Range v. Brooks
Range v. Brooks
Opinion of the Court
This action was originally brought in justice court at Gann Valley, in Buffalo county; plaintiff being-represented by counsel living at Kimball, a town some 22 miles south of Gann Valley, Gann Valley being an inland town without any railroad connections whatsoever. The trial in justice court was had on February 19, 1910, and upon February 22 the attorney for plaintiff received notice from the justice that on February 21, 1910, judgment was entered dismissing- the complaint and for costs in favor of the defendant. March 1 the plaintiff perfected an appeal to1 the circuit court, by giving the proper notice and undertaking- and filing- the same with the justice. May 2, 1910, a transcript from the justice court was filed with the clerk of the circuit court, and, upon May (3, defendant served plaintiff with a motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the papers from the justice court were not transmitted to the clerk of the circuit court within 15 days from the perfection of the appeal. Plaintiff filed an affidavit resisting- said motion, ’ but the motion was sustained; and it is from the order of the circuit court, dismissing the appeal from the justice court, that this appeal is taken.
Appellant insists that the facts herein bring this case under the law as laid down in McLaughlin v. Michel et al., 14 S. D. 190, 84 N. W. 778, wherein this court said: “If the transcript is filed after the 15 days, and no objection is taken, the court may proceed to try the case, and the fact that the transcript was filed after the time does not affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court or the regularity of its proceedings. If, however, a motion is made to dismiss the appeal, and the failure to file the same has not been caused by the fault or the neglect of the appellant or his attorney, we are of the opinion -that the court should deny the motion and proceed with the trial of the cause.” Respondent contends that appellant was neglectful, in that he did not go to Gann Valley and see that the papers were filed, or else bring proper proceedings to compel the justice to do his duty. We are inclined to think that the appellant was justified in what he did. He certainly had a right to rely upon the justice doing his duty, and he took every possible step to overcome the different objections or obstructions placed in his way, even to making payments which it ■is clear, the justice had no right to demand, and, during all the time up to the time the 15 days fixed by statute had expired there was nothing to lead the appellant to believe that such transcript would not be filed in time, and it appears that, after appellant found that the justice had not done as .he had agreed to do in his letter, wherein he demanded the balance of the costs, the appellant proceeded by every reasonable means, other than action in court, to get the justice to perform his duty, and we cannot see anything in the record that would lead us to believe that a trip to Gann Valley would have served any useful purpose.
We are of the opinion that the circuit court was in error in its order dismissing the appeal, and the order is reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- RANGE v. BROOKS
- Status
- Published