Grand Forks herald., 1922-05-31
Supreme Court Decisions
From Grant County.

oHSAOSAS Vos 0UVA 6O L. DdhCI, oO.
fendant and Appellant,
Syllabus: Plaintiff leased land
from the defendant.\ The lease con-
tanned provision under which plain
tin might place Improvements upon
the land which he could remove at
the termination Of the lease or sell to
the defendant at the cost of the ma
terials used. Defendant sold the land
| to- a. third party who, in turn. sold ito
the plaintiff. Under contract be
tween defendant and third party the
of all the improvements made by the
tenant, and when the latter pur-
chased from the third party the value
of the Improvements entered into
the consideration. 1t is held:
() On the defendants admission
that in the sale Of the land to the
third party he had agreed to pay for
the house. certain fences, and wind
mill at the price Of the materials,
plaintiff is entitled to an instructed
verdict for the amount of the items
not in dispute.
,t2) Correspondence between the
defendant and his agent is not privt-
| legged.
(s) A specific admission or fact
| upon which liability may be PEE
dicted is admissible, though ac-
companied by an offer of compromise.
| 60 The courts Instructions to the
jury are examined and held to be
erroneous.
Grant county, Lembke.' u.
Judgment modified and condition
ally affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Birdzell,
j. Bronson. j., dissents.
w. HI. Stutsman, Mandan, attorney
for defendant and appellant
Jacobsen 6, Murray, Mott. at
torneys for plaintiff and respondent.
! From Mercer County.
Geo. H. Paul and c. r., Evans,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs.. Ferdi-
nand Leutz, Defendant and Respond
Syllabus: This is suit for for the the
specific performance of contract
and for $25o,o00 damages. Paul, the
plaintiff, appeals from "a judgme ent
that it is uncertain, unconscionable
void for want of mutually and non
performance by the plaintiff. There
is little ground for disputing either
the law or the essential facts. To
state the case is to decide It, Held
that the judgment is clearly right
and 1t is affirmed.
Appeal, from the district court OF
Mercer county; Hon, Thos. H. Pugh
judge.
Affirmed. Opinion of the court BY
Robinson, J. Bronson; j., and Bird
zell. Ch: j., concur in the. result
Grace and Christianson, JJ.; concur
j SPECIALLY s4a,a. j :
. Theo.< <aKoffel, Bismarck, attorney
for appellants. @ass.s, !.
Zuger & Tillotson. Bismarck, at
torneys for respondent.
From. Traill County.
Z. P. s. Waslien. ct al, Plaintiffs and
Appellants. VS.. the City of Hillsboro
a municipal corporation; the Board
4 of City Com missioners of Hillsboro
RI. OAK, ct al, Defendants and Re.
spondents.
! In an action Of injunction question.
ing the consttutionality Of Chap. S.
Laws 1915, which authorize9 any city
to annex certain adjacent territors
by resolution OF the city council, after
|thearing upon protest being filed b,
property. owners in the proposed 'ex.
tension. 1t is held: oe3i,. y
(a) That. the act is not subject II
the constitutional objection that it i.
not uniform in its operation.
Az CD That it is not special lesisla.
tion.
4 (cl That it does not deprive the
people concerned in the territory al
fected OF any constitutional right OF
local self government.
4 CD That 1t does not delegate
contrary to constitutional provisions
4 legislative power. .sgs Il
Injunction proceedings in distric,
Ecourt, Traill county, Cole. T., cues
uoning the constitutionality;of !; OF an an.
1 n 0tfASHS - -