Legal Opinion · Dissent

Scott v. Hyde

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 1989No. 16276Published

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

  1. Falk v. AmsberryOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Lewis v. Lewis Nursery, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Strand v. BollSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Gallager v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Bolzer v. HamiltonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API