POWER OF SALE.
(See Trust and Trustee.)
PRACTICE.
Findings of Fact.
Where the trial court determines the issues of fact without a jury, the requirement of the statute as to findings is mandatory, and not directory. In such cases it is the duty of the trial court without request to make express findings of the ultimate facts which are material and arise upon the pleadings. Accordingly where the district court, in such case, made no express findings of the ultimate facts which are in issue, but instead of doing so adopted certain documentary evidence, and a certain stipulation of facts, as its findings of fact, and ftom such findings drew certain legal conclusions, upon which judgment was entered, held reversible error. Gull River Lumber Co. v. School Dist., 500.
(In criminal actions. See Criminal Procedure.)
(In trial of civil actions. See Trial.)
(Summons, defective. See Summons.)
(Settling bill of exceptions. See Bill of Exceptions.)
PRAIRIE FIRE.
(See Railroad Companies.)
PRESUMPTIONS.
(Proceedings of trial court presumed regular. See Bill of Exceptions.)
(Of knowledge of contents of instrument from possession of copy. See Insurance.)
(Of negligence. See Negligence.)
(Of law in favor of tax proceedings. See Taxation.)
PRETENSES.
(See False Pretenses.)
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
What Constitutes Agent.
Solicitor of insurance is agent ofinsurer. Johnson v. Ins. Co., 167.
Agent’s Admissions; When Not Binding on Principal.
Plaintiff had grounds for suspicion that one M. had stolen a quantity of plaintiff's grain from his granary, and had subsequently delivered such grain to the defendant at its elevator, at LaMoure, and within twenty-four hours after M. had actually delivered certain grain at said elevator, and received tickets therefor, plaintiff visited the elevator at LaMoure, and there saw L. engaged in buying grain for defendant, and issuing tickets for the same, and in receiving such grain into the defendant's elevator. Under these circumstances, and in response to inquiries made of L. by plaintiff, L. stated to plaintiff, in substance, that, several hours prior to the time of such conversation, L. had purchased of M. and given him defendant’s elevator tickets therefor, a quantity of grain corresponding in kind and amount to that supposed to have been stolen from the plaintiff. Held, in an action against the defendant for the value of the grain, that said statements and admis-
