Case Title: Sorenson v. Leslie

Citation: 186 N.W.2d 454

Docket Number: 8701

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1971-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
186 N.W.2d 454 (1971) Soren SORENSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lloyd J. LESLIE and Arthur C. Benton, Co-Partners dba Leslie & Benton, Contractors, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 8701. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 22, 1971. Waldron, Kenner & Halvorson, Minot, for defendants and appellants. Joseph P. Stevens, Minot, for plaintiff and respondent. ERICKSTAD, Judge. This is an appeal by the defendants, Lloyd J. Leslie and Arthur C. Benton, copartners, doing business as Leslie & Benton, Contractors, from a judgment of the district court of Ward County dated June *455 4, 1969, in the sum of $3,575.80, including costs and disbursements. The defendants, whom we shall refer to as Leslie & Benton, demand a trial de novo in this court, the case having been tried in district court without a jury. The action was initiated by the plaintiff, Soren Sorenson, by summons and complaint dated August 3, 1966. The allegations of the complaint follow: The allegations of the answer, dated August 12, 1966, follow: At the close of the trial, counsel for Leslie & Benton moved to amend the answer as follows: This motion was granted when counsel for the plaintiff indicated that he had no objection to the amendment, although he questioned the phrase "to conform to the proof." Because a trial de novo has been demanded, we are required to determine the facts, and this we have tried to do. This is a case, however, where the testimony of the opposing parties is in conflict, and one which might well have been used as an example in support of those who favored the elimination of trial de novo in this court in the 1971 session of the Legislature. Incidentally, although of no legal significance in this case, the 1971 session of the North Dakota Legislature, by Senate Bill No. 2252, repealed Section 28-27-32, N.D. C.C., which provided for a trial de novo in this court. In the instant case, Sorenson testified that although Mr. Otis Gay bid the Red Owl job with Leslie & Benton, he, Sorenson, had to buy all the material, pay all the help, the Workmen's Compensation, Social Security, and the Internal Revenue in connection with the job. He further testified that he returned to Minot every night and that if Mr. Leslie wanted to know anything he called him on the telephone, which was practically every day while the job was in progress, and that on one occasion Mr. Sorenson asked for partial payment, but that he was informed that he should wait for his payment until the job was completed and that only after the job was completed was he informed by Mr. Leslie that he must collect from Mr. Petersen, the owner of the building. Mr. Sorenson testified that he was personally present on the job site at Kenmare a great amount of the time and that a major part of the roofing contract was *457 performed after the building was opened and being operated as a Red Owl Store in the winter of 1966. The office manager for Leslie & Benton, namely Gail Doede, testified that she answered all incoming telephone calls at Leslie & Benton and recorded all messages and the name and number of the person calling when he would give that information, which record was introduced into evidence as Exhibit I. She further testified that she did not remember talking to Mr. Sorenson on the telephone and that she did not record any messages from Mr. Sorenson in the period during which the building was being constructed by Leslie & Benton. The Exhibit covered a period of time from August 4, 1965, to December 5, 1967. Mr. Carl Petersen, the owner of the building, testified that he delivered the $5,000 note of Otis Gay to Mr. Leslie "about December of `65" and that he later picked up the note from Mr. Leslie when the litigation was started and delivered it to the law office of his counsel. In regard to the completion of the roofing, Mr. Petersen testified that it was completed before the store opened and that the store opened on the 19th of January 1966. The office manager for Leslie & Benton testified that the work was completed by February 1, 1966, as indicated by Exhibit F, which is allegedly a copy of a recapitulation of the additional charges and credits that were over and above the original contract. This is all to be considered in light of the testimony of Mr. Gay that long before February 1966 he had relinquished his interest in this contract and the roofing business done under the name of Crosby Roofing to Sorenson and that a copy of the written assignment dated the 15th of February 1966 was thereafter sent to the defendants. Leslie & Benton, however, contend that they did not receive this notice of assignment until May 24, 1966, as indicated by the postmark on an envelope which they assert contained the Gay assignment to Sorenson. The office manager for Leslie & Benton conceded on cross-examination that Leslie & Benton had received from Mr. Petersen, as indicated by Exhibit 2, a payment of $634.68 on the roof and roofing installation. Lest it should seem peculiar that Mr. Leslie did not testify, it should be noted that the office manager testified that Mr. Leslie died on December 23, 1967, which was prior to the trial of this case on January 8, 1969. Inasmuch as the trial court had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and thus was able to note their demeanor and judge their credibility, in light of the conflicting testimony of this case we must give appreciable weight to the trial court's findings. The trial court's findings prevail over the trial court's memorandum opinion, but since the trial court's findings are consistent with its memorandum opinion and because of what the trial court said in its memorandum opinion, we quote from it at this time. The findings of the trial court are consistent with its memorandum opinion. The findings follow: What we said in a 1967 decision when trial de novo was demanded, wherein we affirmed the trial court's findings, is applicable here. Giving the trial court's findings appreciable weight, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. STRUTZ, C. J., and PAULSON, KNUDSON and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.