Legal Opinion

Allen v. Line

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1948No. File No. 8974PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, P. J.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that this is an action for -money had. and received. Plaintiff in his amended complaint- alleges that he purchased from defendant 1,285 lambs; that “defendant agreed to feed and sell said lambs for the use of the plaintiff”; and that defendant owes a balance of $7,394 to the plaintiff as a result of the transaction. By his answer defendant alleges that he fully performed his part of the agreement and counterclaimed for $2,701.48. On motion of the defendant and after waiver of the counterclaim, the court directed a verdict and entered judgment dismissing the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tanderup v. HansenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Goldberg v. Sisseton Loan & Title Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Yeager v. South Dakota Central Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Fryer v. CooperSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rensch v. Riddle's Diamonds of Rapid City, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Pearson v. AdamsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  3. State v. ScottSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  4. JOS. H. REINFELD v. Griswold & Bateman Whs.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983
  5. Soby Construction, Inc. v. Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1979

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API