Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-03-20
Supreme Court

tn .Gg lF8 LEg "f# Z
In the Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota, October Term.
W. S. Lauder, Respondent, VS.. Albert
Heley, ct al, appellants ST.
/. The complaint in an action upon
a sIpersedeas undertaking examined
and Held, not vulnerable to attack
upol. the ground that it fails to al
lege facts sufficient to constitute a
| cause of action.
2. In an election contest proceed
ing the unsuccessful contestant appli.
ed for and secured, over contestee's
protest, a supersedeas order upon con-
dition that he should furnish an un'
dertaking conditioned for the pay
ment to c%ontestee of the sum OF $500
per month during the pending OF such
supersedeas, in the event OF his fall'
ure to prosecute an appeal with effect.
! Held, That even %conceding that such
order was enormously and improvl-
IDENTIFY issued, and even though its
issuance was in excess Of the courts
power under the statute, and here
fore void, such contestant, having re-
ceived benefits Hereunder, cannot be
heard to urge q defense to a suit on
such undertaking, based upon the al
legged illegality OF such order and con-
sequent failure OF consideration OF
such undertaking. ....+.".
8. The rule that a party seeking
to enforce q contract void as against
public policy, cannot invoke an estop-
pei as against his a~dversary's attempt
ed defense based on such fact. Held,
Not applicable.
Syllabus by the court.) ~
Appeal from the district court OF
Richland county, Pollock. special j..
p From an order overruling a demur-
rer to the complaint, defendants ap-
peal. -"
Affirmed. Opinion of the court by
Fisk, J.
Dan R. Jones and Geo. w Freerks,
of Wahpeton, for appellants.
Purcell and Dvet and w. S. Lauder
of Wahpeton, for respondent.
In the Supreme Court, State of .~orth
Dakota, October Term.
Leslie J. Bowen, Appellant, VS.. J. F.
Durant, Respondent.
! While mere excerpt or fragment
airy and isolated portions of a deposi.
ton may not be singled out and read,
but the entire porti" n thereof bear
ing upon the issue sought to be prov.
ed must be introduced. if any is Offer
e. it is Held, That a party is not
obliged to offer the entire deposition,
but may read in evidence such por-
ton thereof as IS competent, relevant
and material to the issue which he
seeks to establish.
2. Although discretionary with the
court to require the entire deposition
to be offered, instead OF a portion
thereof, such discretion is not abso-
lutte and it is Held, under the facts
in the ase at bar, that it was an
abuse of discretion to refuse plant
IFS request to read the portion of tho
deposition relating to the issue of
non-payment by defendant of plant.
if claim.
(Syllabus bv the court.)
Appeal from the district court OF
Ramsey county, Frank Fisk, special
judge
Appeal from an order denying a
motion for a new trial.
Reversed. Opinion of the court by
Fisk, judge.
Flynn and Traynor, Devils Lake, for
appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
In Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota, October Term.
Samuel Randall, ct al, Respondents,
VS.. John tombstone, ct al, Appel.
lants.
l. Where two separate deeds are
executed to different grantees, while
the grantor is out of possession and
the two grantees bring separate &C.
tons in the name of the grantor as
nominal plaintiff for their separate
uses, such use plaintiffs are real par.
ties in interest. The said actions are
separate and distinct and between diff
ferent parties, and the decision of one
suit is not a bar to the bringing of
the other.
2. Following Christ VS.. tombstone
N. D. Rep, Held, that the judgment
entered for damages against the de-
PENDANT, who vas in possession of
the land, is limited to the times where
in the use plaintiff is entitled 10 recov.
er.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Billings county, Nuchols, special j.
Modified. Opinion of the court by
].
Purcell and Divet of Wahpeton, T..
F. Murtha, Of Dickinson, and John
Of Hillsboro, for respond
ents.
Heffron and Baird, Dickinson, for
In the Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota, October Term.
Golden Valley Land and Cattle Co.,
Respondent, VS.. John tombstone, ct
al, Appellants.
1. Plaintiff and defendant entered
into a preliminary %executory contract
for the exchange of real property, by
the terms of which defendants were
to pay the difference in the valuations
in the contract. The contract
was entered into the 18th day of Jan
uary, 1906, and provided for the ex-
change of properties before April LIST.
1906, and also for the execution Of
contracts, and that on the de-
livery of such contracts by the re-