Hayes v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 17 November 1899 |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 49,9 N.D. 92 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ransom County; Lauder, J.
Action by Ira A. Hayes against F. W. Taylor, sheriff of Ransom county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
H Doherty, for appellant.
P. H Rourke, for respondent.
The trial of this action, which is an action to recover money only, resulted in a judgment of dismissal, with costs to the defendant. Plaintiff has appealed to this court from such judgment. In his notice of appeal he has set forth, among other things, that he desires a review of the entire case in this court de novo. We find in the record a statement of the case, embracing all the testimony and all the proceedings had at the trial; but such statement embodies no specification of any fact or facts which plaintiff desires to review in this court, nor does the statement contain a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff desires a retrial of the entire case in the Supreme Court. Nothing of the kind is suggested in the statement of the case. The case was tried before the District Court without a jury; all the testimony being taken before a referee, who reported the same to the District Court without making findings either of law or fact. Subsequently the trial court made and filed findings of fact and law, upon which the judgment was entered. In this court, appellant's counsel has assigned a lengthy list of alleged errors. They relate to rulings at the trial made upon the admission of evidence, and to the refusal of the referee to make rulings upon the admission of evidence, and to various other rulings at the trial, including that of allowing an amended answer to be filed. We make reference to these assignments of error only in general terms, because the case, upon the rcord, does not admit of a review or retrial of the same, or any of them, by this court. The case must be governed by the provisions of chapter 5 of the Session Laws of 1897. Under that statute this court does not sit merely as a court of review to correct errors. By its provisions we are authorized to try specific questions of fact anew, or to try the whole case anew; but this can only be done where the record embraces a statement of the case, in which the appellant specifies some fact or facts which he desires to have retried, or states therein that he desires a review of the entire case in this court de novo. The statement of the case in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial