Skip to main content
· 3/3/1894

Jewett v. Sundback

Citations

  • 5 S.D. 111
  • 58 N.W. 20
  • 1894 S.D. LEXIS 35

Syllabus

<p>1. Entries made by a justice oí the peace in his docket in pursuance of Sectiod 6123, Comp. Laws, are by Section 6124, made prima facie evidence of the facts so stated; and among the facts so required to be stated are the time when the parties, or either of them, appeared, and a concise statement of the material parts of the pleadings.</p> <p>2. An entry in such docket that the plaintiffs filed a complaint in which they claimed that the defendant was indebted to' them in the sum of 3548 for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant, at the special instance and request of the defendant, is prima facie evidence that the justice’s court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.</p> <p>3. An entry in such docket, by such justice, that the defendant appeared and waived “the service of summons, and admitted the allegations of the complaint to be true, and consented that judgment be entered against him by confession, in favor of the plaintiff,” for the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his complaint, constitutes a sufficient pleading on the part of the defendant, and was prima facie evidence that the said justice had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.</p> <p>4. By the express provisions of Section 6050, Comp. Laws, “an action in a justice’s court is commenced by issuing the summons, or by the voluntary appearance and pleading of the parties.” When the defendant appears and pleads, no summons is required to give the court jurisdiction.</p> <p>6.If the justice’s records show affirmatively that the justice’s court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, then the same presumptions are indulged in favor of the regularity and validity of the proceedings of such justice’s court as are extended to the superior courts, and they cannot be collaterally impeached for errors or irregularities.</p> <p>6. The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, change,

Judges: Corson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.