Hipple v. Strohbehn

South Dakota Supreme Court

Hipple v. Strohbehn

182 N.W. 535, 44 S.D. 102, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 52

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1921

DocketFile No. 4782

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 182 N.W. 535 (Hipple v. Strohbehn) 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

Hipple v. Strohbehn, 182 N.W. 535, 44 S.D. 102, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 52 (S.D. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

GATES, J.

Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

[103]*103[1] Appellant argues two propositions, viz.: (i) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that .the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 21 S. D. 357, 112 N. W. 960; Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N. W. 277; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 32 S. D. 608, 144 N. W. 128; McKinnon v. Fuller, 33 S. D. 582, 146 N. W. 910; Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504; Higgs v. Bigelow, 39 S. D. 359, 164 N. W. 89.

[2] There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 2 S. D. 517, 51 N. W. 332; Carroll v. Nisbet, 9 S. D. 497, 70 N. W. 634; Wolf v. Sneve, 23 S. D. 260, 121 N. W. 781; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646; Whaley v. Vidal, 26 S. D. 300, 128 N. W. 331; Hazen v. Thompson, 33 S. D. 646, 146 N. W. 1070; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 36 S. D. 390, 155 N. W. 1; Berke v. McCook Co., 39 S. D. 579, 165 N. W. 985.

Affirmed.

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

GATES, J.

Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

[103]*103[1] Appellant argues two propositions, viz.: (i) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that .the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 21 S. D. 357, 112 N. W. 960; Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N. W. 277; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 32 S. D. 608, 144 N. W. 128; McKinnon v. Fuller, 33 S. D. 582, 146 N. W. 910; Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504; Higgs v. Bigelow, 39 S. D. 359, 164 N. W. 89.

[2] There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 2 S. D. 517, 51 N. W. 332; Carroll v. Nisbet, 9 S. D. 497, 70 N. W. 634; Wolf v. Sneve, 23 S. D. 260, 121 N. W. 781; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646; Whaley v. Vidal, 26 S. D. 300, 128 N. W. 331; Hazen v. Thompson, 33 S. D. 646, 146 N. W. 1070; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 36 S. D. 390, 155 N. W. 1; Berke v. McCook Co., 39 S. D. 579, 165 N. W. 985.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.W. 535, 44 S.D. 102, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hipple-v-strohbehn-sd-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack