State v. Dunning
| Decision Date | 26 June 1899 |
| Citation | 11 S.D. 585,79 N.W. 846 |
| Parties | STATE v. DUNNING et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Beadle county; A. W. Campbell, Judge.
Philomen Dunning and Charles Longstaff were convicted of a criminal offense, and bring error. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.W. A. Lynch and E. H. Aplin, for plaintiffs in error. John L. Pyle, Atty. Gen., and H. S. Mouser, State's Atty., for the State.
This case comes before us on two motions, one on the part of the attorney general to dismiss the writ of error sued out in this case, and the second on the part of the plaintiffs in error for leave to serve a citation, abstract, and brief upon the attorney general. The two motions were heard together. It appears from the moving papers on the part of the plaintiffs in error that a writ of error was issued out of this court in December, 1898, and served on the clerk of the circuit court of Beadle county, and that a citation was also issued at the same time, directed to the state's attorney of Beadle county and the attorney general, and was served upon the state's attorney, H. S. Mouser, Esq., but not upon the attorney general. The case was placed upon the calendar of the present term of this court, and, when called for argument, the attorney general, appearing specially for that purpose, objected to the hearing of the case for the reason that no citation, abstract, and brief had been served upon him, and this court held that the case could not proceed until the citation, abstract, and brief were so served. Counsel for plaintiffs in error thereupon gave notice of the present motion, and the attorney general presented his counter motion for a dismissal of the appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the case, no citation having been served upon him. The attorney general contends that the service of the citation upon him in a case where a writ of error is issued is essential to confer jurisdiction upon this court over the cause, and that when the citation, as in this case, has only been served upon the state's attorney, and returned to the office of clerk of this court, this court has acquired no jurisdiction of the cause. Section 7512, Comp. Laws, provides: “Immediately after the issuing of the writ, a citation to the adverse party to be and appear at the supreme court, to be issued by the clerk thereof, shall be served on him or his attorney, giving at least ten days' notice thereof;” and rule 16 of this court provides as follows: “In all cases in which by law the attorney general is required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Young
...SDCL 15-6-24(c) is not a defect which denies this court jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a statute. Cf. State v. Dunning, 11 S.D. 585, 79 N.W. 846 (1899). 3. IS THE CIRCUIT COURT'S ORDER FOR CLOSURE Whether this action should be dismissed as moot depends upon whether "there h......
-
Lamar Adver. of S.D., Inc. v. City of Rapid City
...15-6-24(c) is not a defect which denies this court of jurisdiction over a constitutionalchallenge to a statute.") (citing State v. Dunning, 79 N.W. 846 (S.D. 1899)). The jurisdictional issues in Young and Sharp related to SDCL 15-6-24(c). That statute requires the attorney general to be ser......
-
Kunz v. School Dist. No. 28
... ... In that case one Clark, county judge of Winnebago county, state of Iowa, issued bonds to the amount of $20,000, which he claimed had been duly authorized by a vote of the county, and delivered the same to one ... ...