Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-11-09
in SUPREME COURT

"a materialman furnishing lumber
to the occupant of land which Is used
for the erection Of a building on such
land, which Is held by such occupant
as vendee under a contract for the
purchase of the same under the crop
payment plan, is entitled to a lien
on such building and the yendee's In
terest in the land when he has com 4
piled with the statutory quirements
as to the filing of Al claim for such
lien. 5.,s: y, H. S&, " "a ,5s$ ys IN
Under such Circumstances the vendee
in the contract is deemed the owner
OF the land within the meaning of
section GAS, i. G. 1905,
Under such circumstances the ven
dee of the land is the equitable owner
of the land, and the vendor holds the
legal title to the land in trust for the
purchaser and as, security for the,
payment of the purchase price.
The fact that the vendor terminal
ed the contract after an action to
foreclose the lien had been com
menced under an arrangement with
the 4vendee does not affect the lien,
as the right to such lien must be de-
'termined as of the date of furnishing
the materials. 4 y;;s
The mechanics lien law is remedial
and should be literally construed to
effectuate its purposes. NJ L ss@#
The prima facie presumption that
an affidayit is sworn to in the 5couii-
ty named in its caption Or venue, is
overcome by the presumption that
an officers acts are performed at the
county where he is legally authorized
to act. r, i.E-.s ,S.5s
Appeal from the district court of
Stutsman county; Hon. E. T. Burke.
judge. s,ssegs |
J. A. Coffey. for appellants; Lee
Combs for respondent. .5 .@.
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by
Morgan, C. j. All concur %
1t is not incumbent on plaintiff
in "a garnishee action to take issue
upon the garnisheess answer where
it admits thatsthe garnishee has mon
eys or property in his hands sufficient
to satisfy plaintiffs claim.
The defendant, in a garnishee ac-
ton, by not raising the objection be-
fore the trial court that Judgment
has not been entered in the princi-
pal action, valves the objection and
cannot raise it for the first time in
the supreme court. 513 .8 st
Objections to the, suffieiency OF
plaintiffs affidavit in a garnishee ae-
ton cannot be8raised in the supreme
| court for the first time. q
| Whether property in the hands loi
la garnishee is exempt or not, is to be
determined as of the day of the ser
| vice of the garnishee summons
5$fsA An answer by the defendant in &
garnishee action alleging that the
! property in the garnishee's hands il
exempt referring to the time of max
/ ing the answer, does not state a de
i Tense. and evidence that such prop
erty is exempt at that time is no
| admissible under such answer.
4 A defendant in a garnishee action
4 is not permitted to dispose of hi
property between the time Of the ser
| vice of the summons and the ser
4 vice of the answer and thereby dc
/ feat a creditors garnishment actioi
on the ground that the property i
i the hands of the garnishee is actuall
exempt when the answer is served
Appeal from the district court Q
Cavalier county. Hon. w. I. Knee
4 shaw judge. .ss.#S u
z. R. Sinkler for defendant an
4 garnishee appellants: Gordon & Ms
a Intyre for respond
q Judgment affirmed. Opinion b
4 Morgan, c. j. All concur. a