Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-03-30


did not list or mention Murphy's attor-
ney's lien in his schedule Of debts.
Murphy received no notice Of the bank
ruptcy proceedings and did not partici-
| pate In them. The usual discharge In
bankruptcy was entered in the Federal
court. Thc bankrupt, c., exhibiting
the discharge, applied for an order dis
charging the judgment of record, The
court denied II discharge us to the por-
ton Of the Judgment to the amount Of
the attorneys lien. $500. n interest,
from which order c appeals. Held:
/. The attorneys lien was valid and
the docket entry thereof was u sufficient
compliance with the statute.
2. The LEX. constituted an equitable
assignment to that amount Of the judy
ment.
3. The interest Of Murphy in the
bankruptcy proceedings.
4. c.. the Judgment debtor since the
date of the docketing OF the attorneys
lien. has had notice imputed to him
| Of the lien and Murphy's interest there
under. ST.
s. Bankruptcy did not bar the lien
or's right to use the judgment to coll
lect his lien. and the trial judge prop
| erly refused to discharge that portion
of the judgment covered by the lien.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
An appeal from the district court of
Grand Forks county, Tcmpleton, j.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Goss. j..
Nfrnn1S O. N,yvvp Nv ~ E,,.I.A far.
respondent.
w. J. Mayer, Grand Forks, for ap-
pcllant. 81
] August Ilarmcning. Respondent.
] John NJ. Rowland. Appellant.
l. Where the complaint alleges and
the proof shows facts authorizing a re-
covery FOR exemplary damages, the
same may b. recovered under Il claim
for damages generally without being
specially pleaded. 1t is accordingly held
that the order permitting a amend
! ment Of the complaint at the trial With
reference to exemplary damages. was
non-preiudicial. ...'
2. An instruction placing the burden
l wynn wy =" s''o" i'o VIZ"
faith in doing the act complained of,
in the event the jury should find that
the relationship between the parties was
that of attorney and client. held, prop
er under the testimony.
d. At the trial certain original docu-
ments in the United States Land Of
flee and Department of the Interior.
which cOncededly were relevant and ma
terial, We're received in evidence over
defendants Oh 'ection that they were in
competent for the reason that they had
not been properly authenticated. The
register of the local land office pro-
duced them in court and identified them
as original records of land department
relating to the land over which this con-
troversy arose. Held. thai a sufficient
foundation was laid for &c introduction
OF such original documents.
4. Subdivision 8 Of Section 1900. Il.
| G.. 1905, and Sections 2469 and 2l70, Re-
| vised Statutes of the United States, as
amended by Act of April 2. 1888. con
strued. n held, not to prescribe an
exclusive method of proving public doc
uments therein mentioned. The original
documents, when properly identified as
such. are the best evidence and the
statutes aforesaid were not intended to
preclude such proof.
5. Defendants contention that there
is no sufficient foundation In the evil
dence to warrant the jury in allowing
exemplary damages, held, without mcr-
1t. there being ample testimony tend
ing to show that in committing the act
complained Of defendant acted fraudu-
lently and in total disregard of plain
tir's rights. TO warrant exemplary
damages proof of actual malice is not
necessary IN all cases. and where the
defendant. through fraud and deceit. in
tcntionally induced the plaintiff to be-
licve and to act upon the belief that
certain material representations were
true, when he knew them to DO false.
he is liable for exemplary damages.
| (Syllabus by tie Court.)
Appeal from district court Ward coun-
ty: X. l.. Leighton. judge. W.
Action ! August %lIarmcning against
| John NJ. Rowland. From II Judgment in.
plaintiffs favor, defendant appeals.
Affirmed. .};.ys, I~ .I
Opinion of the court by Fisk. ~ ~
Palda. Aaker Il Greene, Minot. for
appellant. s.s. ~ f%Jr ~ a..
6. S. Woolcdge and Francis J. Mur-
ply. Minot, for respondent. g3lf
In the Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota ''
In re Certain Disbarmcnt Proceedings
In Case Number 1856. W,
Upon Il motion to dismiss accusations
in disbarmcnt bcausc the same are
verified upon information and belief only
Held.
l.. Where the notification is in part
made upon positive knowledge it is Il
sufficient compliant with Section 507
Z. {. 1906. requiring such an accusation
to be Sworn to by the ppcrsOn making
it," -.. .., ..a
2. a diSbarmcnt accusation presented
concerns Il matter within the inherent
owe of the court; and If the AcccuSa-
ton, in the dissertation of the court. is
deemed sufficient to justify investigation
the proceeding so entertain ed will not be
dismissed where the v%erification is not
made entirely upon positive knowledge
of the facts sworn to.
3. Motion to dismiss Is denied and the
accused directed to serve and file his
answer or demurrer t the accusations
within thirty days.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
OriOino1 procoo6innc IN tbo tc,,ncop,o