Martin v. Hawthorn
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Stutsman County; Rose, J. Action for conversion by Owen Martin against William R. Hawthorn and others. Defendants had judgment for costs, and plaintiff appeals. The defendants failed to make a good defense, in that they failed to show by evidence where the grain was grown.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Stutsman County; Rose, J. Action for conversion by Owen Martin against William R. Hawthorn and others. Defendants had judgment for costs, and plaintiff appeals. The defendants failed to make a good defense, in that they failed to show by evidence where the grain was grown. Lavin v. Bradley, 1 N. D. 291, (47 N. W. Rep. 384;) Parker v. First Nat’l Bank, 3 N. D. 87, (54 N. W. Rep. 313.) Argued that the lien statement described the land and when in evidence supplied the necessary proof to sustain the verdict.
1Opinion of the CourtWallin, J.
This action is brought to recover the value of a quantity of wheat owned by the plaintiff, which the defendants seized and sold in attempting to foreclose an alleged thresher’s lien in favor of the defendant Hawthorn. The only question presented upon the record is whether or not the alleged lien was *413valid under Ch. 88, Laws 1889. We think the lien proceedings were fatally defective, and that the judgment must therefore be reversed. The statute under which defendants attempted to justify their seizure of the grain, while incomplete and incongruous in many of its provisions, yet .imperatively…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Parker v. First National BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by9 opinions
- Moher v. RasmussonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Bidgood v. Monarch Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Gorthy v. JarvisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Security State Bank v. KrachNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Flugel v. HenschelNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.