Oakes weekly Republican. (Oakes, Dickey County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1898, 1891-07-17
SUPREME COURT.
-
The State Supreme Court Rem
ders an Opinion on TRo
Important Cases.
Militiaman I.anglu, En- Route to
Devils Lake i'amp, scci-
ntalIy Killed.
In the Smnrcmc Cnurt.

BISMARCK, N. d., July 14.-Two de-
cisions were filed in the supreme court
yesterday. The first came up from
Stark County, Hon. w. Il. Winchester
judge. John B. Campbell and John B
and W. H. Sanborn of st. Pan, ap-
peared for the plaintiff aud Leslie A
Simpson for the defendant. In the ap.
pellate court Mr.. Simpson did not argue
the case. The trial court gave Judgment
for the defendant and this is reversed
and affirmative relief granted the plnint
iff without ordering new trial. The
case is National German-American bank
vs. Gregor LING. aud the syllabus is as
follows:
Where a litigant desires to take ad-
vantage OF the laws of another state it is
incumbent upon him to show by proper
nverments what such laws are and
wherein they differ from those of this
state. Ii he fails to do so it is error to
admit testimony ut the trial as to what
the foreign law is In the absence of
allegation and proof to the contrary the
courts will presume that the foreign
law is tho same as that of the forum.
The defendant for value made and
delivered to plaintiff an obligation in
the following form:
$1,000. 11th March, 1880
Ninety days after date I promise to
pay to the National German Bank, st.
Paul, ut the bank, st. Paul, the sum of
twelve hundred dollars, value received
On acct of the ranch
GREeoR LANG
At tho trial plaintiff put this paper in
evidence together with evidence show
ing the amount of interest which had
accrued after the paper matured, figured
at per cent, and rested the clss Up
on the defendants motion the district
.urt nonsuited the plaintiff aud di-
rected verdict for the defendant
Held, error. The instrument contains
oil the essentials of promissory note
and while the phrase, viz, On account
of the ranch" is superhuous, it does
not relieve the defendant of his personal
liability to pay the note, nor parport to
do so.
Defendants answer stated in sub.
stance that whils the defendant per-
sonaily made and delivered the note aud
received the MONEY therefor from plain.
tilt, that the money SO received was 10
be used for the benefit of one p, whose
agent the defen dant was; that the plain.
tiff was informed when the note was
made that the money was to be used in
defr44ying the expense of operating a
ranch belonging to P, aud that P.
note. Held, that the answer failed to
state any defense. The answer does
not state that P. at any time orally
agre. d to pay the note, but if such
agreement had been made it would be
inadmissible in evidence to vary aud
contradict the express terms of tho
wilton agreement.
Held further, where an agent con-
tracts in behalf Of the principal he must
do SO in the name Of the principal. If
the agent contracts in his own name he
alone is bound.
Opinion of Judge Bartholomew,
Judge Wallin conourring. Chief Justice
Uorliss in concurring expresses no opin-
ion on the point TIN the law of the jur
isdiction whore contract is made or to
be performed is contrary, pres to
be the same as the laws of the forum, sa
far MS stvtute law is concerned.
The other case is Yerkes vs.. Crum, on
appeal from Cass county, Hon. VIM. B
Mcconnell, Judge. Mcssrs Stone,
Newman & Resser appeared for the
plaintiff and J. E. Robinson contra.
The &C mplaint states in this action that
plaintiff was the owner of certain lot
in Fargo by virtue of sheriff s deed on
foreclosure of mortgage given by the
former owners to Mr.. Yerkes. He
brought action to declare Tx deed
null and void, which deed was held by
the defendant herein. Drum was attor-
ney for the mortgag ,rs and the plaintiff
claimed he secured q title antagonistic
to his client. and hence that the trans.
action was null and void. The trial
court gave judgment for the plaintiff on
the pleadings and Crum appeals. In
his answer Drum denied being the attor-
ney for the mortgagors ut the time
he secured the tax deed
in question. The supreme
court reversed the judgment and sends
it back for new trial on this material
point, the opinion holding that if he
was attorney for the mortgagors his
title was bad and should be cancelled.
Chief Justice Corliss docs not agree
with this view, written by Judge Barth.
olomew, and claims that the transaction
was merely voidable and the mortgagors
were the only persons who could COM
mence the action. Justice Wallin con-
ours in the results, but on the ground
that the trial court should not have ren.
dered judgment on the pleadings. On
the point of the voidability of the deed
in question he expresses no opinion. It
is an interesting question to the bar Of
the state. The syllabus filed is as fol-
lows:
While the relation Of attorney and
client continues, the attorney can, as
against his client. acquire no beneficial
interest in or title to the subject matter
Of the litigation antagonistic to the title
or interest Of his client. Whether or
not such title so acquired can be as.
sailed by third party is question up
on which the members Of this court are
not agreed.
Where an answer shadows forth o
good defense. but states it imperfeotly,
the defect should be met by q motion
calling for an amendment curing such
defect and not by motion for Judgment
on the answer as frivolous
Dombnrdlng the Heavens.
WAsHIAaToN, d. o., July h.--Some
time within the next few days there 10