Edmonds v. Riley

• Decision Date: 01 April 1902
• Citation: 15 S.D. 470,90 N.W. 139
• Parties: JAMES P. EDMONDS, Plaintiff and appellant, v. PETER C. RILEY, Defendant and respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

15 S.D. 470

90 N.W. 139

JAMES P. EDMONDS, Plaintiff and appellant,

v.

PETER C. RILEY, Defendant and respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from County Court, Lawrence County, SD Hon. Frank Washabaugh, Judge Affirmed Rice & Polley Attorneys for appellant. Opinion filed April 1, 1902

CORSON, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant in July, 1899, and from an order denying a new trial. In the spring of 1892 the plaintiff commenced this action in the county court of Lawrence county to recover of the defendant the amount claimed to be due upon a promissory note executed to him. On the 5th day of May a judgment by default was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount claimed to be due. Two days thereafter, on May 7th, the court, upon application of the defendant, set aside the default and granted the defendant leave to file an answer. On July 6th of the same year a trial was had, and by the court’s journal it appears that the case was regularly called for trial, a jury waived, witnesses examined, and further trial continued until the following day On the following day (July 7th) there was no mention of the case in the journal of the court, and no record of any judgment, except the following appearing in the docket opposite the title of the case, in the handwriting of the clerk: “July 6th, case tried to the court. July 7th, judgment for defendant.” The case remained, in this condition for a period of over seven years, and until the 13th of July, 1899, when the defendant presented to the court an affidavit of the court reporter of 1892, from which it appeared that at the conclusion of the trial in July, 1892, Judge Plowman, who was then judge of the county court, directed the reporter to take down in shorthand the findings of the court and its conclusions of law, which the reporter did, and he annexed to his affidavit a transcript of the said findings and conclusions of law. Thereupon Judge Washabaugh, who had succeeded said Plowman as county judge, adopted the findings and conclusions so annexed to the affidavit, and signed the same as the findings and conclusions of the court, entered judgment thereon in favor of the defendant, and vacated and set aside the default judgment entered in May, 1892.

The appellant contends that the court erred in overruling plaintiff’s objections to the affidavit of the court reporter, as the same was incompetent to establish a record of the court; and the court erred in making findings of fact and conclusions of law, as it had lost jurisdiction of the same by lapse of time; and the court erred in making its order setting aside the default judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in May, 1892. It is further contended on the part of the appellant that, as it is provided by statute that “upon the trial of a question of fact by the court its decision must be given in writing and filed with the clerk within thirty days after the cause is submitted for decision” (Laws 1893, Chap. 72, § 1), and no such decision being filed, the judgment subsequently entered was unauthorized and null and void. The provision requiring the findings of the court to be filed within thirty days has usually been regarded as directory, and a failure to file the same within the time limited will not affect the judgment. If Judge Plowman had in fact entered upon his minutes his findings and conclusions of law, and through inadvertence had failed to write them out in full and file them with the clerk, the judge subsequently sitting in the court would have been authorized to regard these findings in the minutes of the court as constituting a decision in the case, and entering a judgment thereon. 1 Black, Judgm. § 135. If such a proceeding would have been proper, we are of the opinion that the court committed no error in adopting the findings annexed to the reporter’s affidavit, and signing the same as the findings of the court and entering judgment thereon, as the reporter’s shorthand notes, he being a sworn officer of the court, should be regarded as equivalent to the judge’s minutes.

It is further contended on the part of the appellant that if the findings and conclusions of law and judgment were regular in form, the conclusions of the court are not supported by the findings. In the answer which the defendant was permitted to file, he alleged, in effect, that to...