Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/562

 assumed by another company, the original insured may sue upon such contract as having been made for his benefit. Id.

.

Where an intervention complaint was framed on the theory only of co-operation by the intervenors with plaintiff in the effort to secure judgment against defendants, and the prayer for relief merely requested a payment of the money into the hands of a person to be designated by the court, no claim in the complaint or on the trial being made that the rights of the plaintiff and the intervenors, as between themselves, were to be adjusted in the action, but the verdict being a joint verdict, in favor of the plaintiff and intervenors, for the amount of the recovery, held error to award to intervenors any specific portion of the recovery against defendants, there having been no adjustment of the equities between plaintiff and intervenors. Such portion of the judgment reversed, with directions that rights of plaintiff and intervenor be settled as between themselves. Braithwaite v. Aikin, 475.

.

Where it appears that one of the defendants, who resides at St. Paul, Minn., is, through the agency of the other defendant, engaged in carrying on the business of keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquor at a place of business located at Fargo, in the state of No Dakota, in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, held, that such place of business is a common nuisance, whether such liquor was or was not drank by purchasers at such place of business, with the knowledge and consent of the agent in charge of such place of business. Construing §13, c. 110, Laws N. D. State ex rel v. Fraser, 425.

.

Since the paseage by congress of the law commonly known as the "Wilson Bill," sales of intoxicating liquor in violation of the prohibitory legistationlegislation [sic] of North Dakota, which are made in this state by a non-resident, through an agent living in this state, are unlawful sales, whether the liquor sold is or is not imported liquor, or whether it is or is not contained in the original cask or package in which it was shipped out of another state or county. Id.

.

In a former action a demurrer was interposed to the answer, and uppon argument thereon the district court made the following order: "It is ordered that said demurrer be, and the same is hereby, overruled. It is further ordered that said demurrer be, and the same is hereby sustained to the plaintiff's complaint, and that said action be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs to be taxed, unless the plaintiff amends his complaint within twenty days from the date here-