Gunder v. Feeland
| Decision Date | 18 November 1924 |
| Citation | 200 N.W. 909,51 N.D. 784 |
| Parties | GUNDER et al. v. FEELAND et al., Board of Com'rs of Morton County. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
The credibility of witnesses, and the weight of their testimony, are questions for the determination of the jury.
Where the evidence is in conflict and reasonable men might draw different conclusions therefrom, neither the verdict of the jury based on such evidence, nor the order of the trial court denying a motion for a new trial, will be disturbed on appeal, where the sole ground of attack is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appeal from District Court, Morton County; H. L. Berry, Judge.
Action by D. A. Gunder and another, doing business under firm name and style of D. A. Gunder & Son, a copartnership, against Theodore Feeland and others, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Morton County. From a judgment for plaintiffs and an order denying motion for new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.L. H. Connolly, of Mandan, for appellants.
Norton & Kelsch, of Mandan, for respondents.
This case grew out of a claim made by the defendants and appellants, as the board of county commissioners of Morton county, against the respondents, for the price of 100 bushels of seed wheat furnished to the respondent D. A. Gunder under the provisions of article 24, chapter 42, of the Political Code, C. L. 1913, as amended. The issue arose on a counterclaim and was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and respondents. The court ordered judgment on this verdict, and judgment was thereafter entered upon the same. The appellants moved for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, which motion was denied. This appeal is from the judgment and from the order denying such motion for a new trial.
The only contention urged in support of this appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. There are no exceptions to the charge to the jury as given by the court, nor is there any assignment of error on account of any rulings made by the court during the course of the trial. The record discloses that in the spring of 1922 the respondent D. A. Gunder made application to and entered into a contract with the appellants, the board of county commissioners of Morton county, for seed and feed. For the convenience of those who might wish to obtain seed and feed from the county, the county auditor had sent application blanks to the various banks in the county. Gunder made his application through a bank at New Salem, of which one Peterson was an officer. His application was granted and Gunder signed the requisite contract. One hundred bushels of wheat of the seed so applied for was to be used by Gunder on certain land rented from Peterson and one Bloodgood. Peterson, as owner of the land, signed the application with Gunder. Subsequently, Gunder was notified by the county that the seed and feed were ready for delivery to him, but Peterson then told him he could not have the land, as Bloodgood wanted to farm it himself,and, since the seed was to be used upon this land, Gunder would be unable to get it from the county. Gunder did, however, get the other seed and feed applied for and signed a writing purporting to show the receipt by him of all of the seed and feed, including the 100 bushels of wheat. As a matter of fact, the wheat intended for Gunder was delivered by the county's distributing agent to Bloodgood, who sowed it on the land for which it had been intended. Gunder testified that he advised the New Salem Mercantile Company, which was distributing it for the county, that he could not take the wheat because he could not rent the land for which it was intended. The mercantile company's agent testified that Gunder said he would not want the wheat himself, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Kem Temple, Ancient Arabic Order of the Mystic Shrine, 7157
...plaintiff did not act with due care for his own safety that the question ceases to be one for the jury.' In the case of Gunder v. Feeland, 51 N.D. 784, 785, 200 N.W. 909, opinion by Judge Nuessle, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held: 'Where the evidence is in conflict and reasonable men ......
-
Skramstad v. Miller
...a motion for a new trial where the sole ground of attack is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.' Gunder v. Feeland, 51 N.D. 784, 200 N.W. 909, 910. 'The weight of the evidence was for the jury. Where there is a conflict in evidence, the judges may not substitute their ......
-
LaBree v. Dakota Tractor & Equipment Company
... ... proposition that [70 N.D. 427] such verdict is decisive of ... the facts (reference to Gunder v. Feeland, 51 N.D ... 784, 200 N.W. 909, is sufficient on this point), this does ... not mean, however, that it can never be reviewed. Otherwise, ... ...
-
Jacobs v. Bever
...one at law, and having been tried to a jury, does not come here for trial de novo in this court. As this court said in Gunder v. Feeland, 51 N.D. 784, 200 N.W. 909, 910 'the issue of fact, as thus made, was for the determination of the jury. They saw, as well as heard, the witnesses who tes......