Davidson v. Bubb

According to the rule of Dobson v. Lindekugel (1917) 39 S. D. 374, 164 N. W. 269 (approved and followed Baruth v. Board of Com’rs [1926] 50 S. D. 249, 209 N. W. 341), the time for serving notice of intention had not expired when the extension order was made on February 14.

Although the statute (section 2559, Rev. Code 1919, as amended by Laws 1921, c. 185) draws no distinction with reference to hearing and notice between applications to fix a new time and applications for extension and it has been squarely held that applications for fixing a new time must be upon notice (Sorg v. Wells [1913]…