Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-03-16

ltcSpoHdenl vs.. La HeHS Ill" '"''
AIrrphy, Defendants and Appellants.
Defendants were Convicted Of Il INSIDE
| meanor and appeal. assigning as error
| that they had not been given Il day at
ter arrangement within which to plead or
| demur.
Held, that defendants have not
! brought themselves within the provisions
OF sections $3.50. $3.50 and 1888. Revised
Codes 1905. having made no scasnnablc
request for time to plead.
(Syllabus BY the Court.
An appeal from the county court Of
Ransom county. Thomas, J.
Affirmed. Opinion By GoSs, .IT.
r., A.. Curtis. States Attorney Of Lis
bon, attorney for the state.
I!ourkc & kvcllo Of Lisbon. attorneys
for defendants and appellants.
State of North Dakota. in supreme
Court. October, l9l2. term.
! \. T.. McAdHm. llaintilf and Appel
liant. VS.. Grand Forks Mercantile Com
rany. a corporation. defendant and re-
spondent.
|. Complaint examined and held not
to state Il cause Of action against the
defendant as an cnhorscr OF a note but
as Il vendor and w~arrantor of a chhttel
merely.
2. \ executed a note to i. !: en-
dorscd the same without rccOurSc to G.
Il bank, to gain credit thereon. He az
forwards paid G tho amount due on said
| note and on it being rc-delivcred to him.
| scratched out the words, "Iay to {
! without recourse. but left his signature
thereon. Prior to such time a. the
maker of the note. had failed. and Il
settlement had Lccn made with his cred
itors by which they had agreed that AS
| property should b" turned over to a truS-
| zee for their benefit and that he should
be released. I: was one of such creditors
and accepted n tinal dividend Of ~ cents
on the dollar. iIc. however. retained the
note. Later + sold the note with others
having a face value Of 500, 0Oo.W to -
for $51. 90, taking at the same time a
cola teral agreement by which he OK
rressly exempted himself from all liahil-
ity. both as an cndorScr and as 4 guar
antor of the solv"ncy Of the paper. The
note, however, sun iIIh flS tlIIIt tI-
dorscd thereon. though it is not shown
whether either he or ID was aware Of
the fact. - then sold the note. with
others. having a face alu of s.. 900. 90,
to T.: and T. sold the said note. with
others Of a face value of 81 600. 90. to f.,
for 5000. both Of the latter transfers
being by delivery only. At the time Of
the last transfer i. told f. that the notes
were not worth anything: and + did not
know that B's name was on the back Of
the particular note in question. nor or
the other hand. did he know that any
dividend a been paid thereon, though
he did know that the makers assets hnI
been turned over to q trustee for tho
benefit Of his creditors. lie also testi-
fled that the letters p and l. were. on
said note when purchased by him and
that he was aware Of their commercial
meaning. it was also proved that both
D and F. realized. from their purchases
as a whole. more than they had paid
therefor. Held. that f was not a pur-
chaser in due course Of negotiable paper.
3. a note payable N demand Is due
within a reasonable time after its date.
4. y note which ~ paydDle on demand
and is purchased over a year after its
date will be considered to have been
overdue when purchased.
5. In the case Of an endorsement or
transfer Of a negotiable instrument after
it's dishonor or maturity, and where the
consideration passing between the en-
dorsce and his endorser is not. equal to
,thr amount Of the DaDer the, en1OrSee
in an action against the endorser can