Case ID: sd_14/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fueeek, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Houts et al. v. Bartle et al.
    
    Since every defense provided by tbe legislature is meritorious, it was not an abuse of discretion to allow tbe statute of limitations to be set up in an amended answer.
    (Opinion filed April 2, 1901.)
    
      Appeal from circuit court, Turner county, Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge.
    Action by W. A. Houts and others against Ered A. Bartle and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order denying a new .trial, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      IV. B. Gantt, for appellants.
    
      French & Orvis, and Davis, Lyon & Gates, for respondents.
   Fueeek, P. J.

As every defense for which the legislature has provided is meritorious, there was no abuse of judicial discretion in allowing the statute of .limitations to be set up by way of an amendment to the answer filed in this case. Garvie v. Greene, 9 S. D. 608, 70 N. W. 847. The facts before us as to the running of such statute are practically identical with a case just decided (Houts v. Hovne, 14 S. D.-84 N. W. 773), where it is held that plaintiff's cause of action is barred b)*- the statute, and for the same reason the judgment from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.