6.1. ERMUSR 04-14-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

402. 130 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER should you find after a fair and careful consideration of all the evidence in this case, weighing it as you should, that the passing of this property from Bloosten was for a consideration that was reasonably near the value of the property-that is, the value of the consideration compared favorably, and waa not so clearly below the market value of the property as to strike an ordinarily intelligent man with the conviction that such a sale never could have been made in good faith-if you find that they bought it, and paid a fair valuation for it, and that they both bought it jointly, then they became the owners of it, and they were entitled to the possession of it, and the taL-ing of ft by the defendants was wrongful, and it becomes your duty, it you so find, to find for the plaintiff. • ' • IP, on the other hand, you $nd this sale was not made properly and for. a fair`a•Itrl reasonable considetation, it it waa made wltti'the intention of defraud- ing and defeating the creditors of Louis Bloosten, then I charge you that the plain- tiffs did not become the owners of that prop- erty, and that the taking of it by the defend- ants was a rightful taking, and that they had a right to it, and it will then become your duty to find a verdict Por the defend- ants." It !s well settled that a sale or mort- gage, although upon an adequate considera- tion, may be not only constructively, but actually, fraudulent as against creditors. Braley v, Byrnes, 20 Minn. 435 (Gil. 389); Fish v. McDonnAll, 42 Minn. 519, 44 N. W. nab. It follows that the Instructions com- plafned of were erroneous, and constitute re- versible error, for the jury might well have understood therefrom that 1E the plninttf[s paid a fair price for the property they were entitled to a verdict. The record does not justify the conclusion that the instructions were the result of inadvertent or uninten- tional misstatements on the part of the trial court; hence the instruction:, do not fall within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, 88 N. W. ?74. Order reversed, and. new trial granted. (117 Mina. ass) STATE ez rel. FINLAYSON v. GORMAN, City Clerk. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. April 26, 1912.) (,4yRabua by the Court.) I 1. MUNIOIPAL CORPORATTONa (~ 203')-DE- •PARTMENTS-POwEa TO Ea[PLOY ATTORNEY. The water, light, power, end building com- m[ssioa of the city of Eaet Grand Forks be- tag a governmental department of the city,' the City attorney to its legal adviser, sad it' has no ezpreas or implied power to employ its own attorney, thereby creating a liability against the Gty. [Ed. Note.-For other ca9ee, see Municipal Corporations Cent. Dig. §§ 657-581; Dec. Dig. § 205.•j (Dunn. 2. MUNICIPAL (',URPORATIONa (§ 205•)-DE- YARTMENTa-POWEa TO E3iPLOY ATTORNEY. Concedia$, without deciding, that an emer- gency may glue power where none otherwise exists, it is held that, when the commission employed the attorney for whose services the city is sought to be made liable, no emergency eziated, the commission had performed its duty, and was under no legal obligation to assist a private person to enforce a clefm au- dited end ordered paid by it against the, city. [I:d. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations Ceat. Dig. §§ 557-661; Dec. Dig. § 205.'j Appeal from District Court, Polk County; tiVm. 1Vatts, Judge. hlaudamua by the state, on the relation of A. Flnlayson, to James Gorman, ns city clerk of the city of East Grand Forks. From a judgment on an order quashing an alternative writ, the relator appeals. Af- firmed. G. A. E. Finlayson, of East Grand Forks, !or appellant. I`. C. illassee, S. A. Bronson, and W. J. Rasmussen, all of East Grand Forks, for respondent. HOLT, J. The appealls from a judgment entered upon an order quashing an alterna- tive writ of mandamus, and Involves the one question whether or not the water, light, power, and building commission of the city of East Grand Forks may create a liability against the city for compensation to an at- torney employed by the commission. It ap- pears from the writ that the city, organized under chapter 8 of the General Laws of 1895, in 1909 availed itself of the provisions in chapter 412 of the General Laws of 1907 (Rev. Laws Supp. 1909, ;§ 775-8 to 775-16), and daly created a water, light, power, and building commission, composed of three mem- bers. The respondent is the city clerk, and under the law should act as secretary of the commission, and is the one whose duty it fa to draw warrants upon the city treasurer for the claims allowed and ordered paid by the commission. It is further made to appear that the other city officials declined to rec- ognize the authority of the commission, the city attorney refused to advise the commis- sion when called upon;. the city treasurer would not pay the claims incurred by the commission, and the respondent herein, as secretary, will not issue or sign the warrants ordered, so that the commission was practi- cally ousted from office. In this situation the commission, in January, 1910, employed appellant's assignor as its attorney to give advice and Institute such action In court as would establish the authority of the com- mission and enable 1t to perform its duties to the public. The attorney so employed rendered services between January 17, 1910, .end March, 1910, in counseling and advising the commission !n relation to the commence= went o! proceedings for relief, and in the preparation, rnmmenceinent, and trial In the district court and thta court of an action a i •6or other cases see same topic and aectlan NUDtBER to Dee. Dtg. d Am. Dig. Key No. Serlaa k Rep'r Iade:ea