86 N.W. 747 (S.D. 1901), Howie v. Bratrud

Citation:86 N.W. 747, 14 S.D. 648
Opinion Judge:CORSON, J.
Party Name:HOWIE v. BRATRUD.
Attorney:Bates & Rogde, for appellant. Orr & Rodabaugh, for respondent.
Case Date:June 12, 1901
Court:Supreme Court of South Dakota
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 747

86 N.W. 747 (S.D. 1901)

14 S.D. 648

HOWIE

v.

BRATRUD.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

June 12, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Joseph W. Jones, Judge.

Action by Matthew Howie against Christen C. Bratrud. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Haney, J., dissenting.

Bates & Rogde, for appellant. Orr & Rodabaugh, for respondent.

CORSON, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action in a justice's court to recover the sum of $100, claimed to be due him as commission for negotiating a sale of real estate described in the complaint. The action was tried in the justice's court, and appealed to the circuit court, where it was again tried, and verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

The complaint, in substance, alleges that a contract was entered into on June 13, 1899, between the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that, if the plaintiff should find a purchaser for the said lands on the terms therein stated, he was to receive $100; that plaintiff did, on or about July 18, 1899, find a purchaser on such terms, and that the defendant has not paid the $100, or any part thereof. The answer denied generally and specifically all of the allegations of the complaint.

It is contended on the part of the appellant that the court erred in overruling the motion made by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's testimony, and renewed at the close of all the evidence, to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. The respondent insists that the court ruled correctly in denying the motion, for the reason that the appellant did not specify in the motion the alleged errors on which he now relies for a reversal, nor specify the particular grounds for the motion. We are of the opinion that the respondent is right in this contention. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, "for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to show or constitute a cause of action." The motion in the same form was renewed at the close of all the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that such a motion is insufficient, in that it fails to point out specifically the grounds upon which the party making the motion relies. In Tanderup v. Hansen, 8 S. D. 37...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP