Title: Krueger v. Hayko
Citation: 87 N.W.2d 539
Docket Number: 7740
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: January 16, 1958

87 N.W.2d 539 (1958) Arthur KRUEGER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John HAYKO, Defendant and Appellant. No. 7740. Supreme Court of North Dakota. January 16, 1958. Ella Van Berkom, Minot, for defendant and appellant. Ilvedson, Pringle, Herigstad &amp; Meschke, Minot, for plaintiff and respondent. PER CURIAM. This matter came before us upon an order of the chief justice issued upon application of the respondent directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Oral arguments and briefs were presented. The record shows that a judgment and decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the District Court of Ward County on October 31, 1956. Notice of entry of the decree was served on the defendant personally by the Sheriff of Ward County on November 10, 1956 and service was admitted by defendant's then attorneys of record on November 3, 1956. Notice of appeal, signed by these same attorneys for the appellant, was served on respondent's attorneys on January 7, 1957. It was filed in the office of the District Court of Ward County by appellant's present attorney on September 18, 1957. An appeal from a judgment may be taken within six months after notice of entry of judgment in case the party against whom it is entered appeared in the action. Section 28-2704, NDRC 1943. Thus it appears that the notice of appeal was served within the statutory time but was not filed in the office of the clerk of court until after the time for taking an appeal had expired. Section 28-2705, NDRC 1943 provides that: This section in its present form first appeared as Section 5606, Revised Codes of 1895 and has remained unchanged down to the present time. It was the result of an amendment to Section 4, Chapter 120 Session Laws N.D.1891 which provided for the service of the notice of appeal upon both the adverse party and the clerk of the court in which the judgment or order appealed from was entered. In Stierlen v. Stierlen, 8 N.D. 297, 78 N.W. 990, the court carefully analyzed and considered the section as amended. In discussing the two requirements, service on the adverse party and filing in the the office of the clerk of court, it was said: This court has accepted and adhered to this construction of the statute in subsequent decisions. In National Bank of Commerce v. Pick, 13 N.D. 74, 99 N.W. 63, 65, it is said that: In Nevland v. Njust, 78 N.D. 747, 51 N.W.2d 845, we again held that the failure *541 to file the notice of appeal in the office of the clerk within the time within which an appeal might be taken was fatal to the appeal and entitled the respondent to have it dismissed. The rule under discussion was also applied in Peterson v. Wolff, 68 N.D. 354, 280 N.W. 187. The rule that both the service and the filing of a notice of appeal within the time prescribed for taking an appeal are necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court is applied in other jurisdictions having statutes similar to ours. Niles v. Gonzalez, 152 Cal. 90, 92 P. 74; San Francisco Law &amp; Collection Co. v. State, 141 Cal. 354, 74 P. 1047; W. J. White Co. v. Winton, 41 Cal. App. 693, 183 P. 277; Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 194, 77 P. 645; Everding &amp; Farrell v. Gebhardt Lumber Co., 90 Or. 207, 175 P. 611, 176 P. 186; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Deschutes Valley Loan Co., 139 Or. 222, 3 P.2d 536, 8 P.2d 587; Dowell v. Bolt, 45 Or. 89, 75 P. 714. The appellant having failed to file his notice of appeal in the office of the clerk of the district court in which the judgment from which he sought to appeal was entered until the statutory time within which he might take an appeal had expired this court has no jurisdiction in the case. The respondent's motion is therefore granted and the appeal dismissed. GRIMSON, C. J., and MORRIS, BURKE, JOHNSON and SATHRE, JJ., concur.