Legal Opinion

Fritzel v. Roy Johnson Construction

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1999No. NonePublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] When an estate was closed while its lawsuit was still pending, the trial court allowed an heir and his trust to substitute as plaintiffs, but no “documented” transfer to them of the estate’s chose in action was ever consummated. Could the new plaintiffs pursue the action if it was not formally assigned to them? Because a chose in action is a form of personal property, it must be legally conveyed to effect a transfer. Nonetheless, an assignment of an action need not be in writing and any arrangement however informal will suffice to effect a valid transfer if that was…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Great Northern Railway CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Bego v. GordonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Morgan v. BaldwinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Walz v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTASouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. City of Belle FourcheSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Farm Credit Services of America v. DouganSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Bunkers v. JacobsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Pierce v. City of Belle FourcheSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  5. City of Aberdeen v. RichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003

10 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