Zarak v. Hjelle

• Decision Date: 29 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 8405,8405
• Citation: 156 N.W.2d 815
• Parties: William ZARAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, Caroline Messersmith, Plaintiff, v. Walter R. HJELLE, State Highway Commissioner of the State of North Dakota, Defendant and Respondent. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 815

156 N.W.2d 815

William ZARAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, Caroline

Messersmith, Plaintiff, v. Walter R. HJELLE, State Highway Commissioner of the State of

North Dakota, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. No. 8405.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Feb. 29, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where, upon an appeal from the judgment, in a jury case, there is no settled statement of the case, review by the Supreme Court is limited to matters appearing upon the face of the judgment roll.

2. A specification on appeal that it was error not to admit evidence to prove severance damages to other lands owned and operated by the landowner in connection with the property condemned in a highway right of way condemnation suit, must be affirmatively shown by the record on appeal. Held where in the absence of a statement of the case, our review is limited to the face of the judgment roll which does not disclose the offer of such evidence or the claimed ownership to other lands, there is nothing for us to review and the appellant has failed to sustain the burden of affirmatively showing the claimed error by the record.

3. Where, upon appeal, there is no settlement of the statement of the case and the face of the judgment roll does not support the specifications of error, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

Freed, Dynes & Malloy, Dickinson, and Floyd B. Sperry, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant.

Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., by Myron E. Bothun, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for respondent.

TEIGEN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by one landowner from a judgment entered in his favor and that of one of his co-owners, in a condemnation proceeding brought by the state highway commissioner to acquire certain real property for highway purposes. No statement of the case is settled and the record in this court consists of the judgment roll which does not include the transcript of the evidence adduced at the trial, nor the exhibits that may have been introduced in evidence.

To acquire possession of the land, the highway commissioner offered to purchase the desired right of way from the landowners. owners. The amount of the offer was deposited with the clerk of the district court in the county where the land is situated. The appellant and his co-owner, (they owned a 3/4 interest), appealed therefrom to the district court pursuant to Section 14 of our constitution asking that a jury determine the damages resulting from the state's taking of the land. The verdict was returned in their favor, and judgment was entered upon the court's order in the amount of the verdict, plus interest, costs and disbursements, appraisers' fees, engineers' fees and attorneys' fees. It is from this judgment that the appeal is taken by one of the landowners named as the appellant herein.

The order of the trial court refusing to settle the statement of the case because of delay, was affirmed by this court in Zarak v. Hjelle, 154 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.).

There being no settlement in this case, there is no evidence before this court for review. Where there is no settled statement of the case, this court is limited in its review to matters appearing on the face of the judgment roll. Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332 (N.D.); Compson v. Olson, 75 N.W.2d 319 (N.D.); Brand v. Brand, 65 N.W.2d 457 (N.D.); Cary v. Kautzman, 78 N.D. 875, 53 N.W.2d 99; Isensee Motors v. Godfrey, 61 N.D. 435, 238 N.W. 550.

The case was tried to a jury and the judgment was entered upon its verdict. There are no...