Alexander Burr

The case involved a lawsuit to collect on a 1928 promissory note that had become barred by the statute of limitations by 1934, with the plaintiff relying on a 1940 letter from one defendant as a written acknowledgment or promise sufficient to revive the debt. The trial court dismissed the action, finding the letter inadequate to toll the limitations period, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under the relevant statute, any acknowledgment or promise must be unconditional and in writing signed by the party to be charged, but the letter expressed only a conditional willingness to renew the note depending on future arrangements and the other maker's agreement, without implying an unconditional promise to pay. The court further held that the letter did not bind the second defendant, who had no knowledge of or involvement in it, and no payments or other acknowledgments were proven.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over title to land in Dunn County, North Dakota, where the county acquired the property through a tax sale in 1929 and later sold it to defendant Paulson under a contract, while plaintiff Sailer claimed title through a deed from the original owner Mary Morehouse. The court addressed whether the notice of expiration of the redemption period was valid, as it included taxes from subsequent years and hail tax assessments that were not eligible for inclusion under the applicable statutes. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the notice was void because it unlawfully demanded payment of those improper amounts to redeem the property, rendering the tax deed to the county invalid. As a result, the judgment in favor of Paulson was reversed, and title was quieted in favor of the plaintiff. The decision emphasized that the statutory requirements for the redemption notice must be strictly followed for the tax sale process to convey clear title.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case is an appeal from a district court judgment upholding the state tax commissioner's redetermination of the appellant's income tax liability and an additional assessment. The main issues were whether the district court had authority to hear new evidence rather than acting only in an appellate capacity under the Administrative Agencies Uniform Practice Act, and whether certain corporate stock had any fair market value as of January 1, 1919, for purposes of calculating taxable gain on a later sale. The court held that the parties' stipulation allowed the district court to receive the additional evidence directly. On the merits, the court found that the stock had no value on the key date because the underlying Mexican real estate had been expropriated with no realistic prospect of recovery, making the full sale proceeds taxable gain under the 1919 income tax statute and its successors; the judgment was therefore affirmed.

taxesprocedure

This case is an appeal from a district court judgment upholding the state tax commissioner's redetermination of the appellant's income tax liability and an additional assessment. The main issues were whether the district court had authority to hear new evidence rather than acting only in an appellate capacity under the Administrative Agencies Uniform Practice Act, and whether certain corporate stock had any fair market value as of January 1, 1919, for purposes of calculating taxable gain on a later sale. The court held that the parties' stipulation allowed the district court to receive the additional evidence directly. On the merits, the court found that the stock had no value on the key date because the underlying Mexican real estate had been expropriated with no realistic prospect of recovery, making the full sale proceeds taxable gain under the 1919 income tax statute and its successors; the judgment was therefore affirmed.

taxesprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a real estate sales commission. The plaintiff real estate agent alleged that the defendants listed their property with him for sale at $6300 including a $300 commission and that he produced a buyer to whom the property was sold, entitling him to the commission. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff after a jury verdict, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agency relationship had been terminated by the defendant before any agreement was reached with the buyer. The court reasoned that the evidence showed the defendant informed the plaintiff's agent that the house was not for sale prior to any deal being made with the purchaser, and the sale occurred after that termination.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case is an action for specific performance of an alleged contract to purchase real property. The plaintiff claimed that defendant Clara Thompson agreed in 1945 to sell him the property for $2350 but then conveyed it to her sister Agnes instead. The trial court found for the plaintiff, determining that a valid contract existed, the price was adequate, and Agnes was not a good-faith purchaser, and it ordered the defendants to convey the property upon payment of the balance due. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for additional testimony on the issue of ownership at the time of the alleged contract and related matters, without deciding whether a contract existed or whether the price was adequate.

propertyprocedure