Peters v. Kiriakedes

• Decision Date: 10 May 1911
• Citation: 27 S.D. 371,131 N.W. 316
• Parties: MARY PETERS, Plaintiff and respondent, v. GUST KIRIAKEDES, Defendant and appellant, and Mike Peters, Defendant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

27 S.D. 371, 131 N.W. 316 (1911)

MARY PETERS,

Plaintiff and respondent,

v. GUST KIRIAKEDES, Defendant and appellant and Mike Peters,

Defendant.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County, SD

Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge

Affirmed

Sam H. Wright

Attorney for appellant.

Jones & Matthews

Attorneys for respondent.

Opinion filed May 10, 1911

CORSON, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Gust Kiriakedes from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and from the order denying a new trial. The action was instituted by the plaintiff in a justice court against the defendants, as copartners, for wages claimed to be due her for services rendered the defendants, as such copartners. Both defendants were served with the summons, but Mike Peters, the codefendant, did not appear or answer in the action. On the trial in the justice court, a judgment of dismissal was entered against plaintiff, and from this judgment the plaintiff took an appeal to the circuit court on both questions of law and fact, and upon a trial had before a jury. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on all the issues, and thereupon a judgment was entered against both defendants.

It is contended by the appellant that the court erred in not sustaining his objection to certain questions propounded to the defendant Mike Peters and to the plaintiff, who were witnesses upon the trial; but it is disclosed by the record that the questions objected to, as stating conclusions and not facts, were in substance repeated, and answered without objection, in other parts of the testimony of Mike Peters; and hence, assuming, without deciding, that the questions were objectionable in the form they were propounded, they having been substantially repeated and answered without objection, the error of the court, if any, was cured. Erickson v. Sophy, 10 S.D. 71, 71 N.W. 758.

On the return of the verdict of, the jury, the attorney for the appellant made the following objection to the entry of the same:

"(1) The court never acquired jurisdiction upon the appeal from the justice of the peace; the case as to the defendant Peters not having been disposed of therein. (2) That the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence in the case."

The objections were overruled, and appellant assigns the ruling of the court as error. The contention of appellant that the circuit court never acquired jurisdiction upon the appeal from the justice of the peace is, in our...