Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-11-22

VS..
James X. Banks, and Chas. G. Banks.
Defendants and Appellants.
l. In a law case wherein a jury
waived the findings, Of the trial court
on questions Of fact are entitled to the
same weight on appeal as given the
verdict OF a jury on such questions.
2. On the trial OF a at law by
the court, findings of fact, sustained
by substantial evidence will not be
disturbed on appeal. "
3. Evidence examined in a case
brought by the state to recover on a
bail bond, and Held, that a finding that
the bondsmen did net arrest, surrend-
er, deliver or commit the defendant to
the custody Of the court or proper Of
ficer as required by law is sustained
by substantial evidence.
(Syllabus ny the t0urt.)
Appeal from a judgment OF the dis
trict court of Ransom county, Allen, J.
Affirmed.
Curtis & Curtis, Lisbon for respond.
ent. rt
Rourke & Kvello, Lisbon, and Z. F.
Hull, Sheldon, for appellants.
Opinion by Spalding, c. j., Goss, j.,
%concurring specially
State of North Dakota, In Supreme
Court, October, 1912, Term.
State of North Dakota on the Relation
of the Red River; Brick Corporation,
r., F~alconer Township and School Dis
trict No. 50, Plaintiffs, ~ ~
.tJar VI. Vs. MA raa @u. -n
The District Court of the County of
Grand Forks and the Honorable w.
j. Kneeshaw, Judge of the Seventh
Judicial District, sitting at the writ
ten request of the Judge Of the
District Court or the First Judicial
District, Respondents.
/. Under the provisions of Sections
sc and 81 Of the constitution Of the
Supreme Court is given superintend-
ing control over inferior courts and
has the power to issue any of the
writs therein named and such others
as may be necessary to the proper ex.
ercise Of such control.
2. The experimenting power of the
Supreme court is primarily over courts
and was granted to insure the har.
monious working of u judicial sys.
tenn to meet emergencies and for cases
where other relief provided is made.
quarter incomplete, and not for pur-
poses Of review as by appeal.
3. Whether the remedy by appeal i
inadequate or speedy must be determ.
ined by the exercise of the sound dis.
erection Of this court, applied to the
facts in each given case.
4. The primary function Of this
court is the determination of appeals,
and its appellate jurisdiction is the
n which must be sought by litigants
seeking relief wherever it is applicable
and furnishes them adequate and
speedy protection. and its superintend-
FMS power should not be exercised ex-
cept in case Of emergency, exigency or
when necessary by reason of the lack
OF any other adequate remedy, or when
the ends of justice make its exercise
imperatively necessary.
s.. Proceedings were instituted in
the District Court of Grand Forks
county for the purpose of furnishing
certain parties for alleged contempt,
consisting In disobedience to the pro.
hibitions of q Judgment heretofore en-
tered in an action in that county pend.
ing an appeal to this court. On appli-
cation for q writ commanding the Dis
trict Court in which such proceedings
were maintained to vacate it's order
Diminishing the contempt proceedings,
and commanding 1t to punish the par
ties named for contempt. Held, that
relator has an adequate remedy by ap-
peal, and that no such emergency Il