Piechotta v. Fried
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Stutsman County, Coffey, J. “Damages may be uncertain, either as to tbeir existence, or their nature, or in respect to the cause from which they proceed.” 17 O. J. 754, § 87. “Where it is not shown with reasonable certainty that the harm or loss resulted from the act complained of, there can be no recovery of compensatory damages therefor.” 1Y O. J. Y55, § 89; West Chicago, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Stutsman County, Coffey, J. “Damages may be uncertain, either as to tbeir existence, or their nature, or in respect to the cause from which they proceed.” 17 O. J. 754, § 87. “Where it is not shown with reasonable certainty that the harm or loss resulted from the act complained of, there can be no recovery of compensatory damages therefor.” 1Y O. J. Y55, § 89; West Chicago, etc. Co. v. Foster (111.) 51 N. E. 690; Kethledge v. City (Mich.) 146 N. W. 164. “Another principle of proximate cause which seems to be well established is that an accident or injury…
1Opinion
On Petition for Rehearing Filed January 22, 1921.
Birdzell, J.
Counsel for respondent has filed a carefully considered petition for rehearing, in which he has collated the cases decided in this jurisdiction bearing upon the scope of the cross-examination of witnesses. These cases are brought to the attention of the court by way of supporting the contention, forcibly advanced, that the liberal rule of cross-examination previously adhered to is departed from in the decision of this case. See Territory v. O’Hare, 1 N. D. 30, 44 N. W. 1003; State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast), 5 N. D. 516, 35 L.R.A.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Territory of Dakota v. O'HareNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- State v. ApleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Engstrom v. NelsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1919