Smith v. Goldsmith

South Dakota Supreme Court

Smith v. Goldsmith

207 N.W. 978, 49 S.D. 580, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 87

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1926

DocketFile No. 6080

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 N.W. 978 (Smith v. Goldsmith) 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

Smith v. Goldsmith, 207 N.W. 978, 49 S.D. 580, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 87 (S.D. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

'CAMPBELL, J.

The Commercial State Bank of Salem', S. D., having gone into the hands of the superintendent of banks of this state in April, 1924, for liquidation, and being then hopelessly insolvent, this action was thereafter instituted by said 'bank and by the superintendent of banks tO' enforce defendant’s liability as a stockholder under article 18, § 3, Constitution of South Dakota,' and section 8937, Code 1919. Findings ,conclusions and judgment were in favor of plaintiff superintendent of banks, and against the defendant, from which judgment and order denying new trial defendant appeals.

Appellant seeks to predicate error upon a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, claiming that the complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action in that it failed to show- a joint cause of action in favor of both plaintiffs. The complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff superintendent of banks, and judgment was entered in his favor only, and therefore appellant has been in no wise prejudiced by any misjoinder of parties plaintiff, if there was such misjoinder.

Other questions involved on this appeal are identical with those in Smith v. Lucille Goldsmith, 49 S. D. —, 207, N. W. 977, this day decided, and are ruled against appellant by that decision.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

MISER, Circuit Judge, sitting in lieu of SHERWOOD, J.

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

'CAMPBELL, J.

The Commercial State Bank of Salem', S. D., having gone into the hands of the superintendent of banks of this state in April, 1924, for liquidation, and being then hopelessly insolvent, this action was thereafter instituted by said 'bank and by the superintendent of banks tO' enforce defendant’s liability as a stockholder under article 18, § 3, Constitution of South Dakota,' and section 8937, Code 1919. Findings ,conclusions and judgment were in favor of plaintiff superintendent of banks, and against the defendant, from which judgment and order denying new trial defendant appeals.

Appellant seeks to predicate error upon a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, claiming that the complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action in that it failed to show- a joint cause of action in favor of both plaintiffs. The complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff superintendent of banks, and judgment was entered in his favor only, and therefore appellant has been in no wise prejudiced by any misjoinder of parties plaintiff, if there was such misjoinder.

Other questions involved on this appeal are identical with those in Smith v. Lucille Goldsmith, 49 S. D. —, 207, N. W. 977, this day decided, and are ruled against appellant by that decision.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

MISER, Circuit Judge, sitting in lieu of SHERWOOD, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 N.W. 978, 49 S.D. 580, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-goldsmith-sd-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack