Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-04-22
Supreme Court

/ouplelne NOurl !
Joseph LANCER plaintiff and appellant,
VS..
w. H. C. Goods, defendant and re-
spondent.
l. Section 2OS6 of the Revised
Codes of 1905 construed and held that
no such duty devolves upon any per-
son to destroy such noxious weeds as
wild mustard upon the land he owns
or occupies as will make him liable in
damages for failure to destroy until
after the county commissioners have
prescribed the time and manner of
destruction. As to whether an action
would lie after the commissioners
have acted, not determined.
2. The expression of rights of an.
other" in the maxim set forth in sec
ton 6661 of the Revised Codes OF 1905
means legal rights, and is not broad
enough to include all rights deter
mined by our moral and ethical stand
ards.
(Syllabus by the COURT.
Appeal from District Court, Cass
county; Pollock, J.
Action by Joseph LANCER, as plain
tiff, against w. H. c. Goode as defend
ant.
For an order sustaining a demurrer
to the complaint plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed
J. F. Callahan and S. B. Bartlett
attorneys for appellant.
Smith Stimmel, Pollock & Pollock
(of couseD, attorneys for respondent.
Hon. A. G. Burr, judge of the 9th
judicial district sat in the hearing of
the above entitled matter by request
Opinion of the court by Burr, dis
trict judge, all concurring except Nor
gan, c. J. not participating.
Hattie E. Harrington, Plaintiff and
respondent,
vs..
The Mutual Life Insurance Co., Of
New York. corporation, defendant
and appellant.
I Constituting section 594S of the
Revised Codes of 1905, held. that the
company cannot be permitted to show
that the actual date of the issuance
of policy of life insurance was of
later date than the date recited
in the contract, where the policy con-
tains an acknowledgment of the re-
ceipt of the premium.
2. In such case. the date OF the
policy as specified in the contract
being binding on the company, held,
that under the provisions of section
6O64 of the Revised Codes of 1905,
the defense that the insured commit
ted suicide cannot be set up when
suicide occurred after the expiration
of one year from the date of the policy
3. Where the insured commits sui
eide while sane after the expiration
of one year from the date of the policy
the company is liable for the amount
of the policy even though it appeared
that the act of suicide was premedi-
tated before the expiration of one
year from the date of the policy and
even though the date of the liability
of the company is fixed by the volun.
tary act of the insured, this being
one of the risks assumed by the COM
pany, whereas in this case the policy
contains provision that the company
shall not be liable in the event of the
insured's death by his own act wheth.
er sane during the period of one year
after the issuance of the policy.
(Syllabus by the COURT.
Appeal from District Court, Grand
Forks county. Templeton, J.
Action by Hattie E. Harrington
against the Mutual Life insurance Co.,
of New York. corporation.
Judgment for plaintiff, defendant ap.
peals.
Affirmed.
Guy c. H. Corliss for respondent.
Ball, Watson, Young & Lawrence,
for appellant.
Opinion of the court by Burr. dis
trict judge. all concurring except Nor.
gan, c. j., not participating.
A. G. Burr, judge of the ninth judic-
ial district sitting by request.