The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-09-22

In the supreme court, state of North
Dakota, April, 1910, term; Price E.
Morris, appellant, VS.. E. r. Bradley,
respondent
/. In an action by a principal
against his agent to recover damages
for a breach Of such agents duty in
failing to exercise care in procuring
fair" security for the purchase price
of personal property sold by MIN pur-
suant to the agency contract, held,
that plaintiffs evidence relative to
defendants negligent performance of
duty was amply sufficient to require
its submission to the jury. Such evil
dence not only showed negligence but
bad faith on defendants part. 1t was
therefore error to direct a verdict In
defendants favor
2. An agent owes to his principal
the exercise of good faith and fair
dealing in the performance Of his du-
ties, and when he is authorized to sell
his principals property on time, and
to take fair" securities for the pur-
chase price, failure to exercise rea-
sonable diligence in so doing renders
him liable to his principal for the
resulting loss.
3. Evidence examined and held,
that the proof submitted by plaintiff
upon the questions of the worthless
ness of the security and the resulting
loss sustained by him was sufficient,
prima facie, to require it's submission
to the jury.
(Syllaibus by the court.)
Appeal from district court, Barnes
county. Edward r. Burke, j.
From a judgment in defendants
favor, plaintiff appeals
Reversed and a new trial ordered
II. F. McCue for appellant.
Page & Englert for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Fisk, T..
all concuring except Ellsworth j., who
being disqualified, took no part in the
decision.
In the supreme court. state of North
Dakota, April 1910, term: James L.
Smith, plaintiff and appellant VS..
John G. Hoff, defendant and respond
emit.
/. Section 1868, revised codes, 1905,
providing that upon good cause shown
and in furtherance of Justice, a dis
trict court may extend the time within
which any Of the acts mentioned in
sections 1858 and 1865 may be done
either before or after the time limited
therefor has expired, Is a remedial
statute and must be literally con-
strued in favor Of the purposes OBJ
viously intended to be served by its
enactment
2. The purpose of providing linn
tied time for proposing and settling
a statement of the case to be used on
appeal, is, under present Conditions,
fully served il these steps are taken
at such time and in such manner as
not to interfere with the prompt and
orderly disposition of the case upon
appeal.
3. If, from the showing of an an
plicant for an extension of time for
the purpose Of settling statement Of
the case to be used on appeal, 1t an
pears that the appellant is prosecut-
ing the appeal in good faith upon
meritorious grounds and that there Is
reasonable excuse for his failure to
take the preliminary steps within the
time limited by law, 1t is an abuse OF
discretion to deny him reasonable
extension Of time for these purposes.
(Syllalhus by the court.)
Certiorari by James T.. Smith ia re-
view the action of the Judge Of the
eighth judicial district in denying an
application to extend the time for the
purpose OF settling statement Of the
case to be used on appeal
Writ granted and after review the