Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-04-11
Supreme Court


J. H. Hart and Grant Springer,
Plaintiffs and respondents.
vs..
The Village. of Wyndmere in Richland
county, North Dakota, w. d. Sprin-
ger, treasurer of the Village of
Wyndmere, ]. !. Hanson, Neil Camp
bell and Lars DISCARD, trustees OF
the Village of Wyndmere.
Defendants and Respondents.
The North Dakota Artesian Well Com
pany, "a Corporation)
Defendant and Appellant.
A seller of village warrants for val
ue by their sale implicitly warrants
such securities to be the genuine
and legal obligations of the village
and that the same are not to the
knowledge of the transferror subject
to set-off or counter claim.
The delivery by a village of it's
legal warrant in payment of a con-
tract providing for payment by 1t in
cash, is payment of such contract
obligation.
Those dealing with a municipal cor
poration, a village. are presumed to
know the extent OF it's powers and
cannot hold it liable because of repre-
sensations or contracts of It's officers
concerning matters not legally within
it's corporate powers.
An action begun as AN equitable
action may by subsequent pleadings
be changed in nature to one at law
properly triable on demand to a jury.
Where summons and complaint
were issued and served in an action
against single defendant, and there
after the parties stipulate in addi-
tional defendants by the service OF
supplemental pleadings naming them
as such, and such additional defend
ants so named voluntarily enter into
the action, serve action on co-defend-
ants and original plaintiff and issue
is Joined thereon between the orig.
inal plaintiff and all of such defend
ants and between one another, with
out an order of court bringing in such
additional parties, but thereafter all
parties to the action participate in
the trial Offering their testimony,
resting and moving for judgment, any
objection thereafter made by such ad-
ditional parties to the Jurisdiction of
the court over them or the subject |
matter of the action comes too late
and they will be held to have submit
ed in all things to the jurisdiction of
the court the determination of their !!
action and are buond by the verdict
rendered and judgment entered there.
on.
If such action between the many
parties even though of conflicting in
terest is but a combination of two or
more separate actions at law, the &C.
ton is not necessarily changed from
one at law to one in equity because of
such voluntary consolidation of issues
by the parties.
The statutory provision, Sec. 7031
of the North Dakota Revised Statutes
of 1905, requiring that verdict must
be signed by the foreman of the jury
is directory, not mandatory, and an
unsigned verdict properly rendered
and received that would otherwise
be valid is not invalidated by such
statutory provision.
Where at the close of the testimony
as to certain issues in the case the
court might have directed verdict
or findings any error not affecting
the result as to such matters uncon'
troverted by the evidence, or any is
sues to be found by the jury, is error
without prejudice and not ground for
a new trial.
Evidence examined and held sufh-
cient to sustain the verdict rendered
and judgment thereon.
(Syllabus by the cuort.)
Appeal fro District Court, Richland
county, Allen. J.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Goss, j., all concur, ex-
cepting Morgan, c. j., not participant.
Ing.
Chas. E. Wolfe, attorney for plain.
tiff and respondents.
w. s. Lauder, attorney for defend