Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State
South Dakota Supreme Court
Original action by the Norbeck & Nicholson Company against the State of South Dakota, to recover upon a contract for sinking and. furnishing equipments for an artesian well by plaintiff. Section 12, Art. 3, of the Constitution is directory, and no penalties either civil or criminal are connected therewith. This is an action on quantum meruit, the plaintiff seeking to recover the reasonable value only of services performed and material furnished.
Read the full summary
Original action by the Norbeck & Nicholson Company against the State of South Dakota, to recover upon a contract for sinking and. furnishing equipments for an artesian well by plaintiff. Section 12, Art. 3, of the Constitution is directory, and no penalties either civil or criminal are connected therewith. This is an action on quantum meruit, the plaintiff seeking to recover the reasonable value only of services performed and material furnished. The contract is not relied upon. It will be necessary to bear in mind certain provisions of statutory construction. Among the most important of these…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOY, J.
This is an original action commenced by Nor-beck & Nicholson Company, plaintiff, against the state of South Dakota, under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that when the State Auditor shall refuse to allow any just claim against the state, that any person deeming himself aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the Supreme Court against the state to determine the legality or justness of such claim. From plaintiff’s complaint it • appears that one Peter Norbeck, during the year 1911, was president of the plaintiff corporation, and was also, during 1911, state senator…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Wardell v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Smith v. . City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- President & Trustees v. San Diego & Los Angeles RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Smith v. DorseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Frazier v. State by and Through PittmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1987
- Bartron v. Codington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
- Cassibry v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1981
- National Union Indemnity Co. v. Bruce Bros.Arizona Supreme Court · 1934
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.