Scott v. Hyde
South Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentHenderson, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The doctrine of emblements should be applied in this case. Tendered, as part of my rationale, is SDCL 43-8-6, which provides:
A tenant for years or at will, unless he is a wrongdoer by holding over, may occupy the building, take the annual products of the soil, work mines and quarries open at the commencement of his tenancy, and cultivate and harvest *532the crops growing at the end of his tenancy.
This statute, South Dakota’s partial codification of the common-law doctrine of em-blements, formerly numbered SDC 38.0405, was interpreted in Bolzer v. Hamilton, 78 S.D. 388, 103…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Falk v. AmsberryOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Lewis v. Lewis Nursery, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Strand v. BollSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
- Gallager v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Bolzer v. HamiltonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960