equity principle in South Dakota

2000Id.

2000Id.

1982That conclusion is not changed by the parties’ consent to such greater effect because in Nieuwenhuis, Central Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau, 59 S.D. 255 , 239 N.W. 487 (1931), South Dakota Wheat Growers’ Assn. v. Sieler, 57 S.D. 101 , 230 N.W. 805 (1930), and Orr v. Kneip, supra, we have consistently recognized the jurisdictional nature of this equity principle.

1982That conclusion is not changed by the parties’ consent to such greater effect because in Nieuwenhuis, Central Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau, 59 S.D. 255 , 239 N.W. 487 (1931), South Dakota Wheat Growers’ Assn. v. Sieler, 57 S.D. 101 , 230 N.W. 805 (1930), and Orr v. Kneip, supra, we have consistently recognized the jurisdictional nature of this equity principle.

1982That conclusion is not changed by the parties’ consent to such greater effect because in Nieuwenhuis, Central Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau, 59 S.D. 255 , 239 N.W. 487 (1931), South Dakota Wheat Growers’ Assn. v. Sieler, 57 S.D. 101 , 230 N.W. 805 (1930), and Orr v. Kneip, supra, we have consistently recognized the jurisdictional nature of this equity principle.

1982That conclusion is not changed by the parties’ consent to such greater effect because in Nieuwenhuis, Central Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau, 59 S.D. 255 , 239 N.W. 487 (1931), South Dakota Wheat Growers’ Assn. v. Sieler, 57 S.D. 101 , 230 N.W. 805 (1930), and Orr v. Kneip, supra, we have consistently recognized the jurisdictional nature of this equity principle.

1920The equity rule that fraud vitiates everything it touches applies to the circumstances of this case. [12-15] It is contended that if the facts sustain extrinsic fraud, and that appellant still holds this land as an allottee, this action must be dismissed because of the decision in McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 456, 458 , 27 Sup. Ct. 346, 51 L.

1916In Camp v. McGillicuddy, 10 Iowa, 201 , it was held that a court of equity may require a iparty who- is not directly affected by the decree to be made a party where such proceeding will tend to avoid a multiplicity of suits. [4] Suits in equity for accountings for the proceeds of estates or -other property furnish a good illustration of the equity rule as tot joinder of parties plaintiff having a united or Concurrent interest in the recovery of the subject-matter from- defendants alleged to wrongfully withhold the same.

1911But, of course, if the defendants voluntarily appear, no process is necessary.” In 23 Cyc. 803, the rule is thus stated: “At common law one defendant to a suit cannot recover a judgment against a codefendant, at least without a cross-pleading and service of process or an appearance to the cross-pleading by defendant thereto.” In Washington Railroad v. Bradleys, 10 Wall. 299 , 19 L.

1911But, of course, if the defendants voluntarily appear, no process is necessary.” In 23 Cyc. 803, the rule is thus stated: “At common law one defendant to a suit cannot recover a judgment against a codefendant, at least without a cross-pleading and service of process or an appearance to the cross-pleading by defendant thereto.” In Washington Railroad v. Bradleys, 10 Wall. 299 , 19 L.