The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-05-23
Supreme Court
Decisions
From Cass County.

CG8B CVunGys
John H. Herold, plaintiff and appel
liant, VS.. estate OF George Harrison
Hill, ct al. defendant and respondent
Syllabus: Upon an action for an
accounting. judgment in. the trial
court was had in favor of the defend
ant, and upon examination Of all the
evidence upon which such judgment
is based, held that such Judgment
should be modified for the reason that
the plaintiff is entitled to various
credited, either by the defendant OF
by the trial court.
Appeal from a Judgment Of the dis
trict court of Cass county. N. D.
Hon 6, Ghss: a; Pollock, judge:
Christianson, j., dissents.
| Modified.
Barnett & Richardson. Fargo. at
tBorneys for appellant; " J. Courtney
| attorneys for respondent.
From CasB County.
Midway Cooperative Elevator Co.
plaintiff and appellant, vs.. Great
| respondent.
Syllabus:
1. The federal constitution grants
power to congress to regulate COM :,
may enact such laws and provide
such regulations as national interest
may demand
3. The regulations Of Interstate
commerce provided by congress are
supreme, and any state regulations in
conflict Herewith or covering the
same subject are superseded thereby.
g.. The authority Of congress ex-
commerce ana to every Instrumental.
ity or agency by which 1t Is carried
on; and a full control by congress
over the acts committed to its regu-
lation is not to be denied or thwarted
by the commingling of interstate ana
.intrastate operations.
4. The interstate commerce COM
mission has exclusive jurisdiction to
determine whether a regulation or
practice affecting. rates or matters
sought to be regulated by the inter
state commerce act is unjust or I'M
reasonable, unJustly discriminatory,
preferential or prejudicial, AMI the
courts may not, as an original ques-
ton, hear complaints and pass upon
any Of the administrative questions
which the interstate commerce act
has invested the interstate commerce
commission with power to determine.
8. The character or equipment
which a carrier must provide and al
lowances which 1t must make for in
stFumentalitiss supplied, and services
rendered, by the shipper-such as lin
ing cars used in transporting carload
shipments OF grain in bulk--are prob
lens which directly concern rate
making and are peculiarly admins
trative on which there should be an
appropriata inquiry by the interstate
commerce commission before being
submitted to q court.
6. without preliminary action by
the interstate commerce commission q
state court has no jurisdiction OF an
action by a shipper to recover from
an Interstate carrier sums expended
by him in lining and ccoopering cars
furnished. by the carrier for inter
state carload shipments Of grain in
bulk, the applicable duly fled inter
state rate schedules making no refer
ence to allowances therefor.
From 8 judgment Of the county
court of Cass county; Hanson, j.
Plaintiff appeals.
Opinion OF the court by Christian
SON., J.; Grace. J.. coneurs in result.
William Lamke, Fargo, attorney for
appellant; Murphy ~ Toner, Grand
Forks. attorneys for respondent.
From He4tinger County.
Bill Braeder, plaintim and appel
liant, VS. Frank ArmitaBe, defendant
ana respondent.
H l Section sOs6, compiled laws,
1918, relating TO b change OF venue
the afidayit in support Of such
change on vsnus shall be made by the
party applying for such change OF
Venue. Held, that the afidayit can
not be made by the attorney Tor the
where an appeal Is taken from
8 Justice court upon questions Of law
10 epecify. 4 stipulation, igl writing
between fae parties to the action that