Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-05-09

of the bond. The erasure was made
by drawing a red ink line through the
name and was plainly discernible. At
the time of such erasure the agent in
tended to procure two more sureties
before asking for the approval of the
bond. After such erasure four other
sureties signed the bond. It was pre-
sented to the commissioners for ap-
proval and approved. Held,
H l. That the four persons signing
before the erasure of the name of the
fifth signer we're bound as sureties on
the bond as completed
2. That the sixth surety signing
after the erasure and without knowl-
edge of it and not consenting to it,
was not bound as surety.
Z 3. That the four persons signing
after the erasure and with knowledge
thereof are estopped from claiming
prejudice by reason of such erasure.
4. The erasure of the name of such
fifth signer was such a fact as put the
commissioners ON inquiry as to the
circumstances of such erasure, such
erasure being discernible on mere in
spection, and they are therefore pre-
sumed to have had knowledge that
such erasure released the person who
had signed such bond before such
eTasure and in reliance on the finan-
cial responsibility of such person. In
consequence of such knowledge the
commissioners should not have ap-
proved such bond without the consent
of such sixth signer and in doing so
prejudiced his rights and released him
from his inchoate or conditional liza
bility.
(Syllabus by the courtl
Appeal from the district court of
Cass county, G. A. Pollock, Judge. ~
Newman & Smith and Morrill, &
Engerud, attorneys for appellant.
Newman, Spalding & Stambaugh,
attorneys for respondents, Merriell,
Bullamore. Peterson and Masterson.
Barnett & Reese, attorneys for re-
spondent Beard.
W. ]. Clapp, attorney for respondent
McPhedran.
In the case Of Maynard Crane VS..
John T. Odegard. question of the
procedure in trial court was consid-
erred. Judgment in the action was
entered October -, 1900, and
the appellant for the first time
applied August 10, 1901, for an, order
extending the time within which to
settle statement OF the facts in the
case. The application was refused
and ON September 26 it was renewed
and the last named application was
granted, and the trial court settled a
statement of the case, against objec-
tion. The supreme court holds that
the showing Of cause upon which the
order extending time was granted is
insufficient and that it was made
without authority and constituted an
abuse of judicial DISCRETION. The re-
spondents motion to strike the state
menIt of the case from the record is
granted and the judgment entered in
the district court is affirmed. Com
STRUNG section 5477, the court says:
Section SAT-. Revised Codes of
1890, reads: The court or Judge
may upon good cause shown in fur
therance of justice extend the time
within which any of the acts men
toned in sections 546T and 5474 may
be done, or may, after the time limited
therefor has expired, fix another time
within which any of such acts may be
DONE eaE.'
Under said section the district
courts and the judges thereof are
vested with judicial discretion to ex-
tend time or to fix new time for the
performance of any of the acts referred
to. in the section; but such discretion
Is not absolute and this court has au-
thol.itY to review the exercise of such
discretion and in cases of its improper
exercise or abuse, to set aside the or
der of the trial court taken under said
section, following Moe VS.. Northern
Pacific Railroad Co., 2 N. D. 2s2; Nc
Donald VS.. Beatty, 8 N. D. 293, and
Gillycuddy VS.. Norris, Is. d. 60 N.
w. IA.
THE authority to extend time or fix
another time is conferred by said sec
tioa conditionally and hence cannot
be lawfully exercised in the absence OF
a showing of good cause and the ques-
tion whether such showing has or has
not been made may be reviewed and
passed upon by the court = t
LAND OFFICE BUSINESS
For the month OF April, 1902:
Homestead entries .... 700
Reservoir filings .. 81
Saksn entTieS. B.s. 3.$.A&.. d