Evenson v. Webster

Citations

• 3 S.D. 382
• 53 N.W. 747
• 1892 S.D. LEXIS 85

Syllabus

<p>1. To entitle a party to a review of the evidence in this court, to determine the sufficiency of the same to justify the verdict of a jury or the findings of the court, whether the ease is tried by a jury or a court, he must have made a motion for a new trial in the court below, and have made the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or findings one of the grounds for such motion. Unless such motion for a new trial has been made in the court below, this court will decline to review the evidence. Following the decision of this court in Pierce v. Manning, 51 N. W. Rep. 332.</p> <p>2. When it does not affirmatively appear from the abstract that a motion for a new trial was made in the court below, this court will assume that no such motion was made.</p> <p>3. As it does not appear in this case that a motion for a new tidal was made in the court below, this court will not review the evidence to determine its sufficiency to support the findings, and will only consider on this appeal the question of the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the judgment.</p> <p>4. The statutes of this state prescribe no particular form in which a conveyance of real property shall be made, except that it shall bo in writing, and subscribed by the party disposing of the same, and that it may be in the short form specified in section 3247, Oomp. Laws. Any instrument, therefore, in writing, subscribed by the grantor, in which the grantor, grantee, consideration, and a description of the property intended to be conveyed are clearly specified, and containing words indicating an intention to transfer the estate or the grantor’s right, title, or interest therein, will be sufficient to transfer such real property or such grantor’s interest therein, though the term “grant” or other terms usually used in conveyances of real property are omitted, and the term “give” is substituted therefor.</p> <p>5. The instrument under which the defendant claims title in this case examined, and h