Legal Opinion

Froelich v. Swafford

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1914No. File No. 3384PublishedCited by 11 opinions

On rehearing. (8) Under point eight of the opinion-, Respondent cited: Hogaboom v. Flower, 72 Pac. 547; Beebe v. Dexter, 14 Pac. 150; Florence L. & T. 'Co. v. Parker, 33 Neb. 775, 29 Am. St. Rep. 506; Boro v. Hidell, 122 Tenn. 80, 120 S. W. 961, 135 .Am. St. Rep. 857.

1Opinion of the CourtWhiting, J.

This cause is before us upon rehearing. The opinion heretofore rendered will be found 'reported in Froelich v. Swafford, 33 S. D. 142, 144 N. W. 925, to which reference is made for a statement of the facts. This rehearing was granted upon the petition of respondent, and the order granting same limited it to- a discussion of the following questions:

“(1) Has the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s right of action to redeem, or has such statute of • limitations been tolled *38by nonresidence of certain parties who held title under the first mortgage? (2) Has Swafford, through adverse…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boro v. HidellTennessee Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Hogaboom v. FlowerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
  3. Omaha & Florence Land & Trust Co. v. ParkerNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Froelich v. SwaffordSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Plowman v. MordenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Chipperfield v. WoessnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Busby v. ShaferSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Rushlight v. MacLainWashington Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Cone v. BallardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Raymond v. BarnardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947

6 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