Distad v. Shanklin
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Brule county. Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge. Action by M. E. Distad against Harry A. Shanklin. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Objections were made by the appellant to the proceedings on the motion for a new trial in the court below. The defendant moved the court to dismiss plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, on the ground “that the notice of intention was insufficient, indefinite, and uncertain, and that there was nothing on the files of the court on which the motion could be heard.” This motion was denied, and exception taken. The notice of intention designated two statutory grounds: One was “irregularity in the proceedings of the jury,” and the jury was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grant v. GrantSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Alt v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Esshom v. Watertown Hotel Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- C. Gotzian & Co. v. McCollumSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by14 opinions
- Martin v. ParkinsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Pengilly v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
- Malmstad v. McHenry Telephone Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Sands v. CruikshankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Rochford v. AlbaughSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.