The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-03-31

Dakota has the power ana 4uthor.
ity to determine when and where
such service shall be rendered, and
the duty Of determining primarily
what Is IN adequate compensation
s. The kscord examined and Il IS
held that the decision Of the Board
Of Railruad Commissioners that l
cent per cwt. Is an adequate com.
pensation for cleaning, mixing and
storing IN transit" service required
Of transportation companies. ct the
Public Terminal Grain Elevator il
sustained by the evidence taken.
From IN order and judgment Of
the District Court Of Burleigh
county affirming the order and
Judgment Of the Board Of Railroad
Commissioners, defendants appeal.
Hon. J. "A. Coffey, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion Of the court by Burr, J.
O'Hare & Cox, Of Bismarck, N.
D., and r. J. Hagman, of st. Paul,
MIMI, Attorneys for Appellants.
II. A. Bronson, Of Grand Forks,
N. D., and T. C. Madden, Assistant
Attorney General, Bismarck, N. D.,
Attorneys for Respondents.
Matilda Baldwin, Plaintiff and Ap-
pellant
Claus Opsvig, H. p. Hammer, A.
Walker, and George w. Cham
berlin. % executor Of the estate
Of ]. A. Chamberlin, deceased,
Defendants and Respondents.
/. In IN action for the specific
performance Of . land contract
dated September 1, 1919, and pro-
viding for the payment Of $4,000
down and $1,000 on the first of
January, 1926. with interest and de-
ferred payments at six per cent,
that on the payment Of the $1,000
January /, 1925, deed should issue
to the vendee with q mortgage back
to the vendor for balance Of the
purchase price, and which contract
contains the further provision that
the second party may sell the said
land probing . payment Of $4,000
is made on January LIST following
such sale, (January LIST, 1920) such
latter provision is an option for the
benefit Of the vendees which they
may, or may not take advantage Of,
and If said option is exercised the
vendees may show by parole evil
dence that they were to be re-
leased from all liability, and provi-
sion for such releas, was inadver-
tently omitted from the contract
Such oral testimony does not change
or vary the terms of the writing.
2. In an action for = specific
performance Of land contract the
assignees who purchased the con.
tract assuming all liabilities there
under including the payment Of all
prior mortgages. which prior mort
cages were to be deducted from the
sale price Of the land, and where
the assignees admit in their an.
swer, that there is q certain amount
due on the land contract which ID
unknown to them, and prays to have
the plaintiff produce the evidence
Of the amount due on said land con.
tract, the plaintiff is entitled to d
judgment against the assignees fol
the amount due on their contract
less the amount due on prior mort
cages.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the District Court
Of Steele county, Hon. Chas. M
Cooley, Judge.
Opinion Of the Court by Burke, J.
Sad & Duffy, Attorneys for Plain.
tiff and Appellant, Cooperstown, N
Oak.
Sinkler & Brekke, Attorneys fol
Defendants and Respondents, Ham
mer & Opsvig, Minot, N. D.
@. ]. Thompson, Attorney for De
PENDANTS and Respondents, A
Walker and George w. Chamber
lin, Cooperstown, N. D.