You must bear down on this matter.
N.D.C.C. §28-26-04 rather than 28-26-01(1) is controlling since the Court finds the lease in this case constitutes “evidence of debt”. Thus, the provision in the lease providing for the payment of attorney’s fees in case of default in payment is against public policy and void. Accordingly, the Court on reconsideration declines to award James attorney’s fees in this case since an award of attorney’s fees would be a violation of N.D.C.C. §28-26-04. Copy and paste the below to the net to pull up the case.
NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL BILL OF EXCHANGE
Points and Authorities in Support of International Bills of Exchange or International Promissory Notes Those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them; whose private property is…
View original post 6,392 more words