¶1As every defense for which the legislature has provided is meritorious, there was no abuse of judicial discretion in allowing the statute of .limitations to be set up by way of an amendment to the answer filed in this case. Garvie v. Greene, 9 S. D. 608, 70 N. W. 847. The facts before us as to the running of such statute are practically identical with a case just decided (Houts v. Hovne, 14 S. D.-84 N. W. 773), where it is held that plaintiff's cause of action is barred b)*- the statute, and for the same reason the judgment from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.
14 S.D. 322
Houts v. Bartle
Decided April 2, 1901
South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1901-04-02
<p>Appeal from circuit court, Turner county, Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge.</p> <p>Action by W. A. Houts and others against Ered A. Bartle and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order denying a new .trial, plaintiffs appeal.</p>
Relies on Garvie v. Greene
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1901-04-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1944
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →