Skip to main content
· 4/4/1905

State v. Coughran

Citations

  • 19 S.D. 271
  • 103 N.W. 31
  • 1905 S.D. LEXIS 37

Syllabus

<p>1. No averments in an answer will be treated as constituting a counterclaim unless they are so designated in the answer, and are accompanied with a proper prayer for judgment.</p> <p>2. Where an answer stating facts constituting a counterclaim was not designated as a counterclaim, and contained no prayer for judgment, it was proper for the court, on determining that the answer, although misleading in form, constituted a counterclaim, to permit a reply to be filed, notwithstanding plaintiff’s noncompliance with a rule of court requiring motions for permission to plead after the time limited by the Code to be accompanied with an affids vit of merits and a copy of the proposed pleading.</p> <p>3. A reply, when filed, relates back to the commencement of the action, and may be filed after the expiration of the limitation period, where the action is commenced within that period.</p> <p>4. Defendant cannot defeat a suit to quiet title by showing that plaintiff has entered into an agreement to dispose of the property, where such agreement in no manner affects defendant’s title.</p> <p>5. The state, in a suit to quiet title, may avail itself of irregularities in defendant’s title under a tax deed, although such irregularities were committed by the state’s agents and officers.</p> <p>6. Under Rev. Giv. Code, § 974, requiring the officer taking an acknowledgment of an instrument executed by a corporation to have satisfactory evidence that the person making the acknowledgment is the president or secretary of the corporation, and section 981, subd. 2, requiring the certificate of acknowledgment to state that the president or secretary of the corporation which executed the instrument appeared and acknowledged that the corporation executed the same, a certificate of acknowledgment stating that the person acknowledging the instrument personally appeared, and said that he was the president of the corporation, and that the seal affixed to the instrument was the corporate seal of t

Judges: Corson, Haney

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.