Gurney v. Gurney

South Dakota Supreme Court

Gurney v. Gurney

245 N.W. 396, 60 S.D. 607, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 122

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1932

DocketFile No. 7453.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 N.W. 396 (Gurney v. Gurney) 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

Gurney v. Gurney, 245 N.W. 396, 60 S.D. 607, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 122 (S.D. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Where it appears from the record that the judgment of the trial court was correct, it should not be reversed on appeal, even though based on erroneous conclusions or wrong reasons. Keith v. Schievelbein, 53 S.D. 421, 229 N.W. 858; Birken v. Hickey,42 S.D. 472, 176 N.W. 137; Dwyer v. Chicago N.W.R. Co., 41 S.D. 535, 171 N.W. 760. Upon the entitre record in the instant case, a majority of the judges, while not in agreement with the reasoning or conclusions of the trial court, are nevertheless of the opinion that a substantially correct result was arrived at. The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

CAMPBELL, P.J., and ROBERTS, WARREN, and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur.

POLLEY, J., dissents. *Page 608

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

Where it appears from the record that the judgment of the trial court was correct, it should not be reversed on appeal, even though based on erroneous conclusions or wrong reasons. Keith v. Schievelbein, 53 S.D. 421, 229 N.W. 858; Birken v. Hickey,42 S.D. 472, 176 N.W. 137; Dwyer v. Chicago N.W.R. Co., 41 S.D. 535, 171 N.W. 760. Upon the entitre record in the instant case, a majority of the judges, while not in agreement with the reasoning or conclusions of the trial court, are nevertheless of the opinion that a substantially correct result was arrived at. The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

CAMPBELL, P.J., and ROBERTS, WARREN, and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur.

POLLEY, J., dissents. *Page 608

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 N.W. 396, 60 S.D. 607, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurney-v-gurney-sd-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack