Case Title: Boehm v. Berger

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Boehm v. Berger  Boehm v. Berger, 1997 ND 208, 575 N.W.2d 224 Filed Nov. 6, 1997 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 1997 ND 208Ernest J. Boehm, Plaintiff, Appellee and Cross-Appellant v. Dale Berger, Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Appellee Civil No. 970124 Appeal from the District Court for Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Vogel Law Firm, P.O. Box 309, Mandan, ND 58554, for plaintiff, appellee, and cross-appellant; argued by Jos. A. Vogel, Jr. Chapman and Chapman, P.O. Box 1258, Bismarck, ND 58502, for defendant, appellant, and cross-appellee; argued by Charles R. Isakson. Boehm v. Berger Civil No. 970124 Per Curiam. [¶1] Dale Berger appealed an amended judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial. He challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting an award of $13,887.94 in damages for the tortious removal of Ernest Boehm's fence between their adjacent farms. We affirm under NDRAppP 35.1 (a)(1), (2), and (4). See, e.g., Bruner v. Hager, 547 N.W.2d 551, 553 n.2 (N.D. 1996). We also direct that costs on appeal be doubled for the appellant's failure to furnish the statement of grounds for the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial, either in the record or in the appendix. See NDRCivP 59(f), NDRAppP 30(a)(5), and NDRAppP 38. [¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Herbert L. Meschke Mary Muehlen Maring William A. Neumann Dale V. Sandstrom