Armstrong v. Advance Thresher Co.
Citations
- 5 S.D. 12
- 57 N.W. 1131
- 1894 S.D. LEXIS 28
Syllabus
<p>1. A letter received by due course of mail from a party, in reply to a letter addressefl to such party, is presumptively genuine, and admissible in evidence without further proof of the identity of the party purporting to write the reply.</p> <p>2. A letter received by due course of mail, purporting to be written by the managing agent of a corporation, in reply to a letter addressed to the corporation and sent through the mail, is presumptively genuine and authorized, and is admissible in evidence without further proof that such person is the managing agent of such corporation, or that the letter was written by the party by whom it purports to be signed.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the “unconstitutional final sentence… can be severed from the rest of the ordinance because the remaining –[constitutional] portion of the ordinance can stand by itself….”
- finding unconstitutional a zoning ordinance which deprived mobile homeowners of an existing use of their property by imputing their abandonment after they had discontinued use of the property for six months or more
- permitting severance if the act’s “intended effect is not altered”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Corson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.