Court Opinion

ID: 9656074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:33:56.919786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:27.899668
License: Public Domain

SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTS, J.,
(dissenting). It is our opinion -that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
The majority opinion correctly differentiates between a pure statute of limitation and a statute making time the essence of a right to maintain an action. The former is regarded as a statute of repose and confers no right of action, but restricts the period within which a right must be asserted and is available only as a defense. It seems to us -that SDC 37.2131 is a pure statute of limitation and not a condition which the law attaches to- the right to maintain an action. The section is in language ordinarily used in a statute of limitations and it seems obvious from section and article headings in the original act, Ch. 295, Laws 1923, that it was so regarded by the legislature. The headings of portions of a statute, such as articles, chapters and sections may not be used to extend or restrict the language contained in a statute, SDC 65.0202; Olson v. City of Sioux Falls, 63 S.D. 563, 262 N.W. 85, 103 A.L.R. 1022, but may be considered in case of ambiguity for the purpose of ascertaining the legislative intent. The intent of the legislature is the controlling factor. The defense not having been properly asserted was waived. SDC 33.0201; State ex rel. Berge v. Patterson, 18 S.D. 251, 100 N.W. 162.