Public-domain · open source

44 S.D. 102

Hipple v. Strohbehn

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1921

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1921-04-12

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles Mix County. How. Robert B. Tripp, Judge.</p> <p>Action by R. W. Hippie and another, against F. S. Strohbehn. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.</p>

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1977

6 state decisions

Relies on Pierce v. Manning · Carroll v. Nisbet · Work v. Braun

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GATES, J.

¶1Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

¶2 *103[1] Appellant argues two propositions, viz.: (i) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that .the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 21 S. D. 357, 112 N. W. 960; Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N. W. 277; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 32 S. D. 608, 144 N. W. 128; McKinnon v. Fuller, 33 S. D. 582, 146 N. W. 910; Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504; Higgs v. Bigelow, 39 S. D. 359, 164 N. W. 89.

¶3[2] There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 2 S. D. 517, 51 N. W. 332; Carroll v. Nisbet, 9 S. D. 497, 70 N. W. 634; Wolf v. Sneve, 23 S. D. 260, 121 N. W. 781; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646; Whaley v. Vidal, 26 S. D. 300, 128 N. W. 331; Hazen v. Thompson, 33 S. D. 646, 146 N. W. 1070; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 36 S. D. 390, 155 N. W. 1; Berke v. McCook Co., 39 S. D. 579, 165 N. W. 985.

¶4Affirmed.