¶1I concur in the views of Justice McCOY. The instructions so microscopically examined in the dissenting opinion are subject to criticism, but I am not convinced that the jury were or could -have been misled thereby to the substantial prejudice of appellant. The jury were correctly instructed as to the law governing the acceptance of an offer of guaranty; that Hutchinson had authority to accept orally, and it was for the jury to say whether he did accept; but if Hutchinson did not accept orally, it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiffs mailed the letter of acceptance as claimed bv them, and that mailing the letter would constitute a legal acceptance. I think the portion of the instruction . relating to the acceptance “by personal messenger” had reference to the transaction wherein an oral acceptance by Hutchinson was alleged, and it 'certainly is not made to appear that the jury did not so understand it. The instruc*521tions might have been less involved and the issues more clearly defined, but it does not appear to any legal certainty that the jury were, or even might have been, misled1 thereby when the whole instructions are considered.
38 S.D. 511
M. E. Smith & Co. v. Kimble
Decided April 2, 1917
South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1917-04-02
Hon. FRANK B. South, Judge. Action ¡by M. E. Smith and Company, against Minerva J. Kimble and another, executors of the' estate of James Kimble, deceased, upon a written guaranty. From a judgment for defendants, and- from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. (1.) To point one of the opinion, Respondents cited: Div-ersey v. Johnson, 93 Ill. 547, 34 L. R. A. 321; Bryan v. Weems, 25 Ala. 195.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1917-04-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1981
2 federal appellate · 8 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 →