Court Opinion

ID: 9860775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:32:26.758201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:40.233665
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Acting Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the reversal and remand insofar as it relates to checks 1324, 1331, 1693, 2005 and 2007. I dissent because I think that Citizens State Bank is entitled to a new trial as to all the checks except those on which it is strictly liable, which was conceded on this appeal.
Thoreson has set up a straw man by diverting the court’s attention to the endorsement argument. The sole issue, as I view it, relates to the forgery. Whether or not a finding on- the endorsement question is clearly erroneous is immaterial.
I do not understand Citizens State Bank’s strategy in not appealing from the judgment. In my opinion, when you have no appeal from a judgment, you have no reason to consider Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. Because an error was committed which, under the circumstances, cannot be corrected by a reversal of the judgment, a new trial should be granted.