This case concerns a dispute over ownership of oil, gas, and mineral interests in specified land in Williams County, North Dakota, where surface ownership and a portion of mineral rights held by the Federal Land Bank were undisputed. The central issue was the validity of a reservation clause in a 1945 warranty deed from Kistler to Iverson (later conveyed to Nelson) that purported to reserve mineral rights to L.G. Marcus, a stranger to the deed. The court decided that the reservation to a non-party was invalid and conveyed no interest to Marcus. It further held that the attempted reservation, though ineffective as to Marcus, prevented the interests from passing to the grantee because the parties' clear intent was to withhold them from the conveyance, so the interests remained with the grantor. The district court's judgment quieting title accordingly was affirmed.
This case was a quiet title action over land in Williams County, North Dakota, in which the plaintiffs claimed ownership as successors to grantees under an unrecorded 1929 quitclaim deed that created a cotenancy for oil speculation, while the defendants (heirs of Clarence Simon) asserted title through a 1946 repurchase from the county after tax forfeiture plus adverse possession. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment for the defendants. The court reasoned that the county's 1940 tax deed terminated the prior cotenancy, that Clarence Simon (who lacked knowledge of the unrecorded deed) acquired valid color of title by repurchasing as a family member under the applicable statute, and that more than ten years of open adverse possession and tax payments by Clarence and his widow perfected title under North Dakota's adverse possession law.
This case involved a dispute over whether a garage liability insurance policy issued to Edwin Johnson, who operated an automobile sales and repair business in North Dakota, covered damages from a 1958 car accident in Florida in which his wife Agnes Johnson was driving a Cadillac purchased by the business. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that the policy did not apply to the Cadillac or the accident, while the Johnsons claimed coverage. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment for the defendants, holding that the policy's language covered the ownership, maintenance, or use of any automobile owned by the insured for non-business purposes when driven by the insured, an executive officer, partner, or member of the household. The court reasoned that Agnes Johnson qualified as a household member, the Cadillac was owned by the business, and the policy explicitly extended to non-business use within the United States.
This case involved a criminal prosecution in which the defendant was convicted by a jury in Burleigh County District Court of willfully making and filing a sworn application for registration as a securities salesman that contained material false statements, in violation of state securities law. The defendant appealed, arguing primarily that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance after his attorney withdrew on the day of trial, leaving him without counsel despite his efforts to secure representation and a recent family death. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of a new trial. The court reasoned that the defendant was responsible for his lack of counsel because he had directed his attorney elsewhere for other matters, refused offers to have the attorney represent him anyway, and had already received multiple continuances; it also noted doubts about the good faith of the delay requests. The court held that under these circumstances the defendant could not complain about proceeding without counsel.
This case concerned a dispute among the children of Peter Muller Sr. from his two marriages regarding the distribution of his estate. The decedent's will favored the children of his second marriage and excluded some from the first, but after his death all heirs including the widow entered into a written family agreement to instead divide the property according to North Dakota intestacy laws, with equal shares for the children and specific provisions for the hotel and farm properties. The district court apparently rejected enforcement of the agreement against the second-marriage heirs after the widow's death, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding the agreement valid and binding. The core reasoning was that the mutual contract among all parties, approved by the county court during probate, obligated the heirs to convey equal undivided interests, and the widow's intervening death did not release them from those obligations absent intervening equities.
This case involved a quiet title action brought by the administratrix of Everett D. Peck's estate against the State of North Dakota over mineral rights in certain real property. Peck had mortgaged the land in 1916, later conveyed the surface while reserving the minerals, and the mortgage went into default; after extensions, the State foreclosed by advertisement in 1941 and obtained a sheriff's deed in 1942. The plaintiff argued that the foreclosure was invalid due to the statute of limitations and defects in the notice and publication process. The court held that the foreclosure was valid and not barred, as the relevant limitation statutes were not retroactive to pre-existing mortgages and any procedural defects were cured by validating statutes. It therefore affirmed the judgment vesting title to the minerals in the State.