Ennever v. Ogdie

South Dakota Supreme Court

Ennever v. Ogdie

183 N.W. 130, 44 S.D. 212, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 83

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 2, 1921

DocketFile No. 4882

StatusPublished

This text of 183 N.W. 130 (Ennever v. Ogdie) 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

Ennever v. Ogdie, 183 N.W. 130, 44 S.D. 212, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 83 (S.D. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

McGOY, J.

This action was instituted by plaintiff, as the guardian of one Dorothy Rigdon, a minor child about ,13 years of age, to recover damages on account of an alleged indecent as[213]*213sault made by defendant upon the person of said minor child. There was verdict for plaintiff. From a judgment based on said verdict defendant appeals.

The principal contention of appellant is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain said verdict. W'e are of the opinion that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain such verdict, and that such verdict is not excessive. It will serve no useful purpose to repeat or further refer to the evidence. All the assignments of error have been carefully examined and considered.

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

POLLEY, P. J., not sitting.

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

McGOY, J.

This action was instituted by plaintiff, as the guardian of one Dorothy Rigdon, a minor child about ,13 years of age, to recover damages on account of an alleged indecent as[213]*213sault made by defendant upon the person of said minor child. There was verdict for plaintiff. From a judgment based on said verdict defendant appeals.

The principal contention of appellant is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain said verdict. W'e are of the opinion that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain such verdict, and that such verdict is not excessive. It will serve no useful purpose to repeat or further refer to the evidence. All the assignments of error have been carefully examined and considered.

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

POLLEY, P. J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W. 130, 44 S.D. 212, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ennever-v-ogdie-sd-1921.