The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-02-16

torneyS Tor appellant.
F. e. McCurdy, Of Bismarck, attor-
ney for respondent.
Filed February 10, 1928.
John Busch and Albert Busch,
Copartners doing business
under the name Of Busch Bros.
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
VS..
James Manahan and George
C. Lambert, Receivers for the
Equity Cooperative Exchange,
q corporation,
Defendants and Appellants.
I. In the absence of any agree
ment to the contrary, the law inn
plies that an indebtedness for pur-
chase money is payable in money.
2. In the absence of q special
agreement to the contrary the ac-
ceptance of q bill of exchange drawn
by an agent upon his principal for
purchase money is merely a con-
ditional payment, defeasiblc on the
non.payment of the bill.
3. Where a vendor of grain re-
ceivcs from the agent Of the local
elevator a demand draft drawn by
such agent upon his principal for
the purchase money, the presumption
is that such draft is accepted on the
condition that it shall be paid on
presentment; and the indebtedness
for the purchase money is not dis
charged until the draft is paid. In
case the draft is not honored on pre-
sentation, the original Indebtedness
for which the draft was given is not
discharged. and the vendor may re-
cover on the original debt the same
as though the draft had never been
given.
From a judgment of the County
Court of Wells CO .nty, Johnston, j.,
defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Christian
son, J..
Usher L. Burdick, Fargo, N. D.,
Manahan, Hoogesteger & Mana
han, St. Paul, MIMI, Attorneys
for Appellants.
John A. Layne, Fessenden, N. D.,
Attorney for the Respondents.
Thomas ]. Hampton, other
wise known as Thos. J. Hamp-
ton,
Plaintiff and Appellant
VS..
T. ]. Ross,
Defendant and Respondent.
I. In an action for the conversion
of certain personal property wherein
both plaintiff and defendant claim
to be the owner of the property in
dispute, through purchase from the
same vendor, the evidence is exam
ined and it is held that there is q
square conflict in the evidence upon
the question of ownership and that
the verdict of the jury on that
question is binding on the court.
2. Certain assignments Of error
predicated upon rulings in the ad.
mission and exclusion of evidence are
considered, and the rulings held to be
proper or non-prejudicial.
3. For reasons stated in the opin.
ion it is held that the trial court
did not err in refusing to grant q
new trial on the ground newly dis.
covered evidence.
Appeal from the district court Of
Cass County, Cole, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the judg.
ment and from an order denying his
motion for q new trial.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Christian.
son, j.
A. c. Lacy, Fargo, N. OAK, Attor.
ncy for the Appellant.
w. H. Barnett, Fargo, N. Oak.
(Seth w. Richardson, Of Fargo
N. OAK, on Oral Argument), At.
torney for Respondent.
Henry ]. Hansen,
Plaintiff and Appellant
We.
John G. Ross, Sheriff,
Defendant and Respondent
In an action against sheriff fol
damages for levying an execution
upon, and selling, exempt property
the plaintiff has the burden Of prov
ing that the property was exempt.
From q judgment Of the district
court Of Cass county, Englert, ].
plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Christian.
son, J.
w. J. Courtney. Page, North Dakota
Attorney for Appellant. !.
William Barclay Finley, NORTH
Dakota, and G. S. Shippy, Hope
North Dakota, Attorneys fol
Respondent.