Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-07-05
OARS RECEIVED.
Chicago.
Supreme Court Decisions
From Bowman County.

P. j. Thorson, J. P. Jones and Oscar
Heide, County Commissioners and the
Board of County Commissioners and
the County of Bowman, Defendants
and Respondents.
Syllabus: Sections 1915, 1926, 1851
and 1853 of the Compiled Laws Of
1918 construed in reference to the
sioners to construct bridges; held,
that except In the emergency cases
provided for in Section 1853, boards
Of county commissioners MAJ not
contract for the construction Of
bridges costing more than 500 with
out obtaining plans and specifications
of the proposed bridge and advertis-
ing for sealed bids thereon, as pro-
vided in section 1851 of the Compiled
Laws of 1913.
Appeal from Bowman County, Hon.
w. c. Crawford, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the Court by Birdzell,
Judge.
Robinson. Judge, dissents.
Scow & Young, of Bowman, N. D.,
attorneys for plaintiff.
G. A. Will, Minneapolis, Mimi, of
counsel for plaintiff.
W. a. Fleming, States Attorney and
Theo. q. Torkelson, special council, of
Bowman, N. D., attorneys for respon-
dents.
From Stark County.
John F. Boyer. plaintiff and appel
liant.
The North American Coal & Min
ming Company, Herbert Williams, L.
v. Williams, A. E.. Wolpert, d. C..
Wolpert, A. Maud Wolpert, ]. L. Ire
villyan, F. B. Nicoll, j. L.. Ludwig,
John e. Tappen and Investors Syndi-
cate, a corporation, defendants and
respondents.
Syllabus: Where an answer, which
contains a denial of all the allega-
lions of the complaint except such as
are admitted or quali1eds alleges new
matter constituting neither a counter
claim nor a defense to the action, the
answer is demurrable under Section
7452 of the Compiled Laws Of 1913.
Appeal from Stark County, Hon. w.
lie. Crawford, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Opinion Of the Court by Birdzell,
Judge.
M. A. Hildreth. Fargo. attorney for
appellant.
Bangs, Hamilton & Bangs, Grand
Forks, attorneys for respondents.
From Eddy County.
E.. r. Davidson, plaintiff and appel
liant.
Emma N. Kepner, Nd. F. Kepner, H.
PeoplesS and o. e. Distad, defendant
and respondent.
Syllabus: (1). Sec. 1923 Of the Com
piled Laws Of 1918, which requires
that the notice Of expiration Of the
time for redemption from tax sale
shall contain a description Of the
lands sold. shall specify the amount
for which h same were sold, and the
amount required to redeem, exclusive
Of costs to accrue, and the time when
the redemption period will expire,
construed and held that a valid deed
cannot be issued except upon COM
pliance herewith.
(2). Held. further, that where a
notice Of the expiration Of redemption
under the above section embraces
several lots or tracts Of land separ-
ately assessed and fails to state the
amount for which each parcel has
been sold, and the amount required to
redeem each parcel, the notice is ia
tally defective.
(3). Held, further, that while sep
arate notices are not required for each
tract, It is essential that the notice
given shall contain the required in
formation with reference to each tract
embraced In the notice.
Appeal from District Court Of Eddy
County, Buttz, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the Court by Birdzell,
Judge.
Robinson, Judge. co~ncurring spe-
cially.
J. 8. Cameron, New Rockford, and
lC. 8. Buck. Jamestown, attorneys for
rplaintiH and appellant.
Rtnker & Duell, New Rockford, at