MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY v. HOERNER

Nos. 7643-7647.

81 N.W.2d 648 (1957)

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Peter G. HOERNER and Louise Hoerner, his wife, Cities Service Oil Company, a corporation, Skelly Oil Company, a corporation, Northwestern Improvement Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eugene F. PELTON and Florence V. Pelton, husband and wife, and Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George R. VESTAL and Robert Lawrence, Defendants and Respondents. MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Chris D. DECKER, a/k/a Christ D. Decker, C. D. Decker and Emma Decker, his wife, Hugh Palmer, Jack Rouse, and Leon E. Thompson, Defendants and Respondents. MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Fenn W. PELTON and Ella Louise Pelton, husband and wife, Eugene F. Pelton, Northwestern Improvement Company, a corporation, Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1957.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Reichert & Reichert, Dickinson, Raymond Hildebrand, Glendive, Mont., and Cox, Pearce & Engebretson, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant.

Mackoff, Kellogg, Muggli & Kirby, Dickinson, for defendants and respondents Eugene F. Pelton, Florence V. Pelton, George R. Vestal, Robert Lawrence, Chris D. Decker, Emma Decker, Fenn W. Pelton and Ella Louise Pelton.

Floyd B. Sperry, Golden Valley, for defendants and respondents Peter G. Hoerner and Louise Hoerner.


MORRIS, Judge.

These appeals embrace five actions which were tried together with Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Culver, N.D., 80 N.W.2d 541. The pleadings with respect to contested issues are the same in all six actions except that different tracts of land are involved. The jury was given one set of instructions under which it rendered separate verdicts in each case. The evidence followed the same general pattern with respect to...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases