Gambar halaman

court. The principal question raised upon this it ppeal is whether the evidence sustains a verdict against these defendants. Plaintiff received an injury while attending a performance billed and advertised as “Miller Bros.' 101 Ranch Wild West Show,” by the breaking of a board used as a seat. The defendants claim that they were not the proprietors of or persons conducting the show, but that a corporation organized with the name “101 Ranch Wild West Show” and the Robbins Company conducted the show, and that the defendants individually were mere salaried agents. Concededly the evidence did not establish the existence of such a corporation de jure. There was some evidence tending to show that these defendants and two other brothers organized a company, which thereafter conducted the show as a de facto corporation. On the other hand, it appeared that the show was advertised as above stated, indicating that Miller Bros. were the proprietors, that the two defendants against whom the verdict was rendered were present at performances, assuming a general direction of the business connected with the show, and that a contract under which the show was being conducted was made by Miller Bros., as individuals, and not by the corporation. In this condition of the evidence, it was clearly a question of fact for the jury whether the show was being conducted by the defendants as individuals or by a de facto corporation. The verdict of the jury involving a finding that the show was being conducted by the defendants as individuals, is sustained by ample evidence. We find no errors in the rulings of the court in admitting evidence or in the charge submitting the case to the jury. The motions of the defendants were properly denied. Affirmed.

[blocks in formation]

MOGENSEN v. MILLER et al. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Nov. 17, 1911.) Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Oscar Hallam, Judge. Action by E. O. Mogensed against Joseph Miller and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying motion for judgment or a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Thos. J. Newman, for appellants. # F. Latta and W. G. Bonham, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The facts involved and legal questions raised in this case are substantially like those in Latta v. These Defendants, 133 N. W. 1133; and, for the reasons there stated, the order of the trial court in this case is affirmed. Affirmed.

PETERSON V. CHICAGO GREAT WESTEIRN. R. CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Jan 2, 1912.) Appeal from District Court, Mower County; Nathan Kingsley, Judge. Action by Isaac A. Peterson against the Chicago Great Western Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Briggs, Thygeson, Loomis & Everall and French & Sasse, for apellant. Dunn & Carlson and Catherwood & icholsen, for respondent.

PER CURLAM. The plaintiff, a brakeman in the defendant's employ, was injured while momentarily standing upon one track to obtain a view of a string of cars on the adjoining track. While the plaintiff was so engaged in his duties as brakeman, a detached caboose, running down the track on which he was standing, struck, and injured him: . The plaintiff testified that his conductor had told him, in effect, that he would keep the train in charge of another conductor off from this track. The caboose causing the injury was a part of such other train. Under the evidence the questions of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were questions for the jury. We have examined all the evidence and rulings involved in the numerous points raised by counsel on the appeal, and we find no error prejudicial to defendant. From the evidence reasonable men might well draw widely different inferences as to the extent of the plaintiff's injury. While the amount of damages awarded in the verdict is large, we cannot say that it is not supported by the evidence. Affirmed.

RUNQUIST v. FERRELL et al. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Dec. 1, 1911.) Appeal from District Court, Mille Lacs County : M. D. Taylor, Judge. Action by John Runquist against W. H. Ferrell and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial. W. H. Ferrell & Co. appeal. Affirmed. E. L. McMillan, for appellants. Baldwin & Baldwin and J. T. Pearson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The substantial question in this case is whether defendant was entitled to an instructed verdict at the close of the trial. The action was for the breach of a contract for the purchase and sale of five car loads of potatoes, and plaintiff had a verdict. We find in the record evidence sufficient to send the case to the jury upon all questions involved under the pleadings, and conclude, therefore, without discussion, that the court below properly refused to direct a verdict for defendant. The record presents no errors justifying a new trial. Order affirmed.

SAVAGE v. HENDRICKS. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Dec. 29, 1911.) Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wilbur F. Booth, Judge. Action § D. L. Savage against William Hendricks. inding for defendant.

From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Wright & Matchan, for appellant. Savage & Purdy, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The plaintiff brought the present action, involving 16 lots in an addition to the city of Minneapolis, to have a certain deed of said lots made by him to one Brown determined to have been made as security for a loan, which loan had been fully repaid, and to have a deed from said Brown to the defendant declared void, because taken by the defendant with notice of the plaintiff's title to the lots, and to have the plaintiff adjudged the owner of the lots, free from any right, title, or interest of the defendant. The defendant claims under the deeds from the plaintiff to Brown and from Horown to the defendant. Upon the trial of the case the court found that the deed from the plaintiff to Brown was not made as security, but that thereby the plaintiff conveyed to Brown the lots involved, without any reservations or restrictions, oral or otherwise, and further, that the defendant procured the conveyance of the lots from Brown for a valuable consideration, without any knowledge or notice of any claims or interest of the plaintiff thereto or therein. As conclusions of law the court found that the defendant is the owner of the lots in fee simple, and plaintiff has no estate or interest therein. The case is brought here by the appeal of the plaintiff from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The principal question raised by the numerous assignments of error is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court in reference to the conveyance from plaintiff to Prown. Upon examination of the record we are satisfied that the evidence amnly sustains such finding. The deed was made by the plaintiff to Hrown some 16 years prior to the commencement of the present action. About 13 years after the making of the deed, and 5 years after the claimed payment of a debt to secure which the deed was claimed to have been given, the grantee in the deed, Brown, died. The plaintiff, produced no documentary proofs supporting his claim that the instrument, in form a warranty deed, was in fact intended as a mortgage, although by his testimony writings

tending to support such claim had once been in existence, and one writing of that character had been in his possession. The plaintiff was under the burden of establishing his case by clear and convincing evidence. is parol testimony, in the main unsupported by corroborating evidence, was, as to many details, improbable. The trial judge having on sufficient evidence found that the deed from the plaintiff to the defendant conveyed an absolute title, the circumstances under which the defendant purchased the property became unimportant. We find no error in the complained-of rulings of the trial judge admitting or excluding evidence. Order affirmed.

WOLD v. CROOKSTON LUMBER CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Nov. 17, 1911.) Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; C. W. Stanton, Judge. Action by Thomas Wold against the Crookston Lumber Company. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. E. E. McDonald, for appellant. John L. Brown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This action originated in the municipal court of the city of Bemidji, where the plaintiff recovered judgment for $36.25. The defendant appealed from the judgment to the district court of the county of Beltrami, where a jury trial was had and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for $36.25. The defendant appealed to this court from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The plaintiff's claim was based upon an alleged contract whereby the defendant was to pay him for work in its mill 25 cents per day in addition to his regular wages if he worked during the season and until the mill closed. The issues were whether the parties made this contract and whether the plaintiff performed its terms on his part. The defendant here contends that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence and that the court erred in its instructions. The evidence is, within the rule applicable to such cases, sufficient to sustain the verdict, and we find no reversible error in the instructions to the jury. Order affirmed.

END OF CASEs IN Vol. 133.



It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and

Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests



See Appeal and Error, $ 439; Contracts, $ 350;
Homestead, § 163.

§ 45 (Iowa) Creditors could sue for judg

ment against the debtor, and subject land ABATEMENT.

fraudulently conveyed by him to his wife, in

the same action.-First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, See Nuisance.

Minn., V. Eichmeier, 133 N. W. 454.

ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Criminal Law, $ 1070.

See Injunction, &$ 16, 84, 85; Quieting Title,

$ 4; Specific Performance, $85, 43.
See Appeal and Error, $$ 590, 627, 882.


See Boundaries.
See Vendor and Purchaser, $ 130.


See Attorney and Client, &$ 4, 9.
See Appeal and Error, $ 154; Guaranty, $ 7;
Sales, 16842.


See Evidence, 88 201–265.
See Insurance, &$ 372, 449, 466, 524, 665.


$ I (S.D.) Adoption is not a contractual re.

lation, and the laws of the place where it ocSee Criminal Law, $ 511.

curs are not controlling as to the status creat

ed.-Calhoun v. Bryant, 133 N. W. 266. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. $7 (Mich.) Under Comp. Laws, $ 8777,

subd. “d," a declaration of consent to an adop. See Compromise and Settlement; Mortgages, $ tion executed by the president of a charitable 319; Release.

organization which had delivered the child to

its prospective parents four years after deACCOUNT.

livery held sufficient.--Ex parte Courtright, 133

N. W. 820. See Appeal and Error, 88 1117, 1203; Costs, $ 32 Evidence, 354; Executors and Ad: incident to the relationship of parent and child,

$ 22 (S.D.) The right of inheritance is not ministrators, & 238; Insane Persons, 8 42; ; and hence is not necessarily incident to the re Trial, 8 11.

lationship of adoption.-Calhoun v. Bryant, 133 I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. N. W. 266.

In view of Civ. Code, $$ 136, 137, held, that $I (Mich.) Complaint held not to allege facts an adopting parent may inherit real property giving equity jurisdiction, in order to award an owned by the adopted child.-Id. equitable accounting.-Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Ætna Indemnity Co., 133 Ñ. W. 515.

$ 25 (S.D.) The law of the place where an $7 (Mich.) Facts held not to make a case cannot fix the rights of the parties to inherit

adoption occurs, while fixing the relationship, for an equitable accounting.-Laubengayer v. land situated outside the state.-Calhoun v. Robde, 133 N. W. 535.

Bryant, 133 N. W. 266.

See Appeal and Error, $ 662.

See Food.

See Appeal and Error, $ 878; Boundaries, 8 48. See Bigamy; Contracts, g 128; Divorce, g 45.

ADVERSE CLAIM. See Dismissal and Nonsuit.

See Quieting Title. For cases in Doc. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes soe same topic and section (3) NUMBER



ficient to sustain conviction.--State

Leavitt, 133 N. W. 294.
See Limitation of Actions; Tenancy in Com In a prosecution under Pol. Code, § 3020, for
mon, § 15.

knowingly keeping and using glandered horses,

certain evidence held admissible as bearing up-
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES. on the defendant's knowledge.-Id.
(A) Acquisition of Rights .by Prescription knowingly keeping and using glandered horses,

In a prosecution under Pol. Code, $ 3020, for
3 (N.D.) Laws 1899, c. 158, relating, to from which they were brought held admissible.
acquisition of title by adverse possession, held

to have been constitutionally passed.-Woolfolk
v. Albrecht, 133 N. W. 310.

$4 (Iowa) The doctrine of adverse posses- See Pleading, $$ 85, 123, 358, 428.
sion does not apply to municipalities.-John-
son v. City of Shenandoah, 133 N. W. 761.

(F) Hostile Character of Possession.

See Bailment; Carriers, § 321; Certiorari;
$ 64 (Iowa) Where plaintiff maintained pos Costs, & 260; Criminal Law, $$ 162, 713.
session of land in controversy under a parol 1004-1178; Drains, $8 38%. $2; Elections,
gift from testator for 14 years without his ob § 305; Eminent Domain, &$ 238, 239, 22.3.
jection, it was too late thereafter for testa 262; Exceptions, Bill of; Executors and ad-
tor's widow to set up an adverse title to the ministrators, $ 314; Habeas Corpus, f 113;
land.-Albright v. Albright, 133 N. W. 737. Insane Persons, $ 42; Justices of the Peace.

$ 79 (N.D.) A deed by a county auditor of $$ 145–174; Municipal Corporations. § 513;
land sold to the state for taxes pursuant to

Taxation, $ 900; Trial, 882, 53, 120, 255,
Laws 1890, c. 132, $$ 86, 87, held color of title 256, 295; Wills, 386.
under Laws 1899, c. 158, relating to adverse
possession.-Woolfolk v. Albrecht, 133 N. W.


(D) Finality of Determination.

8 70 (Minn.) An order denying a motion di-
See Appeal and Error, $ 1024; Contempt; ment as either party might be entitled to held

recting the clerk of court to enter such judg.
Evidence, $ 210; Executors and Administra-
tors, $ 238; New Trial, 88 150, 166.

not appealable.- Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. &

S. S. M. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 986.

$ 83 (Wis.) Order in proceedings under St.

1898, § 4096, providing for the examination of
See Principal and Agent.

adverse witnesses before trial, held not a final

order in a special proceeding, and not revier.

able.-Neacy v. Berger, 133 N. W. 580.
See Contracts.

(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision.

$ 97 (Wis.) Order in proceedings under St.

1898, § 4096, providing for the examination of

adverse witnesses before trial, held not an or-
See Criminal Law, 8 59.

der affecting a provisional remedy, and hence

not reviewable.- Neacy v. Berger, 133 N. W.

See Criminal Law, $ 814.

108 (Minn.) Order denying motion

amend findings of fact and conclusions of las

held not appealable.-Rase v. Minneapolis, St.

P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 986.
See Indians; Paupers, 8 13.

$ 109 (Minn.) An order denying a motion for

judgment notwithstanding a verdict, not con-

pled with the alternative motion for a Der

trial, is not appealable.-J. R. Watkins Medi-
See Divorce, $8 200–249; Husband and Wife, cal Co. v. McCall, 133 N. W. 966.
§ 295.

8 122 (S.D.) Defendant in condemnation held

entitled to appeal from the part of the judg.
See Indians, $ 32.

ment fixing the amount of his damages, without
appealing from the part awarding him costs.

his right to which cannot be affected by his hea

ing given a new trial by the appeal.-- Belle
See Reformation of Instruments.

Fourche Valley Ry. v. Belle Fourche Land &

Cattle Co., 133 N. W. 261.

See Appeal and Error, &$ 108, 590, 613, 656,

(A) Persons Entitled.
888; Constitutional Law, $ 6; Municipal Cor-
porations, f 46; Pleading, § 395; Process,

$ 144 (Wis.) Appellant held to have no right

to appeal.-American Food Products Co. T.
§ 163.

Winter, 133 N. W. 595.

$ 151 (Wis.) In a proceeding under St. 1998
See Carriers, $8 205-230; Railroads, 88 424, $ 4096, held, that defendant as to whom aetion

was dismissed was not an "aggrieved party

within section 3048, giving a right of appeal
$20 (Iowa) In the absence of an agreement only to such parties.-American Food Prod.
to the contrary, the offspring of domestic an

ucts Co. v. Winter, 133 N. W. 595.
imals belong to the owners of the dams.-
First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eich- (B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Al-
meier, 133 N. W. 454.

8 36 (S.D.) Evidence, in a prosecution under $ 154 (Iowa) Where, pending appeal fros
Pol. Code, Š 3020, for knowingly keeping, us a judgment for defendant in a suit to recore
ing, and controlling glandered horses, held suf- stock under an alleged gift, plaintiff instituted

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »