From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spicer v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Aug 21, 1962
116 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1962)

Opinion

No. 7986.

August 21, 1962.

Appeal from the District Court, Burleigh County, W. C. Lynch, J.

Joseph Coghlan, Bismarck, for appellant.

C. J. Schauss, Mandan, for respondent.



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.2d 278; 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 in 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.


Summaries of

Spicer v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Aug 21, 1962
116 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1962)
Case details for

Spicer v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:Lyle SPICER, Respondent, v. Echo HAMILTON, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of North Dakota

Date published: Aug 21, 1962

Citations

116 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1962)

Citing Cases

Barr v. Barnes County Board of County Commissioners

And where no demand for trial de novo was made, the Supreme Court is limited to determine whether the…