Bassett v. Jenkins

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Bassett v. Jenkins

41 Wis. 197

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 Wis. 197 (Bassett v. Jenkins) 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

Bassett v. Jenkins, 41 Wis. 197 (Wis. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Goins, J.

The question as to the sufficiency of the complaint or the materiality of the amendment, is not before us. The appeal is from an order continuing the cause, which is not appealable. Waldo v. Rice, 18 Wis., 405; Roby v. Hudd, 22 id., 638; Johnston v. Reiley, 24 id., 494; Supervisors of Kewaunee Co. v. Decker, 28 id., 669; McLeod v. Bertschy, 30 id., 324; Reed v. Lueps, id., 561. It is true, in the order leave is given the plaintiffs to serve and file an amended complaint, which would obviate the defendant’s objection to the [200]*200original complaint; but this does not change the character of the order. It is essentially an order continuing the cause, which, as said before, is not appealable. The amendment of the complaint had in fact been made on the application of the plaintiffs; and thereupon the defendant filed an affidavit of surprise, and asked for a continuance, which was granted. This was a matter addressed to the discretion of the circuit court, and there is no ground for saying there was any abuse of discretion in granting the continuance.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.

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

Goins, J.

The question as to the sufficiency of the complaint or the materiality of the amendment, is not before us. The appeal is from an order continuing the cause, which is not appealable. Waldo v. Rice, 18 Wis., 405; Roby v. Hudd, 22 id., 638; Johnston v. Reiley, 24 id., 494; Supervisors of Kewaunee Co. v. Decker, 28 id., 669; McLeod v. Bertschy, 30 id., 324; Reed v. Lueps, id., 561. It is true, in the order leave is given the plaintiffs to serve and file an amended complaint, which would obviate the defendant’s objection to the [200]*200original complaint; but this does not change the character of the order. It is essentially an order continuing the cause, which, as said before, is not appealable. The amendment of the complaint had in fact been made on the application of the plaintiffs; and thereupon the defendant filed an affidavit of surprise, and asked for a continuance, which was granted. This was a matter addressed to the discretion of the circuit court, and there is no ground for saying there was any abuse of discretion in granting the continuance.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Wis. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bassett-v-jenkins-wis-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack