Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 1 No. 6 (1924).pdf/3

Rh the proposition that the defendant is estopped to deny either the existence or ownership of the property. HELD: That whatever may be the rule in an action to enforce the mortgage in an action for conversion, the question of the existence of the property claimed to have been converted is not concluded by the covenants of ownership and warranty as to existing property. There is no property to which ownership can attach, hence it cannot be converted.

Hughes County et al. v. State Rural Credit Board.

This is a case of undoubted interest to the taxpayers of this state. South Dakota has a rural credits law under which farm loans are made. In its operation the law is the same as the law of this state whereunder the Bank of North Dakota is making farm loans. The practice of the Rural Credit Board of that state which administers the law has been to pay none of the taxes upon the lands upon which loans are taken. Taxes on such lands are unpaid in a large number of counties of that state to such extent that the counties are seriously crippled financially. The administering officials have taken the position that no duty rested upon them to pay the taxes, and that the lien for taxes is inferior to the lien of a rural credit mortgage, under statutes substantially like statutes in force in North Dakota. A mandamus proceeding was instituted to compel payment of the taxes in such cases by the Rural Credit Board. HELD: That the lien of a rural credit mortgage is not superior to the lien for taxes, and that it is the duty of the Rural Credit Board to pay taxes on lands covered by its mortgage loans when they become delinquent, out of any funds which it can use in making loans, as the payment of taxes is an incident to the making of loans.  

An effort was made last year to have the standing committees of the Association file their annual reports with the Secretary some time prior to the annual meeting, without much success. The matter is again urged this year, and sufficiently early to permit of compliance. With the establishment of this publication, there should be afforded full opportunity for the practicing attorneys to know what matters are to be discussed and acted upon at the annual meeting. If the various committees will co-operate to the extent of presenting their reports and recommendations, in writing, to the Secretary, by the 5th of August, the August number of Bar Briefs can carry a summarization that will advise the membership sufficiently to enable them to formulate their opinions and prepare for a proper expression of them at the meeting. Full and free discussion alone may be expected to result in action that may be said to be representative of the composite opinion of the Bar membership. Free discussion may be obtained if the membership is confronted only with a program, that is, it will be free discussion among those who