Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-11-12
The COURT HOLDS.
Several Important Decisions Handed
Down by the Supreme Court
This Morning.
Interesting Points Passed Upon with
Reference to State Laws and
"s' 3 GT
the Bankruptcy Act.
Several Threshing Machine Suits Are
Finally Decided by the APP
pellate Court.

The supreme court has handed down
a decision in the case of the Powers
Dry Goods company VS., Nels Nelson,
on an appeal from the district court
of Richland county, Judge S. L. Glas-
pell presiding by request. Goods
were sold by the plaintiff to the de-
PENDANT and a warrant of attachment
was issued at the commencement of
the action on the goods in question.
The sheriff seized the property and
the defendant pleaded in answer a dis
charge in bankruptcy by the United
States court, which was claimed to
cancel the debt sued upon and the lien
of the attachment. Judge Glaspell
held the plaintiff entitled to recover,
but the Judgment to be enforced only
against the property seized under the
| attachment. This decision is affirmed
by the supreme court. The court
holds that the lien of an attachment
on personal property is not destroyed
by the discharge of the debt secured
! thereby, and unless the lien is one
which is declared void by the bank
ruptcy act it may be enforced through
a modified form of judgment as
against the property on which the lien
exists. Under section 70 of the bank
ruptcy act the title of the b~ankrupt's
proro1fv r,o~rnr ~ tho frs1ScfAn0 IN
bankruptcy except as to property
which is exempt under state laws.
AS to such exempt property the juris-
diction of the bankruptcy. court is linn
tied to determining whether or not it
is exempt, and the title thereto re-
mains in the bankrupt and when set
apart as exempt it is subject to the
jurisdiction of the state and not the
federal courts. The section of the
act which provides that certain liens
shall be null and void does not apply
to an attachment upon property which
is exempt and over which the bank
ruptcy court has disc1aimed. jurisdic-
ton by setting it apart to the debtor
as exempt
In the case of Kulberg VS.. Georgia
from Towner county. Judge Fisk sat
in place of Judge Morgan who tried
the case in the lower court The
: case was a suit to compel the defend
ant to enter into a written contract
for the sale of land. The plaintiff
alleged that in 1897 he made a parol
contract for the purchase OF the prop
J erty, and that a written contract was
to be entered into after certain i'm
provements had been made by the
plaintiff, but that the defendant re-
fused ito enter into the: contract and
, suit vas brought to compel the per-
t Torrance OFT the contract. The supreme
court finds that there is no allegation
that the plaintiff prior to the enforce,
!. ment of the action rendered or offered
to perform his part of the contract
I and that, therefore, the complaint
fails to state a. cause of action. Ths
court says:
"A court of equity will not compe
l parties to sign contracts nor will they
5 compel specific performance of con,
: tracts unless plaintiff shows a full per,
formance on his part Of an offer o.
such performance and a readiness
and willingness to perform prior t.
the commencement Of the action
In the case Of the Nichols & Shep.