State ex rel. Kleppe v. Steensland
| Decision Date | 14 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 5168.,5168. |
| Citation | 46 S.D. 342,192 N.W. 749 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. KLEPPE v. STEENSLAND. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; John T. Medin, Judge.
Action by the State on the relation of Anna O. Kleppe, against Ernest Steensland. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed, as modified.Herbert B. Rudolph, of Canton, for appellant.
Harrison J. Brown, of Canton, for respondent.
Action commenced on January 22, 1920, on complaint of the relator, alleging that she, an unmarried woman, was pregnant, and that defendant was the cause of such pregnancy. The child was born on July 10, 1920. A warrant was issued, and on May 4, 1920, the defendant was arrested, and pleaded “not guilty.” The case was tried by a jury on May 11, 1921, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. Judgment was signed on May 14, 1921, and docketed on March 30, 1922. The judgment was in favor of the relator for support and maintenance and education of such child in the sum of $400 for the first year after the birth of the child, and for the further sum of $300 yearly thereafter for 10 succeeding years making a total judgment of $3,400. Defendant appeals from the judgment, alleging error in rendering judgment for said sum.
[1] Judgment was rendered under chapter 137, Laws of 1921. Section 3 of the act provides:
“This act is necessary for the immediate support of the state government and its existing public institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist.”
We are of the opinion that this emergency clause is a nullity, and has no force or effect. State ex rel. Richards v. Whisman, 36 S. D. 260, 154 N. W. 707, L. R. A. 1917B, 1;Hodges v. Snyder, 43 S. D. 166, 178 N. W. 575.
[2] It follows that section 2985 of the Revised Code of 1919 was in full force and effect at the time of the trial, birth of the child, and the date of the judgment. Had section 2985 been followed the maximum judgment for the first year after the birth of the child could not have exceeded $250, and could not have exceeded $150 yearly for 10 years succeeding the first year. Thus it will be seen that judgment was actually rendered against the defendant for $1,650 in excess of the amount permitted by law. The judgment rendered by the court, as to the excess of $1,650, was unauthorized. The appellant's case cannot be adjudicated under the statute that was not lawfully in force at the time of the trial and rendition of judgment.
[3] The judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial