Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-02-17

VS..
County of Grand Forks, A Municipal
Corporation; and Hans Anderson
as County Auditor Of County Q
| Grand Forks, State of North Da
kota, Defendants and Appellants.
l. The fees required Of candidate
for nomination for county Office b,
Sec. 4, Oh. 100, Laws Of 1907, beinl
one per cent Of the salary, and tn
amount thereof bearing no relation
to the services performed by the aud
itor in filing petitions to have tn
names placed upon the primary cleo
ton ballot, such requirement Is In
valid. It is also invalid for the rea
son that it attaches qualification y:
candidates for Office, and to voters
not permitted by the constitution.
2. Whether the primary election
is an election within the meaning
of that word as used in the constitu
ton, and as held in Johnson v. Crane
Forks County, 16 N. D. 1853, is not de
cided.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the Judgment OF the
district court Of Grand Forks county
Templeton. J.
Affirmed.
O. B. Burtness, States Attorney
for appellants.
Feetham & Elton, for respondent
Opinion by Spalding, G. J.
State of North Dakota. In the Su
preme Court, October Term, 49,.
James H. johnson
Plaintiff and Appellant
James Barton, Jr.,
Defendant and Respondent
Judgment was rendered in the dis
trict court against appellant in an
equitable action and for 1920 costs
The costs became a lien upon q Ger
tain lot belonging to him. After ne
gotiating a sale Of the lot he discov
cred this lien and paid such costs tc
prevent the sale failing. HELD. that
the costs were only an incident tt
the judgment, the main judgment
still remaining in force, and the pay
ment OF the costs, under the circum
stances, does not defeat appellants
right to maintain an appeal to this
court.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Motion to dismiss appeal from judg
ment of the district court, Mclean
county.
Motion denied.
Tuition & Williams and Newton &
Dullam & Young, for appellant
T. R. Mockler, for respondent.
Opinion by Spalding, c.
State of North Dakota, In the Su
preme Court, October Term, 81.
Katie NJ. Smith.
Plaintiff and Respondent
The Courant Company,
A Corporation,
Defendant and Appellant
1. When a representative of cor
poration assumes to act in behalf Of
his principal and at the same time
in his own behalf, and likewise in
behalf Of third party, for whom he
Is also agent, and his interests and
those of the third party conflict with
those Of the corporation in the alb
sence of express authority or rati
flcation by the corporation. his actl
In its name are not acts Of the cor
poration and do not bind It.
2. One 8. was the general manag
er for the defendant corporation
Its officers and he attempted to FL
his compensation, when his employ
ment commenced, but failed to agree
Subsequently, without authority
from the corporation so to do, hi
drew checks. on the back where thu
account of the corporation was kept
payable to himself, for the amount
Of the compensation which hi
claimed, but which the corporation
had declined to pay. The bank hav
ing no funds with which to honol
such checks the manager endorsed
them to his wife and paid himsel
the amount called for, out Of funds
In his hands, belonging to her. II
IN action brought on the checks It 1,
HELD, that the plaintiff, wife Of thu
manager, cannot recover.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal '~~-- ne district court o
Bottineau county, Crawford, J.
Modified, and as modified amrmed
Noble Blood & Adamson, for ap
pellant.
Weeks, Murphy & Noun, for re
spondent.
Opinion by Spalding, G. J.