Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1904-09-12

DOdIu VI grain dppedlS Ill Nlud1CdpoA4go
to "Durum," which is the name it is |
known by the ultimate markets of the
east.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Supreme Court Hands Down Decisions |
In a Number of Cases Tried at
Spring Term.
The supreme court has handed down
decisions in the following cases:
Hanson VS.. carIbIom.
Ole Hanson, appellant, VS.. Otto Carl
blom, respondent. Syllabus as fol-
lows: So -,
A statement of case which shows
that a law action triable to jury as
MATTER of strict legal right was tried
to the court without a jury under Sec
tfon $500, Revised Codes, over defend
ants objection, and a jury was not
Waived, presents a mIstuhal which re-
quires a reversal of the Judgment and
a new q,riaa.
Appeal from the district court Of
Sargent county, Hos. w. S. Lauder,
Judge. ..-.
o. S. Sem, attorney for appellant
Divet & Slahtery, attorneys. for
respondent. ....@. - +.
Opinion per Curtain.
Judgment vacated and new trial
ordered.
Nelson VS.. GrondahI.
Peter Nelson, appellant, VS.. Olaf
Grondahl, respondent. Syllabus as
6ollows:
l.. Where a prpmSssoqy note ex-
presses on it's face that DIT is payable
at a. certain store in Fargo, present
ment of such note at such store for
payment on the day of it's maturity is
a proper place for presentment to
charge as endorser.
| g. Oral testimony is admissible to
show facts occurring on presentment
of a note for payment, which are not
stated in the notary public's certificate
of presentment
3. Where note specifies on its
face the place where it is payable and
ds there presented for payment, no
personal demand on THE maker of the
note is necessary.
4. A notary public's testimony that
he invariably presented notes for pay
ment at the place where they we're
made payable, is admissible to estab-
fish the place Of presentment, where
the notary's certificate of protest fails
to show the place of presentment and
the NOTARY has no independent recol-
section of the specific presentmeht
evidenced by bis certifi cahe.
S. On the reversal by this court Of
a judgment notwithstanding a verdict,
the cause will be renanded to the
district court with leave to the
respondent to- perfect a motion for a
new trial i'm cases where he asked for
a new trial in connection with the mo-
tion for Judgment notwithstanding the
verdict. I ~ T.. IRE ~,
Appeal from the district court OF
Cass county, Hon. Chanles A. Pollock,
Judge. -
H. R. TURNER attorney for appelent.
Benton, Lowell & Holt, attorneys
for respondent 49,.
Opinion by Morgan, Judge
Reversed. =.
cughan vs.. Larson.
Samantha >Cughan, appellant, VS..
Bonnie Larson, ct al, respondent. Syl-
labus ais follows: =
l.. A forfeiture Of a WRITTEN contract
Of sale of real estate by the vendor,
upon defaults in payments required to
be made Gin the manner and at the
times specified tor their payment" and
the amounts to be paid being evf.
demced by promfssory no&es due on
fixed dates. will not be upheld IN a
court OF equity where the evidence
shows that time had not been treated
by the vendor as OF the essence Of the
contract, IN respect to the DEFAULTS re-
lied ON for forfeiture. AZ .@s5s$ .3sls5
2. Where contract for sale Of
land SPECIFICS what defaults shall be
grounds Tor the forfeiture Of the same
by the yendor, q forfeiture Of sucl,
CONTRACT upon other grounds, not In
canded as grounds OF forfeiture III the
contract Will mt he upheld. Such
forfei6nres ami The terms Of tle con.
tract VIII not be extended to sustain
ioqfeitures " .5s5
Under section 1896, Revised
Codes providing thaa q contract al
writdne may t'e adhered BY q Contract