Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-04-16
From Mountrail County.

From MOuntrail County.
-" Ncrihern immigration association.
a corporation, plaintiff and respOn.
dent, VS.. Frank G. Alger, defendant
and appellant. ~
~ J.. When a land brokers' contract
is to bring parties together and for
a commission when his act of bring
ing them together results in a sale.
his commission is earned when his
principal ald'a customer are brought
into contact by his efforts and a sale
is contaminated, ever though it may
not be on The terms Of for the price
originally proposed.
|o"2. A land broker. after cores
pondence with his principal resulting
in bringing a purchaser to the pri1'
cipal, is entitled to his commission,
even though before the trade wa
completed he became connected with
10 corporation and burned the re-
mainder Of the negotiations over to
the corporation, he having notified
his principal of the fact and the prin.
cipal having made no objection and
having carried on the remainder OF
the correspondence aad dealings with
the corporation the same as though
the original party had still continued
as a party to their transactions.
B. Evidence. examined and held
sufficient to sustain the verdict of a
jury awarding commissions for
bringing an owner and purchaser to.
gether and. resulting in a sale of a
half section of land,
(Syllabus by the cOnrt.
Appeal from judgment of tire dis
trict court CT MOuntrail county,, Frank
e: Fisk j. -
=, Affirmed. Opinion OF. the court by
Spalding, C. ;. . 4
:, Palmer, Craven and Burns, of VIII
liston, North Dakota, attorneys for
defendant and appellant.
Fl. J.. Linde, Esq. of Stanley, North
Dakota, attorney for plaintiff and
I Resp a'pr et'dent. esss "S.Yalz
From Bottineau County.
/ Thomas Mckenzie, plaintiff and
respondent, vs.. P:tS. Hilleboe, defend
ant and appellant.
!. When a complaint states a con
tract, between plaintiff and defendant,
alleging that plaintiff agreed and con.
.tracted to do something for the de-
PENDANT for which ne was to, receive
compensation. the inference is that
the compensation was to be paid by
the defendant. ,
2. Where the allegations OF a com.
plant are imperfect and incomplete
in form, they are sufficient il it can
be inferred therefrom by reasonable
intendment what the substantial fact
is. ..
q. When the defendant answers the
sutficiency by objecting on the trial
to the Introduction of any evidence,
on the ground that it fails to state
sufficient to constitute a cause OF &C.
ton, without specifying more defin.
itely the grounds whereoa he claims
it to be insufficient, and the state
ments which r claimed to be in.
sufficient could have readily been
supplied BY amendment when the mo-
ticn was made, had they been pointed
out, it is not reversible error to over.
rule such objection.
4. Complaint examined and its
held sufficient to sustain
a verdict and Judgment in favor of
plaintiff.
s.. When a party to a contract is
not on his owa behalf but
behalf Of the principal, it is his
duty to disclose the. fact that he Is
so acting, and on his failure to do
so he is himself liable.
6. The appeal in this case is taken
from an order denying a motion for
new trial and from a judgment
rendered on a verdict in favor Of
plaintiff. Evidence examined and
held to be sufficient to sustain the
verdict.
- (Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from an order denying a
motion for new trial and from a judg-
ment Of the district court OF Bot.
tineau county, Hon. A. G. Burr, j.
? Affirmed. Opinion by S%paldi1g, c.
J.
Noble, Blood and Adamson, Of
Minot,; N D.. for appellant.
Bowen and Adams, of Bottineau,
N. D., for respondent.
ADVERTISEMENT.
% Sealed bids will be received by the.
n No MI . ~ "To,,,,Nv" ~ ~, ~ :o~S~ -, ~, ~