Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1906-01-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

4 Minneapolis, st. Paul & Sault Ste.
1 Marie Railway CO., appellant.
# 4. Unless appellants brief con-
tains an assignment of errors in com
pliance with rule XIV, Supreme Court
Rules, or the record disclosessa cause
for a relaxation of the rule, the judg-
ment win be affirmed. .S.S
I (Syllabus by the court.) LIZ
/ Appeal from the district court Of
Ransom county; Frank P. Allen, ]. "
/ T. A. Curtis, GA. II. Bright, of coun-
seD, for appellant. .3 .yss 5a9
/ Chas. S. Ego, for respondent.
| :, Opinion by Morgan, G. j., Judg-
ment of district court affirmed.
Acme Harvester company. respond
ent, VS.. Roland Magill, appellant
1. A satisfaction OF. a judgment en-
tered through a mistake of act may
ordinarily lbe set aside ON motion
based on affidavits made in the ac-
ton. @ $#sss 9s
2. In cases where the facts are
complicated and disputed the court
may refuse to decide them on motion
and compel the party to resort to an
action psf, 81 ss.S = !;
3. A motion to set aside a satisfac-
ton in such cases can be made after
the lapse Of one year from the date
of satisfaction, and section 5298, Re,
vised Codes Of 1899, is not applicable
to such motions.
4. Under judgment of a justice
Of the peace, a transcript of which is
| filed in district court, an execution
may issue at any time within ten
years after the date of the Judgment
in Justice court.
tSyllabus by the court.o
Appeal from the district court Of
Ransom county; Frank P. Allen. ].
Chas. IS. Eho and M. A. HildretI,
for appellant. 4. =sss 5$
Rourke, Kvello & Adams. for re-
spondent. 81 8
I Opinion by Morgan. G. J. Order Of
district court affirmed. "a
George G.. jacobson, appellant, VS..
Ransom county. respondent.
| 4. No liability exists against a
county for money expended by a
county treasurer for clerk hire in ex-
cess Of the comp nsation therefor
fixed by the county commissio as
provided by section POSI-, Revised
Codes of 1893. ,.5 3 q s5i35 X s,.555 f.t
| 2. The necessity for such clerk and
the compensation to be paid him are
matters within the discretion OF the
commissioners and such discretion
Twill not be reviewed by the courts in
an action for the recovery Of the ex
cess so paid. s5 9 4 . :;.s
tsyliabus by the court. 0 {. S18
| Appeal from the district court Of
Ransom county; Frank P. Allen, ]. 0
Charles S. Ego, for appellant.
Alfred M Kvello, states attorney
Eof Ransom county, for respondent.
| Opinion by Morgan, G. J. Judgment
lof the district court affirmed.
| Charles c. Connolly, appellant, VS..
1T. A. .Luros, George Brennan and The
Farmers bank Of Crary, respondents.
Is Evidence held to Justify the findings
lof the trial co1irt. s. sss8
(Sy1lalbals by the court. y:
Appeal from the district court OF
Ramsey county; John +. Cowan, =.
Townsend & Denoyer and Burke g.
Middangh, for appellant.
/ McClory & Barnett, for respond nts.
i Opinion by Engerud, ]. Judgment
Iof district court affirmed.
j The Marshall-MeCa rtney company,
respondent VS.. Thomas Halloran, ap-
Ipeliant. 81 B .:$
I. In an action to recover damages
for deceit, the misTapr ations re-
||lied upon must be specifically alleged.
q An averment that the plaintif
was deceived to his damage BY GER
tain alleged misre presenta tipns of the
defendant Il of no avail II the mis-
Representation were not Of such q ma
Eture or made under such circalIn-
stances as to justify the belief upon
(which the plaintiff claims to have
Iacted
3. IN order to disclose a cause Of
faction for deceit the complaint must
show that the loss Of damage was the
Eproximate effect caused by the alleged
misre ations.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from an order of the district
court Of Sargent county; Frank p.
Allen Judge.
Es E cassels and g. ". Davis. for
EappeIlant.
Geo. n. Fay and w. Wicker.