The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1912-10-31

Iurcotte was not lawyer and sup
posed Galloway had a good title.
When Mr.. Robinson commenced his
Simple case" Mr.. Turcotte discov'
cred for the first time that legal teen
nicalities had not teen properly Oh
served and his title was consequently
In question.
Galloway had neglected to fofeclose
the mortgage but had relied on q tn
deed as means Of getting the title.
The tax deed az 10 usually the case
was void because Of an irreguiarity
in the tax proceedings.
Mr.. Robinson or his cnents had
discovered this technical defect aud
had thereupon obtained from Blesset
for about $25 a QUIT claim deed Of
the land; although Blesset himself
had abandoned the land and never in
tended to assert any title to It. IN
fact his claim would be outlawed
within month or two.
This quit claim deed from Rlesset
was obtained in February, 1907, and
named r. Percy Abbott as grantee
1t enabled the grantee to bring an
action to recover the land and use
Blessets name for that purpose. Up
on obtaining the quit claim deed from
Blesset Robinson had Percy execute
quitcIaim deed Of an undivided halt
of the land to Robinson and Lemke.
the firm of which Mr.. Robinson is
the senior member.
Immediately thereafter Mr.. Robin.
son commenced the law suit againse
Turcotte.
All this was done in spite of the
fact that the laws Of the state. forbid
such speculations in defective titles.
The law Of this state make criminal
ofense to give or take deed OF land
adversely held by third party claim
ing title where the adverse posses.
sion has continued more than one
year. =:
1t is also a criminal offense for IN
attorney to buy, dispute Claims or IT,
ties for tho purpose Of prosecuting
same.
Both these statutes were intended
to proven: Just such transactions as
the ones In question.
The case was tried in the winter
Of 1908 and judgment favorable to
Mr.. Robinson was entered in the
spring of 1908. Turcotte appealed to
the supreme court. The appeal was
heard by the supreme court at the
October term 1903.
The supreme court decided that a.
though the tax deed was void, ye:
Turcotte could not be put off the land
without paying him the mortgage and
interest and the taxes he had paid
and that he should be charged with
the rental value of the land; but ii
he had been in adverse possession fol-
more than ten years he could not be
| deprived Of the land. On these points
however, the evidence was so garfield
and insufficient that the court could
not tell what the facts were ant
therefore sent the case back to be
tried on these questions in the dis
tr1ct court.
Mr.. Robinson filed several petitions
! for re-hearing and asserted that this
decision was wrong. The court made
some minor corrections In the deci
sion but refused to change 1t in any
material degree. E 8. -,
There were not, as Mr.. Robinson
states, three decisions written on this
appeal. There was only one decis
ion, and that was written by Judge
Carmody. 1t was modified in some
particulars on the rehearings.
When the case was tried again In
the district court the decision Of that
court was adverse to Mr.. Robinson.
It was tried in the spring OF 1911.
That it was not sooner tried was not
the fault Of the supreme court.
Mr.. Robinson appealed to the su.
preme court and the appeal was heard