Peterson v. Miller
| Decision Date | 21 March 1914 |
| Citation | 33 S.D. 397,146 N.W. 585 |
| Parties | PETERSON v. MILLER. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County; Alva E. Taylor, Judge.
Action by Ben Peterson against S. M. Miller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Null & Royhl, of Huron, for appellant.
A. W. Wilmarth, of Huron, for respondent.
Appellant has assigned 66 errors. The first 51 relate to rulings of the trial court upon evidence. The fifty-second assignment is predicated upon the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant. The fifty-third and fifty-fourth assignments are based upon two portions of the instructions given to the jury. The fifty-fifth to sixty-third, inclusive, are based upon the refusal of the trial court to give defendant's requested instructions to the jury. The sixty-fourth assignment is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and contains seven particulars wherein the evidence is claimed to be insufficient. The sixty-fifth assignment is that the verdict is against law, and the sixty-sixth is the alleged error of the court in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
[1][2] Rule 6 of this court (140 N. W. viii), relating to appellant's brief (which rule is based upon chapter 172, Laws 1913), provides among other things: “Such brief shall contain, besides any citation of authorities and argument, a clear, concise, and condensed statement of the contents of such part or parts of the settled record as may be necessary to present fully to this court the errors assigned and to show that they are prejudicial to appellant, setting forth so much thereof only as is necessary to a full understanding of all the questions presented to this court for decision.” A proper understanding of the ruling of a court in receiving or rejecting evidence requires that the brief shall present a statement of such of the evidence leading up to (and in some cases following) the ruling of the court as will show the bearing of the ruling upon the merits of the case. State v. Shephard, 30 S. D. 219, 138 N. W. 294. In the present case this is not shown, nor attempted to be shown. Not only that, but under the statute and the rule of court there must be a sufficient statement of the evidence to show that the ruling was prejudicial as well as erroneous.
[3] The fifty-second assignment, based upon the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant, can certainly not be reviewed by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Larson
...140 N.W. 246; Sanford v. Helgerson, 141 N.W. 390; Hoisington v. Price et al., 143 N.W. 776; Gilfillan v. Schaller, 144 N.W. 133; Peterson v. Miller, 146 N.W. 585; Smith v. Pence & Pier, 146 N.W. 709; State ex rel Lavery v. Williams, 151 N.W. 278; State v. Carmel, 154 N.W. 808. We also refer......
-
State v. Rathjin
...not set forth in the printed record; hence we do not review the refusal of the court to adopt defendant's proposed instructions. Peterson v. Miller, 146 N.W. 585; Anderson v. Anderson, 168 N.W. 852; Bottum v. Kamen, 180 N.W. In both appeals it is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to......
-
Hanson v. Lambert
...144 N.W. 923; Smith v. Pence & Pier, 146 N.W. 709; Denton v. Butler, 158 N.W. 1017; Gilfillan v. Schaller, 144 N.W. 133; Peterson v. Miller, 146 N.W. 585; Davis v. Davis, 154 N.W. 799; Hamm Brewing Co. v. Huber, 169 N.W. 551; McWaid v. Darnell, 168 N.W. This court cannot pass upon the quest......
-
Anderson v. Larson
...141 N. W. 390;Hoisington v. Price et al., 32 S. D. 486, 143 N. W. 776;Gilfillan v. Schaller, 32 S. D. 638, 144 N. W. 133;Peterson v. Miller, 33 S. D. 397, 146 N. W. 585;Smith v. Pence & Pier, 33 S. D. 516, 146 N. W. 709;State ex rel. Lavery v. Williams, 35 S. D. 158, 151 N. W. 278;State v. ......