Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-03-19
|of the fraul, inconsistent with a re-
ut Il

|Of the frau1, inconsistent with a re-
cission or rendering it impossible to
place the other party in statu quo.
z. The rule that impossibility OF
restitution is defense to an action
for a RECESSION does not apply when
complete restitution to the statu quo
has been rendered impossible by
the act of the defendant.
8. The burden of proving knowl-
e1ge Of facts giving rise to the rights
to rescind and of the time of acquir-
ing such knowledge, rests on the de-
PENDANT. ~,
9. The plaintiff had some CONVEX
sation with a third party regar ling
the purchase by the third party of
stock held by the plaintiff after
plaintiff acquired knowledge of his
right to rescini. The third party
made an offer to buy which was not
accepted.
ratification of the transfer CON-
planned of as fraudulent.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from district court, Rich
land county, Allen, J.
Action by Solomon ]. Liland
against A. X. Tweto. From a judy
ment for defendant plaintiff appeals
Reversed.
Engerud, Holt E Frame and W.
S. Lauder. for appellant.
Purcell & Divet and Charles E.
Wolfe, for respondent.
Opinion fthe court by spalling,
j.. all concurring.
F. L. Singer, ct al, Appellants, VS..
James NJ. Austin, as executor, Re-
spondent.
I. Under section 8105 Revised
Codes 1905 requiring a claimant.
within three months after his claim
has been rejected. to bring suit
thereon. otherwise the same will be
barred forever, Held, that plaintiffs
claim is debarrei.
2. Such statute is operative as to
claims presented and constructively
rejected by non-action for ten days
as provided in Sec. S1O3 r. c.. al
though notice to creditors as provi1
ed in Sec. SO97 R. c. has not been
given.
3. Sec. S097, supra, requiring the
of notice to creditors, be-
ing Independent of Sec. 8105 requir-
ing suit to be brought within three
months after the claim Is rejected,
the publication of notice under the
former is an unnecessary condition
to the enforcement Of the latter.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from district court, Dickey
Allen. J.
Action by F. T.. Singer and others
against James NJ. Austin as execu-
tor. From an order sustaining a
demurrer to the complaint, plain
tiff appeal.
Affirmed.
McCumber & Forbes, for appel
lants.
S. G.. Roberts, for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Fisk, j..
all ccncurring.
Alexander Mckenzie. Respondent,
vs.. Carlos N. Boynton, Appellant.
I. Under the so-callei "Wood-
Law" (Chapter 81. Laws 1897 the
county of Emmons obtained a judy
nent for taxes in October 1897 In
December following the lands in
'luded in such Judgment were sold
" the sheriff, the county becoming
he purchaser, to whom certificates
# sale we're duly issued. Ninety
lays preceding the expiration and
maturity of such certificates the
county treasurer assumed to give
lotice to NJ, the owner of the lands !
# the statutory notice of expiration
Il time for redemption. The notice
vas signed "Emmons County, N. D..
" H. w. Allen, county treasurer"
nd service thereof was attempted |
o be made by registered mail, and
lso by leaving copy thereof with
ne F., an employe at the hotel
where NJ. resided. M. had no fam
" nor was he residing in the fam