Case Name: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PIPESTONE, Respondent v. SIMAN, et al, Appellants
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1939-12-30
Citations: 67 S.D. 118
Docket Number: File No. 8247
Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PIPESTONE, Respondent v. SIMAN, et al, Appellants.
Judges: All the Judges concur.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PIPESTONE, Respondent v. SIMAN, et al, Appellants.
(289 N. W. 416.)
(File No. 8247.
Opinion filed December 30, 1939.)
Caldwell & Burns, of Sioux Falls, and Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, 111., for Appellants.
Krause & Van Burén, of Dell Rapids, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is before this court a second time. See First National Bank of Pipestone v. Siman et al., 65 S. D. 514, 275 N. W. 347. Following the filing of the remittitur on the prior appeal, the appellants, who were defendants below, amended their answer and alleged that, by virtue of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C.A. § 181 to 229, the Steele-Siman & Company became a federal public utility and, as such, its constitutional rights were violated by the decision on the prior appeal. The federal questions raised and the arguments presented are similar, if not identical, to those presented to the Minnesota court in the case of Mason City Production Credit Association v. Sig Ellingson & Co., 205 Minn. 537, 286 N. W. 713, in which case the Supreme Court of the. United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari, 308 U. S. 599, 60 S. Ct. 130, 84 L. Ed. 501, and a petition for a rehearing, 308 U. S. 637, 60 S. Ct. 178, 84 L. Ed. 529.
We are content to rest our decision of the federal questions involved upon the reasoning of the Minnesota court in the Ellingson case. The trial court in this case having found against the appellant, it follows that the judgment and order appealed from should be, and are, affirmed.
All the Judges concur.