B. Hoffmann Manufacturing Co. v. Western Stove & Manufacturing Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

B. Hoffmann Manufacturing Co. v. Western Stove & Manufacturing Co.

74 N.W. 543, 99 Wis. 53, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 12

DecidedMarch 22, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 74 N.W. 543 (B. Hoffmann Manufacturing Co. v. Western Stove & Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B. Hoffmann Manufacturing Co. v. Western Stove & Manufacturing Co., 74 N.W. 543, 99 Wis. 53, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 12 (Wis. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, J.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining an attachment. It involves solely the question of whether the trial court decided correctly, from the evidence, on questions of fact. The rule in such cases is that the decision of the trial court - cannot be disturbed unless contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence. The record has been carefully tested by that rule without discovering any sufficient reason for reversing the action of the trial court. It is not considered advisable to do more than state the conclusion to which we have arrived. The case is governed by a rule so well established that a discussion of it, or of the evidence calling for its application, will be of no value in future litigation.

By the Oov/rt.— The order of the superior court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marshall, J.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining an attachment. It involves solely the question of whether the trial court decided correctly, from the evidence, on questions of fact. The rule in such cases is that the decision of the trial court - cannot be disturbed unless contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence. The record has been carefully tested by that rule without discovering any sufficient reason for reversing the action of the trial court. It is not considered advisable to do more than state the conclusion to which we have arrived. The case is governed by a rule so well established that a discussion of it, or of the evidence calling for its application, will be of no value in future litigation.

By the Oov/rt.— The order of the superior court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.W. 543, 99 Wis. 53, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-hoffmann-manufacturing-co-v-western-stove-manufacturing-co-wis-1898.