Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1906-02-26
SUPREME court

UOA EAAlfAA OOOaAA X
James Robertson, respondent, VS..
William Moses and Joseph N. Wylie,
appellants. ...~-. i,
/. In an action to recover damages
upon an alleged warranty of the
value of certain bank stock, which
was tried to the court withoVt a jury,
! it is held that the findings for plain
tiff are sustained by the evidence.
2. The face or prima facie value of
promissory note at any point of
time is the principal with the interest
then accrued. 1t does not include I'M
earned interest; and this is true even
/ though the unearned interest has in
form been added to the face of the
J note. t.. ga.
3. The defendants, in the sale of
certain bank stock to. plaintiff,
guaranteed that it was when estimated
by the assets and liabilities of the
bank, as disclosed by it's books, of
certain value. In making the compu-
tation, they included the unearned in
terest upon the bills receivable as an
asset. Held, that the recovery award
ed plaintiff by the trial court for the
difference in value resulting from the
erroneous computation was proper
and correct in amount. -, II
| Under our statute, section 529s, Re-
vised Codes of 1890, variance in
civil action is not material unless it
has actually misled the adverse party
to his prejudice in maintaining his
action or defense. 4 $500
Upon the facts stated in the opinion
| it is held that there was no material
| variance between the pleading and
proof; and further that the trial court
was not guilty of an irregularity in its
proceedings. - #. q.
Appeal from the district court of
Grand Forks county; c. J.. Fisk,
judge. =. :.4rz. 49,. IT.
Guy c. Corliss, for appellants.
| Charles F. Templeton, for appellant.
Action by plaintiff to recover dam
ages for breach of alleged guaranty
of the value of eighty shares Of stock
in the Citizens State Bank of Drayton
sold by defendants to plaintiff. From
a Judgment for plaintiff. defendant, ap-
peals. Opinion by Young, J. Judg-
ment affirmed. ..,-.:,.. 10. s4.-. ..+,t
| J. !. Case Threshing Machine Co.,
respondent, ~ vs., John Bake and
Martha Bake, appellants, - g..
1. An omission from the copy of
a statement of the case Of a demand
for review of the entire case on, an
appeal to this court under section
$500, Revised Codes, is l.. not ground
for affirming the judgment when the.
original statement contained = such
demand, and the omission of the de,
mand from. the copy served is shown
| to be excnsable. - =,
2. Evidence considered and held to
show a compliance by the vendee.
with the conditions of contract of
warranty required to effect a re-.
cdssion thereof. ss.-1"2- = r@& $3.50
| Appeal from the district court of
Bottineau county; w. J. Kneeshaw,
judge, presiding by request. 5g.ss4
B. G. Skulason and Albert Besan-
con, for appellants, ,.5 .sss- 81.
H. R. Turner for respondent
| Action to foreclose real estate
mortgage given to secure payment on
threshing machine and engine. pur-
chased from plaintiff. Judgment for
plaintiff and, defendant appeal.
Opinion by. Morgan, c. j.. Judg-
ment reversed and the district court
LOT Bottineau county is directed to
order Judgment for a dismissal Of
plaintiffs action, and for Judgment in
defendants favor for one. hundred
ninety-niae dollars and fifty cents,
with seven per cent interest thereon
from August 18th, 1902.
Il