Ross v. Wait
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Lincoln county. Hon. Frank R. Aikens, Judge. Action on bond. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff ap- peals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The undertaking set out in full in the complaint was a part of the complaint and contained the promise of the defendants. Murdock v. Brooks, 38 Cal. 596; Heebner v. Townsend, 8 Abb. Pr. 234; Browner v. Davis, 15 Cal. 9; Booske v. Gulf Co., 5 So. 247; Ins. Co. v. Smead, 13 S. E. 332.
1Opinion of the CourtKellam, P. J.
The particular facts alleged as constituting the cause of action and the defense in this case are not important to be stated here, as the appeal must be disposed of on respondents’ motion to dismiss. When the case was called for trial on the 18th day of March, 1890, upon the issue made by the complaint and answer, defendants’ counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence on the part of plaintiff, for the reason that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The objection was sustained. After-*639wards, on the 9th day of May following, the court made an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Waugenheim v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Jacks v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Mason v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by3 opinions
- Warren v. SlaybaughNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Lawrence County v. Meade CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Schillerstrom v. SchillerstromNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946