James Morris

The case involved stockholders of Dakota Bankers Trust Company (later renamed Bankers State Bank and Trust Company), which was incorporated in 1961 under North Dakota statutes as a surety and trust company. The company amended its articles to include general banking powers, began conducting commercial banking without approval from the State Banking Board or compliance with banking organization statutes, and the stockholders sought a declaratory judgment and injunction against these activities. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the banking operations were unauthorized and ultra vires, that the stockholders were not obligated on their stock subscriptions while the company engaged in illegal banking, and that the company must be enjoined from such activities until it obtained proper certification. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, reasoning that Chapter 6-05 (under which the company was organized) does not confer general banking powers and that the company had not met the requirements of Chapters 6-02 and 6-03 for banking associations. The court also upheld the grant of injunctive relief in the declaratory judgment action and stayed enforcement of the injunction for 60 days to allow adjustment of affairs.

business & regulatory

This case involved a personal injury suit brought by the parents of seven-year-old Rodney Avron against the tenants (the Castoreños) and the landlord (Harriet D. Plummer) for burns the boy suffered in 1961 while playing with a fire around a tree stump on the rented Minnesota property. A jury awarded damages against all defendants, but the landlord appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of her liability. The North Dakota Supreme Court, applying Minnesota law, reversed the judgment as to the landlord. It held that a lessor has no duty to abate dangerous conditions created by tenants after taking possession or to evict them, even with notice, absent a lease violation, public nuisance, or illegal activity, and that the tenants alone controlled the premises.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Ambrose Little Bear, who was charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of Fred Shaw and John Johnson but convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for Shaw's killing. Little Bear appealed the judgment and the denial of a new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, with no other legal errors claimed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence—including fibers from the defendant's jacket found on the victims, their clothing, and a weapon; accomplice testimony; and the defendant's own statements—supported the jury's finding that he either committed or aided in the murder. The court applied precedents requiring deference to jury verdicts based on competent evidence and noted that state law treats aiders and abettors as principals.

criminal law

This case involved the revocation of William Kirchmeier's driver's license by the North Dakota State Highway Department for six months following an administrative hearing. Kirchmeier appealed the revocation to the district court, which initially ordered the license restored after the suspension period and dismissed the case, but later entered a judgment declaring the revocation null and void. The Supreme Court of North Dakota dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the issues had become moot because the suspension period had expired, the license had been returned, and there was no remaining justiciable controversy for the court to resolve, as courts are limited to actual controversies and do not issue advisory opinions.

procedure

In McDonald v. Ferguson, a driver whose license was revoked under North Dakota's implied consent law for refusing a chemical breath test after a warrantless DUI arrest sued to void the revocation, noting that he had been acquitted of the underlying criminal charge. The trial court ruled the revocation invalid, and the state appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the implied consent statute and precedent in Colling v. Hjelle, a lawful arrest is a prerequisite to revocation for test refusal, and an acquittal establishes that the warrantless arrest was unlawful. The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to the statute's approval of the Harger Drunkometer, finding the device statutorily approved by the legislature itself without need for external validation in this case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a motion to dismiss an appeal in a guardianship proceeding on the ground that the appellants had filed a defective undertaking on appeal, executed only by themselves rather than by two sureties as required by statute, and a cross-motion to substitute a cash deposit of $250 in lieu of the undertaking. The court held that it possessed jurisdiction to permit the substitution even after the six-month appeal period had expired. The core reasoning was that timely service and filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction under North Dakota statutes, that Section 28-27-26 allows the court to permit curative amendments or acts when an appeal is taken in good faith but other steps are omitted by mistake or accident, and that the service of an undertaking is not itself jurisdictional.

procedurefamily law

This case involved a wrongful death action brought by Margaret Sahli against the estate of Simon Marquart, whose car collided head-on with another vehicle, killing Sahli's husband who was a passenger. The suit proceeded under North Dakota's guest statute, which bars recovery by guests unless the driver's ordinary negligence was induced by intoxication. A jury awarded damages to the plaintiff, finding that Marquart's intoxication had superinduced his negligence and rejecting the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The trial court denied the defendant's post-verdict motions, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings on intoxication and that the plaintiff was not barred from recovery as a matter of law.

torts & liability

In Hummel v. Kranz, the plaintiffs purchased three working interests in proposed oil wells in Canada from the defendants and later sought rescission and recovery of the $3,125 paid, claiming the interests were unregistered securities under North Dakota's Securities Act. The trial court found for the plaintiffs. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the working interest agreements were securities as defined by statute because they granted fractional interests in oil and gas proceeds without requiring buyer participation in production. The court also ruled that the defendants' 1960 refund offer was ineffective under the Act's rescission provision because it was not properly made to both named purchasers, leaving the defendants liable for the purchase price, interest, costs, and fees.

business & regulatory

This case involved a worker's compensation claim filed by Safford Beauchamp for silicosis he contracted from inhaling sand dust while employed as a sandblaster on the Garrison Dam project in 1958. The North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau denied the claim as untimely under the one-year filing limit in Section 65-05-01, NDCC, but the district court reversed and remanded, determining that the injury occurred upon diagnosis in May 1961. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the claim was filed within the required 60-day period after injury. The court reasoned that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which covers occupational diseases fairly traceable to employment, the term 'injury' refers to a compensable injury that occurs for a latent progressive disease like silicosis when it culminates in disability and becomes diagnosable, rather than at the time of initial exposure.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns eminent domain proceedings in which the State of North Dakota, through its Highway Commissioner, condemned two parcels of land totaling about 18 acres from the Chandlers' airport property to construct a controlled-access highway along U.S. 2 and U.S. 85, including the taking of access rights. A jury awarded $18,000 in compensation ($14,544 for the land taken and $3,456 in severance damages), which was $480 less than the state's deposit, leading to a judgment against the owners. The Chandlers appealed, arguing errors in the jury instructions on market value, highest and best use, and especially the rights of abutting landowners to ingress and egress. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the owners' access rights were subordinate to the state's paramount authority to improve and control highways for the public, and therefore granted a new trial.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned Maurice Colling's challenge to the revocation of his driver's license by the North Dakota State Highway Commissioner after he refused a chemical test for alcohol following a warrantless arrest for driving under the influence. The district court reversed the revocation and restored the license, determining that the arrest was invalid because Colling's subsequent acquittal established that no offense had occurred in the officer's presence. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the implied consent law requires a valid arrest before a test can be demanded and that an acquittal precludes the necessary finding of an offense committed in the officer's presence under the arrest-without-warrant statute. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language linking a lawful arrest to the consent requirement and the effect of the acquittal on the legality of the arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Northern Securities Company (as defendant) from a 1959 money judgment and a 1960 order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a suit brought by C. & M., Inc. and related plaintiffs. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was filed more than five months after entry of judgment on remittitur and well beyond the statutory deadlines. The core reasoning was that appeal periods under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-04 (six months from judgment entry or notice for a judgment; sixty days from notice for an order) are mandatory and jurisdictional, so untimely appeals cannot be heard regardless of prior related proceedings like the earlier new-trial appeal; prior cases cited by the appellant did not alter this rule.

procedure

The case concerned competing rights of redemption following foreclosures on multiple mortgages secured by lands owned by members of the Lakoduk family in McHenry County, North Dakota. Jacob Mehlhoff, as assignee of a judgment against Ed Lakoduk, redeemed the property after foreclosure sales under three bank mortgages; the Pioneer State Bank then redeemed from Mehlhoff using an assigned junior mortgage that had served as collateral for a separate debt. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the trial court's judgment quieting title in Mehlhoff, canceling a promissory note from Roy Lakoduk to Sam Lakoduk, and reducing the bank's claim, holding that the redemption statutes are remedial and intended to maximize satisfaction of debts while protecting pledge interests. The court further ruled that the prior foreclosure of Sam Lakoduk's own mortgage had returned the junior mortgage to him free of the bank's earlier pledge, allowing its valid re-pledge and use in the subsequent redemption.

propertyprocedure

The case involved taxpayers of Nelson County, North Dakota, challenging a 1961 tax levy for a water conservation and flood control district that was purportedly created in 1946, arguing the district was not properly formed under the law at the time, the governing statute had been repealed, and the district had never been implemented. The trial court denied the request for an injunction against the levy and dismissed the action. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition and order sufficiently complied with the statute to create a valid district, that official duties were presumed performed, and that subsequent legislative changes did not dissolve existing districts nor did non-use result in forfeiture of the district's corporate status.

environmenttaxesprocedure

This case arose from an automobile accident in which the plaintiffs, including Herman J. Maier and Florence Maier, sued defendant Anton Holzer for negligence, with the defendant countering claims of contributory negligence by the driver. The jury returned a verdict dismissing Herman Maier's claims, awarding Florence Maier $300 in damages, and granting $1,200 to the guardian of the minor children. The trial court granted Florence Maier's motion for a new trial on damages only, conditioned on the defendant's consent to an additur increasing her award to $2,800; the defendant declined and appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the $300 verdict inadequate based on evidence of Mrs. Maier's facial injuries and medical treatment, and that any error in the additur condition was harmless to the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over fire insurance coverage on a North Dakota dwelling. Plaintiff Joe Koppinger purchased a policy from Implement Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. in 1958, then sold the property to the Candees in 1959 while retaining a vendor’s lien for the unpaid balance; a fire damaged the home shortly afterward. The insurer denied the claim, asserting that Koppinger lacked an insurable interest after the sale. The trial court found that the statutory vendor’s lien constituted an insurable interest equal to the unpaid purchase price at the time of the loss and entered judgment for that amount. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the coverage ruling and the measure of recovery but modified the judgment by striking provisions that addressed disposition of proceeds and subrogation rights as to the non-party Candees, because those issues were not properly before the court.

propertyprocedure

This case is an appeal from a district court's summary judgment dismissing a complaint that sought to rescind a stipulation for dismissal in a county court probate proceeding concerning the will of Denis Volk. The plaintiff alleged that he entered the stipulation while suffering from acute anxiety neurosis and amnesia induced by threats of violence, rendering him mentally unsound and unaware of his actions. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for equitable rescission based on lack of mental capacity at the time of the agreement. The court reasoned that the pleadings created a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's mental state, that no restoration of value was required to seek rescission under the circumstances, and that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the equitable claim despite the underlying probate matter.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between the Volkmann estate and the City of Crosby over groundwater extraction. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the city from operating a well on a railroad right-of-way that reduced or eliminated the flow of their artesian well and requested damages for prior interference. The trial court denied injunctive relief but awarded the estate $5,000 in damages. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the estate's prior reasonable and beneficial use of the percolating waters created vested property rights under state law that could not be impaired by the city's later-acquired water permit without compensation. The court reasoned that subsequent legislation declaring such waters public and subject to appropriation did not override those pre-existing rights.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a construction contractor suing an oil company and its surety for unpaid amounts on a project to build a gravel mound protecting an oil well from reservoir flooding, with claims based on a written contract, alleged oral assurances for extra materials due to quicksand, and an alternative quantum meruit theory. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the contractor, but the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the judgment in full and granted a new trial. The court reasoned that the verdict was excessive and based on speculative evidence of material quantities, that evidentiary rulings improperly allowed parol evidence and proof of extras beyond the contract terms, and that jury instructions and the surety's liability required reconsideration on retrial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over bank accounts totaling about $5,567 that decedent Martin Fischer had placed in joint tenancy with his sister Josephine Kaiser before his death. After Fischer died intestate, the estate administrator sued Josephine Kaiser, her husband, and businesswoman Ella Nelson, alleging they had conspired to exert undue influence over Fischer to divert the funds from the estate. A jury found for the estate, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove any scheme, confidential relationship, or undue influence. The court noted that Fischer's own statements and the informal document he signed indicated his intent for Josephine to handle and ultimately receive any remaining funds, making the joint accounts consistent with that purpose rather than fraudulent. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants.

propertyfamily lawprocedure