The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-12-17
Olaf Johnson, Farmer
Near klef, Murdered

Of negligence.
az Where the evidence is such
that the inference Of negligence Is
purely Z matter IF speculation, It IL
insufficient to support : verdict.
i ~ The evidence is examined
and, for reasons stated In the opin.
lion, held to be insufficient.
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward county, Hon. John G. Lowe,
Judge.
Opinion Of the court by Birdzell,
Ch. ].
L. J. Palda, Jr., G. E. Brace, Ro-
bert w. Palda, and E. r. Sinkler,
Minot, N. OAK, attorneys for ap.
pellant.
H. L. Halvorson, Minot. N. OAK,
attorney for respondent.
Bank Of North Dakota, : corpora.
ton, operated by the State of North
Dakota, respondent, w. A. E. Bean
and Kenneth Bean, appellants.
Syllabus:
Where the relation Of debtor and
creditor arises within three years
from the filing Of . chattel mort
gage given BY the debtor to an ear
lier creditor, the later creditor is
not . Subsequent incumbrancer in
good faith" even though he takes 4
chattel mortgage upon the mort
gagged property, after the expira-
ton Of three years from the filing
Of the first mortgage, as he is not
such creditor" as is contemplated
by the statute.
Appeal from the district court of
Ward county, Hon. Geo. H. Moellring,
judge.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Burr, ].
E. r. Sinkler and G. o. Brekke,
Of Mont, N. D., attorneys for ap-
pellants.
II. L. Halvorson. Of Minot, N. D.,
attorney for respondent.
Gilbert Brudvik and H. H. Steele,
co-partners, plaintiffs and respond
ents, vs.. Forsaker Blaisdell Com.
pany, corporation. defendant and
appellant.
Syllabus:
/. An automobile dealer entered
into 4 contract with two parties
whereby such parties agreed to pay
for cars supplied to such dealer by
. distributor, the cars to be resold
by the dealer and the commission
divided. In an action brought by the
parties 50 furnishing the money
against the distributor for the pro-
ceeds Of resale contracts made by
the dealer, the evidence is examined
and It is held:
(a) It is sufficient to establish
that the plaintiffs were jointly in
terested in the adventure Of finance,
ing the purchase Of automobiles by
the dealer.
(b) It 1: sufficient to establish
that the distributor had knowledge
Of the arrangement existing between
the dealer and such third PARTIES.
2. An arrangement whereby two
parties are to furnish money for the
purchase Of automobiles to be resold
by another party, the profits or COM
missions to be shared by all and the
centracts Of sale to stand 2 secur-
ity for the money advanced, is Z
joint venture and not general part
nership.
3. Where in carrying out Z joint
adventure property is purchased
with the money o. one or more Of the
interested parties, such property
does rot become that Of oil Of the
joint adventurers and the parties to
such relation may show the actual
interest Of each in the property 90
acquired.
1. Where the proceeds Of prop
erty belonging to certain Of the joint
adventurers are converted or with
held by . third party, such owners
are the real parties in interest in an
action brought for the .overy Of
such proceeds.
g.. Where joint adve lures carry
on q joint enterprise in the name Of
one Of their number, r., through
whose negotiations moneys are re-
ceived, which, to the knowledge Of
the recipient, belongs to the other
joint adventurers, such parties may
recover from the recipient any
amount withheld to apply on the per-
sonal indebtedness Of r, but may
not recover the amount Of = remit
lance to p, although the latter may
have converted it to his own use.
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward county, Hon. Geo. H. Moell-
ring, judge.
Modified and sffirmed.
=, Opinion Of 70 court by ~Birdssll.
MCGEE 4 Coss, L. E. Blaisdell,
and ]. G. Miller, Of Minot, N. OAK,
attorneys for appellant.
B. H. Bradford, Of Minot, N OAK.
attorney for respondents.