Spicer v. Hamilton

North Dakota Supreme Court

Spicer v. Hamilton

116 N.W.2d 651, 1962 N.D. LEXIS 87

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 21, 1962

DocketNo. 7986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 N.W.2d 651 (Spicer v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spicer v. Hamilton, 116 N.W.2d 651, 1962 N.D. LEXIS 87 (N.D. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

BURKE, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due from the defendant upon a contract for the sale of a stock of merchandise and the fixtures of a retail store. In her answer the defendant alleged that she had claims for set-offs against the plaintiff which were equal to the plaintiff’s claim. The case was tried to the court without a jury and, after the trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed from the judgment. No demand for a trial de novo, nor specifications of any facts which appellant desired this court to review were incorporated into the settled statement of the case as is required by Section 28-27-32 NDCC. In these circumstances our review is limited to errors which are specified upon the judgment roll and to a consideration of whether the findings, which are deemed to be true, support the judgment. Swanston Equipment Co. v. Swanston (N.D.) 74 N.W.2d 452; Mevorah v. Goodman (N.D.) 65 N.W.2d278; Anderson v. Blixt, 72 N.W.2d 799; Park Bd. of City of Williston v. Schumacher, 77 N.W.2d 826; Hovland v. Hovland, 104 N.W.2d 6.

Since the only errors argued fin the brief in this case relate to matters which do not appear in the judgment roll, and since the findings of fact sustain the judgment, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, STRUTZ and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BURKE, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due from the defendant upon a contract for the sale of a stock of merchandise and the fixtures of a retail store. In her answer the defendant alleged that she had claims for set-offs against the plaintiff which were equal to the plaintiff’s claim. The case was tried to the court without a jury and, after the trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed from the judgment. No demand for a trial de novo, nor specifications of any facts which appellant desired this court to review were incorporated into the settled statement of the case as is required by Section 28-27-32 NDCC. In these circumstances our review is limited to errors which are specified upon the judgment roll and to a consideration of whether the findings, which are deemed to be true, support the judgment. Swanston Equipment Co. v. Swanston (N.D.) 74 N.W.2d 452; Mevorah v. Goodman (N.D.) 65 N.W.2d278; Anderson v. Blixt, 72 N.W.2d 799; Park Bd. of City of Williston v. Schumacher, 77 N.W.2d 826; Hovland v. Hovland, 104 N.W.2d 6.

Since the only errors argued fin the brief in this case relate to matters which do not appear in the judgment roll, and since the findings of fact sustain the judgment, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, STRUTZ and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.W.2d 651, 1962 N.D. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spicer-v-hamilton-nd-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack