Court Opinion

ID: 9687886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:38.34896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.656934
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Judge,
on petitions for intervention and rehearing.
Harry L. Malloy has filed a petition to intervene and a petition for rehearing in which he asserts: that he did not violate Rule 11, North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, that he acted as Attorney for Stude with Stude’s knowledge and authority, that he recommended to Stude that he seek other counsel when a conflict of interest appeared, and that Malloy was taken by surprise by Stude’s apparent perjury but could do nothing to expose it because of his attorney-client relationship.
He further states that he did bill Stude for services but was told to send the bill to Rustan and did so, and that he heard that Stude, Rustan, and O’Connell had' made an oral agreement among themselves and he concluded from this that Exhibit A (which he prepared but did not see “fully executed”) was not binding, and that since Stude attempted to assign his interest to Rustan alone he assumed that O’Connell had no interest in the land in question and therefore Malloy could properly sign a reply denying Madzo’s allegation that O’Con-nell claimed an interest in the land.
Our opinion, of course, is based on the record of the trial, including a deposition of Mr. Malloy. The motion is denied.
A petition for rehearing was filed by defendants-appellees Rustan, O’Connell, and the two banks. It reargues matters adequately briefed and argued by the parties prior to our opinion. It is denied.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and TEIGEN, PAULSON and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.