The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1924-02-06

Wiebe was recently released after
serving a portion of "A term of one
year and one day, all imposed IN fed
cral court in Minot.
The state charges of embezzlement
will stand against Bergman and
Wiebe.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
FROM WARD COUNTY
Union Insurance Agency of
Minot, North Dakota, cor
poration,
Plaintiff
The Insurance Company Of
North America, a corporation,
So. Defendant.
Inaorder to confer jurisdiction up
on the Supreme Court in cases Ger
titled under Chapter =. Session Laws
Of 1919, the question certified must
be such that the dcterminat OF
the cause in which it arises will de-
pend VIII oily or principally upon the
construction of the law applicable tC
such question.
Case certified from the DIstried
Court Of Ward County, Honorable w
j. Kneeshaw, J.
Action by Union Insurance Agency
of Minot against the Insurance Com
pany of North America At the clos'
of the plaintiffs case the defendan
moved to strike a certain cxhibi
from the record. MotiVn granted
On application of the plaintiff, thu
Court.
Cause remanded to the Distrc
Court for further disposition, &C
cording to law.
Opinion of the Court by Nuessle
j. --.r
Palda & Aaker, Minot, attorney
for plaintiff.
Fisk, Murphy e. Nash, Of Minot, at
torneys for defendant.
FROM FOSTER COUNTY
o. F. Dewalt' =,
Defendant-Appeilan
SYLLABUS:
1. In suit upon claim agains
Il defendant who has been discharge
in bankruptcy, it is held.
ta) The effect of a discharge i
bankruptcy is to suspend the RICH
of action for the debt against tn
debtor personally; the discharge doe
not annul the origina! debt or lab
s lily; the remedy upon the debt an
the legal, but not the moral, obi:ga
tion to pay the same is at an end
OBJ The discharge, being person;
to the bankrupt, may be waived b
him; it does not destroy the deb
but merely releases the bankIur
from liability by removing the leg;
obligation to pay the debt, leavin
the moral obligation to pay intact
such moral obligation is a sufficier
consideration to support a ne
promise to pay.
(c) Where it is claimed that
new promise to pay has been mad
the plaintiff should declare on tn
original promise or debt, the ne
promise being a defense to a plea {
discharge.
cd 1t is not necessary for til
Haintiff to allege the new promis
dt he may, at the trial, prove sue
promise as a defense to the plea an
proof of discharge in bankruptcy.
2. The objection that two,
more, causes of action are imrrt
perly united in the same complain
must be taken by demurrer or b
answer, and if not so taken, is deem
ed waived.
3. When deposition is taken
foreign state before an office
therein who does not have seal ar
the same is not authenticated as PR
vided in Section 1902, c. l.. 1918,
is not error to suppress such depos
tion upon objection properly ar
timely made.
4. The granting or refusing of
continuance after deposition h;
been suppressed, rests largely in Il
discretion Of the trial court. +.
reasons stated in the opinion, it
held, that IT was not an abuse
discretion to deny motion FOR
continuance. sSs
s.. For reasons stated in the OPT
ion, it is held, that the testimon
tending to show that new prorhi:
to pay the debt was made by the d
PENDANT, after the bankruptcy pr
ceedings, is sufficient to justify ii
peremptory instruction to the jun
and to support the verdict returns
pursuant thereto, no evidence havir
been introduced by the defendant.
Action, on contract to recover f.
the use of a team of horses.
Appeal from the District Court
4 Foster County, North Dakota, on
A.. Coffey, J.
Opinion Of the Court by Johnso
49,.
AFFIRMED:
w. II. Hopes, Darlington. N. Dial
Attorney for Appellant. ~ +
s4lsaRa Gra1eo, Catriagton, NfsRsl
Afterpe q fpraR sspends nt. III
saIAI. ~ - 4 = SE ~. - 80