The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1902-12-20
SUPREME touRT pEcisioNs:

The Supreme Court Hands Down DC
sisions in a Number OF Cases ARGUED
at the Recent Term.
Decisions have been handed down D,
the supreme court. in several case:
argued at the last term sas,
In the case of Katie a. Little vs.
Stephen Braun, the court files the TO-.
lowing syllabus:
Action to have a deed Of warrant,
which is absolute in form adjudged te
be a mortgage in effect. and to redeem
from the same as a mortgage.
The complaint alleges, in substance
that the defendant loaned the pla1ntiil
the sum Of 1902, and that to secure sue.
loan 1t was. agreed that the plalntlI1
should execute and deliver the deed o.
warranty in question. and that sucf
deed was executed and delivered witt
the express agreement that, as bctwcc.
the parties thereto, it should operat'
as a mortgage to secure the loan.
The, complaint further ayers that, IL
making. the loan and in. entering into
said agreements. the defendant was
represented by one NJ. A., Wippcrmar
as defendants agent.
EVlQeNce 6AdIllueus sdiu ASiu ~"
plaintiff and defendant did not, at an!
time or in any manner. agree to &C
cept the deed in question as. q mortgage
to secure the alleged loan, and that ne
such loan was ever made in fact.
Held further, under the evidence, that
said M. A. Wippermans did not, at any
time in question, act In the premises as
the agent of the defendant, nor did he
as such agent agree to any loan = tc
plaintiff, o r'dtd he ever agree, in be:
half of the defendant; that the deed
should operate as a mortgage.
Held further, under the evidence, thai
the deed when delivered was intended
to operate as a deedyabsolute, and that
the 5evidence.to showfat parol d~efeasance
falls short Of that high degree of proof
required by an established rule of evi'
dence in this class of cases. Joseph VS.
Hazeny IN. D.. ], IS N, w. Dep, 454, fol:
lowed and applied.
Case VS.. Eb,ghausen.
In the case Of j. I. Case Thrcshing
Machine company VS.: George w. and
Ell. Ebbinghausen, the syllabus of the
decision is, as follows: ,NN& & -. D.
"a written order for a threslling ma
chine contained no provision for secur-
tty on growing crops. or: on a second
hand engine. The machine company
refused to deliver. the machine unless
such security given. In order to
get possession of the machine for i'm
mediate use the defendants gave such
security and the machine vas delivered.
1.-The order for the machine provided
Tor the machine, as exhibited at the
trial, had been changed SO as to contain
en- or such crops and engine. It is not
shown when the alteration was made,
aor by whom. Held, that the alteration
was not a material one, in view of the
fact that the, defendants had given such
security and received the machine unin:
iuenced by the content sol the order as
changed, +. M ss..
1.-THE order for the machine PROVIDED
that in case the machine failed to work
we'll the company should. be notified at
Racine, Wis, and the agent Of whom
the purchase was made should also be
notified. The company was no notified
at the Racine Office in any manner, but
d general agent whoFhads no authority
to waive was notified by telephone that
the machine would not work we'll, and
pm expert was sent by him pursuant to
request to remedy the defects. The
agent from whom the machine was pur.
chased was also notified. Held, that
such general agents, acts. independent
,of any orders or communications FROM
the plaintiff, was not q waiver OF tho
terms of the order requiring the com:
pany to be notified at the home oIice.'
S The Moneon Cocc.
In the case of the Red River Valley
National Bank VS.. John Monsen; tho
following is the syllabus:
!"On,the trial Of an action which iii.
volved the issue whether a promissory
note was given for a valuable consider.
alton or was given as an accOmmoda:
tion note, 1t became q material question
as to what. t%ranspired between the par.
ties at the time the note was executed
and an arrangement made, which Ger.
tain notes. Endorsed by, Fuller Il Co
and deposited with the bank rs collat.
eraI security were turned over to q col.
Lection agency for collection. while
testifying on that. isshe the following
question was asked a witness for tnc
plaintiff and an objection thereto sus'
tanned, viz: Did the bank exercise any
ownership over those notes?' Held
that the objection was properly sus.
|tained, as It called for q conclusion and
not for q fact.
Questions, were ~propounded to the
defendant as to whether. he had evel
received these notes, or proceeds o.
these notes, or had anything, to do will
them, and an objection thereto over
ruled. Held, not error.
Held further, that error cannot sbt
~Ipredicated on a ruling sustaining ar
objection to O question When the an
|ewers called for &c thereafter fully giver
by the witness.
THE evidence is considered and 1t !.
held, that the verdict YVES sustained by
competent evidence
Nokkenawss Avery Maru:aetur:ar Go
The following syllabus is filed in thu
ease; Of @, r. Nokkens VS.. the Aver,
lManufacturings company:
cit is held; in an action. to recover
damages caused by the alleged negli
rent blowing Of q whistle on defend!
ANTS sthreshing machine; that the jur,
did not act c%apriciously or arbitraril!
I'm rejecting the testimony OF the; de
Ifendant's engineer, who testified tina,
lhe. did not blow the whistle. In view o
Eother5 evidence IN the case tending t,
contradict him; and that the court dill
not err in sustaining the question o
1.-THE defendants negligence to the jury
IN an action TO recover damages 70
Injuries caused sby g single act OF neglIl
nnrOoSs ~ 40 MT nornaaarv fn@a1leuo ri