Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
DECISIONS or D From Mercer County L. R. Baird, as Receiver of the First State Bank of Hazen, North Dakota, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant. vs. G. G. Radke, Defendant and Respondent. SYLLABUS: 1. In a suit against the maker of a promissory note, by the receiver of an insolvent bank, the burden devolves on the plaintiff to prove that the bank was a holder in due course, when testimony is introduced by the defendant which tends to show that the note was negotiated to the bank in circumstances amounting to a legal fraud on the maker. Secs. 6940, 6941 and 6944, C. L. 1913. 2. For reasons stated in the opinion it is held that the verdict was substantial support in the evidence to the effect that the original note of which the one in suit is described in the record as a renewal, was delivered to one Stoelting, who thereafter endorsed it to the bank, upon a condition which never was fulfilled, and that the endorsee was informed 01 this tact when the instrument was delivered to the bank. 3. For reasons stated in the opinion it is held that the defendant is an accommodation maker, and as such liable on the note in suit, under section 6914 C. L. 1913. Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for judgment non obstante, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Appeal from the district court of Mercer County, Hon. Thomas H. Pugh, Judge. Opinion of the court by Johnson, Judge. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ORDERED. John Moses, Hazen, North Dakota, and Zuger & Tillotson, Bismarck, North Dakota, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant. David Schwartz, Golden Valley, North Dakota, and Milton K. Higgins, Stanton, North Dakota, Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent. From McLean County Albina Gross, Plaintiff and Respondent. vs. Julius Gross, Defendant and Appellant. SYLLABUS: 1. Under the statutes of this state (Sections 4404, 4405, and 4406, ComLaws of 1913), the duty of that may piled maintenance be favor enjoined of in is decree of divorce in either party, or of minor children, is a specific duty and, though awarded in terms requiring the payment of stated sums at intervals, the full performance of the duty can not be enforced by execution but may be compelled through contempt proceedings. 2. Section 8180 of the Complied Laws of 1913, defining contempt to consist in the failure of a party to pay a sum of money ordered by the court in is case where by law an execution can not be awarded for the collection of such sum, does not exclude the failure to discharge the duty of paying maintenance or alimony decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 3. It is held that the- evidence supports the judgment. Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, Hon. J. A. Coffey, Judge. AFFIRMED: Opinion of the court by Birdzell, Judge. Langer & Nuchols, Bismarck, N. Dak., attorneys for Appellant. William & Lindell, Washburn, N. Dak., Attorneys for Respondent.
