Houts v. Bartle

85 N.W. 591, 14 S.D. 322, 1901 S.D. LEXIS 18
South Dakota Supreme Court·Decided April 2, 1901·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Fueeek, P. J.

As every defense for which the legislature has provided is meritorious, there was no abuse of judicial discretion in allowing the statute of .limitations to be set up by way of an amendment to the answer filed in this case. Garvie v. Greene, 9 S. D. 608, 70 N. W. 847. The facts before us as to the running of such statute are practically identical with a case just decided (Houts v. Hovne, 14 S. D.-84 N. W. 773), where it is held that plaintiff's cause of action is barred b)*- the statute, and for the same reason the judgment from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

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

Houts v. Bartle, 85 N.W. 591, 14 S.D. 322, 1901 S.D. LEXIS 18 (S.D. 1901).

85 N.W. 591 (Houts v. Bartle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bigelow v. Walraven
221 N.W.2d 328 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1974)
Leslie v. Smith
234 N.W. 669 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1931)
Froelich v. Swafford
144 N.W. 925 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Stapleton v. O'Hara
1912 OK 423 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
O'Neill v. Jones
123 N.W. 495 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)