Rex Buggy Co. v. DiNneen
| Citation | 122 N.W. 433,23 S.D. 474 |
| Parties | REX BUGGY CO. v. DINNEEN. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1909 |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County.
Action by the Rex Buggy Company against Stephen D. Dinneen. There was a verdict for defendant. A new trial was granted, and defendant appeals. Affirmed and remanded for new trial.
*433A. W. Wilmarth, for appellant.
Crawford, Taylor & Fairbank, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court granting a new trial, where a verdict was rendered in favor of defendant. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of certain buggies stored in the warehouse of Hathaway-Hanson Company at Sioux City, Iowa, and that, while said buggies were so stored, they were wrongfully and without plaintiff's knowledge or consent shipped to South Dakota, and sold to defendant. The defendant contends that he is an innocent purchaser of said buggies for value from an ostensible agent of plaintiff. Immediately upon discovering the whereabouts of said buggies plaintiff brought this action in replevin. The trial resulted in a verdict for defendant. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and a new trial was granted on that ground, the granting of which new trial is now urged as error. It is clearly within the discretion of the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground that the evidence in its opinion was insufficient to justify a verdict; and, where a new trial has been granted, a stronger case is required to secure a reversal than where it has been denied. Rochford v. Albaugh, 16 S. D. 628, 94 N. W. 701. There is nothing in the record to show that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial.
It is also contended by the appellant that by reason of the fact that plaintiff is a foreign corporation and had not, at the time this action was commenced, complied with the laws of this state requiring the filing of its articles of incorporation and the appointment of a resident agent, plaintiff cannot maintain this action at all, and that any verdict other than one in favor of defendant is not valid, and that, therefore, the trial court erred in granting said new trial, no matter what the evidence was, other than the evidence on the question of foreign corporation. It appears from the record that at *434the time this suit was commenced plaintiff was a foreign corporation, and had not complied with sections 883, 885, Rev. Civ. Code; that plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sioux Remedy Co. v. Lindgren
...commencement of the action. Hence, the precise question before us at this time was not decided. In the recent case of Rex Buggy Co. v. Dinneen, 23 S.D. 474, 122 N.W. 433, decided by this court, it was held that the plaintiff, "so far as the buggies and vehicles in the said warehouse were co......
-
Shann v. Disbrow & Co.
...701; Jones et al. v. Jones et al., 96 N.W. 88; Clifford v. Latham, 103 N.W. 642; Dickinson et al. v. Hahn, 119 N.W. 1034; Rex Buggy Co. v. Dinneen, 122 N.W. 433; Root et al. v. Bingham, 128 N.W. 132; Ede v. Ward et al., 143 N.W. 269; Hackett v. Straw et al., 144 N.W. 655; Blewett et al. v. ......
-
Rex Buggy Co. v. DiNneen
...for a new trial in this action and remaining the cause for further proceedings according to law and its decision. Rex Buggy Co. v. Dinneen, 23 S. D. 474, 122 N. W. 433. The record and remittitur were filed in the circuit court January 31, 1910. During the December, 1910, term of that court ......
- Rex Buggy Co. v. Dinneen