Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 S.D. 476

Schlegel v. Sisson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1896

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1896-04-18

Hon. Jos. W. Jones, Judge. Petition by Lillian Schlegel against George W. Sisson and another, executors of John O. G. Schlegel, and others. From a decree for petitioner the executors appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. Chapter 51, Session Laws of 1890, is in conflict with § 21, Art. 3, Const., and is of no validity, or if the whole of said chapter is not for that reason invalid and unconstitutional, at least §§ 21 and 22 thereof are.

Relies on Bates v. Ryberg · Goldtree v. Thompson · North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1939

10 state decisions

6018961900191019201930decided

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 →

Haney, J.

¶1Plaintiff petitioned the county court .for an order requiring defendants, the executors of her deceased husband’s estate, to pay her the proceeds of certain life insurance. Defendants, the creditors, and all parties interested in the estate were cited to show cause why such order should not be made., Defendants and one of the creditors answered. The county court having decided in favor of the plaintiff, defendants alone, as executors, appealed to the circuit court, wherein a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. A motion for a new trial having been denied, defendants alone, as executors, appealed to this court. '

¶2It is contended by counsel for plaintiff that defendants, as executors, are not entitled to have this judgment reviewed, for the reason they are not aggrieved thereby. We consider this position well taken. A judgment can be reviewed upon appeal only by the party aggrieved. Comp. Laws, § 5214. Defendants cannot complain of error which is not prejudicial to themselves. Shoe Co. v. Stebbins, 2 S. D. 74, 48 N. W. 833. Creditors and other parties interested in and affected by the decision of the county court, having failed to appeal, are precluded from objecting to the distribution decreed by such court. The decree of the circuit court is ample protection to the executors, and they have neither reason nor right to continue the litigation for the purpose of settling disputed questions of law, or for the purpose of retaining possession of funds which should be distributed as speedily as possible. They are not aggrieved, within the meaning of the statute. Bates v. Ryberg. 40 Cal. 463; Estate of Merrifield (Cal.), 4 Pac. 1176; Goldtree v. Thompson, 83 Cal. 420, 23 Pac. 383; In re Dewar’s Estate (Mont.), 25 Pac. 1025; Ratliff v. Patten (W. Va.), 16 S. E. 464. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground we have considered. Defendants filed certain objections thereto. These objections need not be discussed, because a motion to dismiss was not required, nor was it proper. Whether appellants are aggrieved by the judgment is a ques? *479tion which involves the merits of the appeal. Williams’ Estate (Cal.), 36 Pac. 6. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/8/sd/476 · .json · Public domain