Court Opinion

ID: 9721494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:00:57.563057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:26.553140
License: Public Domain

KNUDSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority that in junctional and mandatory relief should be granted, and I also concur with the majority that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, but in an amount greater than that awarded by the majority. I would grant judgment awarding damages of $2,436.00.
I do not agree with Syllabus paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 for the reason that these express law contrary to the statutes and the previous opinions of this Court.
This appeal is here on specifications of error that the judgment entered is not supported by the findings of fact. The appeal is not here on a demand for trial de novo.
We have held in numerous decisions that the evidence cannot be reviewed unless the appellant demands a trial de novo. Jones v. Boeing Co., 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967) ; Northern Improvement Company v. Pembina Broadcasting Company, 153 N.W.2d 97 (N.D.1967); W. T. Jennings Lumber Company v. O’Callaghan, 143 N. W.2d 654 (N.D.1966).
And where no demand for trial de novo was made, the Supreme Court is limited to determine whether the findings of fact supported the judgment, and could not consider errors relating to matters not appearing on the judgment roll. N.D.C.C. § 28-27-32. Spicer v. Hamilton, 116 N.W.2d 651 (N.D.1962); Hovland v. Hovland, 104 N.W.2d 6 (N.D.1960); Park Board of City of Williston v. Schumacher, 77 N.W.2d 826 (N.D.1956); Swanston v. Swanston Equipment Company, 74 N.W.2d 452 (N.D.1956).
The majority have erred in reviewing the evidence under these rules of this Court even for the limited purpose of determining the sufficiency of the findings to support the Court’s conclusions.
Where no demand for trial de novo has been made, the Supreme Court cannot consider the evidence, but is required to deem all questions of fact correctly decided. N. D.R.C.1943 § 28-2732; Swanston v. Swan-ston Equipment Company, supra.
Conclusions of law are not based on any evidence in the case; the findings of fact are the basis of such conclusions. Markus v. Poulson, 37 S.D. 328, 158 N.W. 406 (1916); Kupfer v. Biehn, 41 S.D. 163, 169 N.W. 514 (1918).