The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-01-31
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

~ /
reasonably safe manner for employees
working thereon; and the negligence
of such officer. a vice-principal of de-
PENDANT, Is the negligence of the de-
PENDANT for which it is liable in dam
ages.
!. Where a design of scaffolding is
by the master imposed upon en-
ployes for their use, the same duty
rests upon the master to know that
the design is a safe one as rests upon
the master to furnish suitable and not
defective material for employees use.
5. Assignments Of error as to adj
courts Instructions to jury examined.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court Of
McHenry county, Burr, j.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Goss, J..
Ole ugland, plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. Charles L .Kolb, ct AL, defen-
dants, and Charles L. Kolb, alone.
l. Plaintiff had acquired two quar-
ter sections of land from the govern
ment, which land he contracted to
sell to one kuchensbecker upon what
is known as a contract for deed.
kuchenbecker. assuming t act as
owner of the land, though without
paying h full purchase price and re-
ceiving himself a deed therefor, made
a similar contract to sell the said
land to Kolb for some $3.50 more
money than he we spayfng to Ugland.
kuchenbecker p%aidJabout one-ffth Of
Kolb paid about the same amount up
on his contract. After two years Ug-
land brings this action to quiet his
title, proving that he had served no.
tice of cancellation upon Kuchen-
becker Kolb defends the action and
shows that he had offered to Upland
all of the money. excepting $3.50
which he wished to keep back to clear
contract. Upland showed that at the 3
time Of the offer the contract between
himself and Kuchenbecker had been
assigned to one Brennan as security
for a loan, n had never redeemed,
He also showed that the objections
to his title were frivolous. 1t also
appeared that Kuchenbecker had
made a deed Of the premises to Kolb,
but said deed was made after the as
signment Of his contract to Brennan,
and had never been delivered to Kolb.
but was made at a time when Kolb
expected to borrow enough money up
on the land to pay Upland in full,
held.
That there was no mutually of
contract between Ugland and Kolb,
and as kolb could not have been com.
PEELED to specifically perform to Ug-
land, neither should Upland be COM
PEELED to perform to Kolb. Also that
the contract could not be specifically
performed until redeemed from Bren-
nan. Kolb having no interest in the
contract or land the trial court prop
erly quieted the title as against him,
Brennan and Ugland. having made
no appeal, are also precluded by the
judgment.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Ramsey county, Cowan, j.
Opinion by Burke. j.. Fisk. j., dis
senting.
Brush-W Williams Company, q corpor-
alton. plaintiff and appellant, VS.. Anil
F. Gludt, defendant and respondent.
Held that under the facts Of the
case there was no meeting Of the
minds SO as to effect a modification
OF a rea! estate contract.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Ward county. Burke. ].
Action to commissions al
legged to be due on a real estate trans
action. Verdict and judgment for the
defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Bruce. J., Mr.. Justice
Burke. being disqualified, did not par
ticipate.
Meyer Lumber Company Corpora
tion). plaintiff and appellant, vs.. Peter
Trygstad. ct al. defendants and re-
spondents.
1. Evidence examined and shows
that the defendants Frank and Tomp-
ktns were the owners of adjoining lots
in the city Of Minot, N. D.; that in
August. 1907, F. decided to build q
three story brick building upon his lot,
an advertised for bids and let the
contract for the same. Sometime
thereafter T. decided to build upon his
lot and consulted the contractor and
entered into q contract with the con-
tractor to build a three-story building
upon his lot: such building. however,
to be only one-third the size Of F.'s
building in other respects. The con-
tractor bought the material for both
buildings from plaintiff. but there is
evidence of separate estimates so that
plaintiff could have kept separate
bills. Plaintiff gave a notice by reg
istered letter. as required by section
62a7. r.. c. 1905. to each lot owner
to the effect that his building and lot
would be held for the material used.
Later plaintiff filed q joint lien
against both lots and buildings. Held.
q. That the contracts were separ.
ate and distinct and that the Joint
lien fled against both premises is
void.
(syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Ward county. Burr. ].
Affirmed.
Opinion by Burke. J. MI. Justice
Goss. being disqualified, did not par.