페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

v.

Page

Pago Peterson v. Independent Order of Foresters Sample v. Harter (S. D.)...

.1016 (Wis.) 951 Sando v. Roberts County (S. D.)

64 Peterson v. McCarthy Imp. Co. (Iowa).... 801 Sarles v. Scandinavian American Bank (N. Peterson v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Minn.).. 121

D.) ..

556 Pfeiffer v. Chicago & M. Electric R. Co. Sawyer v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Neb.) 504 (Wis.) 952 Sayer, Wilgers v. (S. D.).

906 Pfrimmer, Wright v. (Neb.).

. 1060 Scandinavian American Bank, Sarles V. Phair v. Dumond (Neb.). 637 (N. D.)..

556 Phelps v. Linnan (Iowa). 294 Schmahl, State v. (Minn.).

8 Philleo, State v. (Iowa). 833 Schmahl, State v. (Minn.)

116 Phillips Coal Co., Monarch Coal Co. v. Schmidt v. Grenzow (Wis.).

143 (Iowa)

297 | School Dist. of Nebraska City, State V. Pick v. Pick (Neb.)... 769 (Neb.)

641 Pickering Great Northern R. Co. Schultz v. Farmers' Elevator Co. (Iowa). . 716 (Minn.)

3 Schutt, State Bank of Woolstock v. (Iowa) 762 Pierce v. Boyer-Van Kuran Lumber & Coal Sclawr v. St. Paul (Minn.).

283 Co. (Neb.). 509 Scofield v. Wilcox (N. D.).

918 Pishon, Bayfield County v. (Wis.). 463 Scott v. Scott (Iowa).

834 Plowman v. King (Iowa). 355 Scott County v. Townsley (Iowa).

291 Plymouth Gypsum Plaster Co., Johnson v. Sears, Sioux City Robe & Tanning Co. v. (Iowa) 721 (Iowa)

299 Porte v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis... 469 See, Hanes v. (Iowa).

852 Prew v. South Dakota Cent. R. Co. (S. D.) 582 Selleseth, Rosenwater v. (N. D.).

540 Pugh v. Des Moines (Iowa). 892 Seymour v. Davies (N. D.)..

112 Shafer v. Harden (Neb.).

632 Quaschneck v. Blodgett (N. D.)...... 216 Shaffer, Roberts v. (S. D.).

67 Quick, Barkley v. (N. D.).... 544 Shedenhelm v. Cafferty (Iowa).

340 Quinn, Klink v. (S. D.).

797 Sheehy v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. Quinn, Malley V. (Minn.).

263
(Minn.)

346 Quinn, State v. (Minn.). 284 Shellenberger v. State (Neb.).

777 Sherman v. Sherman (Iowa).

301 Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, Chi- Shope v. Unknown Claimants, etc. (Iowa) 850

cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Wis.)...... . 1087 Sioux City Foundry & Mfg. Co. v. Merten Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, Wis- (Iowa)

367 consin Tel. Co. v. (Wis.).

614 Sioux City Robe & Tanning Co. v. Sears Randall v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M.

(Iowa)

299 R. Co. (Wis.).

629 Sioux Falls Lodge, No. 262, B. P. O. E., v. Rankin v. Smith (Iowa). 756 Mundt (S. D.)..

799 Rantala v. Haish (Minn.). 666 Slattery, Moran v. (Neb.).

663 Ray, Anderson v. (S. D.). 591 Slette v. Larson (Minn.).

.1086 Redwood County, Docpke v. (Minn.). 125 Small, State v. (S. D.).

580 Redwood County Election Contest, in re Smith v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Neb.) 639 (Minn.) 125 Smith, Fisher v. (N. D.).

242 Reed, State v. (Minn.). 127 Smith, Larson v. (Iowa).

813 Reed, State v. (Minn.) 128 Smith, Lingo v. (Iowa).

402 Reeds, Paulson v. (N. D.). .1031 Smith, Rankin v. (Iowa).

756 Reinhardt, Harder v. (Wis.). 959 Smith v. Smith, two cases (Iowa).

402 Retail Merchants' Ass'n Mut. Fire Ins. Smith, Sultzbach v. (Iowa).

673 Co., Ennis v. (N. D.)..

234 Smithwick School Dist. No. 6 v. Lincoln Reynolds, Southwick v. (Neb.). 775 School Dist. No. 26 (S. D.).

587 Rhein v. Burns (Wis.). 138 Sonnenschein, State v. (S. D.).

906 Riemenschneider, Bucholz v. (Wis.). 946 South Dakota Cent. R. Co., Prew v. (S. Riggs, Lund & Seamands v. (Iowa). 161 D.)

582 Riley v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. Southwick v. Reynolds (Neb.).

775 (Minn.) 272 Spaulding, Bishop v. (Neb.).

.1080 Roberts y. Brown (S. D.)

77 Sprout, Waldron & Co. v. Amery Mercantile Roberts v. Jacobs (S. D.).

589
Co. (Wis.)..

158 Roberts v. Roberts (Iowa) 399 Stack v. Roth Bros. Co. (Wis.).

148 Roberts v. Shaffer (S. D.)"

67 Stacy v. Brown-Hurley Hardware Co. Roberts County, Sando v. (S. D.). 64 (Iowa)

693 Robinson, Beyer v. (N. D.)...

203 Standard Separator Co., Morey v. (Iowa) 719 Rock v. Ekern (Wis.)...

197 Stanley, City of Bloomfield v. (Iowa). 307 Rock County Sugar Co., Chicago, M. & St. Staring Co. v. Rossman (Minn.).

120 P. R. Co. v. (Wis.).. 607 Stark County v. Mischel (N. D.).

931 Rock County Sugar Co., Chicago & N. W. Starke v. Wannemacher (N. D.).

494 R. Co. v. (Wis.). 610 State, Althaus v. (Neb.).

.1038 Rogers v. Walsh (S. D.).

88 State v. Board of Com’rs of Edmunds CounRohan v. Johnson (N. D.).

936
ty (S. D.).

96 Rohleder v. Wright (Wis.). *955 State v. Chadbourne (Wis.).

610 Romack, Thompson v. (Iowa). 310 State, Collins v. (Wis.)..

133 Rose v. Rose (Minn.). 664 State, Dagan v. (Wis.).

153 Rosenwater v. Selleseth (N. D.). 540 State v. Deviney (Iowa).

747 Rossman, Staring Co. v. (Minn.).

120 State v. District Board of Joint School Roth Bros. Co., Stack v. (Wis.).

148

Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Plymouth, WoneRoyal Mineral Ass'n, State v. (Minn.). 128

woc, and City of Elroy (Wis.).

477 Rubbert v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa). 361 | State v. District Court of Pennington Rupley v. Fraser (Minn.). 350 County (Minn.)

278 Ryland, Curran v. (Iowa)..

162 State v. District Court of Ramsey County (Minn.)

120 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Houge v. State v. Edmons (Minn.).

. 1086 (Iowa)

862 State v. Ewert (S. D.). St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Moore v. State v. Galson (Minn.)

1 (Iowa) 676 State v. Gardner (Iowa).

747 St. Paul & K. O. S. L. R. Co., Eikenberry State v. Hall (Neb.)

16 V. (Iowa) 163 State v. Harper (Wis.)..

941

90

[ocr errors]

Page

Page State v. Hunter (Neb.).. 975 Trowbridge, Bowie v. (Iowa)..

977 State v. International Falls (Minn.). 249 True v. Hunter (Iowa),

363 State, Karakutza v. (Wis.).. 965 Trump, Noble v. (Iowa).

376 State, Kimmel v. (Neb.).

.1074 State, Kusel v. (Neb.).. .1079 Uhler, State v. (N. D.)..

220 State v. Levich (Iowa).

824 Uncaphor, Des Moines Packing Co. v. State v. McCauley (Minn.). 280 (Iowa)

171 State v. Miller (N. D.)..

1086 Union Pac. R. Co., Hadley v. (Neb.) 765 State v. Moorhead (Neb.).

. 1067 Union Pac. R. Co. v. W. L. Stickel LumState, Muzik v. (Neb.). .1056 ber Co. (Neb.).

...1082 State v. Nelson (Iowa).

839 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State v. Nickerson (Neb.). .1039 Iowa Tel. Co. (Iowa)..

727 State, Ogden v. (Wis.).

476 Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Johansen State v. Perkins (S. D.)

73
V. (Neb.).

511 State v. Philleo (Iowa)

833 Unknown Claimants, etc., Shope v. (Iowa) 850 State v. Quinn (Minn.). 284 Ure, State v. (Neb.)...

..1053 State v. Reed (Minn.).

127 State v. Reed (Minn.). 128 Vander Linden v. Oster (S. D.).

911 State v. Royal Mineral Ass'n (Minn.). 128 Voigt, Witt v. (Wis.)..

954 State v. Schmahl (Minn.)

8 State v. Schmahl (Minn.).

116 Wagle v. Iowa State Bank (Iowa). 991 State v. School Dist. of Nebraska City Walsh, Rogers v. (S. D.)..

88 (Neb.) 641 Waltermath, State v. (Wis.).

946 State, Shellenberger v. (Neb.). 777 Wandersee v. Wandersee (Minn.)

348 State v. Small (S. D.).. 580 Wannemacher, Starke v. (N. D.).

494 State v. Sonnenschein (S. D.). 906 Ward v. Babcock (Wis.).

.1007 State v. Taylor (N. D.). 561 Warden v. Elroy (Wis.).

466 State v. Temple (Neb.) .1063 Warne v. Warne (s. D.)

60 State v. Tralstead (S. D.) 75 Warren v. Graham (Iowa).

323 State v. Uhler (N. D.)...

220 Watson v. Mississippi River Power Co. State v. Ure (Neb.).. .1053 (Iowa)

188 State v. Waltermath (Wis.). 946 W. C. Wentz Co., Miller v. (Neb.)

634 State, Whetstone v. (Neb.).. .1049 Weaver, In re (Wis.)..

459 State v. White (Minn.). 251 Weber v. Minneapolis (Minn.).

287 State Ba of Maxbass v. Hurley Farmers' Wegener v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 201 Elevator Co. (N. D.). 921 Wentz Co., Miller v. (Neb.).

634 State Bank of Maxbass v. John D. Gruber Werthmann, Andreyszak v. (Wis.).

949 Co. (N. D.)...

921 Western Surety Co. v. Boettcher (S. D.) 68 State Bank of Woolstock v. Schutt (Iowa) 762 Westlake v. Anderson (N. D.)..

925 Steiniger, Lane v. (Iowa). 375 Wetmore, Nicholl v, (Iowa)..

319 Stennett v. Stennett (Iowa). 406 Whetstone v. State (Neb.).

.1049 Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. (Wis.) 971 White, State v. (Minn.)

251 Stickel Lumber Co., Union Pac. R. Co. v.

Wilber v. Lincoln Aerie No. 147, Fraternal (Veb.)

. 1082
Order of Eagles (Neb.).

658 Stock, Malm v. (Neb.). 656 Wilcox, Scofield v. (N. D.).

918 Stoner-McCray System v. Manhattan Oil Wilfin v. Des Moines City R. Co. (Iowa).. 842 Co. (Iowa). 683 Wilgers v. Sayer (S. D.).

906 Sult, Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. (N. D.).. 939 Willsey, Long v. (Minn.).

349 Sultzbach v. Smith (Iowa)...

673 Wilmes v. Chicago Great Western R. Co. Susong, Anderson v. (Iowa).

21
(Iowa)

877 Susong, Younker v. (Iowa).

24 Wilser v. Modern Woodmen of America (Minn.)

271 Swigart, Buffalo Center Land & Investment Co. v. (Iowa). 701 Windedahl v. Harris (S. D.).

489 Szelwicki v. Connor Lumber. & Land Co. Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co.,' Jacobs v. (Wis.)

622
(Wis.)

159
Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Railroad Commission
of Wisconsin (Wis.)..

614 Tarczek v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 473 Wising v. Brotherhood of American YeoTaylor, State v. (N. D.)..

561
men (Minn.)

247 Temple, State v. (Neb.). .1063 Witt v. Voigt (Wis.),

954 Teske v. Baumgart (Neb.), .1044 Witt v. Witt (Iowa)..

321 Thill v. Freiermuth (Minn.).

260 W. L. Stickel Lumber Co., Union Pac. R. Thompson v. Romack (Iowa).

310
Co. v. (Neb.).

.1082 Thompson v. Thompson (N. D.).. 492 Wolfson v. Zimmerman (Minn.).

119 Thwing v. Minowa Co. (Minn.).

780 Woodbury County, Bartels v. (Iowa). 303 Tietge, Buck Auto Carriage & Implement Woodruff v. Heltibridle (S. D.)..

579 Co. v. (Iowa).

313 Worez v. Des Moines City R. Co. (Iowa).. 867 Till, Hamley v. (Wis.). 968 Workman's Estate, In re (Iowa).

438 Timme v. Kopmeier (Wis.). 961 Worzalla, Zielica v. (Wis.). ..

623 Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. Sult (N. D.).. 939 Wright v. Percival-Porter Co. (Iowa) 698 Toombs, City of Bloomfield v. (Iowa). 307 Wright v. Pfrimmer (Neb.).

.1060 Torgeson, Detroit Automatic Scale Co. v.

Wright, Rohleder v. (Wis.).

955 (S. D.)...

86 Town of Pewaukee, Meidenbauer v. (Wis.) 144 Young, Hankins v. (Iowa).

380 Township of Bergen v. Nelson County (N. Younker v. Susong (Iowa)

24 D.)

559 Township of Warsaw v. Bakken (Minn.) 7 Zielica v. Worzalla (Wis.)..

623 Townsley, Scott County v. (Iowa). 291 Zimmerman, Wolfson v. (Minn.).

119 Tralstead, State v. (S. D.).

75 Zimmer Vacuum Renovator Co., National Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., City Bank of Minneapolis v., two cases Owens v. (Neb.)... '1078! (Minn.)

265

REHEARINGS DENIED

(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]

IOWA

Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Leipus, 152 N. W.

856. Barber v. De Ford, 150 N. W. 86.

Parkes v. Lindenmann, 151 N. W. 787. Ludowici Caladon Co. v. Independent School Sterling Engineering & Construction Co. v. Dist. of Independence, 149 N. W. 845.

Berg, 152 N. W. 851.
WISCONSIN.

Taylor v. Northern Coal & Dock Co., 152 N.

W. 465.
Colburn v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 152 N. Todd v. Loomis, 152 N. W. 447.
W. $21.

Voelz v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin,

152 N. W. 830. Duluth St. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 152 N. W. 887.

W. H. Pipkorn Co. v. Tratnik, 152 N. W. 141.

See End of Index for Tables of Northwestern Cases in State Reports

[blocks in formation]

THE

NORTHWESTERN REPORTER

VOLUME 156

ENTS.

son to be charged with its bringing up. The STATE ex rel. GALSON V. GALSON. controversy on the trial below and in this (No. 19191 [38].)

court was as to the fitness of Mrs. Galson (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Feb. 4, 1916.) to care for and bring up her child. The

trial court decided that she was unfit, but (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

it did not have the benefit of the evidence HABEAS CORPUS Cw99—CUSTODY OF MINOR taken in this court before the referee. On CHILD-RIGHT AS BETWEEN DIVORCED PAR

the record as it stood when the trial court In a controversy between divorced parents filed its decision, we would not reach a conas to the right of custody of a child five years trary conclusion. But a careful consideraold, the welfare of the child is the primary con- tion of all the evidence convinces us that a sideration and requires that the care and custody be awarded to the mother, unless she is an decision finding the mother unfit by reason unfit person to be charged with its bringing up. of her character and habits to have the care

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Habeas Cor- and custody of her young daughter is not pus, Cent. Dig. $ 84; Dec. Dig. 99.]

demanded or even justified. The evidence is Appeal from District Court, Hennepin of such a character that decency forbids County; W. E. Hale, Judge.

even a synopsis. Suffice it to say that we Habeas corpus by the State, on the rela- find the accusations of the husband, supporttion of Niklas Galson, against Edna Galson, ed by the “dicers' oaths” of his countrymen, to secure possession of a child. From an to be false. order awarding the care and custody of the

The order appealed from is reversed, and child to relator, defendant appeals. Revers- the care and custody of the child awarded ed, and care and custody of child awarded to respondent, until the further order of this to defendant.

court. C. H. Slack, of Minneapolis, for appellant. Booth & McDonald, of Minneapolis, for re- BEHRENS v. KRUSE (three cases). spondent.

(No. 19509 [151].)

(Supreme Court of Minnesota. Feb. 2, 1916.) PER CURIAM. The care and custody of the minor child of the parties was awarded

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff., by the district court to the relator after Costs Our 250 ALLOWANCE OF STATUTORY hearing on a writ of habeas corpus. Re

COSTS-APPEAL.

Where three actions involving the same parspondent, Edna Galson, appealed from the ties and the same questions of law are presented order. Additional testimony was taken be together on appeal, with one record, one brief, fore a referee and reported by him to this one oral argument, and one attorney on each

side, only one allowance of statutory costs should court, where the case was heard de novo.

be made. Niklas Galson, a Greek, and Edna, his

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Costs, Cent. wife, the parents of the five year old girl Dig. 88 253, 956; Dec. Dig. em 250.] whose custody is in controversy, ceased their

On motion to tax costs. marital relations, and a default decree of

For former opinion, see 155 N. W. 1065. divorce was granted to the husband in June, 1913, which awarded him the care and cus- PER CURIAM. Appeals in three actions tody of the child, which was at the time between the same parties and involving idenwith its mother. Galson afterwards se-tical questions of law were by stipulation cured possession of the girl, and intrusted presented together, with one record, one her to the care of one of his countrymen, brief, one oral argument, and one attorney from whom the mother took her.

on each side. It need not be stated that in these cases Only one allowance of statutory costs the first if not the only consideration is the should be made. So ordered. See Babcock welfare of the child. Plainly it should be v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co., 117 Minn. 434, with its mother, unless she is an unfit per- 445, 136 N. W. 275, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 924.

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 156 N.W.-1

the inside. He conducted a show therein for BOWDER V. GILLIS et al. (No. 19380 [223].) some 25 days, but in the early part of June (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Jan. 28, 1916.) closed up. He tried unsuccessfully to get

from under the obligations of the lease. In (Syllabus by the Court.)

the latter part of June he induced plaintiff 1. LANDLORD AND TENANT Om76 – LEASE

to trade some land for the lease and outfitCONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT_ACTION FOR DAM- chairs, film machine, linoleum, and wall mirAGES-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In this action for damages against defend- rors. The claim of plaintiff is that, prior to ants, as lessors, for refusing to give written con- making this trade, he consulted defendants sent to the assignment of the lease by the who agreed that he might procure the lease lessee to plaintiff, the jury were justified in finding that plaintiff procured the assignment of from Valentine, and that, in reliance upon the lease relying upon the assurance of the les- this assurance or agreement, he made the sors that such transfer would be acceptable to deal. After the lease was assigned, and on them.

July 1, 1914, the defendants served a notice [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Landlord and upon plaintiff calling his attention to their Tenant, Cent, Dig. 88 225-230; Dec. Dig. On 76.]

ownership and the Valentine lease, stating 2. LANDLORD AND TENANT Cw17712-Con- that they had been informed that plaintiff

STRUCTIVE EVICTION-RIGHT OF ACTION– had taken possession, and notifying him that ASSIGNEE OF LEASE.

unless he had entered as agent or employé of Plaintiff obtained the key to the leased Valentine his possession was unlawful and premises and took possession as assignee of the

forbidden. Iessee. He then had considerable bulky prop

A day or so prior to receiving erty in the leased building. He has never sur- this notice plaintiff came to Waseca to open rendered the key to the lessors nor removed up the show. Defendant W. H. Gillis went his property from the building, and is therefore with him to get the key to the premises that not in position to sue for constructive eviction; Valentine had left with a former employé. there having been no active interference by the lessors with his possession. There cannot Gillis also rendered some assistance in getbe constructive eviction without a complete ting the needed help for plaintiff. But when, abandonment of possession by the tenant.

later in the day, plaintiff requested the writ[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Landlord and ten consent of the lessors to the transfer of Tenant, Cent. Dig. $ 712; Dec. Dig. em17742.) the lease it was refused. The lessors also re

Appeal from District Court, Waseca Coun- fused to receive rent from plaintiff, but apty; Arthur B. Childress, Judge.

pear to have been willing to receive it as comAction by J. J. Bowder against W. H. Gillis ing from Valentine. Their idea seems to and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and from have been to not release, from the covenants denial of motion for judgment notwithstand of the lease, Valentine, whom they regarded ing the verdict or new trial, defendants ap- as financially responsible. Notwithstanding peal. Reversed, and new trial granted. the notice, plaintiff gave exhibitions for three

Fred W. Senn and P. McGovern, both of or four days thereafter, and then quit. DeWaseca, for appellants. Moonan & Moonan, fendants did not interfere in any manner of Waseca, for respondent.

with plaintiff's possession or business, save

the giving of said notice, the refusal to accept HOLT, J. The action is one for damages rent from him, and, late in the fall, when against lessors for refusing to fulfill an agree plaintiff was requested to remove his properment to give their written consent to a les- ty and when the property was attached in a see's assignment of a lease. Verdict for plain-suit for rent. Plaintiff never surrendered tiff, and defendants appeal from the order the key and never removed his property, such denying their motion in the alternative for as the 213 chairs, linoleum, and film machine judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a from the premises. new trial.

We think the evidence justified the jury in [1] The short facts are these: On April 4, concluding that, before the trade between 1914, defendants by written lease demised plaintiff and Valentine was consummated, the first floor and the front half of the base defendants indicated such assent thereto that ment of a certain two-story brick building in plaintiff could rightfully rely thereon. It is Waseca, Minn., to L. W. Valentine for a pe- probably true that the testimony does not riod of three years with privilege of two ad- show an express agreement to consent in ditional years, the rent being $60 per month. writing to an assignment of the lease, but In the lease the lessee covenanted not to as- that was not necessary in order to give plainsign the lease or underlet the rented premises tiff the right to be regarded as assignee. The or any part thereof, without first obtaining covenant was for the lessors' benefit, and the written consent of the lessors. A moving could be waived by them. The jury were picture show had been operated in the prem- justified in finding a waiver as to plaintiff of ises, at short intervals, prior to the lease, the lessors' written consent to the transfer. and it was contemplated that the same busi-Aldrich v. Shoe Mart Co., 108 Minn. 15, 121 ness was to be continued therein. Mr. Val. N. W. 422. entine spent a considerable sum in changing [2] The doubtful question in the case is the street front of the premises, part of whether eviction has been proven. It is unwhich the lessors paid, and in decorating disputed that plaintiff obtained the key to

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

« 이전계속 »