Volume 289 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Criminal law — conviction of receiving stolen property —</bold> <bold>sufficiency of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> Where the record establishes that at the time defendant was apprehended stolen merchandise was found concealed in her automobile, the verdict of guilty on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property, Minn. St. <cross_reference>609.53</cross_reference>, was fully supported by direct and circumstantial evidence notwithstanding the circumstance that the county attorney might have successfully prosecuted her for the offense of theft.</block_quote>

<bold>Airports — negligence claim against Minneapolis-St. Paul</bold> <bold>Metropolitan Airports Commission — notice of claim</bold> <bold>requirement</bold>. <block_quote> Minn. St. <cross_reference>466.05</cross_reference>, subd. 1, which requires that written notice of claim be given to the governing body of a municipality within 30 days after alleged loss or injury, applies to claims against the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission.</block_quote>

<bold>Elections — election contest — failure to obtain personal or</bold> <bold>substituted service — requirements for obtaining</bold> <bold>jurisdiction</bold>. <block_quote> In an election contest, where personal or substituted service has not been obtained within 10 days after the canvass of votes is completed, jurisdiction may be obtained by mailing a copy of the notice of contest to the contestee as provided in Minn. St. <cross_reference>209.02</cross_reference>, subd. 4, but in that case the affidavit of the sheriff that he is unable to make personal or substituted service and the affidavit of the official authorized to issue a certificate of election that he has sent a copy of the notice to the contestee by registered mail must be executed and filed within the 10 days allowed for perfecting the contest.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction proceeding — denial of relief</bold> <bold>— propriety</bold>. <block_quote> In a postconviction proceeding we have reviewed the evidence of a lengthy evidentiary hearing in the light of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States since our decision on appeal. The claims are almost identical to those raised on appeal. We find no error on the part of the trial court in denying relief.</block_quote>

<bold>Municipal corporations — assessment for trunk sewer —</bold> <bold>restriction to properties taken into system immediately</bold>. <block_quote> 1. A municipality may not, in assessing property for the cost of a trunk sewer designed to serve eventually an entire drainage district, assess the entire cost of the trunk sewer to only those properties which are immediately taken into the sewer system.</block_quote><page_number>Page 275</page_number> <bold>Same — assessment for local improvement — combination of</bold> <bold>several projects for assessment purposes — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 2. A municipality may combine several local improvement projects of a particular type, constructed in the same year, although in separate parts of the village, treating the several projects as one improvement for assessment purposes notwithstanding substantial differences in the per-foot costs of individual projects.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. A municipality may not combine, for assessment purposes, improvements constructed in one year with improvements constructed in another year.</block_quote>

<bold>Trial — motion for summary judgment — showing required from</bold> <bold>nonmoving party</bold>. 1. Under our present Rules of Civil Procedure, where a motion is made under Rule 56 for summary judgment, or a motion made under Rule 12 for a dismissal on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts upon which relief can be granted is later converted to a motion under Rule 56, the nonmoving party cannot<page_number>Page 372</page_number> simply rely upon general statements in a complaint but must produce specific facts establishing his contention that a genuine issue of fact exists. <bold>Actions — action to restrain unlawful disbursement of public</bold> <bold>funds — showing or allegation required</bold>. <block_quote> 2. While a taxpayer may maintain an action to restrain unlawful disbursement of public funds, there is in this case no showing or allegation, in the complaint or otherwise, that the city is illegally expending public funds or is about to do so.</block_quote> <bold>Injunction — against exercise of legislative power</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Injunctive relief will not be granted by a court where there is an adequate remedy at law. This is especially true where injunctive relief is sought to restrain the exercise of legislative power by a municipality.</block_quote> <bold>Civil rights — discriminatory hiring by contractors</bold> <bold>contracting with city — legal remedies</bold>. <block_quote> 4. In this case there are several adequate remedies at law available to anyone who can show that contractors contracting with the city for the performance of public work are discriminating on account of race, creed, or color.</block_quote>

<bold>Accord and satisfaction — fact question — weight given</bold> <bold>findings of court</bold>. <block_quote> Ordinarily, the question of accord and satisfaction is one of fact to be determined by the jury or the court sitting in its stead. The findings of the court are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, and where, as here, they are not manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence, they will not be reversed on appeal.</block_quote>

<bold>Guaranty — of collection — creditor's right to proceed</bold> <bold>against guarantor</bold>.