Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co., 890226

Decision Date26 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. 890226,890226
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
PartiesLeon GELINSKE, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS GRAIN & TRADING CO., Defendant. Civ.

Arthur Warren Stokes (argued), Wahpeton, for plaintiff.

Richard C. Hefte (argued), Fergus Falls, Minn., for defendant.

LEVINE, Justice.

We are asked to answer a certified question on the measure of damages for conversion under NDCC Sec. 32-03-23. We decline to do so.

Leon Gelinske sued Farmers Grain & Trading Co. (Farmers) for conversion, alleging that Farmers converted his grain by weighing it in an unauthorized manner. He claimed damages for the value of the grain, as well as consequential damages for the forced discount sale of a land contract to pay debts. He also sought punitive damages.

The trial court denied Gelinske's request for a jury instruction on consequential damages on the ground that consequential damages are not recoverable under NDCC Sec. 32-03-23. 1

The jury awarded damages for the value of the grain and for expenditures to recover the property converted. The trial court ordered a new trial on damages. At oral argument, we were told that the reason for the new trial was the excessive amount awarded for expenditures to recover the grain. Pursuant to Rule 47.1, NDRAppP, Gelinske then requested certification to this court of the following question:

"Is a plaintiff's damages for conversion in North Dakota restricted to those damages solely as provided under NDCC 32-03-23?"

The trial court answered this question in the affirmative.

Authority to certify questions of law to this court is provided by NDCC ch. 32-24. Section 32-24-01 provides:

"Where any cause is at issue, civil or criminal, in any district court or county court in this state and the issue of the same will depend principally or wholly on the construction of the law applicable thereto, and such construction or interpretation is in doubt and vital, or of great moment in the cause, the judge of any such court, on the application of the attorney for the plaintiff or defendant in a civil cause, and upon the application of the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant in a criminal cause, may halt all proceedings until such question shall have been certified to the supreme court and by it determined."

This court may refuse to consider the question certified if it is frivolous, merely interlocutory or otherwise not sufficiently important to the determination of issues in the case. NDCC Sec. 32-24-02. We have repeatedly said that a certified question will not be considered by this court unless the disposition of the case depends wholly or principally upon the construction of law determined by the answer, regardless of whether the answer is in the negative or affirmative. Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc., 399 N.W.2d 308, 309 (N.D.1987); Keyes v. Amundson, 359 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D.1984); State v. Lebus, 339 N.W.2d 564, 566 (N.D.1983); Bumann v. Maurer, 188 N.W.2d 740, 743 (N.D.1971).

In Bumann v. Maurer, supra, 188 N.W.2d at 743-44, this court declined to answer two certified questions, one of which was whether the proper measure of damages in the case was to be determined by the provisions of NDCC Sec. 32-03-13. The parties in Bumann had agreed that if this court answered that NDCC Sec. 32-03-13 applied, the case would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. On the other hand, if the court answered that the statute did not control, the question of damages and the amount, if any, would have to be determined by a jury. Only an affirmative answer to the question would have disposed of that case. We, therefore, declined to answer the certified question because the answer would not have disposed of the case regardless of whether our answer was in the negative or the affirmative.

Here,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • McKenzie County v. Hodel
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1991
    ...answers will not be dispositive of the action in federal district court. In support, the United States cites Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co., 446 N.W.2d 261 (N.D.1989), and State v. Larson, 313 N.W.2d 750 (N.D.1981). Both of those cases involved certification to this court from tria......
  • State v. G.C.H.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 29, 2019
    ...upon the construction of law determined, regardless whether the answer is in the negative or affirmative. Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co. , 446 N.W.2d 261, 262 (N.D. 1989) ; Braaten v. Deere & Co. , 547 N.W.2d 751, 752 (N.D. 1996). Answering a certified question that does not wholly......
  • Bass v. Coltelli
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1994
    ...for the underlying cause of action, this court should refuse to answer them. Another approach is found in Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co., 446 N.W.2d 261, 262 (N.D.1989), which involved a much broader certification statute than ours. 4 The North Dakota Supreme Court had imposed this......
  • Braaten v. Deere & Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1996
    ...we answer the question in the affirmative or the negative. Butz v. World Wide, Inc., 472 N.W.2d 757 (N.D.1991); Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co., 446 N.W.2d 261 (N.D.1989); Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc., 399 N.W.2d 308 (N.D.1987); Keyes v. Amundson, 359 N.W.2d 857 (N.D.1984); S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT