Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/508

 because such party did not read the guaranty or was not informed of its exact language. In my judgment there is no question of estoppel in the case, and no question of the right of a third party to sue upon acontract made for his benefit. It is, as I think, simply a question between a guarantor and guarantee, and I fear that the court by its too literal adherence to the strict letter of the wording has relieved appellant of a liability that he fully intended to incur when he signed the contract.

Strate or North Daxora ex rel. Louis W. Stoeser, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Normam Brass, Defendant and Appellant.

Constitutional Law—Warehouse Charges—Powers of Legislature—Review on Appeal.

Chapter 126 of the Session Laws of 1891 considered, and §§ 4 and 11 thereof he/d to be constitutional, in so far as they define public ware- houses, and in so far as they prescribe maximum rates of charges for elevating and storing grain in the puplic warehouses, as they are defined in § 4 of the act. Munn v. Illinois, 69 Ill. 99, 94 U. S. 113; People v. Budd, 22 N. E. Rep. 670, 682, 117 N. Y. 1; Budd v. People, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468—followed. Held, further, that the record does not raise the question of the adequacy of the rate of charges fixed by § 11 of the act, and hence the case is not one which calls for a decision of the point whether the court would in any case assume to review a rate of charges established by the legislature, where it was shown that such rate was ruinously small or noncompensatory.

(Opinion filed April 25, 1892.)

APPEAL from district court, Ramsey county; Hon. D. E. Morgan, Judge.

J. F. McGee for appellant. James F. O’Brien, for respondent.

Proceedings in mandamus by Louis W. Stoeser against Norman Brass to compel him to receive into his elevator grain belonging to relator. From an order sustaining a demurrer to defendant’s answer, and directing a peremptory writ to issue, he appeals. Affirmed.