Opinion ID: 2068859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court's jury instructions on interest.

Text: Deere argued that the jury's award of $15,000 was contrary to the law and evidence and that the court's instructions on interest confused and misled the jury. Deere's discussion on this point centered on interest on a damage award, rather than interest as an element of damages, which is what the jury awarded. There was evidence that Nygard owed approximately $70,000, at interest rates of approximately eight and one-half percent, and that machinery valued by Nygard at $68,360 was seized and detained from Nygard for approximately two and one-half years before the verdict was rendered. Section 32-07-12, N.D.C.C., provides that the jury shall assess damages which the defendant has sustained by reason of the taking and detention of such property. By seizing Nygard's used machinery, Deere deprived it of the wherewithal to repay the loans. From the foregoing evidence, we believe that the jury could have found that the interest expense sustained by Nygard as an item of damage was $15,000, and because we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict we sustain that award. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, this court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Syllabus 6, Watkins Products, Inc. v. Stadel, 214 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1973).