Briggs v. Hiles

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Briggs v. Hiles

48 N.W. 800, 79 Wis. 571, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 144

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 48 N.W. 800 (Briggs v. Hiles) 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

Briggs v. Hiles, 48 N.W. 800, 79 Wis. 571, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 144 (Wis. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Lyon, J.

It is not denied that a trial of one of the issues in the action will necessarily require the examination of a long account, but the contention of defendant is that this issue should not be referred until the other issues are decided, because, should it be determined that there was a special contract between the parties fixing the compensation to which plaintiff is entitled for his services, it wfill not be necessary to examine the account. True, such would be the result of a determination of the issue on the alleged special contract for the defendant, but the trial court is not required thus to try the issues separately, although probably it may do so in its discretion. When there is an issue in the action the determination of which will require the examination of a long account, the court may send that issue, or any or all the issues in the action, to a referee to hear, try, and determine. Such are the plain provisions of the statute. R. S. secs. 2864, 2865. Hence it was said by the late Mr. Justice Taylob, in U. S. Rolling Stock Co. v. Johnston, 67 Wis. 182, that “ it has been repeatedly decided by this court, and other courts under similar laws, that it is no objection to a compulsory reference of a case in which a long account must be proved by the plaintiff in making out his case, that the defendant denies the existence or validity of the contract upon which such accounts are founded. Dane Co. v. Dunning, 20 Wis. 210; Monitor I. W. Co. v. Ketchum, 47 Wis. 177; Welsh v. Darragh, 52 N. Y. 590; Kingsley v. Brooklyn, 1 Abb. N. C. 108; Cowden v. Teale, 6 Hun, 532; Schermerhorn v. Wood, 4 Daly, 158.” To these cases may be added Cairns v. O'Bleness, 40 Wis. 469; Littlejohn v. Regents, 71 Wis. 437, — which are to the same [573]*573effect. In the latter case some limitations on tbe rule are suggested by Mr. Justice OrcroN, but tbis case is not within them. The above cases settle the rule and sustain the reference.

It will be entirely proper, however, for the referee, in his discretion, to try the issue as to whether the services in question are covered by a special contract, as alleged in the answer, before entering upon an examination of the account ; and, if he finds that issue for the defendant, he may base his report thereon, without stating the account for services.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

Lyon, J.

It is not denied that a trial of one of the issues in the action will necessarily require the examination of a long account, but the contention of defendant is that this issue should not be referred until the other issues are decided, because, should it be determined that there was a special contract between the parties fixing the compensation to which plaintiff is entitled for his services, it wfill not be necessary to examine the account. True, such would be the result of a determination of the issue on the alleged special contract for the defendant, but the trial court is not required thus to try the issues separately, although probably it may do so in its discretion. When there is an issue in the action the determination of which will require the examination of a long account, the court may send that issue, or any or all the issues in the action, to a referee to hear, try, and determine. Such are the plain provisions of the statute. R. S. secs. 2864, 2865. Hence it was said by the late Mr. Justice Taylob, in U. S. Rolling Stock Co. v. Johnston, 67 Wis. 182, that “ it has been repeatedly decided by this court, and other courts under similar laws, that it is no objection to a compulsory reference of a case in which a long account must be proved by the plaintiff in making out his case, that the defendant denies the existence or validity of the contract upon which such accounts are founded. Dane Co. v. Dunning, 20 Wis. 210; Monitor I. W. Co. v. Ketchum, 47 Wis. 177; Welsh v. Darragh, 52 N. Y. 590; Kingsley v. Brooklyn, 1 Abb. N. C. 108; Cowden v. Teale, 6 Hun, 532; Schermerhorn v. Wood, 4 Daly, 158.” To these cases may be added Cairns v. O'Bleness, 40 Wis. 469; Littlejohn v. Regents, 71 Wis. 437, — which are to the same [573]*573effect. In the latter case some limitations on tbe rule are suggested by Mr. Justice OrcroN, but tbis case is not within them. The above cases settle the rule and sustain the reference.

It will be entirely proper, however, for the referee, in his discretion, to try the issue as to whether the services in question are covered by a special contract, as alleged in the answer, before entering upon an examination of the account ; and, if he finds that issue for the defendant, he may base his report thereon, without stating the account for services.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 N.W. 800, 79 Wis. 571, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-hiles-wis-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack