Article Text
Decisions of Supreme Court
George R. Fox, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent
-VS.-
Thomas H. Zox, et al, Defendants Edith Schell, Grace Reed and Myrtle Hanna, Defendants and Appellants.
1. Sec. 8792-8796 of the Comp. Laws, permitting one entitled to a deed under the provisions of a contract for the sale of real estate, made with one now deceased, to petition the county court in a case where "the decedent if living might be compelled to make such conveyance," to make a decree authorizing and directing the administrator to execute such conveyance, does not confer equity jurisdiction upon the county court.
2. The procedure set forth in said section does not provide for a suit in equity for specific performance but merely a special proceeding incidental to the administration of the estate, to be utilized when the right of the petitioner is free from doubt.
3. Where a petition for such a conveyance is presented to the county court the court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, provide for a "full hearing and examination of the facts and circumstances of the claim," and, if satisfied the petitioner is entitled to a conveyance, make a decree directing the administrator to execute a conveyance to the petitioner; but if the "right of the petitioner to have a specific performance of the contract is found to be doubtful, the court must dismiss the petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, who may thereafter proceed in the district court to enforce a specific performance thereof." (Syllabus by the court).
Appeal from the District Court of Rolette County, Hon. C. W. Buttz, Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the court by Burr, J. Kehoe & Verret, Cando, North Dakota, attorneys for respondent. Adamson & Wheat, Devils Lake, North Dakota, attorneys for appellant.
Ed. Schulenberg, as Receiver of the Farmers National Bank of La Moure, North Dakota, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent
-VS.-
Fred Long, Defendant and Appellant.
1. On an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury when no specifications of error are served with the notice of appeal, only errors appearing on the judgment roll will be considered.
2. No motion having been made for a directed verdict by the defendant at the close of the trial and no appeal taken from the order denying his motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court will not review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
3. Certain remarks of the trial court and certain instructions to the jury examined and held not prejudicial for reasons stated in the opinion. (Syllabus by the court).
Appeal from the District Court of La Moure County, Hon. Chas. E. Wolfe, Judge.
Action on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the Court by Grimson; District Judge. Burr, J., did not participate; Hon. G. Grimson, Judge of the Second Judicial District, sitting in his stead. Wm. Maloney, Fargo, N. D. attorney for defendant and appellant. Hutchinson & Lynch, La Moure,
