Long v. Knight Const. Co., Inc.

262 N.W.2d 207, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 302
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 8, 1978
Docket12134
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 262 N.W.2d 207 (Long v. Knight Const. Co., Inc.) 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
Long v. Knight Const. Co., Inc., 262 N.W.2d 207, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 302 (S.D. 1978).

Opinion

PORTER, Justice.

After a bench trial, the circuit court rendered judgment denying plaintiff’s complaint for injunctive relief and awarding defendant $6,939.94 on its counterclaim.

Judgment was signed by the court on October 22, 1976, and filed and attested by the clerk on October 27, 1976. On October 28, 1976, defendant’s counsel gave written notice of entry of judgment to plaintiff’s attorney of record and also to plaintiff, by mailing. The time for appeal by plaintiff from the judgment commenced no later than November 1, 1976, 1 that being the first day of the sixty-day period allowed by law for an appeal from the judgment. SDCL 15-26-2.

Plaintiff-appellant filed notice of appeal from the judgment on December 29, 1976, with the clerk of the trial court. On December 31, 1976, appellant served notice of appeal upon defendant-respondent’s attorney of record. 2 The statutory time for appeal expired December 30, 1976, the notice of appeal was served after that time, and the appeal was therefore not taken within the time for appeal allowed by law.

SDCL 15-26-6 provides in pertinent part: “The appeal shall be deemed taken by the service and filing of the notice of appeal . .” SDCL 15-26-2 requires that “an appeal from the judgment must be taken within sixty days after the judgment shall be signed, attested, filed and written notice of entry thereof shall have been given to the adverse party.”

Plaintiff-appellant’s failure to serve notice of appeal upon defendant-respondent before the time for taking an appeal expired is fatal to the appeal. Morrell Livestock Co. v. Stockman’s Commission Co., 77 S.D. 114, 86 N.W.2d 533 (1957); City of Sioux Falls v. Naused, S.D., 214 N.W.2d 74 (1974); Millard v. Baker, 76 S.D. 529, 81 N.W.2d 892 (1957); and see Commercial Serv. Corp. v. L. Paulle-Midway F. & S. C. *209 Co., 75 S.D. 409, 66 N.W.2d 523 (1954). This court is without jurisdiction of an untimely appeal. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co., 65 S.D. 143, 272 N.W. 285 (1937); State v. Devine, S.D., 257 N.W.2d 606 (1977).

The record contains a written stipulation between present counsel extending to January 7,1977, the time within which appellant may appeal to this court. It has long been settled that a stipulation of the parties will not confer upon this court jurisdiction of an appeal. Chamberlain v. Hedger, 10 S.D. 290, 73 N.W. 75 (1897); see also In the Matter of the Opening of Gold Street, Deadwood v. Newton, 2 Dak. 39, 3 N.W. 311 (1879).

The appellate jurisdiction of this court will not be presumed but must affirmatively appear from the record. State v. Hare, S.D., 260 N.W.2d 224 (1977), citing Valley Land & Irrigation Co. v. Schone, 2 S.D. 344, 50 N.W. 356 (1891). This court is required to take notice of jurisdictional questions, whether presented by the parties or not. State v. Hare, supra.

This appeal was scheduled to be orally argued on February 16, 1978. Our rules provide that “upon unanimous consent of the justices qualified to hear the ease” oral argument may be dispensed with in any case, even though request for oral argument has been made. SDCL 15-26-23.1. For the reasons given in this opinion, we deny oral argument and dismiss the appeal.

All the Justices concur.
1

. We assume, without deciding, that notice of entry of judgment served by mail is not complete in this instance until the expiration of three days following the day of mailing. SDCL 15-6-6(e).

2

. The notice of appeal was served personally on respondent’s counsel on December 31, 1976, by the sheriff of Day County.

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

Related

Stock v. Garrett
2025 S.D. 8 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2025)
Evans v. Sullivan
2024 S.D. 36 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2024)
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Murphy
2013 S.D. 14 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms
2012 S.D. 20 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
In Re the Estate of Flaws
2012 S.D. 3 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
People Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Social Services Ex Rel. B.H.
2011 S.D. 26 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Jacquot v. Rozum
2010 S.D. 84 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
Enchanted World Doll Museum v. CorTrust Bank, N.A.
2009 SD 111 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Reese Trust
2009 SD 111 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2009)
Cable v. UNION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2009 SD 59 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2009)
Midcom, Inc. v. Oehlerking
2006 SD 87 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Mulligan
2005 SD 50 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)
Dudley v. Huizenga
2003 SD 84 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Neitge
2000 SD 37 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)
Schrank v. Pennington County Board of Commissioners
1998 SD 108 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Bohlmann v. Lindquist
1997 SD 42 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1997)
Geraets v. Geraets
1996 SD 119 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1996)
American Totalisator Co. v. Southern Dakota Racing Club, Inc.
501 N.W.2d 374 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)
In the Interest of J.W.
498 N.W.2d 417 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 N.W.2d 207, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-knight-const-co-inc-sd-1978.