Court Opinion

ID: 9690255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:00:00.009411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:54.772622
License: Public Domain

SICKEL, P. J.
(dissenting). It seems to me that the decision in this case overrules O’Connor v. McCabe, 46 S. D. 269, 192 N.W. 370, and Merkamp v. Niles, 62 S. D. 241, 252 N.W. 636. The rule announced in those cases is supported by the annotation in 52 A.L.R. 1247. These decisions have become rules of property in this state and should not be disturbed except by legislation with proper reservations for the'protection of vested rights. In my opinion the decision also violates the parol evidence rule. SDC 10.0604 and 10.0806.