to be used at the next general election by placing thereon the name of Thomas Van Lear as a candidate for governor of the Socialist Labor party, and to omit from such ballots the name of Jay E. Nash as the candidate for governor of the Socialist party. We simply announce at this time our conclusion on the question, to be followed by a formal opinion hereafter, which is: Ordered, that the respondent, Peter E. Hanson, as secretary of state, place upon such ballots the name of Thomas Van Lear as the candidate for governor of the Socialist Labor party; and, further, that he strike from such ballots the word Socialist after the name of Jay E. Nash, as it appears thereon. FARNSWORTH v. COMMONWEALTH TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Aug. 1, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Brooks, Judge. Action by Ezra Farnsworth against Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiff for a specified amount, and both parties appeal. Reversed. PER CURIAM. This case depends upon facts precisely similar to those disposed of in Farnsworth Loan & Realty Co. v. Commonwealth Title Ins. & Trust Co., 91 N. W. 469, which is here followed. Order reversed, to follow that case. GRANT v. WAGNER. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Oct. 31, 1902.) Appeal from municipal court of Duluth; N. A. Gearhart, Special Judge. Action by William Grant against W. A. Wagner. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. D. M. DeVore, for appellant. H. B. Fryberger, for respondent PER CURIAM. Action for money had and received, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial was made upon grounds stated as follows: "First, that the verdict of the jury found herein was not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law; and, second, for errors of law occurring at the trial of said cause and duly excepted to by defendant. Said motion is now made upon all papers, files, and proceedings in this case, and upon the settled case herein." It appears from the record that no objections were made to the introduction of evidence, and that the case was tried on July 24, 1902, and that under date of August 11, 1902, defendant filed with the clerk of court the following statement: "Now comes the defendant and excepts -First, to the first, second, and third instructions to the jury by the court; second, to hearsay evidence introduced by plaintiff and admitted upon the trial by the court." Chapter 113 of the Laws of 1901 abrogates the necessity of taking exceptions to the rulings or order of the court, and requires that the same may be reviewed upon motion for a new trial or upon appeal as fully as if exceptions had been taken at the time of the ruling; but upon the motion for a new trial the notice must specify the errors upon which the party relies. No objec tions having been taken to the introduction of evidence or to the rulings of the court, and no errors having been specified in the motion for a new trial, there is nothing before the court to review, except the question whether the evidence justifies the verdict, and we are of the opinion that it does. Order affirmed. In re LIND. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Oct. 22, 1902.) Original application, on the petition of John Lind, for an order requiring Hugh R. Scott, county auditor of Hennepin county, to correct the official ballot to be used in said county at the general election in November, 1902. Granted. A. B. Choate and Cohen, Atwater & Shem, for petitioner. F. H. Boardman and C. L. Smith, for respondent. START, J. This cause having been duly argued and submitted on October 22, 1902, at the general October, 1902, term of this court, now, after full and mature deliberation had thereon, it is here and hereby ordered that Hugh R. Scott, above named, do forthwith, as county auditor of said Hennepin county, Minnesota, correct the ballots to be used in said county at the general election to be held in November, 1902, by striking out the word "Democrat" after the name of Spencer M. Holman as candidate for the office of member of the house of representatives of the United States from the Fifth congressional district of the state of Minnesota; that the said Scott, as such county auditor, be, and he hereby is, prohibited from placing after the name of said Holman, as such candidate upon said ballots, either the word "Democrat" or "Democratic"; and that the said Scott, as such county auditor, be, and he hereby is, prohibit from using or distributing for such election any ballot containing either said word "Democrat" or said word "Democratic" after the name of said Holman as such candidate. Let a certified copy of this order be delivered to said Hugh R. Scott forthwith. WALTON V. COMMONWEALTH TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. Aug. 1, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Brooks, Judge. Action by Edmund G. Walton, assignee of the Lake Harriet Residence Park Improvement Company, against the Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiff for a specified amount, and both parties appeal. Reversed. PER CURIAM. This case depends upon facts precisely similar to those disposed of in Farnsworth Loan & Realty Co. v. Commonwealth Title Ins. & Trust Co., 91 N. W. 469, which is here followed Order reversed, to follow that case. In re BISSELL'S ESTATE. THOMAS et al. v. HOLMAN. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. Sept. 18, 1902.) Commissioners' opinior. Department No. 3. Error to district court, Richardson county; Letton, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." In the matter of the estate of William C. Bissell, deceased. Action by Orlan Thomas and others against John Holman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed. J. E. Smith, Edwin Falloon, Reavis & Reavis, and S. P. Davidson, for plaintiffs in error. Francis Martin and C. Gillespie, for defendant in error. DUFFIE, C. This cause was argued and submitted with the case entitled Thomas V. Association (No. 10,834) 88 N. W. 683, in which an opinion was filed January 8, 1902. Both cases involved the same questions, and it was the intention of the author of the opinion filed to cover both cases. Through inadvertence the judgment in the case of Thomas v. Association (No. 10,834) was alone affirmed, and we now recommend that the judgment in this case be affirmed for the reasons given in that case. ALBERT and AMES, CC., concur. PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved, and, it appearing that the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. BRADBURY v. DILLON et al. POCHIN Y. CUMMINS et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 1, 1902.) Appeals from district court, Dawson county; Sullivan, Judge. Actions by C. T. Bradbury against Clarence H. Dillon and others and by E. D. Pochin against Malone Cummins and others. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Geo. C. Gillan and Wm. Neville, for appellants. Flansburg & Williams, for appellees. SEDGWICK, J. These two cases were argued and submitted together. They were actions to foreclose real estate mortgages. The notes which the mortgages were given to secure were by their terms payable at the office of the Globe Investment Company, and of necessity the plaintiffs had to present the coupons at that office as they matured, as well as the principal note, in order to receive payment thereon, and the defendants below were required by the terms of their notes to make payment at the office of said company. The trial court found that the company was not the agent of the holders of the notes and mortgages to make collections for them, and this finding is supported by the evidence. Decrees were entered foreclosing the mortgages as prayed, and the defendants appealed. The facts in the two cases, respectively, are substantially identical with the facts in No. 10.304 (Garnett v. Myers, 91 N. W. 400, decided herewith), and for the reasons given in the opinion in that case the decrees of the district court rendered in these cases are respectively affirmed. HANSEN v. ANDERSON. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 22, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Error to district court, Kearney county; Adams, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." Action by Mads Anderson against Carl A. Hansen. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. E. C. Dailey, for plaintiff in error. J. L. McPheeley, for defendant in error. DUFFIE, C. This is an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession of a strip of ground which the plaintiff below claims as a part of the S. 12 of the N. E. 4 of section 25, township 5, range 14, in Kearney county. The defendant below claims the strip as a part of the S. E. 14 of the N. W. 14 of said section 25, and also claims to be entitled thereto because of his actual adverse possession of the strip for more than ten years prior to the commencement of the action. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff in the district court, and, judgment having been entered on the verdict, the defendant has taken error to this court. No error is assigned upon the order of the court overruling the motion for a new trial, and this, under the now settled rule of the court, is fatal to a review of the other errors assigned. We have, however, looked into the record, and are satisfied that there is no reversible error in the instructions of the court, and that the verdict of the jury finds support in the evidence. We recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. AMES and ALBERT, CC., concur. PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved, and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. tion by John B. Hillers against George O. Yeiser and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Yeiser appeals. Affirmed. John O. Yeiser, for appellant. Geo. R. Chaney and Robt. T. Potter, for appellee. AMES, C. This is an appeal from a decree of foreclosure and sale to satisfy a tax lien upon real estate. The point urged is that the evidence is insufficient to support the decree. The evidence is somewhat scant, but there seems to be no real question about the existence and validity of the lien, which is for a small amount, and a part of which seems to have been paid since the judgment. Upon the whole record, we think the evidence suffices to uphold the decree of the district court, and we recommend that it be affirmed. ALBERT and DUFFIE, CC., concur. PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved, and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. POUND, C. This is an appeal from confirmation of a sale under decree of foreclosure. The objections going to the appraisement were not made till after sale, and need not be looked into. The only other objection is that the decree "did not include costs to time of decree, and therefore was not a final decree." This is too frivolous to merit comment. We recommend that the order appealed from be affirmed. BARNES and OLDHAM, CC., concur. PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved, and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the. district court be affirmed. MORTON et al. v. OASS COUNTY et al.1 (Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 23, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Cass county; Charles A. Pollock, Judge. Action by Charles A. Morton and others against Cass county and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed. J. E. Robinson, for appellants. Newton & Smith and Morrill & Engerud, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The sole question presented in this case turns upon the constitutionality of chapter 161, Laws 1901. The same question is presented and decided at this term in the case of Angell v. Same Defendants, 91 N. W. 72, which decision will control this case. Judgment reversed, and the district court is directed to enter judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs of both courts. CAMUS et al. v. BIG STONE CITY. (Supreme Court of South Dakota. July 2, 1902.) Appeal from circuit court, Grant county. Petition by Henry Camus and others to disconnect and exclude certain property from the corporate limits of Big Stone City. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed. Thomas L. Bouck, for appellant. George S. Rix, for respondents. 1 Rehearing denied June 14, 1902. PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in Oehler v. Big Stone City, 91 N. W. 450, the judgment of the circuit court in this action is reversed, and a new trial ordered. LA CROSSE BROWN HARVESTER CO. v. STOREY. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin. May 19, 1902.) Appeal from circuit court, La Cross county; J. J. Fruit, Judge. Action by the La Crosse Brown Harvester Company against Ole Storey. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Morris & Hartwell, for appellant. C. W. Graves and E. C. Higbe, for respondent. CASSODAY, C. J. This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover $600 as the balance due upon the first, second, and third assessments on 20 shares of the capital stock, of $100 each, subscribed by the defendant in the plaintiff corporation, and that no part of such assessments had been paid, except $100. The facts alleged are substantially the same as in the case of This Plaintiff v. Goddard, 91 N. W. 225, in which an opinion is filed herewith, except the amount, and as to the first assessment. For the reasons given in the opinion filed in that case, we think the demurrer was properly overruled. The order of the circuit court is affirmed. END OF CASES IN VOL. 91. INDEX. ABANDONMENT. Of appeal, see "Appeal and Error," § 13. ABATEMENT. Of nuisance, see "Nuisance," § 1. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Election of remedy, see "Election of Remedies." § 1. Death of party and revival of ac- ager reported orders to buy and sell stocks ex- ACCRUAL. Of right of action, see "Limitation of Actions," ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Of indebtedness barred by limitations, see “Lim- ACTION. Where one of two joint parties upon the ABDUCTION. See "Seduction." ABSTRACTS. Accrual, see "Limitation of Actions," § 1. Commencement within period of limitations, see Counterclaim, see "Set-Off and Counterclaim." Of record on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- Limitation by statute, see "Limitation of Ac- ABUTTING OWNERS. Assessments for expenses of public improve- Rights in streets in cities, see "Municipal Cor- ACCESSORIES. Criminal responsibility, see "Criminal Law," ACCIDENT. Accident insurance, see "Insurance," § 10. ACCOMPLICES. Criminal responsibility, see "Griminal Law," ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See "Account Stated." Accounting between partners, see "Partner- Accounting by executor or administrator, see ACCOUNT STATED. In an action on an account stated, where the tions." Malicious actions, see "Malicious Prosecution." Survival, see "Abatement and Revival," § 1. Co-tenants, see "Partition," § 1; "Tenancy in Partners, see "Partnership," § 5. Actions by or against particular classes of See "Carriers," §§ 1. 2; "Corporations," §4; Alienation of affections, see "Husband and (1129) |