Moddie v. Breiland

Citations

• 9 S.D. 506
• 70 N.W. 637
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 90

Syllabus

<p>1. To exclude after trial, without notice to plaintiff, the note sued on and admitted in evidence, is “an irregularity in the proceedings of the court,” by which a “party was prevented from having a fair trial” (Comp. Laws, § 5088, Subd. 1,) which cannot be reviewed on appeal; such statutory ground of new trial not having been designated, as required by Sec. 5090, in notice of intention to move for new trial</p> <p>2. That a note sued on by plaintiff, and excluded for alleged alterations, may be inspected on appeal, it is not enough that it is a part of the bill of exceptions, but plaintiff should, in his abstract, print a fac simile, or allege that there was no alteration apparent on its face; and, if not denied by additional abstract, this contention would be conceded, or, if denied, the original could be examined.</p> <p>3. On proof of the genuineness of the signature tq a note, the'note should be received in-evidence, to be considered with other evidence on the ques tion of alterations in it, the burden of proof as to the alterations being placed by such proof on the maker.</p>