Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-03-14
in SUPREME COURT

lin Jul llLlllL UUUAI
THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
HANDED DOWN THE FOLLOW
ING DECISIONS
b. 3. Cook. respondent, VS.. S. NJ
Lockerby, appellant.
An afidavit Of publication of mo-
itice OF sale. in proceedings to fore
close a real estate mortgage, which
recites that such notice was published
Seven successive times, commencing
on July 18th, 1885, and ending on Aug.
2Sth, 1885. both inclusive, in the Lis
bon Star, a weekly newspaper" is suf-
ficient proof that 1T was published once
in each week for six successive weeks
as required by Com. Laws, Sec. 5415.
2. The mortgages in such mortgage
were designated under their firm name
Of Cook & Dodge, and Notwithstanding
this fact, a statutory foreclosure there
of is sustained. Sg. Il
Appeal from the district court of
Barnes county. Hon. s. IL Glaspell,
Judge. .S S#
Turner & Wright for appellant, John
81 Greene for respondent
81 Judgment affirmed. Opinion by
Fisk, J.
M. F. Kepner, respondent, vs.. "A. j.
Ford, appellant.
1. Plaintiff sued to recover a com
mission earned, under q contract with
defendant, in finding purchasers for
plaintiffs land. The contract was Of
fered in evidence by plaintiff and de-
PENDANT objected to its reception upon
the grounds that it is not a contract
between the parties, plaintiff not hav-
ing signed it; and that it is too in
definite and uncertain and should be
first reformed. Held, that the trial
court properly oyerru1ed this obiee-
ton. :s5s3
2. Exhibit 9, being contract en-
tered into by plaintiff and the persons
whom he had procured to purchase the
property setting forth the terms Of
the purchase, was properly admitted
in evidence.
3. The ruling Of the trial court In
permitting plaintiff to introduce sec.
ondary evidence as to the contents OF
exhibit G, being a contract between
plaintiff as agent and the purchasers
was error without prejudice.
! 4. Upon nation of the
plaintiff, it was disclosed that one
Chamberlain is to receive rs per cent
of any sum plaintiff RECEIVERS In this
action and defendant contends that
this should defeat plaintiffs recovery.
The answer to this contention is the
fact that no such defense was pleaded
lin the answer and furthermore no
]ruling was made. nor was the itfial
court asked to make any ruling upon
$which such assignment Of error could
be predicated.
S. The fact that a portion Of the land
embraced in the contract consisted of
the homestead of defendant and his
| wife, and that the latter did not join
in the execution Of the contract, does
not render such contract invalid, al it
was not a contract for the sale Of the
property. but q mere agreement on de-
PENDANTS part to compensate plaintiff
for finding a purchaser. 5...
Appeal from the district court, Of
Eddy county; Hon. r. T. Burke, Judge.
=. T. Allison and F. Baldwin for APP
/ pellant, Maddux & Rinker for respon-
dent
| Judgment affirmed. Opinion by
Fisk,
Frank II. Strecker, respondent, vs..
Edward Railson, appellant.
1. A complaint in an action upon 4
Judgment of q justice of the peace of
"a sister state which fails to allege spe-
officially the facts showing that such
court had urisdiction, both Of the sub
ject matter and Of the person Of, the
defendant, or that such judgment was
duly given or made as provided ii
Isection 6S71, Revised Codes. 1906. 81
words Of the exact equivalent, fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute q
cause Of action.
2. As judgment rendered by justice
OF the peace Of a sister state cannot
be proved In this state by an authenti-
Gated copy Of the record Of such jus.
/ tees court, as neither the act OF con
gress ~. 8. Rev Stat. 905) nor Sec.
1892, R. g. 1905 relates to the authen.
tication Of copies Of records Of courts
OF limited Jurisdiction Ia other states.
3. "A transcript Of this Judgment hav.