Huston v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 17 February 1915 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
On petition for rehearing March 19, 1915.
From a judgment of the District Court of Stutsman County, Coffy, J defendant appeals.
Judgment Reversed and a new trial ordered.
A. B Darelius, for appellant.
The essential and necessary rules of law governing the admission of secondary evidence were not complied with. A notice to produce the original letter was not given. Read v Chambers,--Tex. Civ. App.--,45 S.W. 742; Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 212, 39 S.W. 190; Smith v. Holbrook, 99 Ga. 256, 25 S.E. 627; Foster v. Newbrough, 58 N.Y. 481; Westinghouse Co. v. Tilden, 56 Neb. 129, 76 N.W. 416; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 497, and cases cited.
Geo. W. Thorp and Russell D. Chase, for respondent.
Where both a general and specific denial are employed in a pleading, the scope of the general denial is limited to the issues raised by the specific denials. It really amounts to a notice to the other party that only enumerated defenses will be relied upon. 31 Cyc. 694, 695, and cases cited; Pom. Code Rem. §§ 516, 517, 521.
The admission in evidence of a copy of a letter or other writing, if error, was immaterial and without prejudice, for the reason that, prior to the letter, appellant had already received notice of the facts contained, and had acted upon them. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6886; S. J. Vidger Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 15 N.D. 501, 107 N.W. 1083; South Beach Land Asso. v. Christy, 41 Cal. 501; 2 Spelling, New Trial, § 689; Aultman, Miller Co. v. Jones, 15 N.D. 130, 106 N.W. 688; Kinney v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 15 N.D. 21, 106 N.W. 44; Gaffney v. Mentele, 23 S.D. 38, 119 N.W. 1030; Putnam v. Custer County, 25 S.D. 542, 127 N.W. 641; Hedderich v. Hedderich, 18 N.D. 488, 123 N.W. 276; Fowler v. Iowa Land Co. 18 S.D. 131, 99 N.W. 1095, and cases cited; Cochrane v. National Elevator Co. 20 N.D. 169, 127 N.W. 725; Stephens v. Faus, 20 S.D. 367, 106 N.W. 56; Cairncross v. Omlie, 13 N.D. 387, 101 N.W. 897; 2 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 500, and cases cited; Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 18 N.D. 462, 123 N.W. 281; Benjamin v. Huston, 16 S.D. 569, 94 N.W. 584; Waldner v. Bowden State Bank, 13 N.D. 604, 102 N.W. 169, 3 Ann. Cas. 847; Donley v. Camp, 22 Ala. 659, 58 Am. Dec. 274; Sloan v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 295, 95 N.W. 480; Davis v. Holy Terror Min. Co. 20 S.D. 399, 107 N.W. 374; State v. La Croix, 8 S.D. 369, 66 N.W. 944; Mathews v. Silvander, 14 S.D. 505, 85 N.W. 998; Muller v. Flavin, 13 S.D. 595, 83 N.W. 687.
If the evidence is slight or irrelevant, or if without it the fact is conclusively shown by other evidence, it may be disregarded because it could not have caused injury. State v. Staber, 20 N.D. 545, 129 N.W. 104; State v. Chase, 17 N.D. 429, 117 N.W. 537, 17 Ann. Cas. 520; Landis Mach. Co. v. Konantz Saddlery Co. 17 N.D. 310, 116 N.W. 333; State v. Denny, 17 N.D. 519, 117 N.W. 869; State v. Guy, 25 S.D. 144, 125 N.W. 570; Miller v. McConnell, 23 S.D. 137, 120 N.W. 888; Kelly v. Pierce, 16 N.D. 234, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 180, 112 N.W. 995; Kepner v. Ford, 16 N.D. 50, 111 N.W. 619; Greenwald v. Ford, 21 S.D. 28, 109 N.W. 516; Gale v. Shillock, 4 Dak. 182, 29 N.W. 661; Yankton Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Dowling, 10 S.D. 540, 74 N.W. 439; Stewart v. Gregory, C. & Co. 9 N.D. 618, 84 N.W. 553; Morrison v. Oium, 3 N.D. 76, 54 N.W. 288; Braithwaite v. Aikin, 1 N.D. 455, 48 N.W. 354; Moline Plow Co. v. Gilbert, 3 Dak. 239, 15 N.W. 1; United States v. Adams, 2 Dak. 305, 9 N.W. 718; State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast) 5 N.D. 516, 35 L.R.A. 526, 67 N.W. 1052; State v. McGahey, 3 N.D. 293, 55 N.W. 753; Farrell v. Edwards, 8 S.D. 425, 66 N.W. 812; Taylor v. Neys, 11 S.D. 605, 79 N.W. 998; Hermiston v. Green, 11 S.D. 81, 75 N.W. 819; Fisher v. State, 1 Penn. (Del.) 388, 41 A. 184; Gilbert v. Moline Plough Co. 119 U.S. 491, 30 L.Ed. 476, 7 S.Ct. 305; United States v. Homestake Min. Co. 54 C. C. A. 303, 117 F. 481, 22 Mor. Min. Rep. 365; Dennett v. Reisdorfer, 15 S.D. 466, 90 N.W. 138; Morris v. Hubbard, 14 S.D. 525, 86 N.W. 25; A. G. Becker & Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 15 N.D. 279, 107 N.W. 968; State use of Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co. 17 N.D. 257, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227, 115 N.W. 846; Miller v. Northern P. R. Co. 18 N.D. 19, 118 N.W. 344, 19 Ann. Cas. 1215; Buchanan v. Randall, 21 S.D. 44, 109 N.W. 513; State v. Moeller, 20 N.D. 114, 126 N.W. 568; Breeden v. Martens, 21 S.D. 357, 112 N.W. 960; Neeley v. Roberts, 23 S.D. 604, 122 N.W. 655; State v. Frazer, 23 S.D. 304, 121 N.W. 790.
Notice to produce a document as a prerequisite to the admission of secondary evidence of its contents is only required when the instrument is or may be presumed to be in the possession or under the control of the other party. 17 Cyc. 558, and cases cited; Briggs v. Hervey, 130 Mass. 186; Roberts v. Spencer, 123 Mass. 397; Bickley v. Bickley, 136 Ala. 548, 34 So. 946; Hagaman v. Gillis, 9 S.D. 61, 68 N.W. 192; Nichols v. Charlebois, 10 N.D. 446, 88 N.W. 80; 5 Words & Phrases, 4275, and cases cited; Brooks, Boardman & Ford v. Day, 11 Iowa 46; People ex rel. Soer v. Crane, 125 N.Y. 535, 26 N.E. 736.
Where facts and inferences are blended to an objectionable extent, the statement of facts may still be received if separable from the inferences. 17 Cyc. 216, 217, 223, 224, and cases cited; Townsend v. Briggs, 3 Cal. Unrep. 803, 32 P. 307; Neal v. Field, 68 Ga. 534; Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. De France, 90 Iowa 395, 57 N.W. 959; Jones v. Fuller, 19 S.C. 66, 45 Am. Rep. 761; Knight v. Knight, 178 Ill. 553, 53 N.E. 306; Baltes Land, Stone & Oil Co. v. Sutton, 32 Ind.App. 14, 69 N.E. 179; Bellows v. Crane Lumber Co. 119 Mich. 424, 78 N.W. 536; Olson v. O'Connor, 9 N.D. 504, 81 Am. St. Rep. 595, 84 N.W. 359.
If a statement of inference, conclusion, or judgment is accompanied by an enumeration of the facts on which it is based, any error is usually harmless. The jury can estimate the probative value of the entire statement. 17 Cyc. 60, 61; Central R. Co. v. Allmon, 147 Ill. 471, 35 N.E. 725, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 371; Hanish v. Kennedy, 106 Mich. 455, 64 N.W. 459; Larson v. Lombard Invest. Co. 51 Minn. 141, 53 N.W. 179; Burdick v. Haggart, 4 Dak. 13, 22 N.W. 589; Anderson v. First Nat. Bank, 6 N.D. 497, 72 N.W. 916; Braithwaite v. Aikin, 1 N.D. 455, 48 N.W. 354; 1 Hill's Dig. pp. 151-153, 158-161; Taylor v. Jones, 3 N.D. 235, 55 N.W. 593; 3 Cyc. 386, and cases cited; Costa v. Silva, 127 Cal. 351, 59 P. 695, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 330; Jersey Island Dredging Co. v. Whitney, 149 Cal. 269, 86 P. 509, 691; Springfield v. Coe, 166 Ill. 22, 46 N.E. 709, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 11; Joliet v. Johnson, 177 Ill. 178, 52 N.E. 498; Brittenham v. Robinson, 18 Ind.App. 502, 48 N.E. 616; Hollenbeck v. Marion, 116 Iowa 69, 89 N.W. 210; Sparks v. Galena Nat. Bank, 68 Kan. 148, 74 P. 619; Sun Ins. Office v. Western Woolen-Mill Co. 72 Kan. 41, 82 P. 513; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Holmes, 68 Neb. 826, 94 N.W. 1007; Burrell v. Gates, 112 Mich. 307, 70 N.W. 574; Butler v. Delafield, 1 Cal.App. 367, 82 P. 260; Miller v. Green, 3 Ariz. 205, 73 P. 399; Murphy v. Coppieters, 136 Cal. 317, 68 P. 970; Knox v. Noble, 25 Kan. 449; Aultman, Miller Co. v. Jones, 15 N.D. 130, 106 N.W. 688; German Sav. & L. Soc. v. Collins, 145 Cal. 192, 78 P. 637; Raymond v. Glover, 122 Cal. 471, 55 P. 398; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Esten, 178 Ill. 192, 52 N.E. 954; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Rinker, 16 Ind.App. 334, 45 N.E. 80; Medearis v. Anchor Mut. F. Ins. Co. 104 Iowa 88, 65 Am. St. Rep. 428, 73 N.W. 495; Williams v. Griffin Wheel Co. 84 Minn. 279, 87 N.W. 773; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fox, 60 Neb. 531, 83 N.W. 744, 8 Am. Neg. Rep. 463; La Rue v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 428, 47 N.E. 796; Schweikert v. Seavey, 6 Cal. Unrep. 554, 62 P. 600; Vindicator Consol. Gold Min. Co. v. Firstbrook, 36 Colo. 498, 86 P. 313, 10 Ann. Cas. 1108; Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga. 872, 52 L.R.A. 755, 38 S.E. 71; Gibson v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. 107 Iowa 596, 78 N.W. 190; Service v. Deming Invest. Co. 20 Wash. 668, 56 P. 837; 2 Decen. Dig. Appeal & Error, §§ 1050-1052 (2); 2 Hill's Dig. Appeal & Error, pp. 101-107.
Agency must always be pleaded in order that proof of its existence may be offered or introduced. G. W. Loverin-Browne Co. v. Bank of Buffalo, 7 N.D. 569, 75 N.W. 923; Gordon v. Vermont Loan & T. Co. 6 N.D. 454, 71 N.W. 556.
The fact of agency cannot be proved by the agent's declarations. Piano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; 31 Cyc. 1655, 1656, and cases cited.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for a real estate broker's commission. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for $ 4,000, and from the judgment entered on such verdict, this appeal is taken. There is a square conflict between the plaintiff and defendant upon the principal questions at issue. The plaintiff is a real estate broker living at Carrington, North Dakota. The defendant is a farmer living in Stutsman county, where he owns two tracts of land located only a short distance apart, aggregating 960 acres. The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that the defendant employed him as a broker to sell 480 acres of this land for not less than $ 14,000, and that the plaintiff was to receive for his commission whatever he might receive over $ 14,000 therefor. That, thereafter he found certain purchasers who were ready, able, and willing to buy these lands and pay therefor the sum of $ 18,000. The defendant in his answer asserts that no such agreement was made, but that the plaintiff agreed to sell the entire 960 acres for $ 26,000. The 480-acre tract which plaintiff claims to have sold was that portion of the tract on which all the buildings were located. There is also a square...
To continue reading
Request your trial