Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/1365



ABSTRACTS OF TITLE.

1. In this state an abstracter is liable for any and all damages proximately caused to any person by reason of any error, deficiency or mistake in any abstract or certificate of title made or issued by him. Morin v. Divide Co. Abs. Co., 214.

2. An abstracter is not called on for professional opinions as to any of the matters relating to a title. It is not for him to determine the validity or invalidity of instruments of record. It is his duty to set forth the facts relating to the title as shown by the records. Morin v. Divide Co. Abs. Co., 214.

3. Where an abstracter relies upon his own books, and fails to examine the books of records transcribed from another county and by law given the force and effect of original records in the county where filed, and in so doing overlooks and fails to show on the abstract an instrument shown in such transcribed records, and which instrument affects the title to the land covered by the abstract, he is liable for a breach of his obligations as an abstracter, even though the instrument was not recordable in the county wherein it was originally recorded. Morin v. Divide Co. Abs. Co., 214.

4. It is held, under the evidence in this case, that the damages sustained by the plaintiff consists of the moneys pafd by him for the land and a certain mortgage, and moneys expended in defending litigation assailing the title, together with interest on such items. But that on such sum the defendant is entitled to credit for certain moneys received by the plaintiff upon such mortgage. Morin v. Divide Co. Abs. Co., 214.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

1. An instruction that if the jury believe an agreement of accord had been entered into whereby defendant had agreed to repay to plaintiff his premium, and an additional amount in case other policy holders received more than a. repayment of their premium, plaintiff, before the accord was completely executed, might repudiate it, and sue upon the original obligation without rescinding the accord, was erroneous, it appearing that there was no issue raised by the pleadings as to any agreement by defendant to pay plaintiff any such additional amount, and that all testimony with reference thereto