Farran v. Nagel

South Dakota Supreme Court

Farran v. Nagel

207 N.W. 58, 49 S.D. 340, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 10

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1926

DocketFile No. 5237

StatusPublished

This text of 207 N.W. 58 (Farran v. Nagel) 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

Farran v. Nagel, 207 N.W. 58, 49 S.D. 340, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 10 (S.D. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

DILLON, J.

This is an action brought to recover possession of three young heifers. The parties to the action were close neighbors. Plaintiff was absent from his farm for about a month, and upon his return he missed the cattle in dispute, and claims to have discovered them shortly afterwards in the possession of defendant. There is direct conflict in all of the evidence offered to prove the ownership of the three heifers. The jury was properly instructed by the trial court, and no exception was taken. The rule is well settled in this state that, where there is conflict in the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses is involved, and a motion for a new trial has beerj denied, as was done in this case, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal for insufficiency of the evidence. Weibel v. Gardner, 45 S. D. 474, 188 N. W. 741; Schmidt v. Carpenter, 27 S. D. 412, 131 N. W. 723, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 2 Am. 296; Gartner v. Mohan, 59 S. D. 202, 163 N. W. 674: Wingfield v. Little, 41 S. D. 60, 168 N. W. 716.

The remaining assignments have to do with the reception and rejection of evidence over the objection of appellant. These assignments have all been examined, and we fail to find any prejudicial error.

The judgment and order of the lower court are affirmed.

[341]*341CAMPBELL,, J., concurs in the result.

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

DILLON, J.

This is an action brought to recover possession of three young heifers. The parties to the action were close neighbors. Plaintiff was absent from his farm for about a month, and upon his return he missed the cattle in dispute, and claims to have discovered them shortly afterwards in the possession of defendant. There is direct conflict in all of the evidence offered to prove the ownership of the three heifers. The jury was properly instructed by the trial court, and no exception was taken. The rule is well settled in this state that, where there is conflict in the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses is involved, and a motion for a new trial has beerj denied, as was done in this case, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal for insufficiency of the evidence. Weibel v. Gardner, 45 S. D. 474, 188 N. W. 741; Schmidt v. Carpenter, 27 S. D. 412, 131 N. W. 723, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 2 Am. 296; Gartner v. Mohan, 59 S. D. 202, 163 N. W. 674: Wingfield v. Little, 41 S. D. 60, 168 N. W. 716.

The remaining assignments have to do with the reception and rejection of evidence over the objection of appellant. These assignments have all been examined, and we fail to find any prejudicial error.

The judgment and order of the lower court are affirmed.

[341]*341CAMPBELL,, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 N.W. 58, 49 S.D. 340, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farran-v-nagel-sd-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack