Johnson v. Incorporated Town of Castlewood

168 N.W. 124, 40 S.D. 493, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 108
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 25, 1918
DocketFile No. 4325
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 168 N.W. 124 (Johnson v. Incorporated Town of Castlewood) 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
Johnson v. Incorporated Town of Castlewood, 168 N.W. 124, 40 S.D. 493, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 108 (S.D. 1918).

Opinion

POLLEY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition filed toy appellants, requesting that a‘certain half section of land, owned toy appellants, be excluded from the incorporated town of' Castlewood. The petition was -originally filed with the board of trustees of said town -of Castlewood, under the provisions of sections 1508-1512, Pol. Code, and was-, by -that board, rejected. The petition was then filed in the -circuit court o-f Hamlin county, where trial was had. The petition con-ced-ediy states facts sufficient to- entitle the petitioners to the relief prayed for, and the evidence submitted on behalf of petitioners at the trial appears to-prove the.facts alleged- in the petition. -But, at ¡the -close of the trial, the court made a purported finding of fact a's follows:

“That the request of the petitioners and -plaintiffs -contained in their petition herein cannot be granted without injustice to- ¡the inhabitants of the said1 town and the persons interested.”

There is n-o evidence to support this finding. The evidence does not show thait the inhabitants will suffer any injustice by the granting of the petition, nor does- it appear that the petitioners derive any benefit whatever from being included within the corporate limits of the said town. No reason of any kind appears why the granting of the petition should be objected to by the; -defendant, except that, so long- as the premises involved remain within the [495]*495corporate limits'of the town, said premises may be made a source-of revenue to the town.

The judgment and order appealed from- are reversed.

WHITING, P. J., taking no part herein.

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

Related

Krebs v. City of Rapid City
364 N.W.2d 128 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1985)
Smith v. City of Rapid City
307 N.W.2d 598 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)
General Discount Corp. v. Schram
47 F. Supp. 845 (E.D. Michigan, 1942)
Kaiser v. Town of Ravinia
236 N.W. 294 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1931)
Zajicek v. City of Wessington
220 N.W. 913 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
Klosterman v. City of Elkton
220 N.W. 910 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
Lacome v. Town of Dolton
202 N.W. 389 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1925)
Kreger v. City of Clear Lake
195 N.W. 498 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1923)
Thiel v. City of Alexandria
171 N.W. 209 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 N.W. 124, 40 S.D. 493, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-incorporated-town-of-castlewood-sd-1918.