Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-02-26
Gaar, Scott & Co. vs.. b. +. Spauld.
ing is q Chattel Mortgage.
Case.
The Decision of the Lower Court
Affirmed in the Case of Clement
VS.. Shipley.
The Seed Lien Statute Decided In
valid in Yeatman VS.. Foster
County.
Supreme Court Decisions,

Three cases we're decided anu opinions
hled in the supreme court Tuesday
Gaar, Scott & Co. VS.. B. F. Spaulding
was an action where the company sued
for the possession of a threshing ma
chine, claiming title under a chattel
mortgage on the same, made and filed
in the state of Michigan where the pro-
perry was at the time of the mortgaging.
Spauldlng's title was under foreclosure
sale in North Dakota, the owner of the
property having brought it to this state
and here again mortgaged it, the Michi-
gan mortgage being still unsatisfed. In
the district court of Cass county, where
the action was tried, plaintiffs recovered
judgment. On appeal the lower courts
decision is affirmed. One of the main
contentious of Spaulding on appeal was
that the Judgment roll as returned to the
supreme court did not contain findings
of fact and hence the Judgment was void.
The court says that where the trail is be-
fore the court without a jury 1t would
be irregular and reversible error to enter
judgment without first filing the de-
cision of the trial court in a case
where o waiver of findings afirmatively
appears from the record. In such a case
the judgment would be illegally entered
and invalid on its face. But the mere
absence Of the waiver. from the judy
ment roll does not show error afirma-
lively and where the record does not
afirmatively disclose the fact of non
waiver of findings it will be presumed
that they were waived and the judgment
will not be disturbed on this point.
Clement VS.. Shipley was appealed from
Stutsman county and involves the rights
of a purchaser Of land under statutory
foreclosure of mortgage to recover rent
from q lessee Of the owner as fast as the
rent falls due under the lease. This
question was decided in the affirmative
by the lower court and is affirmed. The
supreme court also holds that payment
by the lessee to his lessor after notice
of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale,
is not defense to the action. This is a
Iuestion that is of considerable import
Shnce to parties holding farm mortgages
Yin this state.
Yeatman VS.. Foster county involves
the validity Of the much advertised seed
lien statutes passed by the legislature of
1889 and again in 1890. The act con
strued provides in part that "if the said
indebtedness (for the seed grain fur
nished) be not paid on November LIST.
1889, the amount thereof shall be en-.
tered upon the tax list of such county
for the year 1889 as a tax upon the land
upon which such seed wheat was sown,
to be collected as other taxes are, and
the sum so entered and levied shall be
9 first lien upon the crop of grain raised
each year by the person receiving said
seed grain and also upon the real estate
owned by such person until the tax
is fully paid" Judge Rose, in the
district court, held against the
validity of the statute in so
tar as the lien became a tax upon the
land which should be paramount to prior
mortgage membranes. This decision
as affirmed, the court holding that
ssshapter 43 of the laws of 1889, and
chapter 1872 of the laws Of 1890, in so far
as they attempt to make the lien for seed
grain furnished Hereunder, superior to
the lien of a mortgage executed before
these statutes were enacted, are repug-
nant to the provisions of the federal
constitution forbidding the impairment
by any state of the obligations of a con-
tract. The obligation of the person sup
piled with seed grain under these
statutes to pay the county therefor is
notsa tax and cannot be made a tax by
the legislature. It is a mere debt"
An Interesting Case.
sSsS91n chamhar in tho 6;otr;ok oo,,rk ~ =,