Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bon Homme County Bank v. Bainbridge

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 1924No. File No. 5406Published

1Dissent

■DILLON, J.

(dissenting.) I think the stipulation entered into between the attorneys should be so construed as to protect the rights of the appellants in this motion. It is conceded that-the motion to remove the default was seasonably made and the respondent’s attorneys did not urge the enforcement of the time limit. The trial court abused its discretion in insisting upon the violation of the stipulation. The stipulaton states:

“Have agreed that any1 order entered in said proceedings shall be entered and filed as of said date of October 7th.”

On second thought, of course, counsel will concede…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bon Homme County Bank v. BainbridgeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API