Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (1925).pdf/2

2

State ex rel Olsness v. McCarthy, County Auditor. This is a proceeding in mandamus. The questions presented are: 1. Must a county auditor, at the time of the annual tax sale held in December of each year, include hail indemnity taxes in the amount of delinquent taxes listed against each tract of land and sell each tract for one sum, including both the general real estate taxes and the hail indemnity taxes and issue only one certificate in evidence of the sale? 2. Is the county auditor inhibited from entering transfer of a deed, patent or final decree of distribution unless all delinquent hail indemnity taxes are paid? HELD: 1. The county auditor must include in the notice of tax sale all delinquent hail indemnity taxes and must sell any lands advertised for the aggregate amount of general real estate taxes and hail indemnity taxes in one sum, and issue one certificate of sale. This does not, however, transform the hail indemnity tax into a tax within the legal meaning of that term, nor give to the certificate of sale, insofar as it represents hail indemnity taxes, any greater effect than if issued upon a sale for hail indemnity taxes alone. Insofar as the certificate represents hail indemnity taxes it confers upon the holder only such rights as he would have if the lien of the hail indemnity tax were foreclosed. 2. A county auditor may enter the transfer of a deed, patent or final decree of distribution without regard to delinquent hail indemnity taxes.

Jarski v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. This is a suit to recover the purchase price of certain land in South Dakota which plaintiff claims he sold to the defendant. Though the purchase is denied, it appears if it was made that it does not tend to attain and accomplish the objects and purposes for which the defendant was organized as a banking corporation, but for speculative purposes. HELD: The transaction falls within the inhibitions of Sections 5151, 5152 and 5187, as amended by Chapter 54 Session Laws of 1915, and therefore is unlawful and void. For this reason the court will not lend its aid to compel performance.

Kuiper v. Miller. This is an action in conversion in which it is alleged in the complaint that the owner of land executed a mortgage to the plaintiff on March 1st, 1919; that the mortgage was foreclosed and a sheriff's certificate issued on January 23, 1925; that the mortgagor rented the land for the year 1924 under an agreement whereby he was to receive one-third of all grains sown, grown and raised upon the land during said season; and that the lessee delivered the grain to the defendant, a dealer in grain. The defendant demurred to the complaint and this appeal is from an order overruling the demurrer. HELD: Rent is compensation for the use of land. It is yearly profit issued out of land and may consist of money, provisions, chattels or labor, and is not