Lemke v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 10 October 1916 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Buttz, Judge.
Reversed and a new trial ordered.
Judgment reversed and a new trial granted.
Frich & Kelly, for appellant.
A witness may not be presented with a written statement damaging to the adverse party and likely to induce the decision against such party, and be asked to examine same to "refresh his memory" on an immaterial point with respect to which the witness already and correctly testified without having had his memory "refreshed." Further such written statement is a mere self-serving document, and incompetent as evidence. Dr. R. D. Eaton Chemical Co. v Doherty, 31 N.D. 175, 153 N.W. 966; 10 Cyc. 2449, and cases cited; 11 Enc. Ev. 94 et seq; State v. Burns, 25 S.D. 364, 126 N.W. 574.
It is error to admit written memoranda made by plaintiff where he is testifying as a witness in his own behalf and has a distinct recollection of the facts. National Ulster County Bank v. Madden, 114 N.Y. 280, 11 Am. St. Rep. 633, 21 N.E. 408; Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Milbrath, 110 Wis. 499, 86 N.W. 174.
There is no authority sustaining the practice of reading the memorandum to the jury as a part of a question and then asking the witness if same refreshed his memory. Haack v. Fearing, 5 Rob. 528; Wilde v. Hexter, 50 Barb. 448; Garber v. New York City R. Co. 92 N.Y.S. 722; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Christensen, Tex. Civ. App. , 78 S.W. 744.
There is no competent proof of an account stated. Plano Mfg. Co. v. Kautenberger, 121 Iowa 213, 96 N.W. 743; Smith v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 N.D. 555, 58 N.W. 345; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Hogue, 17 N.D. 375, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1113, 116 N.W. 339; Swanson v. Andrus, 84 Minn. 168, 87 N.W. 363, 88 N.W. 252; Decen. Dig. Evidence, § 471.
To constitute an account stated there must be shown a mutual examination of the claims of each other by the parties, a like agreement between them as to the correctness of the respective claims, the ascertainment of the balance due, and a promise, express or implied, to pay. 1 C. J. 678; 1 Words & Phrases 93.
This balance must be a "book debt" as distinguished from a demand based upon a special contract or growing out of a tort. Rosenbaum v. McEwen, 24 Colo.App. 58, 131 P. 781; Gunn v. Perseverence Min. & Mill. Co. 23 Idaho 418, 130 P. 459; Ryan v. Rand, 26 N.H. 12; Bussey v. Gant, 29 Tenn. 238.
The account, in order to constitute a contract, should appear to be something more than a mere memorandum. It should show clearly upon its face that it was intended to be a final settlement up to date. Coffee v. Williams, 103 Cal. 550, 37 P. 504.
Where oral negotiations are merged into writing, the rights of the parties must be determined by the written instrument. Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Bruns, 1 N.D. 137, 45 N.W. 699; Gage v. Phillips, 21 Nev. 150, 37 Am. St. Rep. 494, 26 P. 60.
An unwarranted restriction of the right of cross-examination is prejudicial error. The court here refused to allow defendant to cross-examine Lemke with respect to the settlement and as to what was included therein. State v. Hazlett, 14 N.D. 490, 105 N.W. 617; Hogen v. Klabo, 13 N.D. 319, 100 N.W. 847, and cases cited; Taggart v. Bosch, 5 Cal. Unrep. 690, 48 P. 1092; 40 Cyc. 2480, and cases cited.
Such an account should show upon its face that it was intended to be a final statement up to date, and a promise to pay. Coffee v. Williams, supra; 1 Century Dig. 754, § 31; Columbia River Packing Co. v. Tallant, 133 F. 990; Howell v. Johnson, 38 Ore. 571, 64 P. 659; Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney, 58 Ill.App. 563; Davis v. Seattle Nat. Bank, 19 Wash. 65, 52 P. 526.
The defendant had the right to show, if he could, the inherent improbability of his agreement to such an account. Field v. Knapp, 108 N.Y. 87, 14 N.E. 829; Landis v. Watts, 82 Neb. 359, 117 N.W. 705; Baker v. Griffin, 43 Misc. 1, 86 N.Y.S. 579; E. W. McLellan Co. v. East San Mateo Land Co. 166 Cal. 736, 137 P. 1145; Campbell v. Blount, 32 Misc. 756, 65 N.Y.S. 785; Kaminsky v. Mendelson, 25 Misc. 500, 54 N.Y.S. 1010; Lawler v. Jennings, 18 Utah 35, 55 P. 60; Christian v. Niagara F. Ins. Co. 101 Ala. 634, 14 So. 374; Bouslog v. Garrett, 39 Ind. 338; Binford v. Miner, 101 Ind. 147; Arnett v. Smith, 11 N.D. 55, 88 N.W. 1037.
An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Such discretion is not an arbitrary one, but a legal one, and the court should be guided by the fixed principles of the law, and courts should allow amendments when in furtherance of justice. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7482.
Where the erroneous rulings of the court clearly contribute to the result, it is a mistrial. Stringer v. Davis, 30 Cal. 318; People use of National Sewer-Pipe Co. v. Sharp, 133 Mich. 378, 94 N.W. 1074; Dunn v. Bozarth, 59 Neb. 244, 80 N.W. 811; Ford v. Liner, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 59 S.W. 943; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554, 74 P. 44; Martin v. Luger Furniture Co. 8 N.D. 220, 77 N.W. 1005; Finlayson v. Peterson, 11 N.D. 45, 89 N.W. 855; Kerr v. Grand Forks, 15 N.D. 294, 107 N.W. 197; Barker v. More Bros. 18 N.D. 82, 118 N.W. 823.
Where letters or writings are erroneously allowed to be offered in evidence, the only way to correct the error is to withdraw them entirely from the case. Merritt v. Meisenheimer, 84 Wash. 174, 146 P. 370; Lewis v. Utah Constr. Co. 10 Idaho 214, 77 P. 336; Hollenbeck v. Ristine, 105 Iowa 488, 67 Am. St. Rep. 306, 75 N.W. 355; Kansas P. R. Co. v. Anderson, 23 Kan. 44; McMullin v. Reed, 213 Pa. 338, 62 A. 924; Crisp v. State Bank, 32 N.D. 263, 155 N.W. 78.
Corroboration by any other credible evidence, positive or circumstantial, oral or documentary, is all the law requires. It is not necessary that a witness be corroborated by another witness. F. Dohmen v. Niagara F. Ins. Co. 96 Wis. 38, 71 N.W. 69; Bratt v. Swift, 99 Wis. 579, 75 N.W. 411; 1 Blashfield, Instructions to Juries, § 256.
The alleged "stated account" rests solely in parol and is not evidenced by any writing by which the defendant is legally bound. There was, however, an original written contract between the parties for the sale by Lemke to Thompson of real and personal property at a fixed price, to be paid in a specified manner. The plaintiff's theory of a "stated account" is adopted to vary or change the terms of this written contract. Middleditch v. Ellis, 2 Exch. 623, 17 L. J. Exch. N. S. 365; Gilson v. Stewart, 7 Watts, 100; Young v. Hill, 67 N.Y. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 99; Thomasna v. Carpenter, 175 Mich. 428, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 543, 141 N.W. 559, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 690; Jasper Trust Co. v. Lamkin, 162 Ala. 388, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1237, 50 So. 337; Valley Lumber Co. v. Smith, 71 Wis. 308, 5 Am. St. Rep. 216, 37 N.W. 413; Gutshall v. Cooper, 37 Colo. 212, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 820, 86 P. 125; Williams v. Williams, 3 Ind. 222; Kusterer Brewing Co. v. Friar, 99 Mich. 190, 58 N.W. 52; Fraley v. Bispham, 10 Pa. 320, 51 Am. Dec. 486; Gallinger v. Lake Shore Traffic Co. 67 Wis. 529, 30 N.W. 790.
Flynn & Traynor, for respondent.
This court has held that it cannot dispose of the case on the merits without specifications of errors, and that, for the absence of same, the appeal may be dismissed. Wilson v. Kryger, 26 N.D. 77, 80, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 760, 143 N.W. 764; Miller v. Thompson, 31 N.D. 147, 153 N.W. 391; Feil v. Northwest German Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. 28 N.D. 355, 149 N.W. 358.
The appellant will not be permitted to urge, on appeal, a different theory from that upon which the entire cause proceeded in the lower court. De Laney v. Western Stock Co. 19 N.D. 630, 125 N.W. 499; Casey v. First Nat. Bank, 20 N.D. 211, 126 N.W. 1011; Caledonia Gold Min. Co. v. Noonan, 3 Dak. 189, 14 N.W. 426; Noonan v. Caledonia Gold Min. Co. 121 U.S. 393, 30 L.Ed. 1061, 7 S.Ct. 911; State v. Leehman, 2 S.D. 171, 49 N.W. 3; Bailey v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 3 S.D. 531, 19 L.R.A. 653, 54 N.W. 596; Tilton v. Flormann, 22 S.D. 324, 117 N.W. 377; First Nat. Bank v. Warner, 17 N.D. 76, 114 N.W. 1085, 17 Ann. Cas. 213; Kolka v. Jones, 6 N.D. 461, 66 Am. St. Rep. 615, 71 N.W. 558; St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Pennington, 2 Dak. 467, 11 N.W. 497; Mathews v. Silvander, 14 S.D. 505, 85 N.W. 998; Harrison v. State Bkg. & T. Co. 15 S.D. 304, 89 N.W. 477; Buchanan v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. 17 N.D. 343, 116 N.W. 335; Chilson v. Bank of Fairmount, 9 N.D. 96, 81 N.W. 33; Whiffen v. Hollister, 12 S.D. 68, 80 N.W. 156; Gaines v. White, 2 S.D. 410, 50 N.W. 901; Dowdle v. Cornue, 9 S.D. 126, 68 N.W. 194; F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ferguson, 19 N.D. 496, 126 N.W. 110; Loftus v. Agrant, 18 S.D. 55, 99 N.W. 90; 2 Cyc. 670 et seq.
Mistake or error in an "account stated" must be alleged and proved. Gutshall v. Cooper, 37 Colo. 212, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 820, 86 P. 125; Howell v. Johnson, 38 Ore. 571, 64 P. 659.
An "account stated" may grow out of a transaction growing out of a written contract, and the account, when stated, need not be complete in itself. Krueger v. Dodge, 15 S.D. 159, 87 N.W. 965; Claire v. Claire, 10 Neb. 57, 4 N.W. 412; Hale v. Hale, 14 S.D. 644, 86 N.W. 650.
"While the doctrine as to 'account stated' may originally have had its origin in transactions between merchants, it has been quite generally extended to all cases where the relation of debtor and creditor exists." 1 C. J. 679, 682; Converse v. Scott, 137 Cal. 239, 70 P. 13; Watkins v. Ford, 69 Mich. 357, 37 N.W. 300; Swain v. Knapp, 34 Minn. 232, 25 N.W. 397; Krueger v. Dodge, 15 S.D. 159, 87 N.W. 965; Quinn v. White, 26 Nev. 42, 62 P. 995, 64 P. 819; Lay v. Emery, 8 N.D. 515, 79 N.W. 1053; Little v. Little, 2 N.D. 175, 49 N.W. 736; Montgomery v. Fritz, 7 N.D. 348, 75 N.W. 266; Wood v. Pehrsson, 21 N.D. 364, 130 N.W. 1010.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial