Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1893-12-22
In Supreme Court.

Two more decisions mere handed
down in supreme court this morning.
One was that Of the Peoples bank Of
st. Paul, plaintiff and respondent VS..
School District No. So OF Barnes county,
defendant and appellant.
In this case, the school district Issued
bonds, under the statute authorizing the
issue Of bonds payable in not less than
ten years from ldate. The bonds were
issued under this power, dated Sept. II,
1884, and were payable Sept. l., 1894.
The plaintiff In district court sued for
the interest on the bonds, and the court
directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The
supreme court oversees the order and
judgment of the trial court, and directs
the dismissal of the action. Syllabus as
follows:
"Where a statute authorized the issue of
municipal bonds payable in not less than
ten years from date, bonds issued there
under, payable in eleven days less than ten
years from late are void, even in the
"No va " OoASS
"The invalidity of such bonds does not
effect the liability, if any, of 1.-THE munich
pality independently of the bonds.
ut is elementary that even bona fde
purchasers of negotiable municipal securi-
ties are charged with knowledge of all the
requirements of the statute under which
the securities were issued"
G. X. Andrus and E. W. Camp for ap-
pellant. White & Hewitt for respond
ent.
The case is that of the 500 railway other
Company, plaintiff, We. Samuel X. Mes
ter, defendant, appealed by the defend
ant from the district court in Barnes
county. The action originated in con-
domination proceedings. The appellant
was awarded damages to his land by the
crossing Of the road by commissioners,
from which award he appealed to. the
district court, where upon trial his
damages we're assessed by the jury at a
slightly increased amount, and from that
judgment in his favor, he appealed to
the supreme court. There was a ques.
ton upon a motion to strike out testi-
mony and also the point was urged that
the lower court was without jurisdiction
because of precedent Irregularities. The
syllabus of the court is as follows:
where there any competent evidence
in the testimony Of a witness, a motion to
strike out his entire testimony is properly
Overruled.
"Where condemnation proceedings were
commenced under the statute in fol &c prior
to the adoption of Section II of the state
constitution, specifying the manner of
taking private property for public use, and
the lane owner participated in such pro-
ceedings. and after the report of the COM
missioners was filed and demanded a Jury
trial as i'll the statute provided, he thereby
waived the benefit of the constitutional
provision and cannot at the trial in the
district court before the jury be heard to
alleRe the unconstitutiOnality of the
statute.
by failing to file exceptions to such re-
port and demanding a jury trial, he waived
all Irregularities and informalities in the
proceedings upon which the commission
ers appraisement was based"
The judgment Of the lower court is in
all things affirmed. Winterer & Win
terer and S. L. Glaspell for appellant;
Z. X. Andrus, l.. w. Gammons and
Alfred H. Bright for respondent.
-