Peterson v. Peterson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Peterson v. Peterson

244 N.W. 320, 60 S.D. 264, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 51

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 27, 1932

DocketFile No. 7398.

StatusPublished

This text of 244 N.W. 320 (Peterson v. Peterson) 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

Peterson v. Peterson, 244 N.W. 320, 60 S.D. 264, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 51 (S.D. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon a former appeal in this case an opinion was rendered (56 S.D. 399, 228 N.W. 804, 805) whereby the cause was "remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment in conformity to this opinion." A subsequent judgment was entered by the trial court, and this is an attempted appeal from that judgment. *Page 265

We refrain from in any way passing upon the question of whether an appeal is the proper procedure to present the questions involved to this court. However, from the record as made, it is so apparent to us that the subsequent decree of the trial judge is in conformity to the mandate of this court in its former opinion that without further discussion the judgment as now entered is affirmed.

CAMPBELL, P.J., and POLLEY, ROBERTS, WARREN, and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur.

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

Upon a former appeal in this case an opinion was rendered (56 S.D. 399, 228 N.W. 804, 805) whereby the cause was "remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment in conformity to this opinion." A subsequent judgment was entered by the trial court, and this is an attempted appeal from that judgment. *Page 265

We refrain from in any way passing upon the question of whether an appeal is the proper procedure to present the questions involved to this court. However, from the record as made, it is so apparent to us that the subsequent decree of the trial judge is in conformity to the mandate of this court in its former opinion that without further discussion the judgment as now entered is affirmed.

CAMPBELL, P.J., and POLLEY, ROBERTS, WARREN, and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.W. 320, 60 S.D. 264, 1932 S.D. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-peterson-sd-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack