Tiedeman v. Ranney

213 N.W. 2, 51 S.D. 244, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 189
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedApril 11, 1927
DocketFile No. 5888
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 N.W. 2 (Tiedeman v. Ranney) 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
Tiedeman v. Ranney, 213 N.W. 2, 51 S.D. 244, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 189 (S.D. 1927).

Opinion

GATES-, J.

' This is an action for damages for malpractice against a physician and surgeon. During the course of the trial, plaintiff moved the court to dismiss the action without prejudice. Such motion was granted. Some two months later the trial court, without notice to plaintiff, entered a formal judgment dismissing [245]*245the action upon its merits, based upon a recital therein that the court, while having granted the motion to dismiss, had reserved the question as to whether it should be with or without prejudice. Therefrom plaintiff appeals.

The record shows the following written motion and the written ruling of the court thereon:

“Now comes the plaintiff, Ruth E. Tiedeman, and moves the court to dismiss the above-entitled action without prejudice to the bringing of a new action upon the same cause of action.

“Ed. R. Grantham,

“H. O. Hepperle,

“Attorneys for plaintiff.

“The above and foregoing motion is hereby granted, and the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed without prejudice tO' the bringing of a new action upon the same cause of action.

“Done this 27th day of October, 1924.

‘‘By the Court: Robert D. Gardner, Judge.”

“State of South Dakota, County of Brown.

“Filed in my office, Oct. 27, 1924. N. E. Nelson, Clerk of Circuit Court, by C. G. Nelson, Deputy.”

The record also shows the following written minutes of the court:

October 27, 1924.

“Court opened as per recess.

“Ruth E. Tiedeman v. Thomas P. Ranney.

“Plaintiff presents motion for dismissal of case without prejudice. Motion allowed.”

It is therefore clearly apparent that the court was without authority to enter a judgment dismissing the action upon its merits.

The judgment appealed from is hereby vacated, and the cause is remanded, with directions to enter a judgment dismissing the action without prejudice to the 'bringing of another action.

CAMDBERR, P. J., and FODREY, SHERWOOD, and BURCH, JJ., concurring.

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

Related

State v. De Santis
323 A.2d 489 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 N.W. 2, 51 S.D. 244, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiedeman-v-ranney-sd-1927.