The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-09-25
Decisions Of the Supreme Court

Ivenience of a single litigant, and per-
haps thereby Inconvenience al" other
parties having business before the
court, hold jurors at the expense Of
the public, and. interfere with the or
DERBY prosecution Of the regular
business. .., ,s
4. Under the showing made on ap-
pltcation to"vacate a Judgment in this
case 1t is held, that there was no such
clear abuse of discretion on the part
OF the trial court in denying defend
ants application as will warrant this
court in reversing its order.
(Syllabus by the COURT.
Appeal from an order of the district
court, Stutsman county, Burke, j..
Affirmed.
r. G. Mcfarland, jamestown, N. D.,
for plaintiff and respondent.
Knauf &, Knauf, jamestown, NJ D.,
for defendant and appellant.
Opinion by Spalding, @. j, Burke.
j., being disqualified. did not par
ticipate. lr-1..
Harley S. Grover, plaintiff and re-
spondent, VS.. Fred Muralt, defendant
and appellant.
/. The defendant, as the maker OF
a negotiable instrument, engages that
he will pay it according to its tenor,
n admits the existence of the payee.'
R. G. 1905, section 1852. Held, that
under this provision, on the facts OF
this case, it became unnecessary for
plaintiff endorsee or assignee Of a
promissory note payable to the order
of the N. /. Railway Co. to prove the
incorporation of the payee.
2. This action is on a negotiable
promtssory note payable to the order
of the payee therein named. Plain
tiff brought suit thereon as assignee
thereof. Defendant offered no evidence
showing any equities in his favor or any
defense against the note if in the hands
of the original payee. After both par
mission to amend by changing the
! word assigned" to endorsed" Held
that under the facts and in the abb
sence of any evidence showing a de-
defense it was immaterial whether he
held it as assignee or endorsee; anG
thai the granting of such amendment
was non-prejudicial.
3. The possession of a promissory
note payable to the order of the payes
by an assignee, proof of payment of !
valuable consideration therefor to the
payee by the plaintiff holder, and fail.
ure to show any defense, renders thu
maker liable to the plaintiff assignee
particularly undr our statute requir.
ing actions to be brought in the name
~ An AOOA RAA ny LII ~ EI
(Syllabus by the COURT.
Appeal from Judgment of districr
court, Ransom county, Allen j.
Affirmed.
T. A. Curtis and c. O.sHeckle, Lis.
bon, N. D., for respondent.
a. 2. Lacy, Fargo. N. D., for ap.
Opinion by spalding. 9. ].
A. L. Schafer. apnellan+ 1s 8 M
Johns, ]. r. Meagher and "a. w. Dit.
mer, as the school board of South Benz
school district No. 1, in the county o.
McHenry and state OF North Dakota
respondents.
Under the school laws Of this stat,
as revised and re-enacted in chaptel
266, laws of 1911, a contract otherwis,
duly entered into between a schoo
board and a teacher Is not void OF
voldable because at the date or sucl
contract the teacher did not hold /,
certificate or permit qualifying hin
to teach. The case of Hosrner We
school district No. 4, North Dakota
1917, is differentiated on the ground o
a change in the statute.
(Svllabus by the COURT.
Appeal from district court, McHenr,
county, leighton, J.
From an order In defendants favor
plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Palda, Aaker e. Greene of Minot, N
d., for appellant.
Geo. A. MCGEE and John u. Martin
of Minot, for respondents.
\ Opinion by Fisk. il
HaaHHHHT H#HNEA ED