Porter v. Knapp
This text of 157 N.W. 988 (Porter v. Knapp) 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.
Opinion
Trial was had before a referee, the referee’s report filed, and a -day set by the trial court for the hearing of the motion- to confirm such report. Thereafter, and before the hearing of such -report, appellant sought to intervene, and the court made its -order refusing such- intervention. It is from this order that the -present appeal is taken.
Regardless of statutory regulations, good practice -requires that -petitions seeking intervention b-e filed before the trial is entered upon; an-d it seems to be the general rule that a party will not be allowed to intervene between the trial and the rendition of the judgment, 11 Ency. PI. & Pr. 503; Rockwell v. Coffey, 20 Colo. 397, 38 Pac. 376. In this state this- question has been settled by the express provisions of the statute allowing- intervention. Such statute (section 96, C. C. P.) specifically provides- that the party seeking intervention may s-o intervene “-before the trial.” Even conceding, without deciding, that there may be -cases where [282]*282'the court in its discretion might allow intervention even after trial, yet the right to■ so intervene is not an absolute right given by statute to a •party seeking intervention. The facts disclosed by the record herein are such as fully warranted the trial court’s denial of appellant’s application.
The prder appealed from is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
157 N.W. 988, 37 S.D. 279, 1916 S.D. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-knapp-sd-1916.