Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-09-05
THE SUPREME COURT.
An Adjourned Term in Which a Couple
of Opinions Are Handel Down.

An Adjourned Term in Which q Couple
of Opinions Are Handed Down.
The supreme court held an adjourned
term Tuesday morning with Judges Bar
tholomew and Wallin in attendance. But
two decisions were handed down, the syl-
labi being as follows:
Thomas A.. Jackson, appellant, VS.. La
MOure County, respondent. Appeal from
Stutsman county, Roderick Rose, judge.
G. w. Davis for appellant; N. B. Wilkin-
son for respondent.
Title to the indemnity lands in the grant
to the Northern Pacific railroad company
does not pass from the United States until
the selection Of such lands by the COM
pany, with the approval of the secretary
OF the interior. Until such approval, such
possession of real estate, but having no
legal or equitable title thereto, cannot
maintain an action to remove a cloud upon
the title.
Opinion by Corliss, chief justice, affirm
ing Judgment of lower court.
Hattie R. Pickert, respondent, vs.. Fred
Rugg ct al, appellants. Appeal from
Griggs county, Roderick Rose, Judge.
Thomas & Davis for respondent; j. E.
Robinson and Mcmahon Bros. for appel
liant.
Instructions of trial judge to jury held
correct under the evidence.
To entitle a person to recover the highest
market value between the time of the con-
version of property and OF the rendering of
such facts as establish clearly that he has
commenced and prosecuted his action
with reasonable diligence. No presump-
ton will be INDUCED in his favor, and the
statute will be strictly construed against
him.
Delay of eleven months in bringing his
action held fatal to plaintiffs claim that he
had prosecuted his action with reasonable
diligence, within the meaning of Sec. 1903.
Sub. 2, Compiled Laws, giving him the
highest market value between the CONVEX
sion and the verdict, when the action has
been prosecuted with reasonable diligence.
Sufticiency of the evidence to support the
verdict cannOt be assaulted in the supreme
court when in neither the notice of inten-
ton to move for a new trial, nor the bill of
exceptions, are the particulars specified
wherein the evidence is alleged to be in
sufficient.
Opinion by Co~rliss, c. j., reversing the
Judgment of the lower court and ordering
a new trial.
In the case of the Nashua savings bank
VS.. Russell, decided in May, a petition for
a new rehearing, filed by Messrs. Francis
& Southland, was denied.
In Morris VS.. Mcknight; decided in May,
the decision on q petition for a rehearing
was held over until the regular October
term at Grand Forks.
Hon. Jesse A. Frye, district attorney of
Stutsman county, filed a petition asking to
be allowed to file a brief in Tyler vs.. Cass
county, which had been submitted in May.
This case, on the face of it, is a very limo.
cent one and to the state supreme
courton an argument as to the question of
costs, involving $47. The ultimate DISPOSE.
tion, however, means hundreds of thousands
Of dollars to the counties bordering the
Northern Pacific railroad. 1t goes to the
question of the liability of counties to re.
fund to tax sale certificate purchasers OF
moneys paid by them on lands of the
Northern Pacific company, which had beer
assessed for taxes, sold by the county
treasurer, and afterwards declared illegal
by the United States supreme court. Suits
on this question are now pending agains,
Stutsman county amounting to $105,00O
Considering the grave questions involved
the court granted the application and Or
dered the case or the calendar in October
at Grand Forks.