Title: Long v. People's Department Store

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

74 N.W.2d 80 (1955) Harold LONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PEOPLE'S DEPARTMENT STORE, a corporation, Gordon Savran and Haskel L. Cohodes, Defendants and Respondents. No. 7479. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 19, 1955. Rehearing Denied January 17, 1956. *82 J. K. Murray, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant. Cox, Pearce & Engebretson, Bismarck, for defendants and respondents. SATHRE, Judge. This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages for malicious prosecution. The complaint alleges that the defendant People's Department Store is a domestic corporation, and that the defendants Gordon Savran and Haskel Cohodes were officers, employees and managing agents of said corporation. The complaint then alleges that the defendants maliciously and wrongfully caused to be filed a criminal complaint with a committing magistrate of Burleigh County, North Dakota, charging plaintiff with the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses, that under a warrant issued on said criminal complaint, plaintiff was arrested and brought before said committing magistrate, and that upon a hearing before said magistrate it was conclusively proved that plaintiff was not the party who had committed the alleged crime and that such fact was well known by the defendants, and that the committing magistrate entered judgment dismissing said action against the plaintiff. It is further alleged that said prosecution was wholly without probable cause; that by reason of said prosecution plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $5,000. Judgment is then demanded against the defendants in the sum of $5,000. The defendants answered jointly and admitted the corporate existence of the People's Department Store, but denied specifically that the defendants or any of them ever in any manner accused or complained against plaintiff of the commission of a crime or that they had taken any steps or proceedings for prosecution of the plaintiff for a crime. Defendants specifically deny that the plaintiff has suffered any damages by reason of any act of any of the defendants. *83 The case was tried in the district court of Burleigh County to the judge and a jury. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendants made motions for a directed verdict dismissing the action. The motions were denied. Again, at the close of all of the testimony the defendants separately made motions for a directed verdict of dismissal of the action. The trial court denied the motions and submitted the issues to the jury under Section 28-1509, 1953 Supp. NDRC 1943. The jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff, and thereafter the defendants made motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative for a new trial. The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the plaintiff appealed. The specifications of error assigned on this appeal are that the trial court erred: Appellant argues that defendants' motion for a directed verdict is insufficient in that it merely states conclusions and fails to state any part wherein the evidence is insufficient, and that a motion for judgment notwithstanding must stand or fall on the question of the validity of the motion for a directed verdict. Section 28-1509, 1953 Supp. NDRC 1943 makes it mandatory on the trial court to deny a motion for a directed verdict when resisted and to submit the issues to the jury. The statute provides: The defendants in the instant case made motions for a directed verdict of dismissal of the action at the close of plaintiff's case and again at the close of all the evidence when both parties had rested. The motion made at the close of all the testimony was made upon the following grounds: * * * * * * The grounds upon which the motion for a directed verdict were based were specific. They pointed out that no evidence had been offered or received tending to prove a lack of probable cause for the signing of a criminal complaint against one Harold Long for issuing a check without funds; that no evidence was offered or received tending to prove that there was any malice, actual, legal or constructive against the plaintiff; that the evidence established that the selection of the plaintiff in this action as the person to be arrested was the act of the Sheriff of Burleigh County and not the act of any of the defendants. Section 28-1510, 1953 Supp. NDRC 1943 provides: In the case of Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251, 42 N.W.2d 429, 433, we said: The question as to the sufficiency of a motion for a directed verdict was before this court in the recent case of Nicholson v. Roop, N.D., 62 N.W.2d 473, 476, 43 A.L.R. 2d 1031. The motion for a directed verdict in that case was based on the following grounds which were held sufficient to support the motion: From the record before us in the instant case it is clear that the motion for a directed verdict stated sufficient grounds therefor. The appellant next contends that defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is defective in that it does not ask the court to review its ruling on the motion for a directed verdict, and that it does not even state that it is made upon all the grounds specified in the motion for a directed verdict. It is asserted that the motion is "a wholly independent proceeding; that therefore the district court had no jurisdiction to hear or determine such motion on its merits, and consequently should have denied it." The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is as follows: The contention of the appellant that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is defective in not stating that it is made upon all the grounds for a directed verdict is evidently based on Section 28-1510, 1953 Supp. NDRC 1943, which among other things provides that "a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict." *87 While the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not state in the exact words of the statute that it is made in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict, nevertheless the grounds upon which the motion is made are almost identical with the grounds upon which the motion for a directed verdict is made. It would indeed be hypertechnical construction of the statute to hold that the exact words "in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict", must be made a part of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Rather the requirement of the statute is that a motion notwithstanding the verdict must be made upon the same grounds as the motion for a directed verdict. An almost identical situation was before this court in Nicholson v. Roop, supra, N. D., 62 N.W.2d 473, 43 A.L.R.2d 1031. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict did not use the phrase "in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict," but the grounds upon which both motions were made were practically the same. A comparison of the grounds specified in the two motions in the instant case shows that the language in both is practically identical. We conclude therefore that there is no merit to appellant's contention in this respect. We now come to the consideration of the merits of the case. The appellant contends that the evidence is fully sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The facts in the case are substantially as follows: On July 7, 1952, a person giving his name as Harold Long appeared at the store of the defendant, People's Department Store, at Bismarck, North Dakota, purchased some merchandise, and gave in payment a check in the sum of $25 drawn on The Farmers Security Bank, Washburn, North Dakota. Haskel Cohodes who waited on the purchaser in this transaction did not know him. He asked the purchaser for some evidence of identification, and was shown the purchaser's drivers license carrying the number 89581. Cohodes put this number in the lower left corner of the check with the letters D. L. before it. This drivers license was issued to one Harold Long which was the name signed on the check. The Harold Long who signed the check is a real person, but is not the plaintiff in this case, although their names are identical. The check was returned by the drawee bank marked "No Account". Thereupon Mr. Cohodes took the check to the assistant state's attorney of Burleigh County. A criminal complaint was prepared by the assistant state's attorney charging one Harold Long with the offense of issuing a check without having funds or credit for payment of same, which complaint was signed by said Haskel Cohodes. The check with the drivers license number noted thereon was left with the assistant state's attorney. At the trial in the instant case Colonel I. M. Oseth, the Police Magistrate who acted in the capacity of Justice of Peace at the hearing in the criminal case involving the bad check testified that Cohodes was the only witness for the state in the criminal case, and that he, Cohodes, stated definitely that he could not identify the defendant in that case, Harold Long, as the person who presented the check at the store. Alfred Thompson, called as a witness for the defendants, testified that he was the assistant state's attorney of Burleigh County; that he prepared the complaint charging one Harold Long with the offense of issuing a check without funds and that he tried the case on behalf of the state; that Haskel Cohodes was the only witness for the state in the said case; that the witness Cohodes was asked by said Thompson whether he could identify the plaintiff Harold Long, as the man who wrote the check involved and that Cohodes replied, "I can't identify the man as the individual who passed the check at our store." The important question before us is as to what took place when Schmitz, the sheriff, called at defendants' store several days after the warrant had been issued upon the complaint signed by Cohodes. The sheriff told Cohodes and Savran that the only Harold *88 Long that he knew was a brother of one Jerry Long who operated an oil station and that said Harold Long operated a beer tavern. We quote from his testimony: On cross examination the sheriff testified further with reference to the conversation in defendants' store. * * * * * * *89 "Q. Do you remember the day that you were in the People's Department Store? A. That would be the 15th. Neither Savran nor Cohodes denied that the conversation in the store testified to by sheriff Schmitz took place. Their testimony is that they could not remember the conversation. We quote from the testimony of Cohodes: With reference to this conversation Mr. Savran testified as follows: *90 The question to determine is whether on the evidence the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In a case of malicious prosecution the plaintiff has the burden of proof both as to lack of probable cause and malice. Mielke v. Rode, 58 N.D. 465, 226 N.W. 507. However, in considering the evidence it must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Olstad v. Stockgrowers Credit Corporation, 66 N.D. 416, 266 N.W. 109; Bormann v. Beckman, 73 N.D. 720, 19 N.W.2d 455; Nelson v. Scherling, 71 N.D. 337, 300 N.W. 803. We have quoted from the testimony of Sheriff Schmitz on the occasion when he was in the defendants' store. He informed Cohodes and Savran that a Jerry Long operated an oil station in Bismarck and that his brother Harold Long operated a tavern; that either Cohodes or Savran said "he must be the man" or "he is the man that signed the check". They did not deny that they made these statements, but said they could not remember the conversation with Schmitz. The sheriff stated that on the information given him by Cohodes and Savran he directed his deputy, Goldader to arrest Harold Long and bring him before the Justice of the Peace, and accordingly the deputy made the arrest. In the case of Nelson v. Scherling, 71 N.D. 337, 300 N.W. 803, 804, this court said: While the evidence is unsatisfactory, nevertheless it cannot be said as a matter of law that there was no evidence in support of the verdict of the jury. The testimony of Sheriff Schmitz as to the conversation in defendants' store is not contradicted. Cohodes and Savran said they could not remember the conversation. Evidently the jury believed the testimony of the sheriff. We conclude that upon the evidence and the record the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion of the defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was coupled with an alternative motion for a new trial. They may therefore present their alternative motion to the district court which may in its discretion grant or deny it. In the case of Martin v. Parkins, 55 N. D. 339, 213 N.W. 574, 576, this court said: *91 The order of the district court granting defendants" motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed and the case remanded with leave to the defendants to present their alternative motion for a new trial. BURKE, C. J., and SATHRE, MORRIS, JOHNSON and GRIMSON, JJ.