Case Title: Erhardt v. Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc.

Citation: 144 N.W.2d 744

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1966-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
144 N.W.2d 744 (1966) Ralph ERHARDT and Ann Erhardt, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOLD SEAL CHINCHILLAS, INC., and Robert Reed, Defendants and Respondents. No. 8293. Supreme Court of North Dakota. August 30, 1966. T. L. Secrest, Hettinger, and William C. Kelsch, Mandan, for appellants. Rausch & Chapman, Bismarck, for respondents. *745 ERICKSTAD, Judge. The plaintiffs, Ralph and Ann Erhardt, appeal from a judgment entered on the order of the District Court of Burleigh County, granting the motion of the defendant Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc., for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and ratified and held valid two promissory notes and a real estate mortgage given as security therefor to the defendant corporation. In their complaint the plaintiffs allege that they were induced through fraudulent representations of the defendants to purchase six pairs of chinchillas with cages from the defendant Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, at a price of $6,150, and that in connection therewith they executed and delivered promissory notes to the defendant corporation in the sum of $5,850 and $300, each bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum. In their complaint they sought damages in the amount of $8,857 plus punitive damages in the sum of $12,500. During the trial they reduced their claims for actual damages to the sum of $6,343.80. The court refused to instruct on punitive damages. The corporate defendant in its answer denied that the plaintiffs had been defrauded in any way and alleged in addition thereto that, if they had been defrauded, they were estopped from asserting the fraud by reason of their acts and delay. It asserted by way of counterclaim that the plaintiffs had executed a certain real estate mortgage covering lands in Grant County to secure the payment of the larger promissory note. In its prayer for relief the corporate defendant asked that the plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that it have judgment against the plaintiffs for the purchase price in the sum of $6,150, with interest from July 30, 1958, and that it receive such other and further relief as to the court might seem just and equitable, including the adjudication that the mortgage held by the corporate defendant be declared to be a valid lien upon the premises described in the mortgage. The defendant Robert Reed, in asking for dismissal of the complaint, denied the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud and further pleaded estoppel. Two forms of verdict were submitted to the jury. The one that they selected was filled in to read as follows: The essential parts of the judgment entered on the order granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict read as follows: The plaintiffs' basic contention on this appeal is that the court erred in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In support thereof they argue that the verdict must be interpreted as a verdict for the plaintiffs in an amount equal to the defendants' counterclaim of $6,150 plus interest. They argue that in awarding the defendant no dollars on its uncontroverted counterclaim, the jury in effect offset the damages for fraud against the purchase price and interest thereon. With respect to the notes and the mortgage, the court instructed the jury as follows: The defendants contend that, this being an action for damages, not for rescission, and there being no issue for the jury to determine as to the counterclaim (as the execution of the notes and mortgage and the nonpayment thereof is not denied), the court acted properly in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On the other hand, the plaintiffs point out that the issue of the counterclaim for the purchase price and interest was submitted to the jury when the court instructed as follows: As interesting as these arguments are, we shall postpone their consideration until a later stage of this opinion. In the instant case we have before us an appeal from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict calls for a review of the grounds assigned in support of the motion for a directed verdict. Lindenberg v. Folson, 138 N.W.2d 573 (N.D.1965); Hanson v. Fledderman, 111 N.W.2d 401 (N.D.1961); Leach v. Kelsch, 106 N.W.2d 358 (N.D.1960); Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251, 42 N.W.2d 429. The corporate defendant's motion entitled "Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict" reads as follows: In comparing the grounds asserted for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with the grounds asserted for dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case, which were renewed again, and the grounds asserted for judgment at the close of all the evidence, it would appear that the defendants abandoned all grounds asserted in those motions except those related to part IV of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. All but part IV of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict relates to grounds not assigned for the motion for a directed verdict and thus should not have been considered by the trial court on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It clearly appears, therefore, that the trial court was in error in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict unless the corporate defendant was, under part IV, entitled to have its motion granted. In Lee v. AAA North Dakota Automobile Club, 68 N.W.2d 835 (N.D.1955), this court said: Pertinent also is what this court said in Sullwold v. Hoger, 110 N.W.2d 457 (N.D.1961): As in Sullwold, objection has been made in the instant case that the defendants failed to specify with particularity wherein error was made or wherein the evidence was insufficient. Under these circumstances, we are not required to review the evidence, but in the interests of justice we have studied the entire transcript of the proceedings and find that the evidence is in substantial conflict as to the crucial issues. Applying the rule that on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, if the evidence is in conflict it will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was entered, we find no basis for setting aside the verdict of the jury. *749 Having determined that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we would normally order that the judgment be reversed and the case be remanded for judgment in conformity with the verdict. In the instant case because of the incomprehensibility of the verdict, such an order would be meaningless. That the verdict is incomprehensible is obvious. The parties present equally convincing arguments in support of their diametrically opposed conclusions. In the interests of justice, therefore, we reverse the judgment and order that a new trial be granted pursuant to the authority granted this court under § 28-27-29, N.D.C.C., the material part of which reads as follows: In Weber v. United Hardware & Implement Mutuals Co., 75 N.D. 581, 31 N.W.2d 456, at 463, this court said: We construe that opinion as limiting the power of the trial court only and note that the rule therein applied is the rule that this court would follow except under the most extraordinary circumstances. It is significant that in a decision written by the judge who wrote Weber, relying on the statute we here apply, this court held that it had the power on appeal from a judgment, in the absence of a motion for a new trial, to grant a new trial. Coman v. Williams, 65 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1954). We therefore conclude that for the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and a new trial is ordered. TEIGEN, C. J., and STRUTZ and KNUDSON, JJ., concur. MURRAY, J., not being a member of the Court at the time of submission of this case, did not participate.