Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-11-01

cember, January n February, or other,
wise as the commissioners direct. The
coal furnished will be from the Sims
mines.
More Decisions,
In additions to the cases reported Mon
day as having been decided by the
supreme court, four others we're handed
down.
Schmitz VS.. Heger, appealed from
Traill county, was affirmed in an opinion
by Wallin, G. J. and the following is the
syllabus:
The defendant moved in the district
court upon a bill Of exceptions to vacate
the verdict and for a new trial and from
an order denying the motion appeals to
this court. The bill of exceptions en-
bodied no specifications of error. Held,
that alleged errors of law occurring at
the trial and discussed in the appellants
brief will not be reviewed by this court.
Hostetter vs.. Brooks Elevator Co., 4 N.
d. 157; Illstad VS.. Anderson, 2 N. D.
1877.
In their brief filed in this court counsel
for appellant have attempted to assign
certain errors of law occurring at the
trial, which errors are discussed at length
in such brief. There were and could be
no specifications of errors in the abstract
as none were contained in the bill, and
there was no attempt in the assignment
of errors appended to appellants brief
to refer to any page, in the abstract
where any specification of error could be
found. Held, that such attempted as
signment of errors was insufficient under
rule IS of the supreme court rules.
~IDgwaldson & Rowland and H. Steen-
erson for defendant and appellant. P.
G. Swenson and Cochrane & Feetham
for plaintiff and respondent.
st. John VS.. Lofiand came up from
Steele county and is affirmed in an
opinion by Cor.iss, J. It involved the
construction of a portion of the com.
piled laws regarding the admissibillty Of
testimony touching the transactions had
during tho life time of a decedent.
George Murray appeared for the plaintiff
and appellant and F. ". Ames contra.
The syllabus reads:
Section $3.50, compiled laws, does not
prohibit q party to. an action from testi-
flying in his own behalf to q personal
transaction Tin this case payment) had
with q deceased administrator, as against
the successor of such deceased admins
traitor who sues to enforce as part of the
assets of the intestate the claim which
the party testifies he paid to the deceas-
ed administrator as administrator of the
estate of such intestate.
Flagg vs.. School District No. 20,
Barnes county is the outRrowth of the
settlement of Barnes county in early
territorial days with a few persons
and then the erection Of schoolhouses
and issuing bonds and warrants for the
same. The case has been before the
court before and previously they held
that the bonds were not negotiable in,
struments and that therefore the dis
trict could make as against the plaintiff
(who claims to be an innocent purchaser
for value) the same defense of want Of
consideration that it could have made
against the original payee had the bonds
never been transferred. The bonds pro-
vided for the payment of exchange on a
point other than the place of payment,
in addition to the principal and interest,
and the court decided this took them
out of the class of negotiable instru-
ments. Opinion by Corliss, j; G. K.
Andrus for defendant and appellant;
Ball & Watson for respondent Flagg.
The syllabus says:
Under the decision of the court on the
former appeal in this case "a N. D. 3O
it was held that the defendant could
show q want Of consideration for the
bonds sued on by proving that de-
PENDANT received neither cash nor audited
and cancelled warrants as a considera-
tion for them. For error in refusing to
allow such proof the judgment is re-
versed.
First National Bank OF Devils Lake vs.
Merchants National Bank of same place
involves some very nice questions of
practice and the 9 wal decided on
them before reaching the merits. II is
from Ramsey county and the Judgment
below is affirmed. Opinion by Wallin,
G. j.; Cowan and McClory and Joseph
Denoyer for defendant and appellants;
John w. Msher and John M. Cochrane
in opposition. The syllabus contains
the questions decided:
This is an action at law and was tried
to q jury. After the testimony was intro
duced and counsel for both sides. had
rested the case, it was agreed in open
court that the jury might be discharged
and the case be submitted for determines
ton to the court. The jury was accord
ingly discharged and the court made and
filed it's findings and Judgment wat en-
tered thereon. Held, that the case is
not triable sanew" in this court under
Chapter 81, Laws Of 1893. That chapter