The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-06-03
From RAMSEY County.

Robert Bauer, a minor, by Charles
7, Bauer, his guardian, plaintid and
way Co, corporation, A. J. Halliday,
and Herbert Ridgedele, defendants,
and Great Northern Railway Co., a
corporation, defendant and appellant
apprentice in a machine shop to re-
cover damages for a, personal injury
resulting from his own negligence
and from the alleged wrong and neg
the shop. The verdict was against
the railway company and there was
no verdict. either for or against the
foremen Who were parties defendant
and the parties guilty of the alleged
wrong. The result was a. mistrial.
Appeal from the district court of
Ramsey county: Hon. e. W. Butte, j.
Defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion of the court by Robinson, J.
Flynn & Traynor, Devils Lake, and
Murphy 81 Toner, Grand Forks, attor-
neys for appellant; j. C. Adalnson and
Il. S. Blood, Devils Lake, attorneys
for respondent.
From Pierce County.
Albert solberg & Co., plaintiffs and
respondents, VS.. Frank Rettinger, de-
PENDANT and appellant.
Syllabus:
/. A proceeding for the amerce-
ment Of a sherin under the provisions
of section TITO, compiled laws, 1913,
may be instituted by a motion in the
original case in which the execution
is issued, and a new and separate &C
ton is not necessary.
2. A trial by jury cannot be de-
manded in a proceeding to amerce a
sheriff under the provisions of sec
ton ITO, complied laws. 1913, and the
statute as so construed constitutes
due process of law. .
8. Ordinarily it is the duty of the
sheriff to return an execution within
the time required by the statute and
sary to be proved in order to justify
9, proceeding in enforcement. ~
I. Where the judgment creditors
have directed the acts of the sheriff
and their own acts have. been a cause
of his failing to return the execution
when required by the statute, the
sheriff cannot be amerced for fail
ure of duty in that respect.
5. Where upon an adverse claim of
property levied on being made, the
sheriff asks for instructions from the
plaintiff s attorneys which, are prom
ised him, he is not liable to amerce-
ment for not selling, until he has dis
obeyed or disregarded directions to
that end .@E
Proceeding to amerce a sheriff UNI
der the, provisions of section ITO,
compiled laws Of 1913.
Appeal from the district court OF
Pierce county; Hon. A. g. Burr Judge.
Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant
appeals.
Reversed, ...a.
Opinion of the court by Bruce, Oh. ].
Robinson ana Grace, ~, coneurring
J. q. Mccarthy, York, attorney for
plaintiffs and respondents; Albert e.
Coger, Duluth, Mimi, and Harold B.
Nelson, Rugby, attorneys for defend
ant.
From Mclean County.
Mary w. Krause, plaintiff and re-
spondent, VS.. city Of Wilton, defend
ant and appellant.
Syllabus:
l., The. court will not hold as q
matter Of law that negligence lis not
shown where city allows three
boards to be missing from sidewalk
and an opening to exist some 90 inch
es in breadth and from two to fiVe
inches in depth and where the light
ing of the street is more or less ade-
&, A traveller Is not required to
avoid travelling upon a sidewalk
merely because he has knowledge that
lit lis detective.
9. The questions of negligence
and OF contFibutory negligence are
primarily ana generally questions Of
fact for the jury.
A The burden OF proving contrib
utory negligence rests upon the de-
- Ts,,..v.I 800 +y,.+ . el,7evtys1 IL az,