Foley-Wadsworth Implement Co. v. Porteous
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the circuit court, Minnebaba county. Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge. Action by attachment. From an order dissolving the attachment, plaintiff appeals. Heard on motion of respondent to dismiss appeal and a motion by appellant to dismiss respondent’s motion. A denial in the conjunctive is. never sufficient as a traverse.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the circuit court, Minnebaba county. Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge. Action by attachment. From an order dissolving the attachment, plaintiff appeals. Heard on motion of respondent to dismiss appeal and a motion by appellant to dismiss respondent’s motion. A denial in the conjunctive is. never sufficient as a traverse. Noyes v. Lane, 45 N. W. 328. The granting or continuing of an injunction are to some extent matters of discretion and this discretion should always be exercised in favor of the party most likely to be injured. Hicks- v. Compton, 18 Cal. 210; Hunt v. Steese, 17 Pac.…
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
This case comes before us on two motions,— one on the part of the respondent to dismiss the appeal, and the other on the part of the appellant to strike out the affidavit and certificate of the judge annexed to respondent’s motion, and to dismiss the same. The appeal is from an order discharging a warrant of attachment. The motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal is made upon the ground that there was oral- evidence received and considered by the court below that has not been brought to this court on this appeal, neither by bill of exceptions or otherwise; and this motion is supported by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merchants Nat. Bank v. McKinneySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hedlun v. Holy Terror Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Smith v. HawleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
- State ex rel. Rearick v. LeggettSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Juckett v. Fargo Mercantile Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Woodcock v. ReillySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902