Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/547

 statement, a parol contract had been entered into by the same parties to the same effect. Larison v. Wilbur, 284.

.

Terms of written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence. Northwestern Fuel Co. v Bruns, 137.

.

Contract limiting time to bring action on policy of insurance is invalid. ''Johnson v. Ins. Co.'', 167.

.

The master of a vessel agreed for a stipulated price to transport goods from Bismarck, Dak. to Ft. Buford, Mont. e closing of navigation interrupted his voyage. A few days afterwards consignee forcily took the goods from him. Held, that the master, being able and willing to complete the transportation to earn his freight, could recover full freight. Braithwaite v. Power, 455.

.

No time of delivery being specified in the contract of affreightment, held, further, that the master could rightfully have held the goods until the opening of navigation, that he might earn his freight by completing the transportation.

.

Plaintiff might sue upon the contract of affreightment set forth in the opinion as the trustee of an express trust, under § 4872, Comp. Laws. Id.

.

Three parties—G., E. and H.—formed a copartnership under the name of the “Dakota Gas & Fuel Company.” The copartnership articles provided that the partnership capital should be $50,000—G. to furnish $5,000, E. to furnish $10,000 and H. $10,000—the remaining $25,000 to be held by G., to be by him negotiated, and raised from outside parties; and, further, that all profits should be divided between the parties in proportion to the capital furnished and held by each and on the basis of a capital of 350,000, and that, as soon as might be, said parties should