Case Name: THOMAS PARSONS, Respondent, v. L. E. ROWELL et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Spring Butte Threshing Company, Appellants
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1919-06-21
Citations: 42 N.D. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS PARSONS, Respondent, v. L. E. ROWELL et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Spring Butte Threshing Company, Appellants.
Judges: Grace, J. I concur in the result arrived at in the dissenting opinion of Justice J. E. Robinson.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 441–444

Head Matter:
THOMAS PARSONS, Respondent, v. L. E. ROWELL et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Spring Butte Threshing Company, Appellants.
(173 N. W. 761.)
Review on — appeal — record —■ facts.
1. In order for the supreme court to review a specified erroneous ruling of the trial court upon appeal, the record must present the facts upon which the trial court acted.
Appeal — order refusing to modify — wliat facts must he shown.
2. In an appeal from an order refusing to modify a judgment entered in excess of the amount of the verdict rendered, where the record does not present the facts upon which the trial court acted, it is. held that there is nothing for this court to review.
Opinion filed June 21, 1919.
Rehearing denied July 1, 1919.
The defendants appeal from an order of District Court, Hettinger County, Crawford, J., refusing to modify a judgment.
Affirmed.
Jacobson & Murray, for appellants.
The rule of law is well settled that the court can only enter judgment in conformity with the verdict, and has no power to order judgment for a larger amount. 23 Cyc. 801, ¶ 6; Alpers v. Schammel (Cal.) 17 Pae. 708; Haldane v. Arcadia (Iowa) 30 N. W. 802; Weatherford v. Planger (Ariz.) 146 Pae. 759.
The trial court has power after the entry of its judgment to correct it so as to make it correspond with the verdict, and the court can correct of its own motion or upon application of the injured party. 23 Cyc. 873, ¶ 9, 876.
The fact that the court did not pass upon the application to modify the judgment for more than a year cannot affect defendants’ rights, because they made their motion in due time. If the motion is denied the proper remedy is to appeal from the order denying. 28 Cyc. 881, tH.
M. S. Odie & E. J. Mcllra-ith, for respondent.
Defendants cannot change front and try the case in the supreme court on a different theory than that which they tried it on in the district court. It is presumed that the district court acted in conformity to the record of the case in judgment. Raad v. Grant, 169 N. W. 588, and authorities therein cited; 2 Enc. PI. & Pr. 425-433.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to modify a judgment. The only papers before this court, in addition to the pleadings, are: Notice of trial, verdict of the jury, order for judgment, the judgment and notice of entry thereof, statement of costs, objection thereto, motion to modify judgment and order denying the same, order granting extension of time in which to appeal, notice of appeal, undertaking, and specifications of error. No statement of the case has been settled. The entire judgment roll is not even presented. From the complaint it appears that the action was instituted to recover for the negligent destruction by fire of certain stacks of millet and oats. The answer denies negligence and alleges plaintiff's contributory negligence. It also alleges a tender made to and deposit for the plain tiff of $100, and of a tbresbing bill owing amounting to $40 in settlement, and of plaintiff's refusal to accept tbe same. It then alleges sucb tender as a counterclaim and demands judgment accordingly. In tbe order for judgment tbe court recites that tbe defendants, before trial, tendered tbe sum of $100, and also tbe satisfaction of sucb tbresbing bill of $40, and that tbe court instructed tbe jury to render verdict over and above sucb $140. Tbe jury returned .a verdict of $128.26 for tbe plaintiff. The court ordered judgment for tbe amount, plus tbe tender so made, and judgment was entered accordingly. The appellants later moved to modify tbe judgment to conform to tbe verdict; from tbe order overruling sucb motion tbe defendants have appealed. In an amended certificate, tbe trial judge states that tbe motion to modify tbe judgment was overruled upon tbe entire record in tbe case, including tbe evidence of deposit and offer of payment of tbresbing bill by tbe defendants, tbe instructions of tbe court to tbe jury wherein tbe court instructed tbe jury that their verdict should be for sucb an amount that they found for tbe plaintiff over and above tbe $100 deposit and tbe $40 thresh bill tendered. This court does not know what evidence was introduced, stipulations made, instructions given to tbe jury, what issues were submitted or withdrawn from the jury, or proceedings bad in tbe trial court. It is well settled that he who urges error in tbe order of tbe trial court, must prepare and present a record of tbe facts upon which the trial court acted. State v. Scholfield, 13 N. D. 664, 102 N. W. 878; Schomberg v. Long, 15 N. D. 506, 108 N. W. 332; State v. Gerhart, 13 N. D. 663, 102 N. W. 880; Davis v. Jacobson, 13 N. D. 430, 101 N. W. 314; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N. D. 193, 225, 157 N. W. 592.
Even tbe instructions of tbe court, a part of tbe judgment, roll, are not presented. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7689. It was tbe duty of tbe appellant to present a record which affirmatively showed error of tbe trial court in its order; every presumption must be accorded in favor of tbe judgment rendered. Raad v. Grant, — N. D. —, 169 N. W. 588. There is accordingly nothing before this court to review. The order of tbe trial court is affirmed, with costs to tbe respondent.