TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frederick Equity Exchange v. Smith

Exchange v. Smith, 196 N.W. 297 (S.D. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 21, 1923
Docket
No. File No. 5501
Judges
Gate
Citations
196 N.W. 29747 S.D. 1371923 S.D. LEXIS 129

Opinion of the Court — Gate

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

GATE'S, J.

This is an action to' recover the value of goods, wares and merchandise sold by plaintiff to defendants as partners. The defendant Smith had departed from the state and was not served with process. The defendant Cantwell denied the partnership and alleged that the mlerchandi'Se sold was sold to Smith on his individual account in his threshing business in which Cantwell was not interested. The court found for the plaintiff. From the judgment and order denying new trial, defendant Cantwell appeals.

*138 It would serve no useful purpose-to state the facts, because no legal principle is involved. The question is solely one of fact. We cannot say from :a careful examination of the evidence as disclosed1 in the briefs, and especially from the added facts brought out .in respondent's brief, that the clear preponderance of the evidence was contrary to- the findings of the trial court. Among the facts that warranted the court in finding that there was a partnership was the fact that defendants were members of respondent under the name of Smith & Cantwell, and among the items of evidence warranting the finding for respondent there was testimony tending to show that appellant knew that the items of the account were charged to the firm and that he made no complaint thereof until after Smith- -had met with financial reverses and had given a bill of sale of his partnership interest to appellant.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 196 N. W. 297 . See, Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-No. 1012(1), 4 C. J. Sec. 2857; (2) Partnership, Key-No. 55, 30 Cyc. 415.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11925: 11926: 11927: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Botsford Lumber Co. v. Schriver206 N.W. 423 (S.D. 1925)
  2. Overton v. City of Sioux Falls196 N.W. 297 (S.D. 1923)
  3. Burt v. Gage208 N.W. 985 (S.D. 1926)
  4. Little v. Plummer211 N.W. 972 (S.D. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Little v. Plummer211 N.W. 972 (S.D. 1927)
  2. Burt v. Gage208 N.W. 985 (S.D. 1926)
  3. Botsford Lumber Co. v. Schriver206 N.W. 423 (S.D. 1925)
  4. Overton v. City of Sioux Falls196 N.W. 297 (S.D. 1923)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Overton v. City of Sioux Falls, 196 N.W. 297 (S.D. 1923) 4

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