Case Name: HIPPLE, et al., Appellants, v. STROHBEHN, Respondent
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1921-04-12
Citations: 44 S.D. 102
Docket Number: File No. 4782
Parties: HIPPLE, et al., Appellants, v. STROHBEHN, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
HIPPLE, et al., Appellants, v. STROHBEHN, Respondent.
(182 N. W. 535.)
(File No. 4782.
Opinion filed April 12, 1921.)
1. Appeals' — Error—Insufficiency of Evidence — Trial to Court, Findings By Incompetent Evidence Presumed Rejected.
Where trial was to court without jury, Supreme Court, in determining alleged error and in determining sufficiency of evidence to sustain findings, will presume that trial court rejected all incompetent and improper evidence.
2. Appeals — Sufficiency of Evidence — No Assignment Re Denial of New Trial, Non-review of Question.
Without assignment of error re denying new trial, question of sufficiency of evidence to sustain findings will not he reviewed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles Mix County. How. Robert B. Tripp, Judge.
Action by R. W. Hippie and another, against F. S. Strohbehn. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John B. Tipton■, for Appellants.
Caster & Cassidy, for Respondents.

Opinion:
GATES, J.
Action for damages for deceit. Trial to the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Appellant argues two propositions, viz.: (i) Alleged errors in admitting evidence; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. This being a case tried to the court without a jury, we must presume that .the court, in making its findings, rejected all incompetent and improper evidence. Breeden v. Martens, 21 S. D. 357, 112 N. W. 960; Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N. W. 277; Schmidt v. Scanlan, 32 S. D. 608, 144 N. W. 128; McKinnon v. Fuller, 33 S. D. 582, 146 N. W. 910; Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504; Higgs v. Bigelow, 39 S. D. 359, 164 N. W. 89.
There being no assignment of error that the court erred in denying a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not before us for review. Pierce v. Manning, 2 S. D. 517, 51 N. W. 332; Carroll v. Nisbet, 9 S. D. 497, 70 N. W. 634; Wolf v. Sneve, 23 S. D. 260, 121 N. W. 781; Williams Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Kelley, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646; Whaley v. Vidal, 26 S. D. 300, 128 N. W. 331; Hazen v. Thompson, 33 S. D. 646, 146 N. W. 1070; Anderson v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 36 S. D. 390, 155 N. W. 1; Berke v. McCook Co., 39 S. D. 579, 165 N. W. 985.
Affirmed.