Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-12-23
SUPREME COURT DECISION.

DECISIONS IN THREE CASES AR.
GUED AT LAST TERM HANDED
DOWN BY SUPREME COURT.
The supreme court has handed down
decisions in three cases argued at tbs
recent term. as follows:
Kernahan Dickson. appellant, vs.
Elizabeth NJ. Down. respondent.
Syllabus as follows:
The granting or refusal OF a Drelim'
mary injunction. as well as the disso.
luton of the same. rests in the SOUND
judicial discretion of the trial court
and the exercise Of such discretion viii
not be reversed or controlled by this
court except for error or abuse.
The general rule is that a preliminary
injunction will not be granted for the
purpose of taking property from the
possession of one person and placing il
in the possession OF another.
1t is Held. that the order of the trial
court dissolving a temporary injunction
issued in this action was properly
made and is therefore affirmed.
Appeal from am order of the district
court OF Cass county; Hon. Charles A
Pollock, judge.
David R. Pierce Newton & Smith
Of ccunsell for appellant.
George II. Phelps and Turner & Lee
for respondent.
Affirmed Opinion by Young.
Ne-nzaaaR- appellant, vs. Elizabeth
M. Bows defendant Edwin l. Bows
Or H W. Gaarsv- his guardian, inter
Esl4or an6 respondent
SvRaaEsus As follows The Interest
in 2 ma1a- in litigation which vii
authorize a person to intervene in az
ACTION under section $3.50. Revise
| Codes mus he such a direct and imme
dia1e interest that the person seeking
TO intervene viii either lose or gain b.
the direct operation and legal effect Q
the judgment which may be rendere'
in the action.
1t is Held, that the complaint in in
tervention in this action does not dis
close that the intervenor has any In
terest in the matter in litigation. Ehic
is the foreclosure of a contract TO- tn
sale of land, or that he would gain o
lose as a result of the judgment to b
rendered in the action. The distrit
court therefore erred in refusing t
strike out its ex parte order permittin
him to intervene.
Appeal from an order of the distrie
court of Cass county; Hon. Charles 4
Pollock, judge.
David r. Pierce and Newton
Smith, attorneys for appellant.
Turner & Lee, attorneys for RESPOND
ents.
Order appealed from reversed an
the district court of Cass county d
rected to enter an order striking OF
the inteTvenor's complaint.
Opinion by Young, J.
, Lyman-Eliel Drug Company, a co
!. poration, respondent, VS.. W. p. Cook
appellant.
, Syllabus: On a trial and duri1
the taking of testimony in Justice
court, plaintiff moved for a contin
3 ance on the ground that a witness W
absent, as shown by the affidavit
. plaintiffs attorney. The motion W
argued and after the decision by t
Justice granting the motion, the d
t PENDANT excepted and objected. ]
s objection was then made that the al
davit was insufficient as not shoWl
: diligence, or that the application "
not accompanied by am undertake
for costs. On the day to which t
Q case was postponed, defendant a
peared specially and moved to dismi
the action because the justice had K
jurisdiction by reason Of the postpoT
ment. AIT this time there was no SPIT
ifcation that the affidavit was insu,
cient or that there was no underta
ing. The Justice dened the mott
n and entered judgment, as the defenda
did not appear after his motion to d