The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-04-02
SUPREME COURT
Logan,

pla intYff-rcSpOndcnt, vs.. Ia Carrf-
ray, acknowledgement. Syllabus:
In an action on account stated.
where merchandise was sold, there
after, Il note given therefor; later.
"A payment made, the note surren-
dercd to defendant. and a slip made,
signed by the defendant, cvidcncing
the balance due, and, where, before
action commenced, defendant dc
Stroycd the note, it is held, for rch-
sons stated in the opinion, that the
action was properly brought and
that the evidence supports the jury's
verdict that the merchandise was
sold by plaintiff to defendant.
In district court, Logan county,
Mckcnna, j.. action upon account
stated. Defendant has appealed
from Judgment. Affirmed. Opin-
ion of the court by Bronson, Oh. J.
Arthur T.. Atkins. Napoleon, y. d.,
Scott Cameron. Bismarck, y. d., at
torncys for appellant. !. +. Was-
ncr, Napoleon, y. d., attorney for
respondent.
From Ward county: Thomas a.
Golfer, plaintiff and respondent, rs.
J. l.. Dill, +. y. Henderson, ct al,
defendant and appellant. Syllabus
|. In the case appealed to the Su-
prcmc court for u trial de novo I'M
der Section 1916, E.. l.. 1913, it is
held to be the duty of the low court
on remand o fthc record to it, to
comply with the mandate of the su-
prcinc court and to obey the dircc-
tions therein. And where the su,
prcmc court directs that Il iudS-
mcnt be modified in ccrta II particu
lars, it is the duty of the court u
modify the original judgment as
and only rs, dircctcd; and 1t has
no power to make other modifica.
tons or changes in such judgment
Appeal from The district court OF
Ward county, Lowe, j. Action 10
forccloSc a uncertainties lien. From
a Judgment in favor of the plaintiff
defendants appealed. and the iudg
mcnt was modified SO as to adiudgl
certain mortgages to be prior to the
mechanics lien $50 n. ID. 463. l67 n,
w. 72O). Rcnittitur was sent down
and the Judgment entered rs direct
ed. One of the defendants moved
the trial court to modify the imdg
mcnt as entered. and appeals from
the order denying such motion. Ar.
iirmcd. Opinion of the court by
ChriStianSon. j., Bronson, Oh. }
concurs in the result. Palda 4 Aakcl
of Minot, y. d.. attorneys for APP
pcllant. b. \. Bradford. and Bosart
& Twiford. all of Minot. y. d., at
torncyS for respondent.
Mountrail
From Mountrail County: Tho
State of North Dakota. plaintiff ant
respondent, VS.. Sid McDaniels, dc
PENDANT and appellant. Syllabus: !
In criminal action for violation
of the state prohibitory law (Chap
ter 81. Laws 1920, the evidence i
examined and held to sustain a yer
dict of guilty. 2. For reasons stat
ed i'm the opinion, it is held that tn
error, il any, in admitting a searc'
warrant and the return thereon il
evidence, is error without preJu
dice. 3. In an information for
statutory offcnSc. ii is not ncccS
sary to negative an exception in tn
statute unless the exception is sue
as to render the negative of it a
essential part of the definition q
the offcnsc. 4. An information fo
violation of the state statute whic
prohibits the unlawful manufactur
of Intoxicating liquors, or the pos
session Of any utrnsil, contrivanc
or machine designed or intended TO
use in the unlawful manufacture q
Intoxicating liquors tChaptcr 81
Laws 1920, need not negative tn
proviso i'm such statute pcrmittin
certain liquors to be manufacturer
sold. Furnished and possessed whc
permitted by federal statute" Al
peal from the district court c
Mountrail county. Moellring, J. DE-
PENDANT was convicted of violatin
the state prohibition law. and al
pcals from the judgment of convit
ton and from the order denying
new trial. Affirmed. Opinion of TIL
court by ChriStianson, J. Funk'
Campbell 4 Eide. of Minot, n. d
attorneys for appellant. il.
Swendseid. states attorney, Stanlc.
\. d.. and Geo. +. Shafcr, attornc
general. Bismarck, n. d., for IT
spondcnt.
Ramsey
From Ramsey county John v
Mahcr. plaintiff and respondent. V
Herman Bochmcr and Minnekot
Elevator company. a corporation
defendant and appellant. Syllahu:
/. Following Merchants State ban
vs.. Sawyer Farmers Cooperative a
ISOLATION, n. d., 1872 n. w. 263, it
held that the provision, in far
, lease on the share plan, rcServiI
title to all crops in the owner I
the land is effective without fill
the farm lease as chattel NOR
}. gage. 2. For reasons stated i'm I'll
opinion, it is held that the instru
lions to the jury in the instant Ca
were contrary to the rule stated
the preceding paragraph, and tn
the trial court was correct in Orde
ing a new trial on account of Sut
=, erroneous Instructions. Appeal fro
the district court of Ramsey cou
ty. Hon. Burr, J. Defendant, MINI
| kota Elevator Company. appea
d. from an order granting a new tri;
Affirmed. Opinion of the court
!, Christianson, j. +. b. Lambert
: Minot, n. d., attorney for appellal