Miller v. Thompson
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Buitz, J. Reversed. The complaint does not show facts constituting a cause of action. If plaintiffs cause be an action at law, there is no allegation of rescission. If an equitable action, there is no such allegation, nor any showing that plaintiff is ready, willing, and able to rescind. Iowa Nat.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Buitz, J. Reversed. The complaint does not show facts constituting a cause of action. If plaintiffs cause be an action at law, there is no allegation of rescission. If an equitable action, there is no such allegation, nor any showing that plaintiff is ready, willing, and able to rescind. Iowa Nat. Bank v. Sherman, 23 S. D. 8, 119 N. W. 1010; Lovell v. MeCaughey, 8 S. D. 471, 66 N. W. 1085; Ooplay'Iron Co. v. Pope, 108 N. T. 232, 15 N. E. 335; Note to Katz v. Bedford, 1 L.R.A. 826; Liland v. Tweto, 19 N. D. 551, 125 N. W. 1032; J. L. Owens Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtBurice, J.
The decision in this case rests upon a careful analysis of the facts. These are complicated, but not largely in dispute. The Anderson Mercantile Company was a corporation operating a general store at the village of Penn, North Dakota. Defendant is a banker of Devils Lake. The three plaintiffs lived near Penn. L. H. Miller, the father, had been in business in Grand Harbor for about fifteen years, but had later located upon a farm 4 miles from Penn, and he and one *67of his sons, Alfred, engaged in the hardware business at Penn thereafter. The father testifies that he understood bookkeeping in his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rosenwater v. SellesethNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. StensethNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918