Volume 293 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Schools and school districts — judicial review — order of</bold> <bold>county board dividing assets of school district — scope of</bold> <bold>review</bold>. <block_quote> In judicial proceedings to review a county board order dividing assets of a preexisting school district between adjoining districts with which such district was consolidated, <italic>held</italic> that the district court properly limited its scope of review of an exercise of legislative discretion by the county board, and that the evidence sustains the court's findings affirming the county board's order.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — rape conviction — sufficiency of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Evidence <italic>held</italic> sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of aggravated rape of a 12-year-old victim.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — fairness of trial</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Trial court's ruling admitting physical evidence, its conducting of a private conference with the victim during cross-examination, and its refusal to answer the jury's written request during deliberations for the court's recollection of the testimony of a medical witness, <italic>held</italic> not to deprive defendant of a fair trial.</block_quote>

<bold>Schools and school districts — appeal from county board order</bold> <bold>creating district — adverse parties</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In an appeal to the district court from an order of the county board creating an independent school district from previously unorganized territory pursuant to Minn. St. <cross_reference>122.11</cross_reference>, the proper adverse parties are the petitioners for the establishment of the district.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — jurisdiction over petitioners — notice of</bold> <bold>hearing</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Timely service of the notice of appeal on the county auditor and filing with the clerk of district court as provided in Minn. St. <cross_reference>127.25</cross_reference> confer jurisdiction on the court over the petitioners, who need not be personally served.</block_quote><page_number>Page 290</page_number> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. It is the function of the trial court to establish a method of notification to the petitioners of the hearing to be held by reason of the appeal.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — function of trial court</bold>. <block_quote> 4. The function of the trial court on an appeal pursuant to § <cross_reference>127.25</cross_reference> is limited to determining whether the county board had jurisdiction, whether its order was based on an erroneous theory of law, and whether the action was arbitrary or unreasonable. The trial court cannot try the case de novo nor substitute its judgment for that of the county board.</block_quote> <bold>Appeal and error — nonappealable order — order denying</bold> <bold>summary judgment</bold>. <block_quote> 5. An order denying summary judgment where the trial court does not certify any question as important and doubtful is nonappealable, and an appeal from such an order will be dismissed.</block_quote> <bold>Schools and school districts — appeal from county board order</bold> <bold>creating district — motions for summary judgment and</bold> <bold>dismissal — effect on merits</bold>. <block_quote> 6. Matters considered by the trial court in denying a motion for summary judgment and in granting a motion for dismissal cannot procedurally be used by the court as a basis for deciding the merits of the appeal in the absence of a hearing on the appeal or a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party to the appeal.</block_quote>

<bold>Depositions — deposition of adverse party — use at trial</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Under Rule 26.04, Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose, and in the absence of a party his deposition may be used at a trial.</block_quote> <bold>Same — use at trial — determination of competency</bold>. <block_quote> 2. When the deposition of a witness is offered at a trial, the determination of the competency of the witness lies within the discretion of the trial judge.</block_quote> <bold>Same — deposition of adverse party — refusal to answer</bold> <bold>incriminating questions — use of deposition against</bold> <bold>codefendant at trial</bold>. <block_quote> 3. In a civil action, where a party defendant refuses at a deposition to answer questions on the ground that such answers may incriminate him, the deposition may be received at a trial in the absence of the party over the objection of a codefendant surety that it is prejudicial.</block_quote> <bold>Bonds — action against surety on fidelity bond — sufficiency</bold> <bold>of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Evidence found sufficient to justify a jury in finding liability under "Fidelity One Act Grain Bond."</block_quote><page_number>Page 324</page_number>

<bold>Fraud — deceptive advertising — action by attorney general</bold> <bold>against franchiser and franchisee — conduct of franchisee as</bold> <bold>bar to claim against franchiser</bold>. <block_quote> A franchisee of automotive transmission sales and services who knowingly and willingly participated in the deceptive advertising and sales practices of the franchiser and initiated his own fraudulent sales practices was, by proper application of the doctrine of in pari delicto, barred from recovery of damages for the destruction of his franchise business following action by the attorney general against the franchiser and the franchisee.</block_quote>

<bold>Taxation — appeal contesting special assessments — special</bold> <bold>benefits — opinion of property owner — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 1. On an appeal by property owners contesting the propriety of special assessments levied by the village of New Brighton for a water main improvement, the testimony of an owner that in his opinion the properties had received no special benefits from installation of the water main reviewed and found sufficient to overcome the prima facie case established by the village's introduction in evidence of the assessment roll.</block_quote> <bold>Same — special assessment — findings relating to special</bold> <bold>benefits — sufficiency of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The testimony of witnesses for the village was sufficient to establish that there were special benefits to the affected property.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The evidence was insufficient to justify conclusion that special benefits from water main improvement were substantially equal to assessments levied.</block_quote><page_number>Page 357</page_number>

<bold>Damages — inducing breach of contract — award of punitive</bold> <bold>damages — propriety</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — conviction of rape and kidnapping —</bold> <bold>sufficiency of evidence — effect of proving prior</bold> <bold>conviction</bold>.

<bold>Fraud — action to recover pledged stock — sufficiency of</bold> <bold>proof of fraud</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — guilty plea — denial of application to</bold> <bold>withdraw — propriety</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — search and seizure — legality — lack of</bold> <bold>probable cause</bold>.

<bold>Corporations — action against subsidiary — counterclaim —</bold> <bold>propriety of denial</bold>. <bold>Trial — motion to withdraw waiver of jury trial — propriety</bold> <bold>of denial</bold>.

<bold>Appeal and error — certification of questions in criminal</bold> <bold>proceeding — question certified by municipal court</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — search and seizure — legality — search</bold> <bold>incident to arrest</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — review — award for total and</bold> <bold>permanent disability</bold>.