Title: Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. Custom Processors, Inc.

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. Custom Processors, Inc.  Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. Custom Processors, Inc., 2001 ND 172, 639 N.W.2d 706 Filed Nov. 2, 2001 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2001 ND 172 Farmers Elevator, Inc.of Grace City, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Custom Processors, Inc., Defendant and Appellant No. 20010059 Appeal from the District Court of Ransom County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Richard W. Grosz, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Thomas J. Aljets, Heinley & Aljets, P.O. Box 301, Carrington, N.D. 58421-0301, for plaintiff and appellee. Mark R. Fraase and Douglas W. Nesheim (argued), Wegner, Fraase, Nordeng, Johnson & Ramstad, 15 9th Street South, Fargo, N.D. 58103-1830, for defendant and appellant. Farmers Elevator v. Custom Processors No. 20010059 Per Curiam. [¶1] Custom Processors, Inc. ("CPI") appealed a judgment against it in an action by Farmers Elevator, Inc., of Grace City ("Farmers"). In March 1993, Farmers agreed to sell confectionary sunflower seeds to CPI, with delivery in October, November, and December 1993. In December 1993, the parties orally agreed to extend the delivery date. Farmers sued CPI for six deliveries it made in August and September 1994, for which it was not paid. CPI counterclaimed for damages and demanded a set off against what it owed Farmers. The trial court found Farmers did not breach the parties' contract. Judgment was entered in Farmers' favor, and CPI appealed, contending the trial court made clearly erroneous findings of fact(1) and misapplied the law. [¶2] The judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Dale V. Sandstrom William A. Neumann Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner Footnote: 1. In its written findings of fact, the trial court incorporated additional findings of fact and conclusions of law "set forth in the Court's oral decision following the trial." Such a practice does not encourage care in ascertaining facts or facilitate efficient and effective appellate review.