Volume 286 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Taxation — income tax — imposition on earnings of Indian from</bold> <bold>employment on Red Lake Reservation</bold>. <block_quote> Due to the unique status of enrolled members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians living on the Red Lake Reservation, the State of Minnesota lacks power to impose a state income tax on the earnings of such Indians which are the result of employment on the reservation.</block_quote>

<bold>Automobiles — negligence of driver — presumption of due care</bold> <bold>— sufficiency of evidence to overcome</bold>. <block_quote> Evidence that decedent was familiar with highway and weather conditions and had traveled a well-marked route each day for many years, when she skidded up an incline into a heavily traveled arterial highway without stopping and collided with defendant, was sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption she was exercising due care for her own safety. Under such conditions, it was proper for the trial court to find as a matter of law that she was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident.</block_quote>

<bold>Divorce — money paid by wife for joint living expenses —</bold> <bold>recovery</bold>. <block_quote> 1. A wife has no absolute claim to money she paid for joint living expenses if she did not originally expect to be repaid.</block_quote> <bold>Husband and wife — antenuptial agreement — validity</bold>. <block_quote> 2. An antenuptial agreement is valid as long as it does not encourage divorce.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — waiver of rights</bold>. <block_quote> 3. A husband waives his rights under the antenuptial agreement as to property he puts in joint tenancy with his wife.</block_quote><page_number>Page 228</page_number> <bold>Divorce — property division — joint-tenancy property</bold>. <block_quote> 4. The trial court in a divorce proceeding may divide joint-tenancy property in a just and equitable manner.</block_quote>

<bold>Taxation — valuation of land — duties of assessor</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In determining valuation of land for tax purposes, an assessor is enjoined by statute to value each article or description of property separately, and at such sum or price as he believes the same to be fairly worth in money. Land and structures are to be valued separately as well as the aggregate value of the property, including all structures and improvements. Assessors are required to consider and give due weight to every element and factor, including market value, and give due weight to lands which are comparable in character, quality, and location, to the end that all lands similarly located and improved will be assessed upon a uniform basis. Minn. St. <cross_reference>273.08</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>273.11</cross_reference>, and <cross_reference>273.12</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — factors considered</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The value of improved real estate is affected by a wide variety of circumstances, including income, market value, and reproduction costs. While none of these factors alone can be used to assess the value of all property, the assessor may exercise his discretion in using some or all of them.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — noncompliance with statutes — findings of</bold> <bold>trial court</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Even though the record may indicate that the assessor did not follow the statutory mandates in arriving at the estimates of value, the trial court's findings on the issue of value must be sustained<page_number>Page 344</page_number> upon review if reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.</block_quote>

<bold>Physicians and surgeons — action against physician for</bold> <bold>negligence — submission of contributory negligence —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>. <block_quote> In an action against a physician for damages resulting from his failure promptly to notify a patient that tests showed she might be suffering from cancer, it was proper to permit the jury to find contributory negligence where the patient gave the physician incomplete and misleading information about her employment status, had no telephone where she lived, and failed herself to inquire about the results of the tests.</block_quote>

<bold>Appeal and error — review — instructions not objected to —</bold> <bold>law of case</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Where plaintiff neither requests instructions nor objects to those given by the trial court, and in his motion for a new trial fails to specify with particularity the error contained in the instructions, the law as set forth in the instructions becomes the law of the case, and if the evidence will sustain a verdict under any theory presented in the instructions, it must be affirmed.</block_quote> <bold>Fraud — sufficiency of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Evidence is not insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict under the theory of fraud as submitted by the trial court.</block_quote>

In an action for the value of plumbing supplies for which it is claimed that defendant was liable on principles of agency or on equitable grounds, it is held: <bold>Principal and agent — relationship — agent's ownership of</bold> <bold>equipment — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The fact that an alleged agent owns the equipment and the tools used in a business does not negate the presence of an agency relationship.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — inference compelled by business records</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where business records maintained contemporaneously with acts which might or might not have been done as agent for a<page_number>Page 401</page_number> third person show clearly that the alleged agent was an employee of such third person, the inference of an agency relationship is held to be compelled notwithstanding the testimony of interested parties seeking to impeach records they themselves had prepared.</block_quote>

<bold>Insurance — automobile liability insurance — omnibus clause</bold> <bold>— permission required for inclusion</bold>. <block_quote> 1. It is not essential that express permission be given for use of an automobile in order to give the operator protection as an additional insured under an omnibus clause. Permission for such use may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances of the case.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The term "consent" in Minn. St. <cross_reference>170.54</cross_reference> of the Safety Responsibility Act has been construed by this court synonymously with the term "permission" as used in customary omnibus clauses.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — effect of loan agreement</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The fact that a father signed a loan agreement which contained a provision prohibiting him from allowing anyone else to use the vehicle did not change the conclusion that when he permitted its use by his son such use was deemed to be with permission of owner. The trial court having found that the father was not made aware of this provision and did not receive a copy of what he had signed, the provision was legally ineffective.</block_quote> <bold>Same — garage liability insurance — coverage —</bold> <bold>personally-owned auto loaned by garage foreman — effect of</bold> <bold>"escape" clause</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Where garage followed practice of loaning cars to customers while their automobiles were in its shop for repairs, and garage foreman loaned his personal automobile to a customer, no suitable garage-owned automobile being available at the time, garage<page_number>Page 450</page_number> liability insurer was primary insurer for accident involving automobile during the time it was in the customer's possession despite "escape" clause limiting coverage afforded another person using an automobile for purpose incidental to business of garage to where no other valid and collectible insurance is available.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — reckless driving through four municipalities —</bold> <bold>prosecution and conviction in one as bar to further</bold> <bold>prosecution</bold>. <block_quote> Uninterrupted course of reckless driving through four municipalities held to be a single behavioral incident for which defendant can be prosecuted and punished only once in light of Minn. St. <cross_reference>609.035</cross_reference>.</block_quote>

<bold>Appeal and error — order not appealable of right — failure to</bold> <bold>apply for discretionary review — dismissal</bold>.

<bold>Divorce — motion to set aside decree — claimed condonation</bold>.

<bold>Prohibition — dismissal of lower court proceedings pending</bold> <bold>hearing — effect</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — carnal knowledge — sufficiency of evidence —</bold> <bold>failure to make proper objection to admission of laboratory</bold> <bold>test</bold>.