Hipple v. Strohbehn

• Decision Date: 12 April 1921
• Docket Number: 4782
• Citation: 182 N.W. 535,44 S.D. 102
• Parties: R. W. HIPPLE, et al., Plaintiff and appellants, v. F. S. STROHBEHN, Defendant and respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

44 S.D. 102

182 N.W. 535

R. W. HIPPLE, et al., Plaintiff and appellants, v. F. S. STROHBEHN,

Defendant and respondent.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles Mix County, SD

Hon. Robert B. Tripp, Judge

#4782--Affirmed

John E. Tipton

Attorneys for Appellants.

Caster & Cassidy

Attorneys for Respondents.

Opinion filed April 12, 1921

GATES, J.

Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant argues two propositions. viz.: (1) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 112 N.W. 960; Squier v. Mitchell, 143 N.W. 277; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 144 N.W. 128; McKinnon v. Fuller, 146 N.W. 910; Peters v. Lohr, 152 N.W. 504; Higgs v. Bigelow, 164 N.W. 89.

There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 51 N.W. 332; Carroll v. Nisbet, 70 N.W. 634; Wolf v. Sneve, 121 N.W. 781; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley,122 NW 646; Whaley v. Vidal, 128 N.W. 331; Hazen v. Thompson, 146 N.W. 1076; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 155 N.W. 1; Berke v. McCook Co., 165 N.W. 985.

Affirmed.