Smith v. Lyle

• Decision Date: 02 February 1929
• Docket Number: 6742
• Citation: 54 S.D. 385,223 N.W. 318
• Parties: FRED R. SMITH, Superintendent of Banks, and the Wessington Springs State Bank, Appellants, v. HERMAN C. LYLE, Administrator of the Estate of W. C. Lyle, Deceased, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

54 S.D. 385

223 N.W. 318

FRED R. SMITH, Superintendent of Banks, and the Wessington Springs State Bank, Appellants, v. HERMAN C. LYLE, Administrator of the Estate of W. C. Lyle, Deceased,

Respondent.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jerauld County, SD

Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge

#6742—Motion denied

T. B. Thorson, Pierre, SD

J. H. Lammers, Wessington Springs, SD

Roy E. Willy, Sioux Falls, SD

Null & Royhl, Huron, SD

Attorneys for Appellants.

E. E. Wagner, Florence M. Ryan, Mitchell, SD

Attorneys for Respondent.

Opinion Filed Feb 2, 1929

BROWN, J.

The superintendent of banks appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant in an action brought against E. C. Lyle on an alleged liability as a bank director for excessive loans made by the bank while he was a director.

While the action was pending, Lyle died and his administrator was substituted, and is respondent on this appeal.

On a showing that due notice to creditors was given, that the time within which claims against the estate might be presented has expired, and that no claim has been presented for any of the demands involved in this action, respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that, the claim not having been presented, no recovery can in any event be had in the action, and therefore all questions raised by the appeal have become moot.

Appellant concedes the fact that no claim was presented, but contends that the effect of the omission cannot be determined in a summary manner on motion to dismiss the appeal. He says that there are many things, such as the validity of the appointment and qualification of the administrator, the legal sufficiency of the notice to creditors, and questions of waiver or estoppel, all of which are involved in the ultimate question as to whether or not failure to present the claim will defeat the action. We think appellant is right in this contention.

The principal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate only, and, while the Constitution (art. 5, § 2) gives it “general superintending control over all inferior courts under such regulations and limitations as may be prescribed by law,” such control cannot ordinarily be exercised to prevent a trial of a controverted issue by a prima facie showing on the part of an appellant that the action has become moot by reason of some omission on the part of the opposite party. See People’s Home Sav. Bank v. Sadler, 1 Cal. App. 189, 81 P. 1029. Rev. Code, § 3399,...