Beverage Co. v. Villa Marie Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The central question involved in this appeal from a judgment foreclosing a note and chattel mortgage is whether the instruments were tainted with illegality. We consider the case under appropriate assignments challenging the sufficiency of the findings to support the conclusions and judgment.
The facts found by the court may be epitomized as fol-lows: While one Jarvis was engaged at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in the business of selling beer at wholesale, he sold and delivered to defendant corporation various saloon fixtures to enable it to engage in the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Sweinhart v. BambergerNew York Supreme Court · 1937
- Johnson v. BerrySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Security Holding Co. v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
- Brown v. BakerAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
- Massey Ferguson Credit Corp. v. BiceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- Bayer v. BurkeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Bayer v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.