Volume 309 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Taxation — income tax — business expense deduction for</bold> <bold>compensation paid for personal service — showing required</bold>. <block_quote> To qualify as a business expense for purposes of an income tax deduction under Minn. St. <cross_reference>290.09</cross_reference>, subd. 2 (a) (1), a taxpayer must show that compensation was paid for personal services actually performed; that their value was in the amount claimed; and that payment was in fact made. The existence of a prior compensation agreement is not indispensable to establishing the deduction.</block_quote>

<bold>Unemployment compensation claimed — employment relationship</bold> <bold>between salesmen and distributor — tests applied — absence</bold> <bold>of control</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — proceeding — review — finding</bold> <bold>injuries sustained after work were work related</bold>. <block_quote> The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board is affirmed<page_number>Page 74</page_number> because there is substantial evidence to support its finding that the employee's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.</block_quote>

<bold>Roads — town roads — applicability of Marketable Title Act</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The Marketable Title Act, Minn. St. <cross_reference>541.023</cross_reference>, applies to town roads.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — failure to record road under Marketable</bold> <bold>Title Act — effect — possession required to prevent abandonment</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where a town board fails to record a town road under the Marketable Title Act, it is presumed to have abandoned the same unless it had exercised such possession and use of the road as would place a prudent person on inquiry that a public road exists.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The facts of this case do not indicate the town board established such possession of the road as would fulfill the requirements of the statute.</block_quote>

<bold>Automobiles — negligence of driver — failure of brakes —</bold> <bold>effect of statute — instruction on emergency rule —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>.

<bold>Parent and child — juvenile court — order placing neglected</bold> <bold>child in custody of welfare department — effect of</bold> <bold>irregularities in proceedings</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Juvenile court order did not exceed statutory limit of 1 year's duration where juvenile court required a progress report and then issued a new order within 1 year of the original order. While proceedings in juvenile court were not perfect, appellant was not denied the basic fairness required by due process.</block_quote> <bold>Juvenile court — finding child was neglected — sufficiency of</bold><bold>evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Juvenile court's finding that child was neglected was adequately supported by the evidence.</block_quote> <bold>Evidence — public official privilege — showing required</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Party may not invoke public official privilege under Minn. St. <cross_reference>595.02</cross_reference>(5) where party has failed to establish that disclosure by the public official would seriously injure the public interest.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — robbery conviction — challenge of</bold> <bold>identification procedures on due process grounds —</bold> <bold>instructions on identification</bold>.

<bold>Insurance — automobile liability — policy in effect at time</bold> <bold>of accident — claimed failure of consideration occurring</bold> <bold>later — availability of defense</bold>. <block_quote> 1. When an insurance policy is in effect at the time of an accident, the defense of failure of consideration for the policy based on events following the accident is not available when rights of a third party injured in the accident have intervened.</block_quote> <bold>Same — purchase of replacement policy — intent to cancel</bold> <bold>earlier policy — necessity of communication to insurer</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Neither the purchase of a replacement insurance policy nor the intent of the insured to cancel an earlier policy operates to cancel the earlier policy until actually communicated to the insurer.</block_quote><page_number>Page 420</page_number> <bold>Same — rescission of policy — when not permitted</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The parties to an insurance contract may not rescind after the rights of an injured third party have intervened.</block_quote> <bold>Contracts — insurance — reinstatement of policy — late</bold> <bold>receipt of premium — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 4. When the insurer invites the insured to accept a reinstatement offer by mailing a premium, the offer is contingent upon receipt of the premium by a specified date, and the premium is received one day late solely because of a mistake by the post office or employee of the insurer, the policy is reinstated.</block_quote> <bold>Insurance — reinstatement of policy — failure to disclose</bold> <bold>accident — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 5. Where the insurer concedes that it would retroactively reinstate insurance coverage even if it had known of an intervening accident, nondisclosure by the insured is immaterial.</block_quote>

<bold>Unemployment compensation — denial of benefits — finding</bold> <bold>student not available for work — sufficiency of evidence —</bold> <bold>dismissal of second claim</bold>.

<bold>Negligence — action claiming negligent maintenance of stairway</bold> <bold>was cause of death — issues for jury — consistency of</bold> <bold>findings</bold>. <block_quote> In this appeal in an action for death by wrongful act based upon a claim that a negligently maintained stairway was a proximate cause of decedent's death, we hold, following Majerus v. Guelsow, <cross_reference>262 Minn. 1</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>113 N.W.2d 450</cross_reference> (1962), that the circumstantial evidence supports the submission of this case to the jury and the jury's finding concerning liability; that the trial court properly submitted the issue of assumption of risk; and that the jury's findings of no assumption of risk and of decedents contributory negligence were not inconsistent.</block_quote>

<bold>Attorney and client — disciplinary proceeding — appropriation</bold> <bold>of clients' funds — suspension</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — injury arising out of employment —</bold> <bold>accident occurring during off-the-premises travel</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — award for permanent and total</bold> <bold>disability — effect of earlier award — sufficiency of</bold> <bold>evidence</bold>.

<bold>Workers' compensation — review — award made on second claim</bold> <bold>petition — propriety</bold>.

<bold>Municipal corporations — tort claim — failure to give</bold> <bold>statutory notice — propriety of dismissal</bold>.