TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilson v. Wilson

Wilson v. Wilson, 128 N.W. 120 (S.D. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 4, 1910
Judges
McCoy
Citations
128 N.W. 12026 S.D. 1821910 S.D. LEXIS 150
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
■While the court’s findings are usually prepared by the prevailing party, it is wholly a matter for the trial court’s discretion as to whether such -party or the unsuccessful party prepares them. Where appellant did not appeal from that part of the judgment -which might have been affected by a finding, of the failure to make which he complains, the Supreme Court will not consider the failure to make such finding.
Summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pennington County. Plon. Levi McGee, Judge. Action by James A. Wilson against Ketura-h Wilson, in which defendant filed a counterclaim. From a part of the judgment for her upon -the counterclaim, defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McCoy

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McCOY, J.

.Plaintiff brought this suit in the circuit court for -the purpose of obtaining a divorce from defendant, alleging abandonment and cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of defendant. Defendant answered, denying -the allegations, of the complaint, and also, by way of counterclaim, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of plaintiff. Defendant -did not demand a divorce from plaintiff in her answer, but demanded ¡separate maintenance and that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed upon the merits. Upon the trial of the case -the court found and rendered judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce, and also found and rendered judgment that the plaintiff pay to defendant -the sum of $250 in full settlement for all claims of defendant upon plain-tiff for means of support.

The defendant appeals from a portion only of said judgment: First, from- that portion of the judgment decreeing that defend *183 ant’s interest in and to the Lawrence county land, being situated in section x, township 2, range 5 east B. H. M., is determined to be according to the terms of a certain written deed made by plaintiff to defendant, bearing date September 11, 1900; and, second, from that part of the judgment decreeing that plaintiff pay to defendant the isum of $250 in full settlement and payment for the future separate support and maintenance of defendant during her lifetime.

Defendant has made many assignments of error, alleging- insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings of the court. It will serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence preserved in the record, but suffice to say that we are of the opinion that the findings of the trial court are in all things fully warranted and supported by the evidence.

Defendant makes some contention that the finding’s of' fact adopted by the trial court were prepared by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the attornej'-s for the defendant. While it is the usual practice for the prevailing party to prepare the findings, still we know of no arbitrary rule 'requiring the same, and it is a matter wholly within the discretion of the trial court as to which attorney shall prepare the findings.

Defendant also complains that no findings at all were made by the trial court upon certain issues; but, as the defendant has not appealed from' that portion of the judgment which might be affected by the findings, the lack of which are complained of, there is nothing for this court to consider in relation thereto.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lounsberry v. Kelly142 N.W. 180 (S.D. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Lounsberry v. Kelly142 N.W. 180 (S.D. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list