Hipple v. Strohbehn
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
GATES, J.
Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
*103
[1] Appellant argues two propositions, viz.: (i) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that .the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 21 S. D. 357, 112 N. W. 960 ; Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N. W. 277 ; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 32 S. D. 608, 144 N. W. 128 ; McKinnon v. Fuller, 33 S. D. 582, 146 N. W. 910 ; Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504 ; Higgs v. Bigelow, 39 S. D. 359, 164 N. W. 89 .
[2] There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 2 S. D. 517, 51 N. W. 332 ; Carroll v. Nisbet, 9 S. D. 497, 70 N. W. 634 ; Wolf v. Sneve, 23 S. D. 260, 121 N. W. 781 ; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646 ; Whaley v. Vidal, 26 S. D. 300, 128 N. W. 331 ; Hazen v. Thompson, 33 S. D. 646, 146 N. W. 1070 ; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 36 S. D. 390, 155 N. W. 1 ; Berke v. McCook Co., 39 S. D. 579, 165 N. W. 985 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.