Judson v. Bulen
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
APPEAL from the district court, Kingsbury county; Hon. L. K. Church, Judge. The facts and the section of the Justices’ Code applicable thereto are stated in the head-note. The notice of justification was sufficient. Section 93 does not require that it should be in writing. Motions to dismiss are not regarded with favor. 11 Pac. Rep. 97. If there were any defect, appellant should have been permitted to have the sureties justify anew, or others do so. Dresser v. Brooks, 5 How.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the district court, Kingsbury county; Hon. L. K. Church, Judge. The facts and the section of the Justices’ Code applicable thereto are stated in the head-note. The notice of justification was sufficient. Section 93 does not require that it should be in writing. Motions to dismiss are not regarded with favor. 11 Pac. Rep. 97. If there were any defect, appellant should have been permitted to have the sureties justify anew, or others do so. Dresser v. Brooks, 5 How. Pr. 75; Wait Code, § 341, a. e, f, and § 334, n. h; Hees v. Snell, 8 How. Pr. 185; Mills v. Tursby, 11 id. 129; People…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The judgment is reversed on the ground that the court erred in dismissing the appeal and in holding it had not acquired jurisdiction.
All concur.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barber v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- State Ex Rel. Strunk v. District Court of Cascade CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1942