safe rule in South Dakota

1982Id. 64 N.W. at 153 .

1929D. 289, 64 N. W. 152, 153 , as follows: “Wte believe the true and only safe rule to be that, where the separation is such that one or more of the jurors might have been improperly influenced by others, and there is nothing reliable to show that such influence has not been exercised to the prejudice of the accused, the verdict shall be vacated, and the case be retried.” We think the rule announced in State v. 'Church is not substantially different from the general rule as above set out.

1973As quoted with approval in Birken, Jr. v. Tapper, 45 S.D. 600 , 189 N.W. 698 , “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates; neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in aid of the surety.” The entire financial transaction between the Bank and defendants revolved around an SBA guaranteed note in the amount of $175,000.

1973As quoted with approval in Birken, Jr. v. Tapper, 45 S.D. 600 , 189 N.W. 698 , “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates; neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in aid of the surety.” The entire financial transaction between the Bank and defendants revolved around an SBA guaranteed note in the amount of $175,000.

1922To quote from the syllabus in Continental Supply Co. v. Oil Co., 146 La. 671 , 83 South. 892 : “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates; neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in aid of the surety.” Again it is claimed by.appellant that there was no acceptance of the guaranty by the guarantee that: “The guaranty in this case was signe

1922To quote from the syllabus in Continental Supply Co. v. Oil Co., 146 La. 671 , 83 South. 892 : “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates; neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in aid of the surety.” Again it is claimed by.appellant that there was no acceptance of the guaranty by the guarantee that: “The guaranty in this case was signe

1898In Iowa this is made obligatory upon the court by statute, and the state’s attorney is subject to prosecution for a misdemeanor, who in any manner calls such a matter to the attention of the jury State v. Baldoser, 88 Iowa, 55 , 55 N. W. 97 .

1898In Iowa this is made obligatory upon the court by statute, and the state’s attorney is subject to prosecution for a misdemeanor, who in any manner calls such a matter to the attention of the jury State v. Baldoser, 88 Iowa, 55 , 55 N. W. 97 .

1892Clair Circuit, 31 Mich. 456 , it was held that au attempt by ex parte action to divest a board of directors of a corporation of their control over its affairs was such an act as authorized summary interposition.” -The rule as there laid down and limited seems to be the true and safe rule.