Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-09-23
Supreme Court

James L. Smith, plaintiff and appel.
liant, vs.. John C. Hoff, defendant
and respondent.
l. Section 1908, Revised Codes,
1905, providing that upon good cause
shown and in furtherance of justice, q
district court may extend the time
within which any of the acts mention
ed 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 nber'
ally construed in favor OF the pur.
poses obviously intended to be served
by its enactment.
2. The purpose of providing a linn
tied time for proposing and settling
q statement of the case to be USED
on appeal, is, under present cond1-
tons, fully served if these steps are
taken at such time and in such man
ner as not to interfere with the
prompt and orderly disposition OF the
case upon appeal.
3. If from the showing OF an appl'
cant for an extension OF time for the
purpose of settling a statement OF the
case to be used on appeal, 1t appears
that the appellant is prosecuting the
appeal in good faith upon meritorl'
Gus grounds and that there is reason
able excuse for his failure to take
the preliminary steps within the time
limited by law, it is an abuse OF dis"
cretion to deny him a reasonable ex-
tension of time for these purposes.
Syllabus by the court.
Certiorari by James l.. Smith to 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
district court is directed to reverse
It's order made on the first applica-
ton.
Palda Aaker. Greene & Kelso for
appellant.
Scott Rex for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Ellsworth,
j., all concurring.
Price E. Morris, appellant, VS.. E. R.
Bradley, respondent.
/. In an action by principal
against his agent to recover damages
for a breach of such agents duty in
failing to exercise due care in pro.
curing fair" security for the pur-
chase price of personal property sold
by him pursuant to the agency con-
tract, held, that plaintiffs evidence
relative to defendants negligent per-
Torrance of duty was amply sufficient
to require it's submission to the jury.
Such evidence not only showed negli-
gence 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, a failure to exercise
reasonable diligence in so doing rem
ders 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 result
ing loss sustained by him was suftl-
cient, prima facie, to require it's sub
to the jury.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from district court, Barnes
county, Edward r. Burke, J.
From judgment in defendants IA
vor. plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and a new trial ordered.
r. F. McCue for appellant.
Page & Englert for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Fisk, J.,
all concurring except Ellsworth, j.,
who, being disqualified, took no part
in the decision.
IAEDu 0nEA1hH