Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota Volume 27

Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota Volume 27

By (author) 

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: against the Union Trust Company, but in our opinion their contention cannot be sustained under the authorities, and the court, in the absence of the service of Hardin's counterclaim or cross-bill in the action was without jurisdiction to make any decree affecting the lien or claim of the Union Trust Company. In Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143, 5 Sup. Ct. 1177, the learned Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion says: "It is settled that one defendant cannot have a decree against a codefendant without a cross-bill, with proper prayer, and pro cess or answer, as in an original suit. Walker v. Byers, 14 Ark, 246; Gantt's Dig. 4559; Cullum v. Erwin, 4 Ala. 452; Cummings v. Gill, 6 Ala. 562; Shelby v. Smith, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 504. It follows from the reason of this rule that if one complainant can, under any circumstances, have a decree against another upon a supplemental or amended bill, it must be upon notice to the latter. After a decree disposing of the issues and in accordance with the prayer of a bill has been made, it is not competent for one of the parties, without a service of new process or appearance, to institute further proceedings on new issues and for new objects, although connected with the subject-matter of the original litigation, by merely giving the new proceedings the title of the original cause. If his bill begins a new litigation, the parties against whom he seeks relief are entitled to notice thereof, and without it they will not be bound: for the decree of a court rendered against a party who has not been heard, and has had no chance to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other court. Vt/indsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274; more

Product details

  • Paperback | 266 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 481g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236809246
  • 9781236809247