Citizens State Bank v. Interstate Surety Co.

178 N.W. 935, 43 S.D. 262, 1920 S.D. LEXIS 93
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 16, 1920
DocketFile No. 4633
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 N.W. 935 (Citizens State Bank v. Interstate Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens State Bank v. Interstate Surety Co., 178 N.W. 935, 43 S.D. 262, 1920 S.D. LEXIS 93 (S.D. 1920).

Opinion

GATES, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for respondent and an order denying new trial. The cause was before us upon an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, which order was affirmed. Citizen’s State Bank v. Rosenberger, 40 S. D. 256, 167 N. W. 154. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case appear in that opinion. We there said:

“There is always in every contract of indemnity or surety-ship transaction an opportunity for the principal debtor and the person for whose benefit the indemnity contract is made to enter into a conspiracy to defraud the surety; but there is nothing in the transaction set out in the complaint that discloses any such fraudulent. conspiracy, or that the plaintiff bank acted otherwise then in good faith.”

Under the instructions given by the trial court upon that question the verdict of the jury favorable to respondent is decisive of that question.

In other respects the judgments entered against respondent in the several actions where in the several depositors were plaintiff, set forth in the complaint in this action, were decisive of the [264]*264liability of appellant. Notice was given to appellant of the demands made by the depositors and of the commencement of the actions, and appellant was requested to pay those demands or to defend the actions. Appellant refused to do either. Under such circumstances the judgments in said actions became res judicata against appellant, except as to the matter of respondent’s good faith, above, adverted to. Goldberg v. Sisseton, L. & T. Co., 24 ,S. D. 49, 123 N. W. 226, 140 Am. St. Rep. 775; Mundt v. Messenger Pub Co., 42 S. D. 608, 176 N. W. 740.

Finding no error in the record prejudicial to appellant, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

WHITING, J., took no part in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nite Owl Corporation v. Management Services, Inc.
173 N.W.2d 451 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 N.W. 935, 43 S.D. 262, 1920 S.D. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-state-bank-v-interstate-surety-co-sd-1920.