Legal Opinion

Dalen v. Coddington

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1918PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Ward County, Honorable X. E. Leighton, Judge. A witness cannot state what he understands or thinks about the subject-matter under consideration. These statements are mere conclusions. 1 Thomp. Trials, 389. Or for a witness to state what the defendant meant by the use of certain language. 1 Thomp. Trials, 738. Orto state his belief concerning the subject-matter. Smith v. Northern Pac. 3 N. D. 553. Or what a party intended.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtGrace, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court of Ward county, Honorable X. E. Leighton, Judge.

This action is one brought by the plaintiff to recover a real estate broker’s commission claimed to have been earned by plaintiff in procuring a purchaser for certain real estate owned by the defendant in the city of Minot, North Dakota, and described as lots 1 and 2, block 9, Brooklyn addition to the city of Minot, upon which lots were situated a hotel building and a small house, the small house being situated on the back end of the lots. The plaintiff claims the contract was to secure a purchaser…

2Cases cited4 opinions

Miner v. FrancisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
Blackorby v. GintherNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
Mulroy v. JacobsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
Smith v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by1 opinion

State v. HagstromNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979