Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-01-23
Supreme Court Decisions.

Among the supreme court decisions
handed down at Fargo last week, the fol-
lowing are OF local interest:
William Braithwaite vs. Henry e. Aiken ct al.
Where intervention complaint was
framed on the theory only of cooperation
effort to receive Judgment against defend
ants, and the prayer for relief merely re-
Quested a payment Of the money into the
hands OF a person to be designated by the
court no claim In the complaint or on the
trial, being made that the rights of the
plaintiff and the intervenOrs as between
themselves were to be adjusted in the &C.
ton, but the verdict being a Joint verdict
in favor OF the plaintiff and intervenors
for the amount of the recovery: Held
Error to award to intervenors any specific
portions OF the recovery against defend
ants, there having been no adjustments of
the equities between plaintiff and interview
ors, such portion of the Judgment reversed
with directions that rights Of plaintiffs and
lnteryenOrs be settled as with themselves,
Syllabus by the court, opinion by Chief
Justice Corliss. Costs to Appellant Braith-
waite.
No. 8, William Braithwaite VS.. Henry
c. Aiken ct al is a parallel action to the
former case, being a claim for full freight
for goods carried by the steamer Eclipse
in November, 1880, from Bismarck, bound
for Fort Buford, Mont, the. vessel being
frozen in when about sixty miles by water,
and ~thirty-five miles by land from the fort.
The captain at once began to prepare a
safe place on shore in which to store his
cargo until he could haul the goods to the
fort, but on the third day the officer of the
day at the fort appeared and demanded
the freight, and threatened to take it by
force If it were not given up.
SYLLABUS.
The master of a vessel agreed for a stip-
ulated price to transport goods from Bis
marck, Dak., to Fort ButOrd, Mont. The
closing OF navigation INTERRUPTED his voy-
age. A few days afterwards consignee
forcibly took the goods from him. Held,
That the master being able and willing to
complete the transportation to earn his
freight, could recover full freight.
NO time OF delivery, being specified in
the contract Of affreightment. Held furth-
er that the master could rigF tfully have
held the goods until the opening of navi-
CATION, thai he might earn his freight by
completing the navigation.
Held, That the plaintiff might sue upon
the contract Of atfreightment set forth in
the opinion, as the trustee of all express
trust under section 1872, compiled laws.
The owners of three steamers Operated
them jointly for their own benefit, under
the name Benton line. Held, that they
were all liable as joint partners or joint
traders on a contract of atfreigitment
made by their authorized agent in name of
such Benton line to carry goods in place of
one OF such boats. 1t seems that by Oper-
ating such boats jointly in such a manner
Tor two seasons, the owners would have
rendered themselves liable as partners or
joint traders even though they have not
been such in fact.
One OF three defendants having died
'pendent lite" and his administrator hay
ing been substituted and having %voluntari-
ly appeared and defended the action and
no objection having been raisdd by any of
the defendants to such a course until after
trial and verdict: Held, This court would
not on appeal Of surviving defendants re-
verse Judgment against all the defendants
when the portion thereof relating to the
administrator provided that the judgment
against him shall be made only in due
course Of administration.
The district court of the state of North
Dakota is the successor of the territorial
district court and has jurisdiction to rem
der judgment in actions pending in such
territorial court. at the time OF the admls-
sion OF the state into the federal union, al
though the verdict was rendered before
such admission.
Defendants cannot raise the point that a
judgment against them should have been
in favor of plaintiff alone, and not in favor
of the plaintiff and intervenors. This is a
matter exclusively between the plaintiff
and the intervenors.
Syllabus by the court, opinion by Chief
Justice Corliss.