The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-01-24

I III Lne supreme court, SLdte vi NOTlu
Dakota, October term, 1909.
Fred Mitchell plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. Knudtson Land Co. corpora
ton, and o. A. Knudtson, defendants
and appellants.
/. An allegation in a complaint for
the specific performance of a contract
for the sale of real estate, that 20. A.
Knudtson was the duly and authorized
agent of the Knudtson Land Co" ad-
mtted to be true i'm the answer. is
sufficient without proof tina. such
agen had authority to bind his princi-
pal by his contract 10 sci. real etsate.
2. Evidence of settlement of a
cause of action set forth i'm a COM
plant is not admissible under a gen.
eral denial
3. An offer in specific terms, and
without conditions. for the purchase
of a tract of land made by letter or
telegram, Internationally accepted be-
comes a binding contract.
4. The fact that the requirements
/ of the statute of fraud have not been
complied with in making a contract
/ for the sale of real estate will not de-
/ feat an action for the specific per-
/ Torrance of such contract where the
/ vendee has been placed in possession
| of the land under the contract, aud has
made valuable improvements and paid
part of the purchase price.
1 5. contract of q vendee for the
| purchase of real estate, made through
! his agent in his own name, without
stating the name of his principal, may
/ be enforced by an action for specific
I performance by such principal in his
! own name.
s. Evidence consisting of letters
written by an agent on behalf of his
| principal, received in evidence without
| objections, If sufficient, prima facie, to
! establish an authorized agency.
7. In an action for the specific per-
j Torrance of a contract to convey real
/ estate, where the facts show a failure
and refused to specifically perform the
j contract. the court may retain juris-
diction of the action and award dam
ages, and thus determine the contro-
versy without putting plaintiff to the
expense and delay of another action.
8. Evidence considered and held not to
show that plaintiff knew when the con-
tract was entered into, or when suit
! able to convey sufficient deed
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from the district court of
] Mclean county. winchester. ].
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defend
ants appeal.
Affirmed
]. T. McCulloch and Newton & Dull
len, for appellants.
4 rram n Il.
for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Morgan, C..
j., all concurring.
In the supreme court, state of
North Dakota, October term, 1909.
George Freeman, ct AL, plaintiffs
/ and respondents. VS.. John Trimble, ct
al, as drain commissioners of the
counties of Bottineau and McHenry.
defendants and appellants.
1. Boards of drain commissioners
have only such powers as are ex-
pressly conferred by statute, or neces-
sarily implied from the powers con-
1erred
.. In acting as drain commission
ers. a large discretion is vested in
them in assessing benefits and in de-
4 IRTIIiAiIlS WAeH UulleLS TOT drains may
be secured, and that discretion will
not be interfered with where power
is granted to them except in case of
fraud or manifest abuse of such dis
erection.
8. Under sections 1921 and 1922, r.
c. 1906 as amended by chapter 90
laws of 1907, joint boards of drain
commissioners have power to secure
an outlet to drains established within
their district. in foreign territory.
wnere a public necessity exists for
securing such outlets.
4. Where II Is necessary to i'm
prove. deepen, or widen the channel
or bed OF river in this state In order
to drain flooded lands, and the deep
enfng and widening OF such river in
this state would not be effectual in
draining such lands without deepening
and widening the river bed for about
twelve or fourteen miles after II