The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-01-20
JUDGE JOHN {. LOWE RULES MFAVOR
OF DEFENDANTS IN COMPANY A SUIT

concludes that plaintiffs complaint
oueht 70 be and hereby Is dismisset|
upon the merits, and that the de.
Pendants are entitled to 4 decree
quoting title in them in and TO said
premises against any and al claims
Of the plaintiff"
Among the findings Of fact upon
which the court based it, conclu.
sions Of law were:
THAT on and prior to the 9th day
Of October, 1915, plaintiff WAS the
owner in fee Of lots q and q IL
black, So, original plat, city Of Bis.
marck.
"That on or about the 9th day Of
October, 1919, said premises were
conveyed to the defendants by an
instrument Of record purporting to
be ! warranty deed executed by the
plaintiff, but that said instrument
was not executed by the said cor
poration or through officers there.
Of authorized to execute the same.
ssThat said defendants paid plain
tiff or for the benefit Of plaintiff
the sum Of $l6,66l.36.
Worth Less Than Amount Paid
..That the property at that time
was worth less than the amount 50
paid.
"That the defendants after the
execution and delivery Of said con-
veyance and on or about the 22nd
day Of April, 1920. believing in good
faith that such conveyance was
valid and effective entered into the
possession Of the property and ever
since have been and still are in pos
session thereof.
''That at or shortly after the TAX
in1 OF possession the plaintiff cor
poration had knowledge of the At
tempted transfer and conveyance,
and that the defendants were in &C.
tual possession Of said premises.
No Objection From Plaintiff
"That upon taking possession Of
the property the defendants made
extensive alterations and valuable
improvements thereon with the
knowledge of the plaintiff and Of
the public generally and that plain
tiff stood by and saw the making Of
such improvements and the cxpendi-
ture of large sums Of money with
out objection and without claim Of
right in said property.
"That the improvements and bet
terments to the property consisted
Of the renovation. repair and alter
alton Of the building and the erec-
ton Of new buildings and structures
upon the premises and that the
value Of such alterations, better
ments and improvements 30 made
with the knowledge Of the plaintiff
exceeds the sum Of $4,000.
Purchase Price Not Returned
THAT the purchase price paid by
the defendants has never been ten
dered to the defendants nor re-
turned to them nor has any part
thereof, but that the same has been
used and employed in payment Of
debts, engagements and obligations
Of the plaintiff existing and pay
able at the time Of such purchase
and that the plaintiff has received
and retained the benefits Of said
transaction and purcha, :, price.
THAT the defendants have been
in the open, exclusive and notorious
possession Of the property and the
building located thereon ct toe time
Of such purchase and oil Of the
building located thereon ct the time
th4t the same, have been occupied
by the defendants during oil Of said
times and that until the commence
mert Of this action neither plaintiff
nor its officers, directors, members
or any Of them protested or object
ed to the making Of any Of such
improvements or the occupation Of
said property by the defendants or
give the defendants notice Of any
adverse claim Whatsoever