Hallickson v. Crooks

South Dakota Supreme Court

Hallickson v. Crooks

274 N.W. 496, 65 S.D. 383, 1937 S.D. LEXIS 57

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1937

DocketFile No. 8048.

StatusPublished

This text of 274 N.W. 496 (Hallickson v. Crooks) 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

Hallickson v. Crooks, 274 N.W. 496, 65 S.D. 383, 1937 S.D. LEXIS 57 (S.D. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a judgment rendered against them by default. A fact issue was presented to the trial court.

After a careful review of the showing of the parties and the argument of counsel, it has become apparent to us that the trial court believed the respondent and her attorneys, and disbelieved the appellants. We are unable to say that, in so believing the showing of the respondent, the trial court abused its discretion.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Judges concur. *Page 384

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

Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a judgment rendered against them by default. A fact issue was presented to the trial court.

After a careful review of the showing of the parties and the argument of counsel, it has become apparent to us that the trial court believed the respondent and her attorneys, and disbelieved the appellants. We are unable to say that, in so believing the showing of the respondent, the trial court abused its discretion.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Judges concur. *Page 384

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 N.W. 496, 65 S.D. 383, 1937 S.D. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallickson-v-crooks-sd-1937.