Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-12-11

Appellant
J. S. Let's, ct al, Defendants
! and
J. F. Beyer, Intervenor and
| Respondent.
l. B., the Interviewer, assigned the
mortgage involved in this sa1it, to a
corporation. Believing himself de-
| frauded he brought suit in the U. S.
Courts for a resessiom but was de.
feated. The corporation sold the
| mortgage to the plaintiff who brought
this suit in foreclosure. B. inter-
| vened alleging the same fraud and
rescission and asks the court to de-
| clare him the owner of the mortgage.
HELD, that the decision of the U. S.
court is res aGjudicata.
2. Even the interviewer might, as a
minority stakeholder, in the corpor-
alton. defeat the transfer of the
mortgage tho he plaintiff, in a proper
suit, and compel the return of the
mortgage to the corporation, yet this
will not support intervenors allega-
tions that he, personally, owns the
mortgage. This court cannot wind
up the affairs of a foreign corpora
ton even when a party to the suit.
In a foreclosure suit an intervenOr
must take the suit as he finds it and
cannot change to an action to annul
corporation. Plaintiff has proved
his case and is entitled to judgment.
(Syllabus by the court)
Appeal from the district court Of
Stark County, Winchester, Special
Judge.
Reversed.
Bangs, Cooley & Hamilton, and
Savage & Purdy, for appellant.
M. A. Hldreth, for respondent.
Opinion of the court by Burke, ].
North Dakota, October Term, A. D.
1911
Carl E. Harris, Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Martin Jones, ct AL,
Defendants and Appellants.
1. A surety who pays his princi-
pals debt, owes to his cosmetics
tthe duty to preserve all OF their
rights under the debt. If he extends
the time of payment of said debt in
favor OF the principal, without the
consent Of the CO sureties, the latter
will be released from their duty to
contribute to the payment of the
debt
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court Of
Richland county, Allen, J.
Reversed.
Opinion of the court by Burke, J.,
Fisk, J. dissenting.
McCumber & Forbes anL Martin
Scramstad, for appellant.
Wolfe & Schneider, for respondent.
In the Supreme Court, State Of
North Dakota, October Term, 1911.
Anderson Mercantile Co.,
A Corporation
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Oscar R. Anderson and John
T. Anderson,
Defendant and Respondents. |
/. Under the plea of general deni- |
al to an action upon the contract,
the defendant may show that the
contract between him and the plain
tiff was a different one than THAT set
out in the complaint, or that NO con-
tract at all was made.
2. HELD, that where a managing |
agent of a general store stated an
account with stockholders of the
company, and allowed such persons
to take out goods from tine store for
the purpose Of trading out a balance
found due and owing to them on such
account, but that the allowance OF
part of such account was improper
and unauthorized, being based on
in the company, which had
not been declared by directors OF the
corporation, the corporation could
not afterwards sue for the value OF
such goods without first having re-
Dudiated the contract and demanded
a return of the same.
(Syllabus by the COURT
Appeal from district court, Ramsey
county, Cowar, j.
Action to recover money Ior eooue
sold and delivered. Defendant plead
ed a qualified general denial. YER
dict and Judgment for defendands'
Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Middaugh & CuUhbert.
For the appellant.
w. M. Anderson,
For the Respondent.
Opinion by Bruce, j.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
! corresDondence 8