State Ex Rel Bendusch v. Breeding

South Dakota Supreme Court

State Ex Rel Bendusch v. Breeding

266 N.W. 882, 64 S.D. 416, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 64

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1936

DocketFile No. 7901.

StatusPublished

This text of 266 N.W. 882 (State Ex Rel Bendusch v. Breeding) 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

State Ex Rel Bendusch v. Breeding, 266 N.W. 882, 64 S.D. 416, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 64 (S.D. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

From a judgment in a proceeding under the Uniform Illegitimacy Act (chapter 295, Laws 1923) determining him to be the father of a child born to relator and requiring him to make certain payments for the support of said child, and from a denial of his application for a new trial, defendant has appealed to this court.

As conceded by appellant in his brief, the only substantial question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. To recite *Page 417 such evidence at length and discuss it in detail would not be helpful. We have studied the record with care, and we are not able to say that the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings of the learned trial judge. We believe the evidence is sufficient to support such findings, and it follows, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from must be, and they are, affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

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

From a judgment in a proceeding under the Uniform Illegitimacy Act (chapter 295, Laws 1923) determining him to be the father of a child born to relator and requiring him to make certain payments for the support of said child, and from a denial of his application for a new trial, defendant has appealed to this court.

As conceded by appellant in his brief, the only substantial question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. To recite *Page 417 such evidence at length and discuss it in detail would not be helpful. We have studied the record with care, and we are not able to say that the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings of the learned trial judge. We believe the evidence is sufficient to support such findings, and it follows, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from must be, and they are, affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 N.W. 882, 64 S.D. 416, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bendusch-v-breeding-sd-1936.