HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.sstatutes/sdcompl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: OMITTED ANNOTATIONS
Inadvertently the following annotations, properly belonging in this
volume, were omitted from their regular place, and should appear fol-
lowing the section noted.
§ 921-A.
Under Uniform Conditional Sales Act,
§ 1, plaintiff, taking assignment of note
and conditional sales contract for auto-
mobile, was seller so far as purchaser was
concerned, and, if he retook car before
commencement of action and failed to
resell it, pursuant to sections 17-22, pur-
chaser, having paid 50 per cent. of pur-
chase price, was entitled to recover his
actual damages, which, in no event, should
have been less than one-fourth of pur-
chase price owncr paid under contract,
with interest, un(er section 25. Commer-
cial Inv. Trust v. Wors]ing, 220 N. W. 855.
§ 921-E.
A sheriff, in levying execution upon
chattels specifically designated by the
creditor as the property of the debtor, acts
as agent of th, creditor, so that Is know-
ledge that the goods were held by the
debtor under a conditional sales contract
is imputable to the creditor, and the con-
ditional seller can recover the goods from
the creditor after the latter purchased
them at execution sale under Conditional
Sales Act, § 5, making a conditional sale
contract void as to a pnrchaser without
notice. Lyle Culvert & Road Equipment
Co. v. J. F. Anderson Lumber Co., 46 S. D.
366, 193 N. IV. 58.
§ 921-Q to 921-V Inc.
Under Uniform Conditional Sales Act.
§ 1, plaintiff, Iaking assignment of note
and conditional sales contract for auto-
mobile, was seller so far as purchaser was
concerned, and, if It( retook car before
commencement of action and failed to
resell it, pursuant to sections 17-22, pur-
chaser, having paid 50 per cent. of pur-
chase price, was entitled to recover his
actual damages, which, in no event,
should have been less than one-fourth of
purchase price owner paid under contract,
with interest, under section 25. Comnmer-
':ial Inv. Trust v. Wresling, 220 N. W. 855.
§ 921-Y.
Under Uniform Conditional Sales act,
1 1, plaintiff, taking assignment of note
and conditional sales contract for auto-
mobile, was seller so fatr as purchaser was
concerned, and, if he retook car before
commencement of action and failed to
resell it, pursuant to sections 17-22. pur-
chaser, having paid 50 per cent, of pur-
chase price, was entitled to recover his
actual damages, whicb in no event,
should have been less than one-fourth of
purchase price owner paid under contract,
with interest, under section 25. Commer-
cial Inv Trust v. Wesling, 220 N. W. 855.
§ 2044-C.
As against creditors, merely good and
valuable consideration will not support
conveyance which will render grantor
insolvent, . but under such circum-
stances, there must be fair consideration,
which mleans one not disproportionate to
value of property conveyed, tnder Laws
1919, c. 209, §§ 3, 4. 33uhl v. hfcDowell,
51 S. D. 603, 216 N. W. 346.
§ 2044-C.
Wife's loans to husband of $800, his
agreement to assume payment of $400
noto which she inherited, and her claim
for $1,450 for cooking for threshing crew,
held not fair consideration for transfer
to her of land worth $10,000, which ren-
dered husband insolvent, and so did not
prevent it from being fraudulent as to
creditors, under Laws 1919, c. 209, § 8.
Little v. Plummer, 51 S. D. 27, 211 N. W.
972.
§ 2044-C.
Wife's testimony that consideration for
conveyance to her, resulting in husband's
insolvency, was about $2,500 loaned at
various times during my husband's illness
and for me, and her admission that part
of such sum was paid in various amounts
for household expenses after she received
deed, held insufficient, without further
explanation, to sustain burden of proving
fair consideration, in view of Uniform
Fraudulent Conveyance Act (Laws 1919, c.
209) § 3, requiring satisfaction of antece-
dent debt. Buhli v. McDowell, 51 S. D. 603,
216 N. W. 346.
§ 2044-D.
As against ereditors, merely good and
valuable eonsldtratlon wlfl not sulppor'.
conveyance which will render grantor In.
solvent; but, under such circumstances.
there must be fair consideration, which
means one not disproportioned to value of
property conveyed, under Laws 1919, c.
209, Hi 3, 4. Buhi v. McDowell, 51 S. D. 603,
216 N. W. 346.
§ 2044-:D
Finding of intent to defraud is not nec-
essary to support judgment setting aside
conveyance, without fair consideration,
from husband to wife, which rendered
grantor insolvent, since, under Laws 1911,
. 209, § 4, such a transfer is fraudulent
as to creditors, regardless of actual in-
tent. Little v. Plummer, 51 S. D. 27, 211
N. W. 972.
§ 2044-I.
The Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance
Act, § 9, subsec. 1, entitling a creditor to
have fraudulent conveyance set aside, or
obligation annulled, or to disregard the
conveyance and attach or levy execution
on tile property conveyed, does not take
away creditor's right to proceed against
the real estate by garnishment; garnish-
ment In such case being in effect the
same as a creditor's bill. Citizens State
Bank v. Carda, 47 S. D. 29, 195 N. W. 828.
§ 2250.
An appeal from a municipal court un-
der Laws 1019, c. 279, cannot be prose-
cuted to the circuit court for the sole
purpose of a trial de novo in that court,
since Coast. art. 5, § 14, providing that
the circuit shall have original jurisdic-
tion in all actions * * * and such ap-
pellate jurisdiction as may be conferred](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.sstatutes/sdcompl0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)