Stark v. Stark
| Decision Date | 03 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 9862,9862 |
| Citation | 79 S.D. 178,109 N.W.2d 904 |
| Parties | Herman STARK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alex STARK, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Thos. G. Wall, Sturgis, for defendant and appellant.
Overpeck, Hamblin & Mueller, Belle Fourche, for plaintiff and respondent.
Plaintiff's second cause of action alleged defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value of improvements made on a farm owned by defendant at the termination of the tenancy. Defendant's answer was in effect a general denial. The action was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff for $15,000. Defendant appeals from the judgment and an order denying the motion for a new trial.
Before the trial in some proceedings relating to the first cause of action (not here involved) defendant was represented by attorneys; however, he prepared and signed the answer and tried the action without aid of counsel. On cross-examination he was asked as to the number of attorneys he had employed or consulted about the action; his answers indicated there were several. It is claimed this was error. SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1605 permits a new trial under subsection (7) for 'Error in law occurring at the trial provided that in case of claim of error on admission or rejection of evidence it must be based upon an objection * * *'. Justification did exist for some questions on this subject because they dealt with the authority of one lawyer in writing a letter as to future lease renewal terms and notifying plaintiff to move from the premises if they were not satisfactory and other notices to quit. Assuming it was error to further persist in this questioning, defendant volunteered the name of one lawyer and no objections were made to the questions; thus no foundation for error at law exists under subsection (7). Treating this as a claim of misconduct of counsel, it fails for it was not set out in the application for new trial and this court will not consider questions not presented to the trial court. Empey v. Rapid City, S.D., 103 N.W.2d 861.
At the trial defendant stated he would like the jury to 'inspect the place' stating he would pay all expenses of transportation. He claims the court erred in not granting the request. SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1322 permits inspection in jury cases 'When in the opinion of the Court it is proper * * *'. This is in the sound discretion of the court. Bean v. Best, 77 S.D. 433, 93 N.W.2d 403. No abuse of discretion appears. Defendant's offer was improper in form and practice. It should not have been made in the presence of the jury nor with the offer of payment of the expense. 53 Am.Jur., Trial, Sec. 445.
Affidavits in support of the claim of newly discovered evidence were by persons present at the trial, one by a son who took down statements made; they were either on information and belief, facts known or within the ability of defendant to introduce at the trial, or immaterial; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial on that ground. Breneman v. Aune, 73 S.D. 478, 44 N.W.2d 219; Skinner v. F. C. Krotter Co., 72 S.D. 622, 38 N.W.2d 145.
Most troublesome is the question of whether the evidence justifies the verdict for the full amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Wallace
...Credit Association, 169 Colo. 27, 456 P.2d 274, 275(1--3); Paton v. Rose, D.C.App., 191 A.2d 455, 456(1, 2); Stark v. Stark, 79 S.D. 178, 109 N.W.2d 904, 906(8). ...
-
McGillivray v. Siedschlaw
...should not consider issues on appeal that are not properly raised before the trial court and preserved in the record. Stark v. Stark, 79 S.D. 178, 109 N.W.2d 904 (1961). Finally, with respect to the liability of defendant Larson, I think McGillivray would have had a good case of malicious p......
-
Smith v. Rabb
...would be attributed to a duly qualified member of the bar. Wiedemann v. Fox, 191 Cal.App.2d 812, 13 Cal.Rptr. 161 (1961); Stark v. Stark, 109 N.W.2d 904 (S.D.1961). Such a rule is indispensable to the orderly and efficient administration of justice. With this in mind, we turn to the first o......
-
Westberry v. State
... ... Dreyer, 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 299 P.2d 661, 662(1) (1956); Lutz v. Webster Hall Hotel, Inc., 183 Pa.Super. 557, 132 A.2d 410 (1957); and Stark v. Stark, 79 S.D. 178, 109 N.W.2d 904, 906(7-9) (1961) ... The dismissal was without error ... Appeal denied ... ...