Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1916-02-26
SUPREME COURT
FROM BURKE COUNTY.
Ed Drinkwaler, as truSteee, ETC.
Plaintiff and Respondent

FROM BURKE COUNTY.
Ed Drinkwater, as trusteee, etc.
Plaintiff and Respondent,
Frances E. Pake and Cornelius r.
Pake, Defendants and Appellants
Syllabus: % The findings of fact
OF a referee cannot ce aSSailed for
the first time in the appellate court
But the party dissatisfied with such
findings must in the first instance
present his objections thereto by
proper exceptions in the court below
~ Under the provisions of Sec.
7a21. Compiled Laws. every sale made
by a vendor OF personal property in
his possession or under his control,
unless accomplished by an immediate
delivery and followed by an actual
and continued change of possession
of the property sold, is presumed 10
be fraudulent and void as against
creditors Of the vendor. unless these
claiming under the sale make ii ap-
pear that the same was made In good
faith and without any intent 10 hind
er, delay or dsfraud such creditors
From judgment OF rhe-bistrict
Court OF Burke County; leighton, J.
Defendants appeal
Affirmed. Opinion Of the Court by
Christensen. ].
Francis J. Murphy. Bismarck. At
torney for Appellants
George H Gjertson. Minneapolis,
Mimi. E. R. Sinkler, Minot. " D.
and Wolfe & Schneider, Wahpe-ou,
y. D.. Attorneys for Respondents
FROM sTUTsMAN COUNTY.
NJ. c. Freerks, Plaintiff and Respond
enI.
Herman Nurnberg. Defendant and
Appellant.
Syllabus: ti) In and action by an
attorney at law 10 recover on the
quantum meruit for professional serv
ices rendered 10 the defendant at his
request. the answer. among other de-
lenses. ALLEGED thata portion Of such
services were performed under spe-
cial contract by the terms OF which
plaintiff agreed 10 commence and TO
prosecute at his own cost and expense
certain actions for the defendant up
On a contingent fee basis and that IN
the event ne should be unsuccessful
ne should receive no compensation
for mis- services. II was also alleged
that he was unsuccessful in such liti-
CATION. At the trial such defense vas
on plaintiffs motion stricken from
the answer and proof OF the matters
thus pleaded was offered and reject
ed. Held. that such rulings constiIut-
ed prejudicial error.
(2) Following Morris '. MinneaDo-
lis, Etc. Ry. Co. - N D. -, Is5
y. W. S6l: Held, that the supreme
court. in law appeals, sits merely in
review of errors. and where no ruling
of the trial court as 10 the suffciency
OF the evidence is invoked either by
motion for directed verdict or for
a new trial, theree is nothing for this
court to review
t3) Defects in pleadings which are
readily remedied will not be consid-
cred for the first time in the supreme
court.
Appeal from the county court OF
Stustman County; Hon. John L. Hem
mi. J.
From judgment in plaintiffs IA
vor: defendant appeals
Reversed and new trial ordered
Opinion Of the Court py Fisk, c. J.
John A Jorgenson and c. s. Buck.
both Of jamestown. Defendants At
torneys on Appeal. CIV H. Padden
of Courtenay and Geo. H StiIlman Of
Darlington. Defendants rial Counsel,
Thorp & Chase OF jamestown At
rorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent
and NJ C. Freerks of jamestown pro
Sc.