Emerick v. Sweeney Cattle Co.

96 N.W. 93, 17 S.D. 270, 1903 S.D. LEXIS 41
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 22, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 N.W. 93 (Emerick v. Sweeney Cattle 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
Emerick v. Sweeney Cattle Co., 96 N.W. 93, 17 S.D. 270, 1903 S.D. LEXIS 41 (S.D. 1903).

Opinion

Fuller, J.

A trial of the issues formed by the complaint answer, counterclaim, and reply, in this action based upon a conspiracy, terminated in a judgment for respondent, concerning which appellants have assigned no error. Before answer[271]*271ing, they severally demurred to the complaint on the following statutory grounds: “That there is a defect of parties defendant. That several causes' of action have been improperly united. That the complaint does not state.facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” These demurrers were overruled, and appellants’ brief is mainly directed to the point that several causes of action are improperly united.

While the complaint contains matter that might rightfully be considered surplusage, there is- a specific charge of every fact and circumstance essential to a conspiracy and an action for damage predicated thereon. It is shown.by the most ample averments that appellants, with the intent to cheat and defraud respondent, effected a combination which enabled them to swindle her out of an undivided one-half interest in a large number of cattle. The means to which they resorted in the accomplishment of such common purpose are clearly shown by the use of plain and concise language. While the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and by which respondent was injured, embrace different transactions, but one cause of action and one conspiracy is alleged, and no damages, other than such as resulted therefrom, were recovered.

The complaint is not demurrable, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Related

Cressy v. Republic Creosoting Co.
122 N.W. 484 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 N.W. 93, 17 S.D. 270, 1903 S.D. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerick-v-sweeney-cattle-co-sd-1903.