Volume 303 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Workmen's compensation — Workmen's Compensation Act —</bold> <bold>extraterritorial application — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> Benefits of the Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act were properly awarded under the provisions of Minn. St. <cross_reference>176.041</cross_reference> with respect to an employee residing in Minnesota, employed by a Wisconsin employer to perform services in Minnesota and Iowa, and fatally injured in Iowa where the Workmen's Compensation Commission made a permissible finding that the employee performed the primary duties of his employment in Minnesota and that he was only temporarily outside this state at the time of the otherwise compensable occurrence.</block_quote>

<bold>Insurance — blanket crime policy — coverage — payment made</bold> <bold>to hijacker</bold>. <block_quote> 1. An insurer must indemnify the insured for payment made<page_number>Page 17</page_number> by the insured to a hijacker where the policy was a blanket crime policy, as opposed to one insuring for specific risks only.</block_quote> <bold>Same — policy — construction — ambiguity</bold>. <block_quote> 2. In the event of ambiguity in a policy, the policy language will be strictly construed against the insurer.</block_quote>

<bold>Eminent domain — trial — exclusion of evidence as to future</bold> <bold>use of property — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In an eminent domain proceeding, it was within the discretion of the trial court to exclude as too speculative and prejudicial to the landowners evidence relating to possible future state acquisition of their property.</block_quote> <bold>Same — appeal — contention not considered</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Condemnor cannot complain on appeal that the price respondent landowners paid for the property subject to condemnation was not in evidence when condemnor did not seek to introduce such price into evidence at trial.</block_quote> <bold>Same — review — verdict as reduced by remittitur —</bold> <bold>sufficiency of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The verdict of the jury as reduced on remittitur by the trial court and accepted by the landowners is supported by competent trial evidence.</block_quote>

<bold>Municipal corporations — contracts — contract made by village</bold> <bold>with Metropolitan Sewer Board without advertising for bids —</bold> <bold>validity</bold>. <block_quote> It is statutorily permissible for a village, without first advertising for bids, to contract with the Metropolitan Sewer Board under Minn. St. <cross_reference>429.041</cross_reference>, subd. 7, for an improvement to the sanitary sewer of the village despite the board's prior commencement of work under a properly advertised contract, let on a unit basis, by<page_number>Page 119</page_number> "tacking on" the village's required units, provided the addition does not exceed 25 percent of the original contract price.</block_quote>

<bold>Ordinances — ordinance providing for unconstitutional</bold> <bold>surcharge — effect</bold>. <block_quote> A constitutionally invalid surcharge in a utility franchise ordinance does not necessarily invalidate the entire ordinance. The duty of the court is to construe ordinances to achieve constitutionality wherever possible and we so construe the ordinances here involved.</block_quote>

<bold>Constitution — interest of privacy of person — effect of</bold> <bold>lawful arrest</bold>. <block_quote> An individual lawfully subjected to a custodial arrest retains no significant <cross_reference>Fourth</cross_reference> Amendment interest in the privacy of his person. If the arrest is lawful, the privacy interest guarded by the <cross_reference>Fourth</cross_reference> Amendment to the United States Constitution is subordinated to a legitimate and overriding governmental concern. Therefore, testimony of a warrantless in-custody close range inspection of an accused's penis, revealing unusual markings, was properly admitted in evidence.</block_quote>

<bold>Arbitration and award — vacation or modification of award —</bold> <bold>power of district court — limitation</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The power of the district court to vacate or modify an arbitrator's award is fixed by Minn. St. <cross_reference>572.20</cross_reference>, which authorizes modification or correction when the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, but limits this authority to situations where the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where an arbitrator has exceeded his powers with respect to a part of an award and the balance of the award was or may have been conditioned upon or by the ultra vires portion, the statutory remedy requires that all or none of the award be vacated.</block_quote>

<bold>Eminent domain — evidence — exclusion of testimony about</bold> <bold>purchase price of condemned property — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> The trial court may properly exclude testimony of the purchase price of property in an eminent domain proceeding where the evidence establishes that factors affecting market value have changed materially subsequent to the transaction.</block_quote>

<bold>Contracts — action to compel conveyance — finding</bold> <bold>lease-purchase agreement had not been terminated —</bold> <bold>sufficiency of evidence</bold>.

<bold>Appeal and error — affirmance without opinion — equally</bold> <bold>divided court</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — murder conviction — Rasmussen hearing —</bold> <bold>defense of intoxication — sufficiency of evidence</bold>.

<bold>Contracts — claimed oral agreement for attorneys fees —</bold> <bold>sufficiency of evidence to establish</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — robbery conviction — sufficiency of evidence</bold>.