Empey v. Rapid City

103 N.W.2d 861, 78 S.D. 462, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 33
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 28, 1960
DocketFile 9782
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 103 N.W.2d 861 (Empey v. Rapid City) 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
Empey v. Rapid City, 103 N.W.2d 861, 78 S.D. 462, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 33 (S.D. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Acting under SDC 45.17 and 45.21 Rapid City graded, curbed and paved described streets. To defray the cost thereof it levied assessment against abutting property and proposed to issue bonds in lieu of assessment certificates. Plaintiff, an owner of abutting property against which assessments were so levied, brought this action, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, to have the assessments declared invalid, and to enjoin the sale of the bonds. The defendants interposed an answer wherein they prayed that, if for any reason the court should adjudge the described assessments to be void, it order a reassessment as provided in SDC 45.2118. Cf. Olson v. City of Watertown, 57 S.D. 363, 232 N.W. 289, and Cowart v. Union Paving Co., 216 Cal. 375, 14 P.2d 764, 83 A.L.R. 1185. The trial resulted in a judgment declaring the assessments invalid and ordering a reassessment as prayed by the city.

The plaintiff has appealed and in her brief she urges that because, under the undisputed facts the city lacked *464 power to make the assessments, the court erred in ordering a reassessment. Her contentions are based upon constitutional grounds. However, none of these contentions was presented to the trial court, and none is embraced by her assignments of error.

The rule that this court will not consider questions which have not been presented to the trial court (Gaines v. White, 2 S.D. 410, 50 N.W. 901, and Utah Idaho Sugar Co. v. Temmey, 68 S.D. 623, 5 N.W.2d 486) is applied to contentions grounded on the constitution. Wheeler v. Hugill, 67 S.D. 545, 295 N.W. 638, and Tri-State Auto Auction, Inc. v. Ostroot, 76 S.D. 356, 78 N.W.2d 468. And to present a question here, it must be embraced by the assignments of error. Patrick v. Blake, 70 S.D. 494, 19 N.W.2d 220. Tested by these rules, the record fails to present any question for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

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

Related

Bayer v. Johnson
349 N.W.2d 447 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)
Schlenker v. South Dakota Department of Public Safety
318 N.W.2d 351 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1982)
STATE BY & THROUGH DEPT., ETC. v. Richey Motor
296 N.W.2d 505 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Hagstrom
274 N.W.2d 197 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Olesen
196 N.W.2d 362 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1972)
State v. Williams
173 N.W.2d 889 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1970)
Stark v. Stark
109 N.W.2d 904 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.W.2d 861, 78 S.D. 462, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empey-v-rapid-city-sd-1960.