Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-06-04
Supreme Court Decisions
Ernm Plmm OnmnM.

supreme court DECISIONS
From Pierce County.
II. g. Kline and ]. Minkiswits,
plaintiffs and respondents, w. Hattie
Harris. A. G. Harris. g. A. Ebbert and
lants.
In an action whom the complaint
10 duly verified and IL based on .
judgment roll or matter Of record
which cannot be denied in good faith.
the defendant has no right to inter-
pose a false and sham answer In the
proper motion. such an answer should
be stricken out as sham.
Appeal from the district court Of
Pierce county. Hon. A. q. Burr.
Judge.
Affirmed.
opinion Of the court by Robin
son. j..
Christianson. j.. being disqualified.
did not participate.
Palda & Aaker and I. NJ. Oseth, Mi
not, attorneys for appellants.
Campbell & Jongewaard, Rugby,
attorneys for respondents.
From Eddy County.
Isabella Mcdowell. plaintiff and re-
q NAND0"SAAe NOS
PENDANT and appellant.
Syllabus:
Either husband or wife may enter
into n engagement or Transaction
with the other. or with any other per-
son.. respecting property. which thu
other might. IL unmarried. The wife
after marriage has with respect to
property, contracts and torts the same
capacity and rights and Is subject to
the same liabilities as before mar
riage.
Appeal from the district court of
Eddy county; Hon. c. w. Buttz.
judge.
Opinion Of the court by Robin
S. E. Ellsworth. Jamestown. for ap-
pellant
Maddux & Rinker. New Rockford,
for respondent.
From Ward County.
Mack Hendricks, plaintiff and re-
spondent. vs. Fred Hughes and A. s.
Anderson. defendants and appellants.
Syllabus:
In this case the plaintiff sues to re-
cover damages from an automobile
collision resulting from the fact that
the defendants did not keep on the
right hand side Of the street. The
% VIGIL ONSJo1IlSu ny LILO 0Vl.
dence.
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward county; Hon. X. E. Leighton. J.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Robin
g. F.. Brace. Crosby. attorney for
appellants.
Francis J. Murphy. Minot. attor-
ney for respondent.
From Ward County.
The Donnybrook State Bank, a do
nestle banking corporation. plaintiff
and respondent, VI. v. A. Corbett, de-
PENDANT and appellant.
Syllabus:
In this case defendant made to the
plaintiff a chattel mortgage to secure
$500. with interest at 10 per cent.
and al the same time he made a note
corresponding to the mortgage in all
respects only that by inadvertence the
word hundred" was omitted after tho
word "ffteen." The note and mort
gage were made for an honest value
without. any fraud or deception. The
defense was a sham. Judgment is af-
firrned.
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward county; Hon. K. e. Leighton,
Judge.
Affirmed.
opinion Of the court by Robin
son J.
John ]. coyie. Minot: P. M. Clark,
Kenmare. "a. W. Kenmare, an oral
argument). attorneys for respondent.
Palda & Aaker n I. NJ. Oseth, Mi
not, attorneys for appellant.
From Burke County.
E.. C.. Kruger. plaintiff and re-
spondent. vs.. The First State Bank Of
Bowbells. defendant and appellant.
Syllabus:
In this case the plaintiff sues to re-
cover money deposited to his credit in
the defendant bank. The defense ia
that the bank used the deposit money
to pay an obligation of the plaintiff
on an appeal bond which he signed in
q suit of one Kennedy against the
State bank of Bowbells. Al it appears
that the defendant was the successor
OF h State Bank and assumed its
debts and liabilities. 1t had no right
to pay its own obligation and to
charge the same to the plaintiff.
whose obligation was of surety on the
bond.
Appeal from the district court Of
Burke county; Hon. K. q. Leighton.
Judge.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Robin
son. j.
Christianson. j.. concurs specially.
John e. Greene. Minot, 1Chas. j.
Fisk, Bismarck. Of counsel). attor-
neys for appellant.
D. c: Greenleaf. Minot. attorney for
respondent.