Peyton v. Nielsen

249 N.W. 688, 61 S.D. 405, 1933 S.D. LEXIS 65
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 18, 1933
DocketFile No. 7528.
StatusPublished

This text of 249 N.W. 688 (Peyton v. Nielsen) 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
Peyton v. Nielsen, 249 N.W. 688, 61 S.D. 405, 1933 S.D. LEXIS 65 (S.D. 1933).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding is a sequel to the case of Peyton v. Neilsen, 60 S. D. 351, 244 N. W. 384. The plaintiff was attempting to foreclose a mortgage upon some property belonging to.Nielsen. This property was left in the care of Nielsen, and he was claiming an agister’s lien for the care of the property. We held in our former opinion that Nielsen was not entitled to that lien. It now appears that, while that case was pending, the property upon which the plaintiff was seeking to foreclose the mortgage was sol'd, and the money derived from the sale was delivered to the clerk of courts to be held by the clerk pending the appeal, and thereafter to be made available for the satisfaction of the various conflicting claims of the parties. On the former appeal, while we held that Nielsen was not entitled to a lien against the property, we also held that Nielsen was entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $580 for the care and keep of the property. The trial court, after the former decision was handed down, entered a modified judgment, wherein it was decreed that Nielsen *406 had no lien upon this property, and it was further decreed that Nielsen was entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of $580. The notes secured by the mortgage, which the plaintiff was foreclosing, amounted to $1,467.80 with considerable accrued interest, and the proceeds of the property held by the clerk amounted to only $396.

Nielsen made a motion to have the $396, the proceeds from the sale of the property in the hands of the clerk, applied to his judgment against the plaintiff, and the court granted the motion. This was error. The order granting the motion, in effect, gives Nielsen the lien to which we decided: he was not entitled.

The order appealed from is reversed.

All the Judges concur.

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

Related

Peyton v. Nielsen
244 N.W. 384 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 N.W. 688, 61 S.D. 405, 1933 S.D. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peyton-v-nielsen-sd-1933.