The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1919-02-15
From Ward County.

From Ward County.
y. RI Jacobsen & Peter Fugelso, CO.
partners doing business under the
firm name and style Of Jacobsen Il
Fugelso, plaintiff and appellant, VS..
John Forbragd, defendant ana re,
spondent. :-h5 't ',.s go
Syllabus: ~ -"f 49,,
! !. Where the owner of harness
claimed to have sold it on the 22nd
day Of April, 1915. and took mort
gage back from the purchaser on the
harness andc laimed to Nave filed it
on the date of sale, and another took
a mortgage on the same harness dat
ed April goth, 1915, and claimed to
have seen the, harness in the posses.
sion of the mortgagor prior to the
date OF his mortgage, >the question OF
the priority OF The mortgages was a
question OF thep riority Of tn '.s.-
question OF fact for the jury. The jury
having returned a verdict for the de-
fendant and Judgment having entered
thereon, it is held that such judgment
Is supported by the! evidence. r..
T. 9. pleadings. Amendment.
The complaint substantially stated
the value of certain property to be
$59.0n, the answer stated it $1,000. The
proof showed it to be $4,000. Defend
ant during the course of the trial,
made motion to amend his plead
ing to correspond with the proof. He
did not redraw the pleading The
court allowed the amendment. The
trial was had on the theory that the
answer had been amended to cores
pond with the proof; held that this
was in accordance with the provisions
of Section 1852, Complied Laws, 1913.
Appeal from Judgment of the coun-
ty court of Ward county and from an
order denying a new trial. VIM. Muir
ray, J.
Affirmed. H~
Opinion of the court by Grace, J.
| w. H. Sibbald, Minot, attorney for
plaintiff and, appellant.
Messrs. Sinkler & Eide, Minot, attor
neys for defendant and respondent.
From RenvilIe County.
Harry Gidley, plaintiff and appel
lant VS.. George H. Glass, defendant
and respondent.
Syllabus:
In an action brought to charge the
defendant for goods delivered to 9
third person, where the plaintiff test
fled that the defendant told him thai
he would see that he, the plaintiff. go
his pay the goods being charged t
the third person to whom they were
| \ mined am
HELD: to establish promise t(
pay for the debt, default or miscar
rage of another within the statute
of Frauds.
Appeal from judgment of distric
court of Renville county, Leighton y
Opinion of the court by Birdzell, y
Grace, j. disqualified. Crawford, DIS
trict. Judge, sat in his stead. .
| Affirmed n
| %. R. Sinkler, J. E. organs. and N
o, Eide, attorneys for plaintiff.
Rollo 4. Hunt, Albert F.. Goger, am
Henry G. Middaugh, attorneys for de
PENDANT.
FROM MOJNTRAIL COUNTY
X. r. Edwardson, petitioner. VS.. Lv
= =
. Gerewien, ct al, appellants.
Syllabus: l. Wills. Publication.
Subdivision 8 of section 5649, Compile
Laws, 1913. is as follows:
'The testator must at the time @
subscribing or acknowledging the same
declare to the attesting witnesses tina
thesinstrument is his will"
Held that the word declare"
therein used, does not mean that tn
testator must declare by spoken word
that the instrument is his will, bu
such declaration may be made by othe
means than the use Of spoken word!
such ms the use of signs. gestures
any other names yb which the testatn
can convey and make known to the WI
stnesses that the instrument which
signed is his will. The word declare
las thus used. means to make KNOWN
signify, to show in any manner elthe
by words<or acts.
Q. Wills. Testatar. Decisions.
Where one is contestipg proof OF
will on the ground that the testatf
lat the. time of making the will wa
passessed Of certain insane delustOn
it is not sufficient to introduce evident
which tends to prove the testatOr wa
possessed Of such decisions. The'
should he further proof by the col
testant to the effect that s'ich allege
insane decisions have no foundation
fact or probability. in order to sho
that: the delusion is wholly a nrodu'
Of the imagination. Held in this ca!
there is q failure Of proof, there beil