Nedved v. Nedved
| Decision Date | 26 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 7178.,7178. |
| Citation | 59 S.D. 161,238 N.W. 643 |
| Parties | NEDVED v. NEDVED. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles Mix County; A. B. Beck, Judge.
Action for divorce by Marguerite Nedved against Fred Nedved. From an order denying plaintiff's application for change of venue, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.Lynch, Doyle & Mahoney, of Sioux Falls, for appellant.
R. C. Baker, of Lake Andes, and Conway, Feyder & Conway, of Sioux Falls, for respondent.
[1] Defendant, Fred Nedved, is a resident of Charles Mix county, S. D. September 15, 1929, his wife, Marguerite Nedved, the plaintiff, instituted the present action against him seeking a divorce. Plaintiff instituted her action in Minnehaha county, S. D. Within the statutory time defendant, in due form, demanded change of venue to the county of his residence. Plaintiff resisted that demand, and made a showing by affidavits seeking to have the case retained in Minnehaha county, S. D., on the ground of convenience of witnesses. The trial court very properly (Smail v. Gilruth, 8 S. D. 287, 66 N. W. 452;George v. Kotan, 18 S. D. 437, 101 N. W. 31;Ivanusch v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 26 S. D. 158, 128 N. W. 333) refused to consider at that time and upon that application any question of convenience of witnesses, and made and entered its order removing the case to the county of defendant's residence. Defendant answered, and issue was joined. Thereafter, and on June 27, 1930, plaintiff petitioned the circuit court of Charles Mix county to remove the cause to Minnehaha county, S. D., where plaintiff is domiciled, upon the ground of convenience of witnesses, and made a showing in support of that application. The application was resisted by defendant, and the matter having come on for hearing, an order was duly made and entered denying the application of plaintiff, from which order plaintiff has now appealed.
[2][3] The matter of granting or refusing an application for change of venue, made upon the ground of convenience of witnesses, lies very largely within the sound judicial discretion of the court to whom it is addressed. The action of the court thereon will not be reversed upon appeal unless a clear abuse of such discretion appears. Wakpala State Bank v. Tackett, 50 S. D. 385, 210 N. W. 199;Curren v. Story, 41 N. D. 361, 170 N. W. 875.
To rehearse in this opinion the showings made by the respective parties below would prolong the opinion unduly and serve no good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nielsen v. Boos
...502 N.W.2d at 857; see American Adv. Co. v. State, 280 N.W.2d 93, 95 (S.D.1979); Putnam Ranches, 271 N.W.2d at 859; Nedved v. Nedved, 59 S.D. 161, 162, 238 N.W. 643 (1931). ¶5 Nielsen contends the gravamen of his complaint is indemnity, thus venue belongs in Deuel County under SDCL 15-5-5, ......
-
Kinzell v. Payne
...Rhodes, 43 Ala. 373; Spratt v. Huntington, 4 Thomp. & C. 551; Cook v. Garza, 9 Tex. 358; 1 Hyatt, Trials, 267, § 197; Nedved v. Nedved, 59 S.D. 161, 238 N.W. 643. In instant case the original action was started in 1931, partly tried in 1932, when the action was dismissed and commenced again......
-
Kinzell v. Payne
...v. Huntington, 2 Hun. 341, 4 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 551; Cook v. De La Garza, 9 Tex. 358; 1 Hyatt on Trials, 267, s 197; Nedved v. Nedved, 59 S. D. 161, 238 N. W. 643. [2] In the instant case the original action was started in 1931, partly tried in 1932, when the action was dismissed and comme......