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

This case involves a dispute over a contract combining a farm lease with an option for the tenant to purchase the land after satisfying a preexisting promissory note through application of crop proceeds. The plaintiff tenant sued for specific performance of the purchase option after attempting to pay off the note, following complications from hail damage, liens, and crop deliveries in 1942-1944. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the plaintiff had not delivered the full 1944 crop to the landlord, had not made a complete legal tender to pay the note, and therefore had not satisfied the conditions to trigger the one-year option period. The court reasoned that the contract was indivisible, the landlord retained title to the crops until the debt was paid, and specific performance requires the buyer to first fulfill all contractual obligations including full payment of the note.

property

This case involves a dispute over a contract combining a farm lease with an option for the tenant to purchase the land after satisfying a preexisting promissory note through application of crop proceeds. The plaintiff tenant sued for specific performance of the purchase option after attempting to pay off the note, following complications from hail damage, liens, and crop deliveries in 1942-1944. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the plaintiff had not delivered the full 1944 crop to the landlord, had not made a complete legal tender to pay the note, and therefore had not satisfied the conditions to trigger the one-year option period. The court reasoned that the contract was indivisible, the landlord retained title to the crops until the debt was paid, and specific performance requires the buyer to first fulfill all contractual obligations including full payment of the note.

property

This case involved juvenile court proceedings in Cass County, North Dakota, where Donald Smith was charged with being a delinquent child due to incidents like malicious mischief, unauthorized use of automobiles, truancy, and drinking, while living with his mother in an unfit home. The court determined that the minor was delinquent and that his mother was an unfit guardian, committing him to the state training school. The appeal argued that prior proceedings barred retrial under double jeopardy principles, but the court rejected this, noting that juvenile proceedings focus on the child's status and welfare rather than criminal prosecution. The core reasoning centered on the child's best interests, with the court finding no suitable alternative to the training school given the mother's unfitness and lack of other options proposed.

criminal lawfamily law

This case concerns a dispute over possession of real property and unpaid rent under an instrument titled 'Lease with Option to Buy' between plaintiff Larson and defendants Wood. The plaintiff sought to regain possession after the lease term expired with rent unpaid, while the defendants claimed the document was a contract for deed under which they had made improvements and tendered the balance due. The court determined that the instrument was unambiguously a lease with an option to purchase, not a contract for deed, as prior negotiations merged into the written agreement and the defendants' conduct treated the arrangement as a speculative investment. The defendants were found in default on rent payments, and their option was not validly exercised. The trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed on appeal.

property

This case involved a negligence action for damages from a street collision in Rolla between the plaintiff's truck and a truck owned by the defendant carnival operator and driven by his employee. The plaintiff alleged the collision resulted from the defendant's negligence and sought $700 in damages; the defendant admitted the collision but denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The jury returned a $500 verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court upheld over the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, showed the plaintiff had stopped, safely entered and exited the intersection after seeing the defendant's truck approaching from a distance, and that the defendant caused the collision by making a sharp turn without looking; any traffic violations did not automatically preclude recovery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a 1944 farm lease contract between Roy Funston and Clayton Little (later administered by his widow Louise Little) regarding ownership of proceeds from the sale of 17 calves born on the leased land. Funston claimed one-half the net proceeds under the contract's provision for sharing livestock increase, and the parties executed a settlement agreement dividing the $712.96 check equally while Funston relinquished other rights like his option to renew the lease. After Mrs. Little stopped payment on the estate's check to Funston and retained the funds, he sued her and the surety on the administration bond. The court held that the calves qualified as increase under the lease, the settlement agreement was valid and supported by consideration, and the administratrix improperly retained Funston's share, reversing the order that set aside the verdict and reinstating judgment requiring the funds to be turned over to the plaintiff.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an action to quiet title to real property that had been conveyed after a 1931 divorce decree awarding the defendant ex-wife alimony payments of $140 per month and making the judgment a lien on the husband's current and future property. The defendant obtained a special execution and purchased the property at a sheriff's sale in 1945, claiming the lien persisted, but the plaintiff buyer argued the lien had expired. The court held that the judgment lien, which in part directed payment of money, lasted only ten years from docketing under state statute and was never renewed, rendering the 1945 execution and sale invalid. Although the divorce court retains ongoing jurisdiction to modify alimony, this does not extend the statutory property lien beyond its ten-year term. The trial court's judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, a party who had petitioned the county court for probate of a will appealed (or attempted to appeal) the county court's denial of probate to the district court. The opposing party made a special appearance in district court to challenge jurisdiction over the subject matter and persons, moved to dismiss the appeal on that basis, and, after the district court denied the motion, appealed that denial to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not an appealable order under Section 28-2702 of the Revised Code of 1943, which enumerates the limited classes of district court orders subject to review. Relying on precedents such as Ellingson v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit Bureau and Bennett v. Bennett, the court reasoned that jurisdictional objections may be preserved in the record and reviewed on appeal from a final judgment without waiver, so the appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

procedure

The case involved a 1943 action by an Iowa resident to recover on a 1929 promissory note against a North Dakota defendant, with disputes over venue transfer from Cass County to Burleigh County, a stipulation to dismiss the action without prejudice that was never filed or entered, and the plaintiff's subsequent attempt to garnish the defendant's wages through his employer. The defendant filed an amended answer with a counterclaim for damages arising from the garnishment proceedings, which the plaintiff did not reply to, and raised jurisdictional challenges based on lack of service and the purported dismissal. The district court assumed jurisdiction over the transferred matter, proceeded on the counterclaim despite arguments that no action was pending, and entered judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court had jurisdiction due to the transfer, the ineffective dismissal stipulation, and the parties' conduct treating the action as ongoing, while the counterclaim could be litigated independently of any issues with the garnishment service.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit where plaintiff Nagel claimed he was struck by defendant Alice Emch's car while standing near a gas station, resulting in a broken leg and other injuries that required medical care and forced him to hire farm help. The jury found negligence by the defendant and no contributory negligence by the plaintiff, awarding $850 in damages. On appeal, the court upheld the negligence findings and certain damage elements like medical expenses but held that evidence of lost farm income was improperly admitted because the complaint did not specifically allege loss of earning power and such damages were too speculative to prove under the pleadings. The court exercised its authority to modify the judgment downward to $474 plus interest and costs, conditioning affirmance on the plaintiff's acceptance of the reduction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death suit brought by the widow of Henry Trihub, who was found dead in his car at the bottom of a coal pit located at the north end of Third Street in Minot after it had been vacated in 1925; the pit was protected by a deteriorating wall and was used for coal storage, and the plaintiff alleged negligence by the city and other defendants in failing to maintain proper barriers. The trial court dismissed the action at the close of the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence of negligence, cause of death, and ruling that contributory negligence was established as a matter of law. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that circumstantial evidence—including the car's position, the condition of the barrier, and the absence of proof of suicide or other causes—created a question for the jury on whether an accident occurred due to the defendants' negligence. The court further reasoned that contributory negligence was not proven as a matter of law and that the law does not presume suicide or crime absent evidence. The topics selected are torts & liability and procedure.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a libel claim by plaintiff Rickbeil against Grafton Deaconess Hospital and its board secretary Tverberg over a letter sent to him demanding payment of a $301.24 hospital bill for a woman who had undergone a criminal abortion; the letter stated that Rickbeil was responsible for her condition and threatened criminal proceedings and imprisonment if payment was not made immediately. The letter had been dictated by Tverberg to a stenographer, transcribed, and mailed. The trial court dismissed the action at the close of the plaintiff's case on grounds including lack of libel per se, insufficient proof of publication or damages, and qualified privilege. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial, ruling that the dictation to the stenographer amounted to publication, that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of libel for jury determination, and that questions of privilege, truth, and damages required further proceedings.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a challenge to an initiative measure that imposed taxes on gasoline and other products to generate revenue for highway construction and maintenance via revenue anticipation certificates, raising questions about delegation of legislative authority, segregation of funds under article 56 of the state constitution, and compliance with debt limitations and appropriation requirements in sections 182, 186, and 187. The majority of the court upheld the measure, determining that it could be interpreted to avoid any improper delegation of power, that the tax proceeds formed a dedicated fund for highways, and that the resulting obligations were not subject to the debt limits of section 182. Justice Burr dissented in part, contending that the certificates created state debts exceeding constitutional limits without proper amendment, that legislative appropriation was required rather than automatic allocation, and that the provisions risked removing all debt ceilings for highway projects funded by such taxes.

taxes

This case is a follow-up to a 1943 decision involving the same parties and concerns a worker's compensation claim for injuries from a May 1940 workplace accident that fractured two ribs and allegedly caused heart damage. The claimant applied to reopen his original claim under the Bureau's continuing jurisdiction to seek increased compensation for the heart condition, but the Bureau denied the request after review; the district court then dismissed his appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from such a Bureau decision. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the Workmen's Compensation Act (including N.D. Rev. Code § 65-0503), the Bureau's decisions on the amount or factors of compensation are final and non-appealable except in narrow circumstances where the claimant's right to participate in the fund is entirely denied on specified grounds such as self-inflicted injury. The court reasoned that the claim had already been allowed for the accident, this was merely an attempt to add or increase compensation for additional effects of the same injury, and the Uniform Practice Act did not override the finality provision in the compensation statutes. The order dismissing the appeal was therefore affirmed.

labor & employmentprocedure