Title: Cendak Agri-Service, Inc. v. Hausman
Citation: 275 N.W.2d 326
Docket Number: 9514
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 1979

275 N.W.2d 326 (1979) CENDAK AGRI-SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James HAUSMAN, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No. 9514. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 1, 1979. *327 Thomas E. Rutten, of Traynor &amp; Rutten and Tom Traynor, Jr., law student, Devils Lake; for defendant and appellant, argued by Thomas E. Rutten, Devils Lake. James H. Williams, Towner, for plaintiff and appellee. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. The defendant, James Hausman, appeals from the order of the District Court of Benson County, dated April 13, 1978, denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. He does not appeal from the judgment itself which was rendered on the first day of February, 1978, in the sum of $8,792.70 plus costs. The judgment was based upon a verdict of the jury in the amount of $7,096.53 to which the court added interest at the rate of six percent per annum computed to January 17, 1978, in the sum of $1,696.17. We shall hereinafter refer to the plaintiff as Cendak, and to the defendant as Hausman. The essential parts of the complaint, read: The prayer for relief is for judgment in the sum of $12,222.15 plus interest at the rate of $2.07 per day from 8-23-77 plus interest at the legal rate on all amounts due and owing Cendak and for costs and disbursements. Hausman filed an answer and counterclaim, the pertinent parts of which read: In his prayer for relief, Hausman asked for judgment in the sum of $4,996.59 plus interest at the rate of six percent per annum from January 23, 1974, and for his costs and disbursements. In his motion for a new trial on the basis of Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., Hausman asserted three grounds: (1) irregularity in the proceedings, (2) insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and (3) errors in law occurring at the trial. In the alternative, he moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis of Rule 50, N.D.R. Civ.P. Relative to the first alleged basis for a new trial, irregularity in the proceedings, our court has said: Relative to the second alleged basis for a new trial, insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, we have said: For a recent analysis of the law applicable to a motion for new trial in determining whether or not a trial court appropriately granted a new trial, see Cook v. Stenslie, 251 N.W.2d 393, 396 (N.D.1977). As to the third alleged basis for a new trial, errors in law occurring at the trial, we believe that the rule applicable to irregularity in the proceedings is applicable. Let us examine the alleged irregularities which occurred during the trial which Hausman contends justify a new trial. Hausman contends that irregularities in the proceedings resulted when the jury, during the course of its deliberations, sent certain written questions to the court. He asserts that these questions were answered by the judge in writing, without asking the jury to return to the courtroom and the presence of the judge, and without consulting the attorneys or the parties. The judge merely wrote his answers to the questions on the sheets of paper sent to him by the jury after informing counsel of his intended answers although counsel objected to some of the proposed answers and to the failure on the part of the judge to return the jury to the courtroom. Although the court reporter was not present at the time, the objections were later entered as a matter of record. The first note from the jury asked the following question: "Can any of the amounts claimed by either party be altered?" The court wrote in answer thereto: "Yes." Later, the jury in a second written note asked the following questions: "Which is the total claim of the plaintiff and the defendant. And the amount of the checks. Price of straw." The court wrote the following in response thereto: "1) &amp; 2) See page 1 of instructions. 3) $10,848.54. 4) $1,250.00." Hausman contends *330 that the judge should have consulted the attorneys before answering the questions and permitted any objections that counsel had at that time to be made on the record. He further contends that the judge should have called the jury back into the courtroom in the presence of counsel, asked the jury to explain its questions, and then answered those questions. We believe that our statute on the subject generally supports this view. In support of his contention that the court erred in the procedure it followed in answering the questions submitted by the jury in writing, Hausman refers us to the United States Supreme Court decision of Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U.S. 76, 39 S. Ct. 435, 63 L. Ed. 853 (1919). In Fillippon, the jury sent the trial judge a written inquiry and the trial judge replied by sending a written instruction to the jury room in the absence of the parties and their counsel, without their consent, and without calling the jury into open court. The facts were somewhat different from the facts in this case in that in Fillippon the parties and their counsel were absent when the judge returned a written response. Nonetheless, we think that what the Supreme Court said in that case is pertinent here. In the instant case, the error is even more grave in that the question relative to the price of straw was not a question of law but a question of fact, and questions of fact must normally be left for the triers of the fact to determine. It has been argued in our court by counsel for Hausman that the judge in the instant case took his answer as to the price of straw from the allegations of the complaint and not from the testimony submitted in court. To our knowledge, this has not been denied by counsel for Cendak. What we have here then is not only an irregularity in the procedure, but an error in the answer given to the jury. It could be argued that a solution might be a reduction in the verdict of the maximum amount that the jury could have assessed Hausman for the straw. Such a solution, which would be conditional upon the granting of a new trial if it were not accepted by Cendak, would involve speculation, however, as to the effect of that particular answer upon the jury's verdict, and for that reason we have not adopted that approach as a solution to this problem. We believe additionally that such an approach would not discourage a similar procedure in the future. *331 We shall not discuss the other North Dakota cases cited by the parties on this issue including State v. Murphy, 17 N.D. 48, 115 N.W. 84 (1908); Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 75 N.D. 139, 26 N.W.2d 236 (1947); Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675 (N.D.1970); and State v. Klein, 200 N.W.2d 288 (N.D.1972), for the reason that they are all somewhat distinguishable upon the facts from this case. We do note, however, that the basic lesson to be learned from them is that there is value in having the jury returned to the courtroom if the members have questions which they wish to submit to the court, and that this be done in the presence of counsel and the parties and upon the record, at which time counsel may, in chambers if the court deems it appropriate, present their views as to the appropriate answer or response to be given by the court to the questions, and object to responses which they believe to be inappropriate. Cendak contends that should this court determine that the procedure herein involved was an irregularity and thus an error on the part of the court, it was an error without prejudice and therefore under Rule 61, N.D.R.Civ.P., was harmless error. Rule 61, N.D.R.Civ.P., reads: Without attempting to point out how the cases support its position, Cendak relies on Hoag v. City of Detroit, 185 F.2d 764 (6th Cir. 1950); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burkett, 192 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1951); and Wesco Foods Co. v. Demase, 100 F. Supp. 386 (W.D.Pa.1951), aff'd. 194 F.2d 918 (3rd Cir. 1952). From what we have already indicated, it should be discerned that this is not our view. We are not convinced by those decisions. Having made this decision, we find it unnecessary to respond to parts two and three of the motion for a new trial. Without predetermining the issues which may arise in the new trial, we trust that if the pleadings and the evidence therein support the need for instructions on the issues of the statute of frauds, partial performance necessary to take a case out of the statute of frauds, and implied contract, they will be submitted to the jury. On the issue of whether or not the trial court erred in failing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Hausman has not with particularity indicated how the court erred in not granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On the issue of whether or not the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict when raised on an appeal from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we have said: See also Brinkman v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 187 N.W.2d 657 (N.D.1971), and cases cited therein at 662 to support it. We are not convinced that this is an appropriate case to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the order denying the motion for a new trial is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. SAND, PAULSON, PEDERSON and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.