff in his complaint sets forth the facts stated in the following opinion, and further alleges the recovery of a judgment by defendants against John Merldc, August 20, 1872, in a suit on a promissory note made by him March 25, 1862; the docketing of such judgment in Faribault county, where the land involved in this action is situate ; the issuing of an execution on the judgment; a levy on the land in question, and a sale thereof, on the execution, to defendants,…

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Willcin, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion. The next following case, between the same parties, was an attempt by plaintiff to enforce the same claim involved in this case, by an original action in the district court.

Tbis action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county upon the same claim involved in the next preceding case between the same parties, the facts alleged in the complaint in this action being the same that are stated in the opinion in that case. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by Willcin, J., and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff, in his amended complaint, filed December 28, 1871, alleges that in June, 1859, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant W. H. Toler, that the former should purchase land in St. Paul, with money furnished by the latter, and should take the title in his own name, plaintiff to bear all expenses, and the difference between the original cost and the price realized upon a sale to be equally divided between the parties; and that plaintiff, under this…

Replevin for a pair of horses and a double harness. Plaintiff claimed title from one Sleator, by a chattel mortgage of this and other property, made November 15, 1869, and filed November 18, in the town of Rock Dell, where Sleator resided, and also by a bill of sale made September 11, 1871. Defendant claimed title from Sleator by a chattel mortgage of the horses only, made November 18, 1870.

Action by mortgagee to recover damages for the conversion of certain wheat. Defence that the wheat was taken and sold by defendant, by virtue of two executions against plaintiff’s mortgagor, issued and levied prior to the mortgage. At the trial in the district court for Wabasha county, Van Dyke, J., instructed the jury that the acts of the defendant, detailed in the opinion, constituted a valid and continuing levy, to which instruction the plaintiff excepted.

Complaint, in the usual form, under the statute for determining adverse claims to real property. Gen. Stat., ch. 75. Answer, that on August 22, 1860, defendants became •owners in fee of the real estate described in the complaint, and continued such owners until November 4, 1870, when they conveyed with warranty to one Kent; concluding with a prayer that plaintiff be decreed to have no interest in said real estate.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J. presiding, denying a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiff, an infant, brought this action in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county to recover damages for injuries sustained while playing upon a turn-table of defendant.

Action on a policy of insurance in favor of plaintiff, upon tbe life of ber husband, Fridolin Schwartz; The decision upon a former appeal is reported, 18 Minn. 448, a new trial being granted. At the second trial in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, before Hall, J., it appeared that on September 1, 1870, the plaintiff made application to defendant’s agent at St. Paul, one Ferdinand WiHius, for insurance to the amount of $1,000 upon her husband’s life.

Appeal by defendants from an order of tbe court of common pleas for Bamsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict for plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs brought this action in the court of common .pleas for Ramsey county, to restrain the defendant from entering upon land of the… Held: as claimed by defendant, and found by the court below, that this notice was duly given, and that the act of 1857 became operative, and has never been repealed or changed, in any manner affecting the rights of the •original corporators, or the existence, under the act, of the Nebraska & Lake Superior R. Co. The question, therefore,…

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, Hall, J. presiding, refusing a new trial. Even if plaintiff was a trespasser, he would not, for that reason, be precluded from his action.

On February 10, 1870, tbe plaintiff Thomas Barton was the owner of the southeast quarter, southwest quarter, section 11, T. 28, E. 23, containing forty acres, and also of five and one-half acres in section 14, adjoining the former tract on the west. For five years prior to that date, Barton, with his wife (co-plaintiff in this action) and family, had resided on this land, and continue so to reside.

Action to foreclose a mortgage ujion Lot 7, in Block 128, and Lot 8, in Block 129, in Minneapolis, made by the defendant Bradford, the complaint alleging as to the other defendants that they “claim some estate or interest in said mortgaged premises, accruing subsequent to the lien of said mortgage.” Bradford did not answer the complaint.

<p>Railroad Land Grant Exempt from Taxation till Lands are Sold and Conveyed.— Fb-st Division of the St. Pawl $ Pacific JR. Co. v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297, followed, adhered to, and applied to this case. Held, that the Winona & St. Peter R. Co., having succeeded to “the rights, benefits, privileges, property, franchises and interests” of the Transit R. Co., is entitled to hold the lands granted to the latter company, (by the territorial act of May 22, 1857,) exempt from, taxation, as provided in section 4, sub-chapter 2, of said act.</p> <p>Same — Such Exemption not Forbidden by State Constitution. — The requirement of the state constitution, that “laws shall be passed taxing * * * all real and personal properly at its true value in money,” considered, and held not to prohibit or render void the transfer of this immunity from taxation, by the State to the W. & St. P. R. Co., by a law passed after the adoption of the constitution.</p>

Action to redeem from a foreclosure sale, the facts stated in the complaint being substantially as follows: On May 27, 1857, one Holtz mortgaged to defendant certain land in Hennepin county, described in the complaint.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Action to recover the amount alleged to have been paid by plaintiff for defendants’ use, under the contract stated in the opinion. Trial in the district court for Faribault county, before Waite, J., upon whose findings judgment was entered for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal. •

Action to foreclose a mortgage. Defence, partial payments of the mortgage note. Trial in the district court for Scott county, before” Ohatfield, J., and a jury. Yerdict for plaintiff for a less sum than claimed in the complaint. Judgment of foreclosure, from which plaintiff appeals.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Otter Tail county, McKelvey, J., presiding,affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace, from which an appeal had been taken to the district court on questions of law alone.

<p>Dismissal for want of Return. — This case dismissed, for want of a return, the place of which cannot be supplied by a stipulation, as attempted in this instance.</p>

The complaint alleges that during the logging season of 1872-3 one Soule unlawfully entered on certain described land of plaintiff, in Mille Lacs county, cut and carried away therefrom 300 pine logs, containing 82,000 feet, marked them with his own marks, and drove them with other logs of the same marks into the boom of the Mississippi and Rum River Boom Company, where they are so intermingled with such other logs that they cannot be distinguished therefrom; that Soule has…

<p>"Variance between Summons and Complaint — Non-appealable Order. — Where the summons contains the proper notice prescribed in the case of “an action arising on contract for the payment of money only,” but the complaint on file indicates an “ action for the recovery of money” other than one arising on contract, etc., Held, that an order denying a motion made to set aside the complaint, on the ground of such non-conformity, is not an appealable order.</p>

Plaintiff made complaint before a justice of the peace, under § 11, ch. 84, Gren. Stat., alleging that he was the assignee of the purchaser of certain mortgaged property, at a sale upon foreclosure by advertisement; that the year allowed for redemption had expired; and that defendant, a grantee of the mortgagor-, continued in possession of the premises, and'refused to surrender the same, though often requested.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Steele county, Lord, J., presiding, refusing to dissolve an injunction.

So much of the 100,000 acres of land mentioned in the following opinion, as lies in Olmsted county, was listed for taxation, and taxes were assessed thereon for the year 1873. The taxes so assessed remaining delinquent on June 1, 1874, proceedings were instituted in the district court for that county, under Laws 1874, ch. 1, to obtain judgment against the lands, and a sale of them for non-payment of taxes.

Plaintiff, a sub-contractor, brought this action in the district court for Bamsey county, to recover for work done by him for defendants in grading a railroad. The schedule annexed to the complaint included, among other items, a charge for excavating 2,800 yards, in January, 1869, at 32 cents per yard, and a charge for extra work on section 32. Both of these items were put in issue by the answer.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Scott county, Ohatfield, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. This and the two following cases were actions to recover damages for trespass committed by defendant in constructing and operating its railroad on Second street in Shakopee City, between the centre of the street and the-adjacent lots of the respective plaintiffs.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Scott county, Ghatfield, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. This, like the preceding and following cases, was an action for damages for alleged trespass on plaintiff’s land, the pleadings being, so far as material, the same as in those cases, except that in this the locus in quo is described as Lots 3 and 4, in Block 30, etc.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Scott county, Chatftéld, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. This, like the two preceding cases, was an action for damages for trespass on plaintiff’s land, the pleadings, so far as material, being the same as in those cases, except that in this the locus in quo is described in the complaint as Lots 6 and 7 in Block 33.

Action commenced in the district court for Fillmore county, and tried before Page, J., and a jury. A motion of plaintiffs for judgment on the pleadings, notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, was denied, and they appealed to this court.

Indictment found in the district court for Washington county. Defendant demurred, and Grosby, J., reported the case for the decision of this court, under ch. 76, Laws 1870.

Complaint upon a promissory note made by defendant to plaintiff as assignee of McLeary & Co., upon a sale of all the personal property of that firm.

Action for rent against defendant as assignee of a written lease, the complaint alleging that at the expiration of the original term, the lease ivas renewed, pursuant to an agreement contained in it, and was afterwards assigned to defendant. Answer putting in -issue the renewal and the assignment. Trial in the court of common pleas for Itamsey county, before Hall, J., resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. A new trial was refused, and defendant appealed.

<p>Authority of Receiver of firm to sell Real Estate. — A judgment which appoints a receiver, and directs him to sell all the real estate of the firm to close up whose affairs the suit is brought, but which judgment gives no specific description of the property to be sold, is sufficient authority to the receiver to sell any given piece of real estate which actually belonged to the firm, although the complaint in the suit, in describing the real estate of the firm, does not mention such piece.</p> <p>Purchaser from Receiver is Concluded by Order Confirming Sale. — A purchaser from a receiver in a suit may oppose the confirmation of the receiver’s report of sale, and if he does not oppose it, (and especially if he consents to its confirmation,) he will be deemed to have adopted it, and be bound by the order confirming it, and cannot afterwards object to perform his contract of purchase, upon his allegation that the sale to him included property not mentioned in the report.</p> <p>Judicial Sales — Caveat Emptor. — The rule, caveat emptor, applies to purchasers at judicial sales, both as to the title, and as to the condition of the property.</p> <p>Breach of Agreement to give Security for Purchase-Money — Measure of Damages. — "Where property is sold, to be paid for at a future time, the purchaser to give certain stipulated security, which he fails to give, although the vendor cannot sue till the stipulated time, upon the promise to pay, he may sue at once for breach of the agreement to give the security; and in such suit, the damages mil be the value, to the vendor, of the security, had it been given; and this is, prima facie, the amount of the sum to be secured.</p>

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Scott county, Ghatfield, J. presiding, granting a new trial.

Appeal by defendant Munch from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

<p>Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Sherburne county, McKelvey, J., presiding.</p>

Appeal by plaintiff, from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, Grosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Stearns county, McKélvey, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Action for rent reserved in a written lease of the Federal Union printing- office, material, etc., at Bochester, Minn. Defence, that after the rent became due, the plaintiff, in consideration of $1,500, sold to defendant Young the printing- office, etc., and released defendants from liability for the -rent due. At the trial in the district court for Olmsted county, before Mitchell, J., defendants had a verdict; a new trial was refused, and plaintiff appealed.

Action on a bill of exchange, drawn by the plaintiff on the defendants, and by them accepted. Defence, that the bill was accepted on account of certain varnishes, etc., theretofore furnished by plaintiff to defendants, under a representation and warranty made by plaintiff to them, at the time of furnishing the goods, that such goods were of the best quality, and were fit and proper materials for varnishing the best kinds of furniture.

, presiding, affirming the judgment of a justice of the peace, from which an appeal had been taken upon questions of law only.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, Mitchell, J., presiding, granting a new trial.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Sibley county, Chatfield, J, presiding, affirming a judgment of dismissal rendered by a justice of the peace.

Action on a verbal contract of insurance, the complaint alleging that plaintiff made to defendant, through its agent, a written application for fire insurance upon a stock of goods, and that the defendant, through its said agent, then and there accepted the application, and agreed to insure the property for one year thereafter, at a premium then agreed on, and to execute and deliver to plaintiff a policy in the usual form, the premium to be paid on the delivery of the policy.

Action for the specific performance of a contract to convey certain described land, in writing and signed by one Girart Hewitt, as defendant’s agent.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, allowing the plaintiff’s attorneys to enter judgment against the defendant and certain garnishees, for the amount of their fees as attorneys in the action, as determined by the court, and also for the amount of the taxable costs.

Action to foreclose a mortgage securing a promissory note made by defendant John B. Nagel, for tbe principal sum of $448, with interest at 12 per cent, per annum, on ■which, the plaintiff claimed to be due the sum of $801.56. Defence that the note was given upon a loan of $400, and that to the extent of $48, it was without consideration and void,- and that, defendant had made certain partial payments.

Action for libel. The complaint is set forth in the opinion. In his second defence, defendant, among other things, sets forth so much of the complaint as includes the two first sentences of the alleged libel, with the innuendoes, and avers that the words so set forth are true.

-Gertiorari to the city justice of the city of St. Paul, by whom a judgment for twenty dollars and costs had been rendered against defendant, in a suit brought by the city to* recover that amount, as a penalty for doing business as an insurance agent in the city, without a license from the city.

Defendant having taken proceedings to condemn plaintiff’s land for the purposes of its raiiroad, plaintiff appealed from the award of the commissioners to the district court for Bamsey county, and at the trial in that court, before Ohatfleld, J., (sitting for the judge of the second district,) obtained a verdict for a sum much greater than that awarded by the commissioners.

<p>Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.</p>

Complaint under § 1, ch. 75, Gen. Stat., alleging plaintiff’s 0A nership and possession of certain described real estate, defendant’s adverse claim of an estate, interest and title in and to such real estate, with a demand of judgment that plaintiff be barred of any claim thereto,-etc. Answer admitting plaintiff’s possession, but denying his ownership, and proceeding as follows : ‘ ‘ Second.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Fillmore county, Page, J., presiding, entered pursuant to an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

The complaint sets forth a sealed contract between the parties, bearing date August 18, 1868, by which plaintiff agreed “to do or cause to be done all the excavation and masonry, including all brick and stone work, furnishing all material for the same, except cut stone, for the erection and completion of a three-story business house now about to be' erected on Minnesota street, between Third and Fourth streets, in said city of St. Paul, for Messrs.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. cited Barnard v. Viele, 21 Wend. 88 ; Dixon v. U. S., 1 Brock. 177 ; U. S. v.-, 1 Brock. 195; Com. v. Laub, 1 Watts & Serg. 261.

Action to determine the adverse claim of defendant to certain unoccupied real estate. Trial in the court of common pleas for Eamsey county, before Hall, J., upon whose findings judgment was entered for a part only of the relief demanded in the complaint. From this judgment both parties appealed.

<p>Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe district court for Blue Earth county, entered on the report of a referee.</p>

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Wright county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding.

Appeal by defendant from the district court for Hennepin county, where he had been convicted of larceny, upon a trial before Vanderburgh, J., and a jury.

'Action against the defendants, Drs. Hill and Lindley, as partners, to recover damages for alleged malpractice in their treatment of plaintiff’s broken arm. At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, before Vanderburgh, J., the plaintiff had a verdict for $4,000. A new trial was refused, and the defendants appealed.

Proceeding in the district court for Waseca county, under ah. 1, Laws 1874, to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes against certain lands in that county, being a part of defendant’s land grant. Defendant answered, claiming that the lands were its property, and that, by its charter, they were exempt from taxation. See State v. Winona & St. Peter P. Go., ante, p. 315.

Action, to recover certain personal property, being part of the furniture of a hotel in Faribault, mortgaged to plaintiff by one Root, and taken by the defendant, as sheriff, from Root’s possession, by virtue of a -writ of attachment against Root’s property, at the suit of one Greene. A former appeal in the case is reported, 20 Minn. 435.

Action upon three promissory notes. Defence, that the notes were given for the price* of certain tobacco sold by plaintiffs to defendant Nonnemacher, under a representation, made when the tobacco was ordered, that such tobacco should be of the best quality; but that the tobacco delivered ivas of inferior quality, and unfit for defendant’s use, to defendant’s damage in the sum of $200, which he asks to recoup against any claim plaintiffs may prove.

Action for the conversion by defendant, at Anoka, of 200,000 feet of pine saw logs, of the value of $1,600, the property of plaintiff, to plaintiff’s damage in that sum. Defence, that the defendant, at the times mentioned in the complaint, had in its possession 195,132 feet, and no more, of pine logs of the marks described in the complaint, and that such logs were defendant’s property.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, McKelvey, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, refusing a modification of the judgment entered in that court, May 4, 1874, after the order denying a new trial had been affirmed by this court. See 20 Minn. 28.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Freeborn county, Page, J., presiding, dismissing an appeal.from a justice of the peace.

Plaintiff, as owner of certain land in the city of Mankato, on which he resided, abutting on the head of Washington street, and marked as his on the diagram contained in the following opinion, brought this action in the district court for Blue Earth county, to restrain defendant from continuing to obstruct that part of Washington street, between the southerly halves of blocks 45 and 46, and the corresponding portion of Spring street, and for damages already sustained by him…

This action was brought in Winona county, but a change of venue ivas ordered, and the trial was had in Dodge county, before Waite, J. The jury returned a special verdict, together with answers to several questions submitted to them. Judgment was ordered and entered for plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for St. Louis county, McKelvey, J., presiding, and from an order refusing a new trial.

Action to recover possession of a piece of land in Hennepin county, described in the complaint as follows : ‘ ‘ Commencing at the northeast corner of lot number six (6), in block number one hundred and ten (110), in the city of Minneapolis, in said county, running thence in a northeasterly direction about eighty-eight and one-half (88 1-2) feet, until it intersects the section line between sections twenty-five and twenty-six, thence along said section line, in a westerly…

Defendant was convicted before a justice of the peace, upon a complaint for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors in the town of Albert Lea, contrary to an ordinance adopted by the supervisors of the town. Upon appeal to the district court for Freeborn county, the defendant was tried before Page, J., and a jury, who found a verdict against him, upon which judgment was entered, from which this appeal is taken.

At the trial of this action in the district court for Hennepin county, before Vanderburgh, J., the judgment roll in a former action between the parties was offered in evidence by the defendant, and the court instructed the jury that the judgment in such former action was a conclusive bar to this action. The jury found a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered, and plaintiff appealed.

Action for the price of a large quantity of cord-wood, alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant, at Brainerd, in this state. Defence, a general denial.

Complaint that on July 18, 1857, plaintiff was owner in fee of the east half of the northeast quarter and the east half of the southeast quarter of section 20, in township 119, range 23, in Hennepin county; that on that day the plaintiff, to secure the payment of $165, executed and delivered to William K. Mehaffey and Bernard IT.

The land involved in this case, which is situate in the city of St. Paul, was assessed by the proper municipal authorities for benefits conferred upon it by the grading of No sab el street in that city, and the usual proceedings were instituted by the city, in the court of common pleas for Namsey county, to obtain a judgment against the land for the amount of the assessment. • The First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Nailroad Co. appeared in court, claiming that it was…

Action on a promissory note for $280.79, bearing date June 1, 1870, made by defendant, and payable one year after date to Tunis S. Slingerland, or bearer, with interest at twelve per cent, per annum from date until paid. Defence, that the note was given without consideration, and was given in contravention of the statute against usury.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the court of common pleas for Bamsey county, Hall, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

TMs action was brought in the court of common pleas for Hennepin county, and was tried before Young, J., (a jury being waived,) upon whcfee findings judgment was ordered for plaintifi'. A new trial was refused, and defendants appealed.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a trial by the court without a jury.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Winona county, the action having been tried before Mitchell, J., without a jury.