Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Hoerner, MONTANA-DAKOTA

• Citation: 81 N.W.2d 648
• Decision Date: 21 February 1957
• Docket Number: Nos. 7643-7647,MONTANA-DAKOTA,s. 7643-7647
• Parties: UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Peter G. HOERNER and Louise Hoerner, his wife, Cities Service Oil Company, a corporation, Skelly Oil Company, a corporation, Northwestern Improvement Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents.UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eugene F. PELTON and Florence V. Pelton, husband and wife, and Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents.UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George R. VESTAL and Robert Lawrence, Defendants and Respondents.UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Chris D. DECKER, a/k/a Christ D. Decker, C. D. Decker and Emma Decker, his wife, Hugh Palmer, Jack Rouse, and Leon E. Thompson, Defendants and Respondents.UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Fenn W. PELTON and Ella Louise Pelton, husband and wife, Eugene F. Pelton, Northwestern Improvement Company, a corporation, Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 648

81 N.W.2d 648

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Peter G. HOERNER and Louise Hoerner, his wife, Cities

Service Oil Company, a corporation, Skelly Oil Company, a

corporation, Northwestern Improvement Company, a

corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eugene F. PELTON and Florence V. Pelton, husband and wife, and Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, a corporation,

Defendants and Respondents.

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George R. VESTAL and Robert Lawrence, Defendants and Respondents.

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Chris D. DECKER, a/k/a Christ D. Decker, C. D. Decker and Emma Decker, his wife, Hugh Palmer, Jack Rouse, and Leon E. Thompson, Defendants and Respondents.

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Fenn W. PELTON and Ella Louise Pelton, husband and wife, Eugene F. Pelton, Northwestern Improvement

Company, a corporation, Sinclair Oil and

Gas Company, a corporation,

Defendants and

Respondents.

Nos. 7643-7647.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Feb. 21, 1957.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

The facts in these cases are similar to those upon which we decided Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Culver, N.D., 80 N.W.2d 541. The principles of law governing our decision in that case are equally applicable here and the determination of these cases is governed thereby.

Reichert & Reichert, Dickinson, Raymond Hildebrand, Glendive, Mont., and Cox, Pearce & Engebretson, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant.

Mackoff, Kellogg, Muggli & Kirby, Dickinson, for defendants and respondents Eugene F. Pelton, Florence V. Pelton, George R. Vestal, Robert Lawrence, Chris D. Decker, Emma Decker, Fenn W. Pelton and Ella Louise Pelton.

Floyd B. Sperry, Golden Valley, for defendants and respondents Peter G. Hoerner and Louise Hoerner.

MORRIS, Judge.

These appeals embrace five actions which were tried together with Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Culver, N.D., 80 N.W.2d 541. The pleadings with respect to contested issues are the same in all six actions except that different tracts of land are involved. The jury was given one set of instructions under which it rendered separate verdicts in each case. The evidence followed the same general pettern with respect to proof of damages claimed by each landowner. Some of the witnesses were the same in several of these cases.

A motion for a new trial on the same grounds was made in each case and an appeal taken from the order denying the motion and from those parts of the judgment which awarded damages for the taking of the easement and for injury to the remainder of the property. The specifications of error attempt to raise the same questions in each case. For reasons stated in Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v....