Freeman v. Clark
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Bottineau County; Burr, J. As clearly appears from tbe complaint, there is no cause of action alleged against defendant bank. Tbe complaint shows no right as against tbe bank, nor does it show an infringement of any rights or any wrong done by tbe bank.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Bottineau County; Burr, J. As clearly appears from tbe complaint, there is no cause of action alleged against defendant bank. Tbe complaint shows no right as against tbe bank, nor does it show an infringement of any rights or any wrong done by tbe bank. Marquat v. Marquat, 12 N. Y. 341; Atkinson, T. & S. E. R. Co. v. Rice, 36 Kan. 593, 14 Bac. 229; Clarke v. Ohio River R. Co. 39 W. Va. 732, 20 S. E. 696; Miller v. Hallock, 9 Colo. 551, 13 Pac. 541; Post v. Campau, 42 Mich. 90, 3 N. W. 272; Fields v. Daisy Gold Min. Co. 26 Utah, 373, 73 Pac. 521. The lien…
1Opinion
On Petition for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing, claiming that the opinion is inconsistent with the holding in Schlosser v. Moores, 16 N. D. 185, 112 N. W. 78. We do not think the inconsistency exists. In the earlier case it was held that where the contract was divisible the lienor must look to the crop raised from the particular kind of seed. In the case at bar the question is whether or not the lienor must file a separate lien for each kind of seed sold by him. We have held the contract entire and indivisible so far as filing of the lien is concerned, and that there…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schlosser v. MooresNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907