CERTIFICATE. See DRAIN, 6; INSURANCE, 5, 12-15.

CERTIFIED CASE.

Where a case is certified to this court under G. S. 1913, § 9251, the proceed. ing is purely statutory, and the court has no jurisdiction unless it is within the statute. There is no warrant for certifying questions that have arisen upon a trial in which the jury disagreed.

-State v. Toole, 532.

CHARGE TO JURY. See MONOPOLY, 4; TRIAL, 2-9.

CHATTEL MORTGAGE. See BAILMENT, 2.

CONTRACT SUBJECT TO EXISTING STATUTES GIVING PRIOR LIENS.

1. A chattel mortgagee contracts with reference to existing statutes giving prior liens, whether a thresher's lien (G. S. 1913, § 7082), a lien for transportation and storage (G. S. 1913, §§ 7036, 7037), or similar liens. -Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. 146.

LIEN OF WAREHOUSEMAN SUPERIOR TO CHATTEL MORTGAGE.

2. By Laws 1905, c. 328, as amended by Laws 1907, c. 114 (G. S. 1913, §§ 7036, 7037), giving a lien on personal property transported and stored at the request of the owner or legal possessor thereof, it was intended that one transporting and storing property at the request of a chattel mortgagor in legal possession should have a lien superior to the interest of the chattel mortgagee.

-Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. 144.

3. The statute, so construed, is constitutional.

-Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. 144.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 4-10; PENSION.

CITY OF ST. PAUL. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 19; TAXATION, 9-12, 15.

CONSIDERATION. See ASSIGNMENT, 4; BILLS AND NOTES; MORTGAGE, 1, 2. 4. CONSTITUTION. See CHATTEL MORTGAGE, 1-3; INJUNCTION, 8; INTOXICATING LIQUOR, 2; PUBLIC LAND.

EVERY PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF VALIDITY OF ACT.

All

1. The setting aside of an act of the legislature is not a light matter. argument based on the unwisdom of the legislation is apart from the issue. The court cannot set aside laws because it may think them unwise. Their wisdom is for the legislature to determine. Nor can the court set aside an act because it was induced by improper motives. This court cannot sit in review in such matters. The question presented to it for review is not one of legislative wisdom, but solely one of legisla tive power. Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute.

-State ex rel. v. County Board of St. Louis County, 129.

PUBLIC POLICY.

2. A constitutional law passed by the legislature is not against public policy. It is public policy.

-Midway Realty Co. v. City of St. Paul, 301.

SPECIAL LEGISLATION.

See STATUTE, 8.

CLASSIFICATION OF CITIES.

See STATUTE, 1, 2.

TITLE AND SUBJECT OF Act.

See STATUTE, 4-9.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW-VESTED RIGHT TO PENSION.

3. Where a member of the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, an organization formed under the general laws of the state for the relief of disabled members of the Minneapolis Fire Department, is determined by the association to be disabled within the meaning of its constitution and by-laws and is granted a pension as therein provided, his right to the pension is a vested legal right of which he cannot be deprived except by due process of law, namely, by notice and opportunity to be heard in any proceedings had by the association for the purpose of terminating his rights.

-Stevens v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Assn. 381.

TAXATION.

4. The taxation of a membership in the Duluth Board of Trade does not violate any provision of the Federal or state Constitution.

-State v. McPhail, 399.

CONSTITUTION-Continued.

5. Laws 1901, p. 215, c. 167, providing that a village council may on its own motion order a sidewalk constructed, is not unconstitutional because it does not give property owners an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety or necessity of the proposed improvement. The opportunities which the property owner has to be heard when the assessment is fixed, and on the application for judgment, satisfy the due process of law requirement.

-State v. Burnes, 471.

REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICER.

See MUNICIPAL CorporatION, 5; OFFICER, 2.

CONTRACT. See ADOPTION, 1-4; ASSIGNMENT, 2, 3; BROKER, 3; EVIDENCE, 1215; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 3, 4; PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 1, 2; REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 2.

CONSIDERATION.

See BILLS AND Notes.

CONSTRUCTION.

See BOUNDARY, 4; INSURANCE, 2; WORDS ANd Phrases, 1, 2.

WHEN MADE WITH REFERENCE TO CUSTOM.

See BROKER, 5.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

1. A covenant in a bill of sale of a bus and baggage transfer business, not to engage in the same business in a certain city, held not unlawful as an unreasonable restraint of trade.

-Holliston v. Ernston, 49.

COVENANT NOT TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS.

2. A covenant "not to start a bus line in Granite Falls, or drive a bus in Granite Falls," held, in view of the whole transaction in connection with which it was made, to amount to an agreement by the covenantors not to engage in the business so as to bring their names and influence to the aid of any competitor.

-Holliston v. Ernston, 49.

3. The gist of the covenant in suit was that the defendants would not engage in business so as to bring their names and influence to the aid of any competitor carrying on the same line of business within the prohibited

CONTRACT-Continued.

territory. This was a valuable right, and must be presumed to have entered into the consideration of the bill of sale. Plaintiff thereby purchased their right to compete in their own persons in the business specified; and, defendants having violated the agreement, the relief afforded should be commensurate.

-Holliston v. Ernston, 53.

RESCISSION.

See SALE, 1, 2.

PERFORMANCE.

See INJUNCTION, 2; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 1.

EVIDENCE.

See ADOPTION, 1, 5.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 8, 14; CARRIER, 4, 6; MASTER AND SERVANT, 12, 20, 26; NEGLIGENCE, 5; RAILWAY, 8, 10, 11.

CORPORATION. See BROKER, 6; MONOPOLY, 1, 5, 6.

ISSUE OF STOCK-ACTION TO TEST Validity.

1. Unissued corporate stock belongs to the corporation considered as a legal person or entity. When directors deal wrongfully with unissued corporate stock, the corporation itself is primarily interested and the proper party plaintiff.

-Hoffman Motor Truck Co. v. Erickson, 281.

2. Corporation held to have right to test by action the validity of a certain stock issue.

-Hoffman Motor Truck Co. v. Erickson, 279.

3. Where defendants, the sole owners and officers of a newly formed corporation, issued part of its stock to themselves as fully paid in exchange for property excessively valued, and thereafter like stock was sold by the corporation to other persons at par and for face value received, the corporation held, on the facts of the case, entitled neither to recover damages from defendants nor to have their shares canceled in excess of the value of the property given therefor.

-Hoffman Motor Truck Co. v. Erickson, 280.

ACTION AGAINST CORPORATION-PLEADING CORPORATE EXISTENCE.

4. In an action against a corporation, the complaint need not allege defendant's corporate existence, and a denial thereof in the answer is unavail

CORPORATION-Continued.

ing, where it is refuted by the terms of the verification and by evidence brought out by defendant itself.

-Minneapolis Plumbing Co. v. Arcade Investment Co. 317.

NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENTS TO ITS REAL ESTATE.

5. A corporation can gain knowledge only through its officers or agents. It is not necessary that its directors or stockholders have knowledge of improvements to its realty in order to hold the corporation liable for a mechanic's lien for such improvements.

-Minneapolis Plumbing Co. v. Arcade Investment Co. 320.

6. Defendant corporation held charged with its secretary's knowledge that the improvements to its realty, covered by the mechanic's lien in suit, were being made at the instance of the lessee of the property, so as to subject the same to lien under the statute.

-Minneapolis Plumbing Co. v. Arcade Investment Co. 317.

COSTS. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1.

STATUTORY COSTS.

1. Because of delay in printing the record no statutory costs were allowed. -French v. Yale, 65.

TAXATION OF COSTS AGAINST THE STATE.

2. Governmental authority is involved in penal actions, in those to enforce payment of taxes or to determine the legality of the organization of a municipal subdivision of the state, but is not involved in an ordinary action for the recovery of money and property. Hence, in this case, the taxation of costs in favor of defendant is affirmed. State v. Buckman, 95 Minn. 272, 278, 104 N. W. 289, followed.

-State v. Fullerton, 151.

TAXABLE DISBURSEMENTS.

3. It is the province of the trial court to determine whether disbursements were "necessarily paid or incurred." G. S. 1913, § 7976. To a large extent this involves an exercise of discretion and judgment.

-Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co. 364.

SERVING SUBPOENAS.

4. Expenses for serving subpoenas by a private person are not taxable disbursements.

-Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co. 361.