Nels G. Johnson

This case concerns an appeal by Dallas Jackman from a district court order denying his motion to vacate his 1957 conviction and commitment for grand larceny on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction because he was a juvenile. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion. The court held that Jackman, who was over 18 years old at the time of his arrest and proceedings, fell outside the statutory definition of a "child" subject to exclusive juvenile court jurisdiction. It further concluded that the record showed Jackman had been fully informed of his rights, waived counsel, entered a knowing guilty plea, and received due process throughout the proceedings, including probation and later sentencing for a violation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Baldus v. Mattern, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased both real property and associated personal property (bottling plant equipment) under a listing agreement for $24,150, paid a $7,000 down payment, and took possession, but the defendant refused to deliver a bill of sale warranting clear title to the personal property, which was subject to delinquent taxes and possible liens totaling over $1,000. The plaintiff sought damages, specific performance to clear encumbrances, or reformation of the contract for deed to reduce the price by $5,000 allocated to the personal property. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment after a jury trial and granted a new trial, concluding that the jury instruction on the parol evidence rule was improperly given because the central factual dispute was whether any written bill of sale embodied the parties' full agreement, making parol evidence admissible on that threshold issue.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an eminent domain action by Otter Tail Power Company seeking perpetual easements across nine parcels of farmland in North Dakota to construct a 115,000-volt power transmission line as part of its interconnected utility network. The company alleged public necessity and that the route minimized private injury, while defendants contested the taking and related compensation. The trial court permitted the condemnation, admitted opinion testimony on easement values from witnesses familiar with local land, granted immediate possession upon deposit of awarded damages, and denied a stay pending appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that statutory authority supported the proceedings, the witnesses were qualified, and the company had established the right to the easements with compensation.

property

This case involves an appeal by plaintiff Tony Gunsch, acting pro se, from a judgment dismissing his action in Mercer County, North Dakota, entered on October 31, 1956. The North Dakota Supreme Court considered a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was not filed within the statutory time limit after notice of entry of judgment. The court determined that notice of entry of judgment had been properly served by mail on the plaintiff's attorney of record, and that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the judgment by May 1957, making the appeal filed in January 1958 untimely. Because the time limit for appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

procedure

This case was a wrongful death action under North Dakota law brought by the father of 13-year-old Susan Henke, who died from injuries in a nighttime intersection collision between cars driven by defendants Peyerl and Williams. The plaintiff alleged gross negligence by Peyerl (in whose car the girl was a passenger) and ordinary negligence by Williams (allegedly acting in the course of employment for defendant Rue Contracting Company). A jury awarded $7,800 against all defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment against Peyerl based on evidence that he failed to stop at a stop sign before entering the through highway and that the damages award was not excessive, but dismissed the claims against Williams and Rue Contracting Company for insufficient evidence of negligence or employment-related liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Herbert C. Johnson, owner of a public dance hall called Johnson's Barn, for violating Section 53-0210 NDRC 1943 by admitting boys and girls aged 14 to 17 to a dance on December 28, 1956, without a parent or guardian present. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of a new trial, holding the proprietor criminally liable for the acts of his employees who sold tickets and admitted the minors, even though Johnson did not personally admit them. The court reasoned that the statute imposes responsibility on the owner or manager similar to liquor licensing laws, with no requirement of specific intent, and that the evidence showed Johnson was present, aware of the minors' presence, and had made no inquiries about their ages or guardians. It rejected claims of insufficient evidence regarding guardians and found no reversible error in jury instructions or other matters, though a concurrence noted Johnson's personal involvement sufficed for liability without relying on vicarious responsibility.

criminal law

This case involves a dispute between adjacent landowners over whether a trail across the defendants' property had become a public highway through long-term use. The plaintiff claimed that the path had been open and used by the public for over 20 years, seeking an injunction to stop the defendants from plowing it up or fencing it off. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff and granted the injunction, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed on appeal after a trial de novo. The court found that the use was permissive, based on the landowner's consent with conditions like closing gates, rather than adverse and under a claim of right by the public as required for prescription under state law, and thus no public road had been established.

property

This case involved a divorce action in which the trial court granted the husband a divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and divided the marital property, awarding the wife the family home, household goods, and $500 in cash payments. The wife appealed the judgment but had already accepted and retained the awarded property (including by mortgaging the home), cashed the payments, and only later attempted to tender restitution of the benefits. The court granted the husband's motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that under established precedent a party who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a divorce judgment waives the right to appeal, and that the wife's subsequent restitution offer and claimed lack of legal knowledge did not restore that right.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a father's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Fessenden Board of Education to admit his 13-year-old daughter as an eighth-grade pupil, after the board denied her entry pursuant to resolutions barring students from districts where annexation petitions had been circulated and rejected. The trial court granted the writ, ordering admission upon payment of standard tuition and enjoining interference by the board. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that the relevant statute (Section 15-2908 as amended) imposes a mandatory duty on special school districts to accept nonresident pupils when tuition is paid, with county superintendent approval required only to determine tuition liability rather than as a prerequisite for attendance. The court rejected the board's claim of discretionary authority under the statute and found no adequate alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a minor sailor suing the driver of a car for damages from an accident on a North Dakota highway, alleging ordinary negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful misconduct based on the defendant's lack of sleep for over 30 hours. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was a voluntary guest passenger without payment and that the plaintiff had assumed the risk or contributed to any negligence through his own conduct. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a guest under the state's guest statute, which limits liability to cases of intoxication, gross negligence, or willful misconduct, and a jury found for the defendant. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff was indeed a guest and that his own requests and persuasion to continue the long journey without rest meant he shared responsibility for the conditions leading to the accident, barring recovery. The court also addressed related issues on contributory negligence, jury instructions, and limited damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved four tenured professors at the North Dakota Agricultural College who were discharged by the State Board of Higher Education after charges were filed, a hearing before the college's Advisory Committee, and a final vote by the Board; the professors petitioned for a writ of certiorari claiming the discharges violated their tenure rights under the college constitution because no sufficient cause was shown. The district court denied the petition, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the state constitution and statutes grant the Board broad authority to hire and remove faculty without cause or a hearing, and that the college constitution's tenure provisions cannot limit or qualify those powers. Although the professors received written charges, a hearing, and a recommendation process as provided by the college rules, those steps were not legally required, so the Board's action was valid and the writ was properly denied.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was an action for alienation of affections in which a jury in Mercer County, North Dakota, returned a verdict dismissing the plaintiff's claims against the defendant. The plaintiff, initially represented by counsel and later acting pro se, filed successive motions for a new trial and change of venue; the trial court denied the first motion, entered judgment on the verdict, and later denied the second motion on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction once the judgment and first order became final. The plaintiff appealed from the denial of the second motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the second order was a nullity because jurisdiction could not be revived by a successive motion, that appeal rights are strictly statutory and had not been properly exercised from the final judgment or first order, and that nothing remained for appellate review.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a medical malpractice action in which plaintiff attorney Arthur W. Stokes sued defendant physician Walter C. Dailey for negligence in twice prescribing an ointment containing histadyl and surfacaine to treat a skin condition without inquiring about or heeding the plaintiff's report of a prior adverse reaction. After the plaintiff presented his evidence at trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case, finding no proof that the defendant had breached the applicable standard of care. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed on appeal, holding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of negligence based on nontechnical evidence concerning the alleged warning and the defendant's follow-up inquiry, that expert testimony was unnecessary to establish the standard of ordinary care in this instance, and that disputed factual questions of negligence, causation, and contributory negligence were for the jury to decide under the statute governing directed verdicts. The court concluded it was prejudicial error to direct a verdict rather than submit the issues to the jury when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, supported inferences of negligence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over title to farmland in North Dakota, where the administrator and other heirs of Ole Johnson sought to cancel a 1951 warranty deed that transferred the property into joint tenancy with right of survivorship between Ole and his son Victor, to the exclusion of the other children. The plaintiffs argued the deed was invalid due to Ole's lack of mental capacity following strokes and undue influence by Victor. The trial court upheld the deed after finding Ole competent and no undue influence. On appeal with trial de novo, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed, concluding that Ole lacked capacity to understand the transaction and that Victor had exercised undue influence in a confidential relationship by procuring the deed secretly without disclosing it to the other heirs. The court emphasized the progressive mental deterioration shown in medical evidence and the inference of bad faith from Victor's concealment of the transfer of land valued at $81,000.

propertyfamily law

This case involved a dispute over an alleged contract for the sale of an undivided one-fourth mineral interest in specified North Dakota real property. The plaintiffs executed mineral deeds that were placed in escrow at a bank to be delivered upon payment of a $12,500 draft prepared by the defendant, but the defendant refused to pay after the draft matured and asserted defenses including the statute of frauds and estoppel arising from the plaintiffs' acceptance of delay rentals under a preexisting oil and gas lease. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and on appeal seeking a trial de novo the court affirmed, holding that a valid contract existed, the defendant had full knowledge of the lease and delay rental payments so no estoppel applied, and acceptance of the rentals did not constitute a waiver by the plaintiffs. The matter was remanded solely to determine and credit the amount of post-execution delay rentals received by the plaintiffs against the judgment amount.

property

This case involved a dispute over liability for workers' compensation benefits paid to Duane Houghton, a carpenter injured in 1952 while working on a construction project in North Dakota. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau determined that Houghton was an employee of the uninsured Broadway Investment Company and ordered the company to reimburse the Bureau for $1,740.19 in benefits under Chapter 65-09. Broadway appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that it was not the employer. The court found that the evidence showed P. T. Mikkelson acted as the general contractor with workers' compensation coverage, subcontracting the work through others, and that Houghton was not an employee of Broadway; the Bureau's contrary finding lacked evidentiary support. The district court's judgment in favor of Broadway was affirmed.

labor & employment

This case concerns an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage covering automotive parts and business assets of Wellens Auto Supply, involving original mortgagors, subsequent purchasers and partners like Oscar Oakland and Clarence Beck, and intervenors such as Martha Dennis asserting creditor claims for loans and wages. The trial court proceedings addressed priority of liens, validity of the mortgage and related agreements, and various counterclaims including conversion and fraud, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs converted Oakland's property by taking possession and barring him from the premises without accounting, which extinguished their lien and prevented foreclosure; it further found the mortgage and certain security interests fraudulent and void as to creditors, while recognizing established creditor claims by the plaintiffs, Dennis, and Emery but remanding for a new trial with leave to amend pleadings and consider receivership. The reasoning centered on the evidence of misrepresentations, lack of priority for the mortgage against creditors, and procedural complexities arising from multiple interventions and pending actions by other suppliers.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over title to land in Williams County, North Dakota, where the plaintiff sought to quiet title based on prior ownership and the defendant claimed ownership through a purchase from the county following tax forfeiture proceedings. The central issue was the validity of the county auditor's notice of expiration of the redemption period, which included amounts for taxes levied after the original 1925 tax sale. The trial court ruled for the defendant, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the notice complied with the statutes in effect before 1931, which permitted inclusion of subsequent delinquent taxes in the lump-sum redemption amount without requiring yearly separation. The court reasoned that the governing 1925 laws explicitly required payment of all subsequent taxes as part of redemption and that the notice met those requirements, rendering the tax title valid.

propertytaxesprocedure

The case concerned whether a child born to William J. Ballantine, who had been adopted into another family as a toddler, retained the right to inherit a share of his natural father's estate along with his three siblings. The administratrix of the estate argued that the adoption severed all inheritance rights from the natural parents, while the adopted son objected to a proposed distribution that excluded him. The county court and district court both ruled in favor of including the adopted son as an heir entitled to one-fourth of the residue, and the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed. The court reasoned that the adoption statutes addressed only the legal status and mutual obligations between the child and parents but did not explicitly eliminate inheritance rights, while the succession statute entitled all "issue" of the decedent to equal shares absent a clear legislative directive to the contrary. The court concluded that any change to bar such inheritance would require explicit statutory language rather than judicial interpretation.

family lawproperty

This case involves an eminent domain action by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. seeking a 50-foot easement across the Amanns' farmland in Dunn County, North Dakota, for constructing and maintaining electrical transmission lines. The jury awarded $712 for the easement and $1,440 in severance damages to the remainder of the property. The trial court reduced the easement award to $194.40 based on the per-acre value of the land but upheld the severance damages. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding on damages to the remainder and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjusting only the easement valuation.

property