Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-12-08
PRAIRIE FIRE CASE.
Supreme Court Reverses the Lower
Court in the Kidder County Prairie
Fire Case.
Holds that Persons Threatened May
Set a Back Fire, and Negligence
Cannot be Claimed.
Emmons County Tax Case Decided,
and County Refused Judgment
for Taxes Claimed.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The supreme court has handed down
a decision in the case of e. S. Owen,
as administrator of the estate of A.
Shoemaker of Kidder county VS.. Cook.
This is the case in which Shoemaker
sued Cook and several other hunters
from Chicago for damages for the de-
structiOn Of his farm house and other
property by prairie fire set by the
hunters. 1t appears that Cook and the
other hunters We're camped in a shack
on Kelley Lake. A prairie fire was COM
ing down upon them and to prevent
the destruction of their place they set
a back fire, which escaped from them
and joining the main fire burned up
ShOemaker's place. He sued and in
the district court obtained a verdict
for $500 damages. The case was APP
pealed and the supreme court REVERSE
the lower court and orders a new trial.
The reversal IS l:ased upon the ground
that the defendants We're not guilty Of
negligence as claimed. The court
holds that a person whose property is
threatened with destruction by fire
may take necessary steps, as by a
back fire, to prevent it's destruction,
and if his acts in thus protecting him
self contribute to the destruction of
property he is not liable as for negli-
gence, since the principal fire must lie
held to be the uirect cause of the dam
age. Upon this proposition of law
the count says the facts in the case
We're not sufficient to sustain the ver-
dict and orders Il new trial Of the case.
Another interesting case that has
been decided is that involving several
tracts of land i'll Emmons county, i'm
which the county sought to secure
Judgment for lands for delinquent
taXes. The cases were certified to
the supreme court from this district for
decision us questions of Importance
that were likely to arise frequently.
The county sought to secure Judgment
against the tracts of land under chap
ter " Of the laws of 1897. The land
was sold to the county under article
ID of chapter IA of the Compiled Laws,
anu the sale was made in 1883 for the
taxes OF 1887. In 1889 the same lands
were sold to individuals for the taxes
OF 1883, II these purchasers paid all
subsequent taxes and received a tax
deed. The court holds that the tax
deed would cut off the right of the
county under the prior sale to such
county and that the county is not en-
tlued to a judgr ent for the previous
taxes. The court makes the general
decision that Il tax deed regularly
issued cuts off delinquent taxes for
Years previous to that on Which the
deed is based.
LII the case Of Craig VS.. Hermann.
the court passes on the relative rights
OF holders of mechanics lien holders
ana purchasers under mortgage fore
closure. The case involved Il mort
gagged lot on which Il two story brick
building had been erected, and a suit
Drought to foreclOse lie mechanics
lien. The lower court ordered the LOT
anu building sold, half the proceeds to
go to the bank, which bought under
the foreclosure, the lien to be naid
from the other llalf and the remainder
to be paid to the bank. The decree of
the loWer court is affirmed.
The district court is also affirmed in
the case of the National Cash Register
company VS.. Wilson, Il suit in replevin
for the possession Of Il cash register.
The cash register company secured Il
Judgment II the lower court and the
appellant sought a trial de novo in the
higher court. The court holds that no
trial de novo can be granted where the
record does not contain such a state
ment Of facts as the law requires.
Another point decided is that Il corpo-
ration which has not filed articles of
incorporation or constituted the secre-
tary of the state it's agent, may vet
maintain an action in the courts of the
state.
The case Of Clark VS.. Olson from
Barnes county, a suit for foreclosure
OF a mortgage to a building and loan
association. is reversed and Judgment
ordered entered Diminishing the COM
plant.
DObler VS.. Strobel from Mcintosh
county is affirmed.
The court has entered orders deny-
ing petitions for rehearing in the fol-
lowing cases
Osborne VS.. Lindstrom from Grand
Forks county. F..
Erickson VS.. Kelley from Trail
county.
Heyrock VS.. Suverus from Pembina
county.
Fegan VS.. Great Northern from
Grand Forks county.
Lockren VS.. Russian from Walsh
county.
Leolos VS.. Bank from Grand Forks
| county