Browne v. Haseltine

• Decision Date: 24 March 1897
• Parties: BROWNE v. HASELTINE.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

70 N.W. 648

9 S.D. 524

BROWNE v. HASELTINE.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

March 24, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Brown county; A. W. Campbell, Judge.

Action of detainer by J. Lewis Browne, assignee of the Western Farm-Mortgage Company, against Ira S. Haseltine. Judgment for plaintiff in justice court and on appeal in the circuit court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. S Engle, for appellant. W. F. Mason and L. W. Crofoot, for respondent.

HANEY J.

This is an action for forcible detainer of real property. In the justice's court plaintiff had judgment. Defendant appealed on questions of both law and fact to the circuit court, wherein plaintiff again recovered judgment.

The contention that the courts below were without jurisdiction because a verified complaint was not filed before the summons was issued is untenable. In this state this proceeding is of a purely civil nature,--a civil action governed by the same rules as other cases before justices of the peace, except as modified by the provisions of the Justices' Civil Code relating to the subject of forcible entry and detainer; and the only modification found therein affecting the question under discussion is that the complaint shall be in writing and be verified. Comp. Laws, §§ 6072, 6073, 6076. Pleadings in justices' courts may be oral or in writing; must not be verified unless otherwise provided; and, if in writing must be filed with the justice. Id. § 6058. Such is the general rule. There are no special provisions on the subject of filing the complaint in cases of forcible entry and detainer, except that in such cases "the time for appearance and pleading must not be less than two nor more than four days from the time the summons is served on the defendant." Id.§ 6077. "Actions in a justice's court, including cases of forcible entry and detainer, or detainer only, are commenced by issuing the summons, or by the voluntary appearance and pleading of the parties." Id. § 6050. The action having been properly commenced, it is sufficient if a complaint in writing, duly verified, be filed at or before the time specified in the summons for defendant to appear and answer.

It is further contended that the justice's court lost, and the circuit court did not acquire, jurisdiction, for the reason that the title to the real property came in question, and the justice refused to certify the case to the circuit court, as required by the statute. Comp. Laws, § 6076. It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, whereby defendant leased of plaintiff certain described real property for the term of one year from and after November 28, 1893; that by the terms of said contract said lease expired November 28, 1894; that defendant covenanted therein to quit and surrender the possession and occupancy of the premises at the expiration of the lease that defendant held possession during all of said term, and paid all the rent as stipulated in the lease, except $25, which became due on August 28, 1894, and which defendant has failed and neglected to pay; that defendant has held and still holds over after the termination of his lease and the expiration of his term; that, subsequent to the termination of said lease by the expiration of its term, and...