Anderson v. Jordan

Citations

• 15 S.D. 395
• 89 N.W. 1015
• 1902 S.D. LEXIS 22

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action to recover the value of cattle taken under execution from the possession of the judgment debtor, after such debtor had testified that the cattle taken belonged to plaintiff, and were marked with tar before being delivered to witness to be kept for a week or two unless sooner sold, he was asked as to his custom in regard to branding cat-tie that he had purchased before taking them home. Held, that defendant’s objection to such question was properly sustained.</p> <p>2. Where an answer of a witness is not responsive to the question, and an objection thereto is sustained, but the answer is not stricken out or withdrawn from the jury, an assignment of error with reference thereto will not be considered.</p> <p>B. Where, in an action to recover the value of cattle taken under execution from the possession of the judgment debtor, it is conclusively shown that all the cattle on the debtor’s ranch bad his brand, except those taken, the fact that such debtor was not permitted to answer whether he had a brand for his cattle did not prejudice plaintiff.</p> <p>L In an action to recover the value of cattle taken under execution from the possession of the judgment debtor, who testified that he was ' keeping them for plaintiff, the testimony of-a grain dealer, who knew nothing of the transaction, as to whether he sold hay to such debtor about that time, which was charged to plaintiff, was properly excluded.</p> <p>5. In an action to recover the value of cattle taken under execution from the possession of the judgment debtor, where the defendant sheriff has testified on cross-examination that he took the cattle which were not branded because there was a chattel mortgage on those that were branded, it was not error to permit him to repeat this testimony on redirect examination.</p>