Scanlon v. Rock

• Decision Date: 09 March 1910
• Citation: 125 N.W. 638,25 S.D. 152
• Parties: SCANLON v. ROCK et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

125 N.W. 638

25 S.D. 152

SCANLON v. ROCK et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

March 9, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Potter County.

Action by Ellen M. Scanlon against Andrew T. Rock and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

D. J O'Keefe, for appellants.

McCOY J.

The plaintiff, Ellen M. Scanlon, claiming to be the owner in fee of a certain parcel of land situated in Potter county, to substantiate her claim, offered in evidence a patent from the United States to Sabina Rock, and a deed from Sabina Rock to Patrick La Vell, and a judgment, execution, and sheriff's sale and deed to plaintiff in a suit wherein the plaintiff Ellen M. Scanlon, was also plaintiff, against the said Patrick La Vell. Plaintiff also offered in evidence a deed to the land in question from said Sabina Rock to one Peter Rock and a deed to said land from said Peter Rock to this plaintiff. Defendants denied plaintiff's ownership, and defendant Andrew T. Rock claimed ownership in himself, through a conveyance from Patrick La Vell to Peter J. La Vell, and from Peter J. La Vell to William Rock, and from William Rock to defendant Michael L. Rock, and a deed from Michael L. Rock to the defendant Andrew T. Rock. Defendants offered in evidence certain deeds and parts of the judgment roll in the said case of Scanlon v. La Vell, to which the plaintiff made objections which were sustained. Findings and judgment were made and entered in favor of plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

Neither the sufficiency of the evidence nor findings are questioned by appellants. The first nine assignments of appellants allege error to have been made by the trial court in the reception of plaintiff's evidence. The only reference made by appellants to any objections having been made to any of plaintiff's evidence is in the following language "And all of which said offers were received in evidence over the objections of the defendant duly made." But what the objections themselves were, or what were the grounds thereof, or whether or not any exceptions were taken to such rulings of the court, we are not informed by the record, and therefore cannot consider such assignments of error. Appellants' tenth assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court in sustaining an objection to defendants' offer in evidence of a deed from Patrick La Vell to Peter J. La Vell. Objection was made to the introduction of this deed by plaintiff on the ground that the same was immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, and the court...