acknowledging that allowing evidence of equitable issues even on a limited basis may interfere with the summary nature of the remedy, but concluding “that [such] interference is warranted”
How later courts described this case
- acknowledging that allowing evidence of equitable issues even on a limited basis may interfere with the summary nature of the remedy, but concluding “that [such] interference is warranted”
- “The time for appearance and pleading shall be four days from the time of service on the defendant[.]”
- inquiry was allowed into equitable defenses in a forcible entry and detainer action
- "evidence pertinent to the issue of possession is properly admissible in an unlawful detainer action, even though the evidence is equitable in nature."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion but am convinced that this Court should correct an apparent oversight in the 1966 revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure and add SDCL 21-16-4 to the list of superseded statutes and rules set forth in Rule 81(b).
SDCL 21-16-4 is so totally inconsistent with the concept of RCP Rules 13 and 18 (SDCL 15-6-13, 15-6-18), providing for joinder of all claims and doing away with multiple actions, that Aegerter v. Hayes, 55 S.D. 337 , 226 N.W. 345 , should be overruled. Only by such a holding will the conflict of law and procedure be resolved.