Title: Square Butte Electric Cooperative v. Dohn
Citation: 219 N.W.2d 877
Docket Number: 8989
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 1974

219 N.W.2d 877 (1974) SQUARE BUTTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert J. DOHN et al., Defendants, and E. Gene Hilken, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No. 8989. Supreme Court of North Dakota. June 27, 1974. *878 Loren L. Johnson, Johnson, Johnson &amp; Devine, P.C., Lakota, for plaintiff and appellee. Carma Christensen, Christensen, Christensen &amp; Baer, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. E. Gene Hilken appeals from an order of the district court dated December 12, 1973. The pertinent part of that order reads: This order granted the motion made by the plaintiff Square Butte Electric Cooperative, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as Square Butte, in which it requested an order authorizing it to enter upon lands owned by various named defendants, including the appellant E. Gene Hilken, for the purpose of making surveys, soil testing and ground-resisting measurements, pursuant to Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C. In the affidavit supporting the motion it is stated: In resisting the motion, Hilken in a return filed by his counsel asserted: On appeal Hilken contends (1) that Square Butte failed to establish sufficient cause to justify the granting of its motion, and (2) that his constitutional rights were denied to him in the trial court's failure to make a record of the hearing and in its failure to enjoin Square Butte from entering upon the defendant's premises. The following sections or parts thereof of the North Dakota Century Code are pertinent to a determination of the merit of the first contention. * * * * * * *881 * * * * * * * * * * * * The provisions of Section 32-15-21, N. D.C.C., are not important to a determination of the issues on this appeal. Hilken contends that the burden is upon Square Butte to show a public, actual use, not merely a benefit, and that the use must be for the citizens of North Dakota directly and should be specific and not speculative. In support thereof, he refers us to the following quotations from two cases. In response to this argument, which seems to be that since the transmission line which may ultimately traverse Mr. Hilken's land will transport energy produced in North Dakota beyond the boundaries of the State of North Dakota for use in another state, the construction of the line is not for a lawful public use, Square Butte asserts that such an argument cannot be accepted as the modern view, in light of the trend of cases and the need for energy nationwide. Square Butte refers to three cases and quotes therefrom. The cases and the quotations follow: Square Butte believes a quotation from a 1959 Minnesota decision is particularly significant. It reads: Square Butte asserts that none of the four cases referred to us by it, and neither State v. Barnes, 55 Idaho 578, 45 P.2d 293 (1935), nor Port of Umatilla v. Richmond, 212 Or. 596, 321 P.2d 338 (1957), nor the latter two cases referred to us by Hilken limit the concept of "public" to the inhabitants of a particular area, whether city, county, or state. Because we believe that a determination of this issue is premature at this time, a condemnation action having not been commenced, and that it is better to delay a determination of what constitutes a public use until that issue has been more extensively briefed and considered by the trial court in conjunction with the condemnation action itself, we shall not attempt to determine this issue at this time. Hilken's next contention is that at the hearing on the motion, no justification was given for this particular location; in other words, that no evidence was submitted to prove that the location was compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury. It is Hilken's view that there is other land in the general area which is not tillable due to coal-strip operations, and that there is also State and Federally owned land over which the transmission line could be constructed, and that using this land would be more compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury. *883 Square Butte asserts that this is also an argument that should be made if and when a condemnation action is commenced, and that accordingly a determination of this issue is also premature. It is Square Butte's view that the survey and testing is a necessary preliminary to the condemnation action itself and that until the survey and testing are completed, it will not be in a position to determine the best route for the transmission line. If a decision is made by Square Butte that the transmission line must be constructed over Hilken's land, Square Butte will then be required to commence a condemnation action and in that action it will be governed by what we said in Otter Tail Power Company v. Malme, 92 N.W.2d 514 at 521 (N.D.1958). We are inclined to agree with Square Butte that to require it to prove, prior to permitting it to survey and test Mr. Hilken's land, that his land would constitute a route most compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury would be to require it to act prior to the ascertainment of the knowledge necessary to establish such a fact, and might also result in a useless act in the event that after survey and testing a decision were made not to traverse this land. We are, accordingly, of the view that Square Butte made a sufficient showing through its affidavit to secure authorization to traverse Hilken's land for the purposes of survey and limited testing, and that the conditions imposed by the trial court should adequately protect Mr. Hilken in the event that any damage is done to his property. For the purposes of entering the land for survey and limited testing, it is our view that Square Butte is required to show only that it was in the category of persons entitled to seek eminent domain, and that it was not required to prove that at that stage of the proceedings eminent domain was proper, justified, and necessary. This conclusion is consistent with the view taken by the Court of Appeals of New York when it held the trial court and *884 the appellate division in error when they required a showing by a pipe-line corporation on its application for a permit to enter private property for a survey that it sought to take the property for a public use. The Court of Appeals said the lower courts erred in requiring the petitioner to prematurely establish that its line will serve a public use. See Northville Dock Pipe Line Corp. v. Fanning, 21 N.Y.2d 616, 289 N.Y.S.2d 963, 237 N.E.2d 220 at 222 (1968). Since in its affidavit in support of its motion Square Butte demonstrated that it was a North Dakota electric cooperative corporation, duly organized under the laws of this State and authorized to do business herein; that it enjoyed the privileges granted to such a corporation, including the right of eminent domain; that it planned to construct an electric generating plant and power line for the transmission of electricity; that it was necessary to conduct surveys and testing to determine the probable routing of such a transmission line, Square Butte established a sufficient basis for an appropriate order permitting such a survey and limited testing under reasonable conditions and with reasonable protection to the landowner. The trial court might well have set a bond for Mr. Hilken's protection; but inasmuch as there has been no showing made that Square Butte is judgment-proof, we conclude that the trial court's failure to require a bond is not a basis for setting aside its order. Incidentally, Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C., does not seem to require a bond. This, however, does not prevent the court from requiring a bond, just as it does not prevent the court from specifying other protective conditions, as it has done in the instant case. Before we may dispose of this case we must consider the constitutional issue raised by Mr. Hilken. Hilken seems to contend that his constitutional rights were denied him by the trial court's failure to make a record of the hearing and by the trial court's refusal to grant an injunction against the entry upon his lands by Square Butte. He refers us to Section 27-06-03, N.D. C.C. It reads: Square Butte contends that the failure on the part of the court to require the court reporter to make a record so it ultimately could be transcribed is not a fatal defect requiring a remand. Square Butte refers us to Section 28-27-07, N.D.C.C., which reads: * * * * * * It asserts that this section contemplates that there may be instances when there are no court reporter's minutes and that the section does not impose a requirement that the court reporter take such minutes unless ordered to do so by the court or requested by one of the parties. It is Square Butte's view that Section 27-06-03, N.D.C.C., relates to the taking of testimony and objections and rulings relative thereto. This argument would be stronger were it not for the latter part of Section 27-06-03, N.D. C.C., which seems to require that the court reporter take in shorthand all other proceedings at the hearing or trial not otherwise reduced to writing. We do, however, agree with Square Butte in its contention that in the absence of Hilken's failure to request that a record be made of the proceedings in the instant case, which we understand consist mainly of oral arguments on the part of counsel and perhaps oral motions made on behalf of counsel, that a mere failure on the part of the court reporter to make this record does not justify a reversal of the trial court's order, nor does it necessitate a remand for a rehearing. To avoid a situation in the future such as occurred here, apparently, where counsel for Hilken assumed that the court reporter was making a record when in fact he was not, we recommend that the court reporter's association take under consideration the possible adoption of a rule of procedure to be practiced by its members which would have as its objective alerting counsel to the occasions when a court reporter may be present in the courtroom during a proceeding and still not be making a record, so that a proper and timely request for the making of a record may be made by counsel. Hilken's further contention is that he has been denied his constitutional rights in that he has been denied protections to which he is entitled under Sections 1, 14, 20, and 22 of the North Dakota Constitution. He does not in any way attempt to demonstrate further how these sections of our State Constitution apply, and we are unable to apprehend how they could apply in any way which would justify a reversal of the trial court's order. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the order of the district court is affirmed. VOGEL, TEIGEN, PAULSON and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.