Swallow v. First State Bank

• Decision Date: 06 June 1914
• Docket Number: 81912
• Citation: 148 N.W. 630,28 N.D. 283
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

148 N.W. 630

28 N.D. 283

RAY SWALLOW v. FIRST STATE BANK, a Corporation

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

June 6, 1914

Rehearing denied September 9, 1914.

Appeal from the District Court of Hettinger County, Crawford and Nuchols, JJ.

Affirmed.

New trial granted.

J. K Murray, for appellant.

It is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the granting of a new trial that the motion therefor shall set forth the grounds upon which it is made. Rev. Codes, § 7064; Hall v Harris, 1 S.D. 279, 36 Am. St. Rep. 730, 46 N.W. 931.

Specifications of error are jurisdictional prerequisites. French v Chicago, 26 S.D. 125, 128 N.W. 498; Jackson v. Ellerson 15 N.D. 533, 108 N.W. 241.

The pretended specifications of error are defective because they fail to point out the separate errors of which complaint is made. Rev. Codes, § 7058; Pease v. Magill, 17 N.D. 166, 115 N.W. 260; Bertelson v. Ehr, 17 N.D. 339, 116 N.W. 335; State v. School Dist. 18 N.D. 617, 138 Am. St. Rep. 787, 120 N.W. 555; Raymond v. Thexton, 7 Mont. 313, 17 P. 260; Herbert v. Dufur, 23 Ore. 462, 32 P. 302; Mack v. Parkieser, 53 Neb. 528, 74 N.W. 38; Fletcher v. Brewer, 88 Neb. 196, 129 N.W. 288; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598, 64 N.W. 722; Minot Flour Mill Co. v. Swords, 23 N.D. 571, 137 N.W. 828; Hughes v. Hill, 30 S.D. 255, 138 N.W. 290.

Where several acts of error are assigned jointly, all of such acts must be erroneous in order to sustain the exception. Bowman v. Phillips, 47 Ind. 341; Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. v. Madden, 134 Ind. 462, 34 N.E. 230; Good v. Daland, 121 N.Y. 1, 24 N.E. 15; Hall v. Susskind, 120 Cal. 559, 53 P. 46.

If error was committed by the court, same was waived by defendant when it introduced evidence in support of its defense. Pease v. Magill, 17 N.D. 166, 115 N.W. 260; Wheaton v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 20 S.D. 62, 104 N.W. 850; Lowry v. Piper, 20 N.D. 637, 127 N.W. 1046; Forzen v. Hurd, 20 N.D. 42, 126 N.W. 224.

A specification is not good when based upon a bad exception. State ex rel. Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co. 17 N.D. 257, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 227, 115 N.W. 846; Bohnert v. Bohnert, 95 Cal. 444, 30 P. 590; Joyce v. White, 95 Cal. 236, 30 P. 524.

Assignment that a group of instructions is erroneous, is insufficient if one of them was properly given. Ledwith v. Campbell, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 695, 95 N.W. 838; Fletcher v. Brewer, 88 Neb. 196, 129 N.W. 288; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598, 64 N.W. 722; Pennsylvania Co. v. Sears, 136 Ind. 460, 34 N.E. 15, 36 N.E. 353; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McCartney, 121 Ind. 385, 23 N.E. 258; Chicago Furniture Co. v. Cronk, 35 Ind.App. 591, 74 N.E. 627.

Damages and penalty, or either one without the other, is recoverable. Laws 1907, chap. 176; Greenberg v. Union Nat. Bank, 5 N.D. 483, 67 N.W. 597; Kronebusch v. Raumin, 6 Dak. 243, 42 N.W. 656; Jones v. Fidelity Loan & T. Co. 7 S.D. 122, 63 N.W. 553.

Where tender and offer of payment are made, and no objection is made at the time, as to conditions attached, the same are waived and the offer is good. Kofoed v. Gordon, 122 Cal. 314, 54 P. 1115; Rev. Stat. 6562; Greenberg v. Union Nat. Bank, 5 N.D. 483, 67 N.W. 597; Jones v. Fidelity Loan & T. Co. 7 S.D. 122, 63 N.W. 553; Wilkins v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 68 Miss. 6, 8 So. 678; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Lindley, 89 Ga. 484, 15 S.E. 636.

Exemplary damages may be recovered in an action for failure to release a mortgage. 27 Cyc. 1427; Chinn v. Wagoner, 26 Mo.App. 678; Mickie v. McGehee, 27 Tex. 134; People v. Winters, 125 Cal. 325, 57 P. 1067; State v. Carter, 15 Wash. 121, 45 P. 745; State v. Winney, 21 N.D. 72, 128 N.W. 680; First Nat. Bank v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co. 11 N.D. 280, 91 N.W. 436.

Failure to request certain instructions waives the failure of the court to instruct on such points. Landis v. Fyles, 18 N.D. 587, 120 N.W. 566; State v. Fleming, 20 N.D. 105, 126 N.W. 565; Garrigan v. Kennedy, 19 S.D. 11, 117 Am. St. Rep. 927, 101 N.W. 1081, 8 Ann. Cas. 1125.

Not necessary that refusal to satisfy a mortgage be wilful and malicious. Laws 1907, chap. 176; Renfro v. Adams, 62 Ala. 302; Rev. Stat. 7175; N.D. Laws 1907, chap. 177; Hedlin v. Lee, 21 N.D. 495, 131 N.W. 390.

Specification that the evidence is insufficient, must state in what particular, and specifically point out in what respects the same is insufficient. Rev. Codes, § 7058; Baumer v. French, 8 N.D. 319, 79 N.W. 340; Jackson v. Ellerson, 15 N.D. 533, 108 N.W. 241.

Conclusions of law, in this respect, are insufficient. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 P. 419, 16 Mor. Min. Rep. 26.

A debtor may make his offer, conditioned upon the performance of an obligation to which he is rightfully entitled. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5257; Ugland v. Farmers' & M. State Bank, 23 N.D. 536, 137 N.W. 572; Kofoed v. Gordon, 122 Cal. 314, 54 P. 1115; Drake v. Great Northern R. Co. 24 S.D. 19, 123 N.W. 82.

Where objection is made to the sufficiency of the evidence, facts, and not conclusions of law, or mere evidence, must be specified. N.D. Laws 1907, chap. 176, § 6173; Hall v. Hurd, 40 Kan. 740, 21 P. 585; Coveny v. Hale, 49 Cal. 552; Cal. Code, § 659; 3 Kerr's Cal. Cyc. pt. 1, p. 1084; King v. Lincoln, 26 Mont. 157, 66 P. 836; Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 P. 419, 16 Mor. Min. Rep. 26; Pritchard Rice Mill. Co. v. Jones, Tex. Civ. App. , 140 S.W. 817; Thorne v. Hammond, 46 Cal. 530; Finlen v. Heinze, 28 Mont. 548, 73 P. 123; Zickler v. Deegan, 16 Mont. 198, 40 P. 410; First Nat. Bank v. Roberts, 9 Mont. 323, 23 P. 718; Taylor v. Bell, 128 Cal. 306, 60 P. 853; Haight v. Tryon, 112 Cal. 4, 44 P. 318; Jackson v. Ellerson, 15 N.D. 533, 108 N.W. 241.

The evidence must show that plaintiff was damaged by reason of the giving and recording of the mortgage. King v. Lincoln, 26 Mont. 157, 66 P. 836; 13 Cyc. 215; 2 Sutherland, Damages, § 416; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lewis, 48 Ill.App. 274; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Saw, 68 Ark. 218, 57 S.W. 258; 1 Sutherland, Pl. p. 245; Riser v. Walton, 78 Cal. 490, 21 P. 362; Bartlett v. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank, 79 Cal. 218, 12 Am. St. Rep. 139, 21 P. 743; Weaver v. Mississippi & R. River Boom Co. 28 Minn. 542, 11 N.W. 113; Bank of British Columbia v. Port Townsend, 16 Wash. 450, 47 P. 896.

Failure to specify insufficiency of the evidence on any given point is a waiver of any obligation thereto. Rauer v. Fay, 128 Cal. 523, 61 P. 90; Nelson v. Jordeth, 15 S.D. 46, 87 N.W. 140; Thompson v. Cunningham, 6 N.D. 426, 71 N.W. 128; Todd v. Winants, 36 Cal. 129; Wetherbee v. Carroll, 33 Cal. 549; Laird v. Upton, 8 N. M. 409, 45 P. 1010; Kyle v. Craig, 125 Cal. 107, 57 P. 791; Smith v. Kunert, 17 N.D. 120, 115 N.W. 76; Bertelson v. Ehr, 17 N.D. 339, 116 N.W. 335; McNish v. Wolven, 22 S.D. 621, 119 N.W. 999.

In any event, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. Williams v. Hawley, 144 Cal. 97, 77 P. 762; Hayne, New Trials, New ed. §§ 98, 475; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87, 22 P. 336; Razzo v. Varni, 81 Cal. 289, 22 P. 848.

Crane & Stone, for respondent.

All points relied upon must be clearly specified in the statement of errors filed with the notice of appeal. 29 Cyc. 942, 943; Williams v. Hawley, 144 Cal. 97, 77 P. 762.

The burden of proving a tender rests upon the party alleging it. Nothing is presumed in favor of an alleged tender. Must be present, absolute, and unconditional, and so understood. 35 Cyc. 178-D; Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Leary, 25 S.D. 256, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 746, 126 N.W. 271, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 928; Hopkins v. Gray, 51 Iowa 340, 1 N.W. 637; Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147, 38 Am. Rep. 361, 7 N.W. 747; Williams v. Eikenbery, 22 Neb. 210, 34 N.W. 373; TePoel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592, 78 N.W. 288; Brace v. Doble, 3 S.D. 110, 52 N.W. 586; Mann v. Roberts, 126 Wis. 142, 105 N.W. 785; Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339, 19 N.W. 101; Bailey v. Buchanan County, 115 N.Y. 297, 6 L.R.A. 562, 22 N.E. 155; 27 Cyc. 1407, (11); Parks v. Allen, 42 Mich. 482, 4 N.W. 227; Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 392, 43 L.R.A. 519, 46 S.W. 938; 38 Cyc. 179, E.

Where a man who can read executes an instrument without reading it, trusting to the party to whom it is given to read it to him, he will be guilty of negligence. Woollen v. Ulrich, 64 Ind. 120; Fargo Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas & Electric Co. 37 L.R.A. 598, note; Bacon v. Markley, 46 Ind. 116; Hazard v. Griswold, 21 F. 178; Raymond v. Edelbrock, 15 N.D. 231, 107 N.W. 194.

Where mortgage is in good faith, placed in the hands of an attorney for foreclosure, a tender must include the lawful attorney's fee. 27 Cyc. 1408 (lv), 1428 G.; Mjones v. Yellow Medicine County Bank, 45 Minn. 335, 47 N.W. 1072; McEldon v. Patton, 4 Neb. (Unof.) 259, 93 N.W. 938; 38 Cyc. 178 D.; Parks v. Allen, 42 Mich. 482, 4 N.W. 227; Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 428, 9 L.R.A. 55, 19 Am. St. Rep. 247, 45 N.W. 857; Burrows v. Bangs, 34 Mich. 304; Canfield v. Conkling, 41 Mich. 371, 2 N.W. 191; Schumacher v. Falter, 113 Wis. 563, 89 N.W. 485; Johnson v. Huber, 117 Wis. 58, 93 N.W. 826.

The penalties provided by statute for refusal to satisfy mortgages are merely the measure of exemplary damages permitted. They are not in the nature of a fine or forfeiture, but of a penal nature, and must be strictly construed. Shields v. Klopf, 70 Wis. 69, 35 N.W 284; 27 Cyc. 1425-5; Giffen v. Barr, 60 Vt. 599, 15 A. 190; Murray v. Brokaw, 67 Ill.App. 402; Kronebusch v. Raumin, 6 Dak. 243, 42 N.W. 656; 13 Cyc. 109, 118-N.; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sanders, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1941, 44 S.W. 644; Baxter v. Campbell, 17 S.D. 475, 97 N.W. 386 and cases cited; Williams v. Newberry, 32 Miss. 256; Bowie v. Spaids, 26 Neb. 635, 42 N.W. 700; Crete v. Childs, 11 Neb. 252, 9 N.W. 55; Dunbier v. Day, 12 Neb. 596, 41 Am. Rep. 772, 12 N.W. 109; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Montgomery, 30 Neb. 33,...