Brown v. Kellogg

17 Wis. 475
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 17 Wis. 475 (Brown v. Kellogg) 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
Brown v. Kellogg, 17 Wis. 475 (Wis. 1863).

Opinion

[476]*476By the Court,

Dixow, C. J.

Common law certiorari to a justice of tbe peace for Sauk county. Kellogg sued Brown, and on. tbe return day of tbe summons, wbicb was tbe 26tb of November, 1862; the parties appeared-, and; after issue joined, Brown applied for an adjournment for three months, to procure tbe testimony of a material witness. Tbe justice granted tbe application, and adjourned tbe cause to tbe 19th day of February, 1863, without entering in Ms doclcet the hour or place of adjournment. Tbe entry, was in these words: “ Cause adjourned to tbe 19th day of February, 1863.” It appears from tbe return that tbe hour of one o’clock, P. M., was fixed at tbe time of adjournment, and on tbe adjourned day tbe words “ at 1 o’clock, P. M.,” were inserted. It does not appear that the place of adjournment was ever fixed or entered. On tbe adjourned day, Kellogg appeared and took judgment for $10.88, damages, and costs of suit. Brown did not appear. It is obvious from this recital of facts, that tbe case of Roberts v. Warren, 3 Wis., 736, is decisive of the action. Tbe statute is tbe same now as when that case arose. R. S., ch. 120, sec. 11. Tbe time,, wbicb includes tbe hour of tbe day, and tbe place to wbicb tbe bearing is postponed, must be entered in tbe docket whenever there is an adjournment. It is such entry, as well as tbe public announcement, wbicb constitutes tbe adjournment, and, unless it be made, the justice loses jurisdiction. Tbe docket is a public record to wbicb tbe parties and others interested may resort to obtain accurate information and to avoid mistakes. A subsequent entry will not, therefore, supply tbe defect, or restore jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Sippel v. County of Fond du Lac
200 N.W. 459 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1924)
Tourville v. S. D. Seavey Co.
102 N.W. 352 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Sluga v. Walker
81 N.W. 282 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1899)
Corrigan v. Morris
43 Mo. App. 456 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Two Rivers Manufacturing Co. v. Beyer
42 N.W. 232 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1889)
Brown v. Goble
97 Ind. 86 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Doctor v. Hartman
74 Ind. 221 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Cassidy v. Millerick
9 N.W. 165 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1881)
Brahmstead v. Ward
44 Wis. 591 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Anderson v. Southern Minnesota Railroad
21 Minn. 30 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1874)
Crandall v. Bacon
20 Wis. 639 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1866)
Bacon v. Bassett
19 Wis. 45 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1865)
Wheeler v. Smith
18 Wis. 651 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Wis. 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-kellogg-wis-1863.