Title: Iversen v. Terriere

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

104 N.W.2d 474 (1960) Donald A. IVERSEN, otherwise known as Donald Iversen, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ed TERRIERE et al., Defendants, and Dick Williams, Defendant and Respondent. No. 9728-a. Supreme Court of South Dakota. August 18, 1960. Dudley R. Herman, Gregory, for plaintiff and appellant. Martens, Goldsmith & May, Pierre, for defendant and respondent Dick Williams. TAIT, Circuit Judge. This action arose from facts and circumstances substantially as follows: On December 9, 1947, the plaintiff signed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the defendant, Dick Williams. The defendant did not produce the deed upon the trial, but it had been recorded by him in the office of the Register of Deeds of Stanley County on September 26, 1949. This deed, as recorded, purported to convey to the defendant (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff contends that said quitclaim deed was altered after he signed and delivered it to the defendant. He contends that when it was delivered it read (Emphasis added.) Thus, plaintiff claims the word "On" was changed to read "And", thereby purporting to convey the fences *475 And the real property, when it was intended to, and did, convey only the fences on the described real estate. The plaintiff commenced this action on May 10, 1951, praying that said quitclaim deed be reformed to convey the fences only, and that the title to the real estate be quieted in him against the claims of the defendant based upon said quitclaim deed. This action was before this court on a prior appeal involving a procedural question. Iversen v. Terriere, S.D., 93 N.W.2d 571. The trial of this action by the court, without a jury, resulted in a decision denying all relief to the plaintiff. This appeal is from the judgment, only, which was entered on that decision. The errors assigned in effect challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court. SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1605 provides as follows: By SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1607 it is provided: The pertinent words of SDC 1960 Supp. 33.0710 to which reference is made in SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1607, supra, is as follows: The foregoing provisions were not prompted by an intention to do away with the necessity of raising the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial court. They were inserted in an attempt to make it clear that, if the sufficiency of the evidence had been once questioned in the trial court by other appropriate procedure, it need not be questioned there a second time on motion for new trial in order to secure a review of the evidence in this court. The sufficiency of the evidence was not questioned in the trial court by motion for new trial, request for findings, or other appropriate procedure. It is the firm rule of this court that the issue must be presented to the trial court in one of the methods provided by statute. This was not done by appellant. The record does not, therefore, present for review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. SDC 1960 Supp. 33.0710; Chambers v. Wilson, 67 S.D. 495, 294 N.W. 180; Ehrke v. North American Life & Casualty Co., 71 S.D. 376, 24 N.W.2d 640; Ove v. Hutcheson, S.D., 85 N.W.2d 675. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. SMITH, RENTTO, HANSON and BIEGELMEIER, JJ., concur. TAIT, Circuit Judge, sitting for ROBERTS, P. J., disqualified.