Legal Opinion
Hornick, More & Porterfield v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided November 8, 1929No. File No. 6394PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
F1ULEER, C.
On this appeal numerous assignments of error relate to the action of the trial court in sustaining objections of respondent to testimony offered by appellant. The excluded testimony was in the form of a deposition, and the answers which would have been given, except for the trial court’s ruling, appear in the printed record. As a convenience to a consideration of the probative importance of the excluded proof we shall treat the same as admitted and view the facts as tentatively established according to appellant’s version of the case. .
About November i, 1925, the firm of Sherman &…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- International Shoe Co. v. PinkusSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Canada Southern Railway Co. v. GebhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Empire State Surety Co. v. Carroll CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Denny v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rottger, Rec. v. First-Merchants Natl. BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1933
- Engelcke v. Farmers State BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- Corbett v. HospelhornCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
- Badger State Bank v. WeissSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Bogue v. TaylorSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.