Baxter v. Berg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Baxter v. Berg

60 N.W. 711, 88 Wis. 399, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 74

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 N.W. 711 (Baxter v. Berg) 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

Baxter v. Berg, 60 N.W. 711, 88 Wis. 399, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 74 (Wis. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Okton, O. J.-

This is an action in replevin for one large refrigerator. - The property was taken by, the writ. The verdict of the jury is “ that the value of the property in controversy is the sum of $145; that the same was unjustly taken by the plaintiff, and that the defendant is entitled to a return thereof; and that the defendant has been damaged by reason of the taking and detention in the sum of one dollar.” The court rendered a personal judgment in favor of the defendant.of $145 as the value of the property, and $1 damages, together with ■ costs and disbursements.

There appeal’s to be no bill of exceptions in this case signed by the judge, and there is no stipulation' that the document stipulated to stand, as the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence in the case. We can therefore consider only the question whether the pleadings support the verdict and judgment. Edleman v. Kidd, 65 Wis. 18; Strong v. Stevens Point, 62 Wis. 255. The only error apparent on the record seems to be the form of the judgment. The judgment should have been for a return of the property, and for its value and damages in case,a return thereof cannot be had. S. & B. Ann. Stats, sec. 2888. The property was taken by the writ, and must be disposed of by the judgment. The judgment should have been in the alternative, as above.

By the Court.— The judgment of the superior court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render the proper judgment for the defendant.

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

Okton, O. J.-

This is an action in replevin for one large refrigerator. - The property was taken by, the writ. The verdict of the jury is “ that the value of the property in controversy is the sum of $145; that the same was unjustly taken by the plaintiff, and that the defendant is entitled to a return thereof; and that the defendant has been damaged by reason of the taking and detention in the sum of one dollar.” The court rendered a personal judgment in favor of the defendant.of $145 as the value of the property, and $1 damages, together with ■ costs and disbursements.

There appeal’s to be no bill of exceptions in this case signed by the judge, and there is no stipulation' that the document stipulated to stand, as the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence in the case. We can therefore consider only the question whether the pleadings support the verdict and judgment. Edleman v. Kidd, 65 Wis. 18; Strong v. Stevens Point, 62 Wis. 255. The only error apparent on the record seems to be the form of the judgment. The judgment should have been for a return of the property, and for its value and damages in case,a return thereof cannot be had. S. & B. Ann. Stats, sec. 2888. The property was taken by the writ, and must be disposed of by the judgment. The judgment should have been in the alternative, as above.

By the Court.— The judgment of the superior court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render the proper judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.W. 711, 88 Wis. 399, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxter-v-berg-wis-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack