The case was a quiet title action over land in Mountrail County, North Dakota, in which plaintiff Vern Clauson alleged ownership and right to possession based on a tax deed acquired from the county in 1940 after unpaid taxes, while defendant Clara Abelson, an heir to prior owners, denied the plaintiff's title and asserted her own interest. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, finding that Abelson had abandoned the property, was estopped by laches, and was barred by the statute of limitations from challenging the tax title. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal sought review only of a portion of the judgment regarding laches and the applicability of NDRC 1943 § 28-0122, but the governing statute permits retrial or review on appeal only when the entire judgment is presented to the court.
The case concerned whether a police magistrate had authority to try, convict, and sentence two 16-year-old boys for disorderly conduct under a city ordinance, or whether exclusive jurisdiction rested with the juvenile court. The district court issued writs of habeas corpus and ordered the boys released, holding that the juvenile court law divested the police magistrate of power. On review, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that section 113 of the state constitution grants police magistrates jurisdiction over such offenses and that the juvenile court statute cannot override this constitutional authority; therefore the district court's orders discharging the defendants were erroneous. The court reasoned that the constitution is supreme, the statute must yield where it conflicts, and the police magistrate had properly acquired jurisdiction when the boys pleaded guilty.
The case involved a dispute between neighboring farmers in which the plaintiff sued the defendant for assault and battery after a physical altercation stemming from the defendant impounding the plaintiff's horses that had damaged his crops and the plaintiff's subsequent removal of the horses by tearing down a fence. The defendant denied liability, asserted self-defense, and filed a counterclaim seeking damages for his own injuries from the fight, along with claims of malicious prosecution. After a bench trial, the district court awarded the plaintiff compensatory and exemplary damages and dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo, found that the fight constituted mutual combat arising from preexisting animosity and exchanged accusations, and held that each party injured in such a combat may recover damages from the other; accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaim on grounds that responsibility rested solely with the defendant.
The case concerned a petition to probate an unsigned document as the last will and testament of James William Lyons, who died in 1950; all heirs initially joined in the petition and waived execution defects, leading the county court to admit the instrument to probate and issue letters testamentary. One heir later sought rehearing, contending that the absence of the decedent's signature meant no valid will existed and the court lacked jurisdiction. The district court set aside the probate order on appeal. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that the county court had no jurisdiction to probate an instrument that failed to meet statutory execution requirements, that such a jurisdictional defect could not be waived, and that the matter must instead proceed under intestacy rules (with a minor modification to the district court's order regarding appointment of an administrator).
Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of merchandise via a claim-and-delivery action, alleging default on a conditional sales contract, while defendants denied plaintiffs' ownership of certain goods, asserted outright purchase of others, and counterclaimed for damages from the seizure. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the action and directed a verdict on the counterclaim, resulting in a $4,600 damages award to defendants. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial on grounds including evidentiary errors and insufficiency of the evidence, but the motion was denied; they then appealed without separately appealing that denial order. The court held that under North Dakota law the denial of a new-trial motion after a full hearing is a final judicial determination that can be reviewed only by appeal to the supreme court, which was not taken, barring further review of the underlying issues in this proceeding.
This case involved a waitress at the Rex Cafe in Minot, North Dakota, who was shot and severely wounded by a customer while actively performing her duties, including stacking dishes and carrying them to the kitchen. The North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau denied her compensation claim on the ground that the injury did not arise in the course of her employment. The district court reversed the Bureau's decision after finding that the claimant was engaged in her employment at the time and place of the shooting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts showed the injury occurred while she was performing services she was employed to perform, with her presence at the counter required by her job duties.
