Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-03-14

with section l of this act, has def
nitely located its right of way station
grounds adjacent thereto. Such def
mite location may be made either by
acts of the railroad company which
operate as unmistakable evidence of
appropriation, such as the construc-
ton Of its railroad, station buildings
and other appurtenances, or by filing
with the register of the land Office of
the district where the land is locat-
ed a profile of it's line of route and
station grounds approved by the Sec
rotary of the interior, in compliance
with section 4 of the act.
2. Actual construction of a rail-
road definitely locates only right
of way extending to distance of
100 feet on each side of the central
line of track. Definite location Of
station grounds outside of and ada
cent to such right of way must be
made, if at all, by other and further
acts of the railroad company which
operate as unmistakable notice to
an intending settler of an appropria-
ton by the railroad company Of GER
tain grounds for such purposes.
3. The rights of an entryman un-
der the homestead law who settles
upon the public lands pfior to the
time that a railroad company has
filed with the register of the land
Office for the district where the land
is located profile on which is shown
selection of part of this land
outside of and adjacent to it's right
of way as station grounds, are supe-
rior to those Of the railroad COM
pany, unless prior to his settlement
the railroad company has done acts
that operate as unmistakable evil
dence and notice of an intention on
the part of the railroad company to
appropriate portion of said land
to its uses for station grounds.
4. The placing of structures ap-
purtenant to station within the
limits of the right of way of a rail-
road is not Of itself evidence of ap-
of any land for station
uses outside Of the right of way.
(Syllabus by the court)
Appeal from district court of Ward
county. Goss, J.
Action by Elizabeth Comford
against Great Northern Railway COM
pany ct al to determine adverse
claims to real estate. A decree was
in plaintiffs favor, and de-
PENDANT appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Arthur LIE Sueur and Murphy & |
Duggan for appellants.
Palda & Burke and Dudley Nash
for respondent.
Opinion by Ellsworth, J. All con-
cur.
Charles G.. Larson, Appellant, VS..
Frank Newman, Administrator, ct al,
l. A land owner made a contract |
in writing with S. & Co., land agents, |
them to sell a piece OF |
land on terms stated in the contract
Afterwards the firm Of S. & Co. dis
solved. S. continuing the business,
made a contract to sell the land to
plaintiff on terms somewhat differ
emit from those authorized in the |
agency contract, and signed the land
owners name thereto by himself as
agent. In an action to compel the
land owner to specifically perform
the contract.
Held: That whatever authority
was conferred upon s. & Co. by the
agency contract was terminated up
on the dissolution of the co-partner-
ship, and S. had no further power
under that contract.
2. The sale by an agent on any
other terms and conditions than
those authorized by the principal is
not binding on the latter
3. Evidence insufficient to show
a ratification by the principal of the
contract Of sale by s. to plaintiff.
(Syllabus by the court)
Appeal from the district court of
Ward county. Hon. E. B. Goss, J.
Johnson & Nestos and Skulason &
Burtness for appellant.
Palda & Burke for respondent
tEngerud, Holt & Frame of coun-
sell.
Judgment modified and affirmed.
Opinion by Carmody, J. All con.
cur. =