Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-06-28
Decision Now at Hand Per.
mits the Building to
Proceed
Long Drawn Out Fight Appears
To Be Finally Settled

10 be Finally Settled
In a decision which comes from the
supreme court the location of the site
for the normal schoo1 at Mtnot ap-
pears to be settled. The matter has
been in the courts for over year now.
People at Minot were unable to agree
on site, and the one selected by the
state normal school board is the one
settled on by the court. The syllabus
is as follows:
In the Supreme Court, State Of North
Dakota, April Term, 1912.
C. A. Grow and F. w. Youngman,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, VS. E. J.
Taylor, ct al, Defendants and Re-
spOndents.
/. Where the Board of Normal
Trustees of the State of North Dakota
passed resolution to the effect that
the Board proceed to formal ballot for
the selection of a cite to contain at
least sixty acres Of ground, in accord
with the legislative act establishing
such school. Warranty deeds of the
tract selected together with abstract
of title showing the property to be
free from encumbrances of any kind
or nature to be furnished this board,
title in the name of the State of North
Dakota, not later than June 9th, same
to be presented to the Board at it's
Mayville meeting on the date above
mentioned, otherwise the location as
made under this vote and motion to be
null and void and in no wise binding
upon this board or the State of North
Dakota said resolution called for
and demanded the production of a
merchantable abstract of said sixty
acres not later than the 9th day OF
June.
2. An abstract is not merchantable
which needs to be supported by parole
evidence, and since the abstract in
question disclosed the fact that on
said tract of land avenues and alleys
had been dedicated to the public and
that said avenues and alleys had new
er been revoked, cancelled, vacated
or set aside, and also disclosed an un-
satisfied mortgage upon unrecorded
oil and gas leases, such abstract was
not understandable or marketable ab-
stract.
8. The mere fact that donation
or dedication had first been offered
by the citizers of Minot to the Board
is of no Importance A donation or
dedication, in order to be binding up
on the donee or grantee, must be &C.
I'D IN tho at h0r thQrQ ia
no proof of an acceptance, but rather
of a counter offer or proposal, which,
in turn, the proof does not show to
have been accepted by the plaintiffs,
by compliance with the terms thereof.
4. Under the facts disclosed it is
held that a delivery of deed to one
of the members of said Normal Board
and the subsequent recording of said
deed by the grantors did not constl-
tute either an acceptance by fulfill
ment of the counter-prOposal of the
board by the donors, or an acceptance
by the board itself, it not being shown
that the said member had authority to
accept the said deed, or that the ab'
stract demanded had upon it's face
shown a marketable title, or that the
defects therein had been waived by
the said board.
5. In an action to enjoin a board
of Trustees from selecting a site for
the location of a normal school, and
the establishment of such school there
on. on account of the alleged fact that
said board has already accepted a
prior offer for location, it must be
shown that the plaintiffs and directors
have an actual interest in the prior
location. Where it is shown that the
prior location was offered nominally
and generally by the citizens of town
out actually by two persons. and the
record discloses that only one OF such
persons has legal title to the land Of
fered. and the other merely a specula-
tive interest in the proceeds of the
sale thereof, and in the advantage to
be derived to other property FROM the
location, and such prior person dis
misses his appeal, the latter has no
privity or mutually Of contract be-
tween him and the defendant board
which will entitle him to maintain an
action of specific performance or such
injunction proceedings.
(Syllabus by the Court)
Appeal from the District Court Of
Ward County, Templeton, ].
Application for permanent writ of
injunction restraining defendants
from proceedings to the selection Of
a certain site for. and the erection of,
certain buildings for the Minot Nor
NAL School Judgment for the De-
PENDANTS.
Affirmed
E. r. Sinkler, of Minot, N. D., and
J. A. Heder of Minot, n. D., attorneys
for appellants.
Andrew Miller, Attorney General,
and C. L. Young and Alfred Zuger, AS
sistant Attorneys General, all of Bis
marck. n. Oak, for respondents.