First State Bank v. Kellogg Commission Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Grant County, North Dakota, Honorable J. M. Hanley, Judge. In granting a motion for a directed verdict, the order of the court must stand or fall upon the grounds specified in the motion. Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N. D. 193. It is not necessary to allege a demand for possession of the property in conversion cases.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Grant County, North Dakota, Honorable J. M. Hanley, Judge. In granting a motion for a directed verdict, the order of the court must stand or fall upon the grounds specified in the motion. Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N. D. 193. It is not necessary to allege a demand for possession of the property in conversion cases. More Bros. v. Western Grain, 31 N. D. 369. A letter asking if possession of the property in question will be given, and stating that failure to answer will be deemed a refusal to deliver, is a sufficient demand, where a demand is necessary. No…
1Concurrence
Christianson, Ch. J.
(concurring). I concur in the conclusion reached in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Grace, viz., that the description of lands contained in the chattel mortgages is too indefinite to constitute constructive notice to a purchaser of the flax- involved in this controversy.
The mortgages involved in this controversy do not state any specific kind of grain, — they cover “all crops of every name, nature, and description.” They do not purport to give definite descriptions of the lands on which the grain is growing,.or is to be grown; neither do they state the number of acres…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Walter A. Wood M. & R. M. Co. v. Minneapolis & N. E. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Commercial State Bank v. Interstate Elevator Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Hagen v. DwyerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917