Bliss v. Rosenkrans
This text of 104 N.W. 746 (Bliss v. Rosenkrans) 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.
Opinion
The first ground urged for dismissal could he met by imposition of terms, since the record has now been filed; but the second ground of motion seems to us insuperable. Sec. 3065, Stats.^898, provides:
“An undertaking upon an appeal shall be of no effect unless it shall be accompanied by the affidavit of the sureties, in which each surety shall state that he is worth a -certain sum mentioned, . . . and- which sums so sworn to shall, in the aggregate, be double the amount specified in said undertaking.”
The amount specified in the undertaking is the aggregate of $250 limitation on costs and damages upon appeal and the face of the $394 judgment in the court below, or $644. The aggregate worth of the two sureties, according to their affidavits, is $788, which falls far short of double the amount specified in the undertaking. For this reason the appeal must be dismissed.
By the Court. — So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 N.W. 746, 125 Wis. 532, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bliss-v-rosenkrans-wis-1905.