The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-03-10

strength Of It's own title, but in the
case at bar such title is shown by a
deed from Ernnons county, fair upon
its face and good against all the world
excepting the former fee owners. The
defendant not being in q position to
attack the validity OF the plaintiffs I'll.
tie, 1t Is sufficient to support this &C.
| ton. .,.-a.~.4 80. ..,,-~s -
q. Evidence examined and held
that there~was no fraud in the trans
actions by which plaintiff obtained the
deeds from Emm1ons county.
g., Defendant was never In a posi-
ton to attack decree obtained by the
plaintiffs grantor, quieting title in the
lands. ..@ G#9 e.
4. Defendant, as states attorney OF
Ernrions county, owed b. duty to- the
county to perfect it's title to the lands
In suit, and he is estopped,' even after
his term of Office Is expired. to- buy
antagonistic titles and assert, owner
ship in the lands against the county
or its grantee. Actual fraud need not
be shown, nor any Intentional violation
Of trust. It may be conceded that de-
PENDANT acted in an honest. though
mistaken, belief that he had q right to
buy outstanding titles. The law says
tina ne u not buy, and If he does SO
1t will be c~onclusively presumed that
he purchased for the county.
8. Evidence examined, and, ;heid
that While the relation Of attorney and
client may not be, shown to have ex-
listed between defendant and plaintiffs
grantor, still the circumstance related
in the opinion tends to strengthen the
conclusion reached in the foregoing
g.. Certain. stipulations between the
nlA1nIJT and HnfnrHQut ~ ~
ton, examined n held to be 1" fraud
upon the court and are therefore set
aside. 49,.
Z. Defendants, correspondence with
the former fee owners examined, and
held that defendant was 'endeayoring
70 obtain what. he considered perfect
title to the land, subject only to the
lien of the taxes, under the Wood law
put that no was estopped from acquir-
ing such a title.
8. The defendant is an involuntary
trustee for the benefit Of Emmons
county n its grantors.
>. Two OF the quarter sections in
vowed in the litigation were acquired
by defendant through the foreclosure
Of mortgages given by the ormer fee
owners; held that it does not change
the in any particular.
~. Certain amendments to tha
complaint considered and held they
were Improperly rejected by the trial
court. N"
Judgment entered ordering the de-
tendant to convey the lands to plain
tiff upuon the payment of his costs IN
c1dent to obtaining title and for i'm
pau W
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court M
tnmons county, Winchester, T..
reversed. Opinion of the court bv
Burke, J. ON' Nv
Watson & Young of Fargo, N, y
attorneys for plaintiff and appeliant.
George w. Newton and r. N. Stevens
OF bismarck, N. D., and H. C. IIvnn ~
Linton N. D., attorneys for defendant
and respondent.
From Nelson County.
Great Northern Railway companv. a
SG[poratlon plaintiff and appellant VS..
n%n1y9nno Telephone company, a cor
pordtion. defendant and respondent
Piaintiff asks that the DEFENDANT
removing it's phones and ~discontinul
Nc IIe''G Pek N foTr railway depots of
%hepedn telephones had been Installed
IN 1903 under written contracts provid-
that for the privilege of placing
shem IN ne depots telephone service
me term of the Neville and Pekii
contracts was for Ave wears. with No
rlgh Of cancellation to either party
" "noti a1ter that time, when either could
contracts as to Warwick and Tolns
provided that the telephone COMPANY
furnish free service for, as IonS
as IL should maintain an exchange In
tnose towns, and stipulated against the
or cancellation of the contract or
the removal of the. phones BY The te1e.
phone company; while the railway COM
pany reserved the right to at any time,
on thirty days notice, order the phones
out n service discontinued. ChanterI
zoS, session laws of 1911, requires rail. |
way companies, to install and maintain
service IN their depots for
the, benefit of their patrons, with fine |
De imposed for Noncompliance, ar
the enactment of which the tele-
pnone company notified the railway
be furnished it no longer, and
that the contracts would be considered
terminated, and attempted to remove
is phones and discontinue service to
oegan this action and the telephone
company was enjoined from so dionr, |
and on trial the action was dismissed
1nd the contracts held un~enforceable.
plaintiff, appeals. Held:
% Inc contracts as to Warwick
Tolna are not mutual in obliga-
ion being subject to termination at
that no corresponding rirht
shall be exercised by the other party:
hat the lifetime of the contracts may
practically perpetual or for so Ions
! term as to render the mere license or
privilege of installing the phones
wholly inadequate as a consideration
or the contract, though the same was
and understandingly enter
ed into; that such want of mutually,
.nadequacy and consideration and Ieng-
n of term, considered together, rend-
n the contracts 20 inequitable that a
court of equity will not enforce speci-
as invalid and non-enforceable,