Elmer v. Mitchell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Elmer v. Mitchell

44 N.W. 760, 75 Wis. 358, 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 39

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 N.W. 760 (Elmer v. Mitchell) 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

Elmer v. Mitchell, 44 N.W. 760, 75 Wis. 358, 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 39 (Wis. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

The defendants having served notice on the plaintiff’s attorneys, December 27, 1888, that they thereby withdrew and dismissed their appeal from the judgment, subject to the payment of costs, if any, that appeal is hereby dismissed accordingly.

A careful examination of the record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to set aside the judgment and allow the defendants severally to answer. The proposed answers were to the effect that the purchase of the water-wheel was by Henry Mitchell, Sr., alone; that neither Henry, Jr., nor James was at the time of the purchase a partner of his father; that the water-wheel did not work well, without stating specifically wherein the alleged defect consisted. The only excuse given by any of the defendants for not answering was the sickness of the old gentleman from the time of the commencement of the action to December 1, 1887. The affidavits, however, left the matter of his inability to answer by reason of sickness very unsatisfactory, and gave no excuse for the other defendants. But it is of no benefit to any one to discuss the facts. The rule is well settled that this court will not disturb such an order unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion in the trial court in making it. We find no evidence of such abuse in the record. The order of February 8, 1888, is affirmed.

Since that order was made without leave to renew the [361]*361same, or without prejudice to such renewal, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the defendants that there was no ground for the renewal of such motion in April, 1888, and accordingly that such motion was properly denied May 7, 1888, and that the appeal from that order should be, and is hereby, dismissed.

By the Court. — ■ Ordered accordingly.

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

Cassoday, J.

The defendants having served notice on the plaintiff’s attorneys, December 27, 1888, that they thereby withdrew and dismissed their appeal from the judgment, subject to the payment of costs, if any, that appeal is hereby dismissed accordingly.

A careful examination of the record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to set aside the judgment and allow the defendants severally to answer. The proposed answers were to the effect that the purchase of the water-wheel was by Henry Mitchell, Sr., alone; that neither Henry, Jr., nor James was at the time of the purchase a partner of his father; that the water-wheel did not work well, without stating specifically wherein the alleged defect consisted. The only excuse given by any of the defendants for not answering was the sickness of the old gentleman from the time of the commencement of the action to December 1, 1887. The affidavits, however, left the matter of his inability to answer by reason of sickness very unsatisfactory, and gave no excuse for the other defendants. But it is of no benefit to any one to discuss the facts. The rule is well settled that this court will not disturb such an order unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion in the trial court in making it. We find no evidence of such abuse in the record. The order of February 8, 1888, is affirmed.

Since that order was made without leave to renew the [361]*361same, or without prejudice to such renewal, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the defendants that there was no ground for the renewal of such motion in April, 1888, and accordingly that such motion was properly denied May 7, 1888, and that the appeal from that order should be, and is hereby, dismissed.

By the Court. — ■ Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.W. 760, 75 Wis. 358, 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmer-v-mitchell-wis-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack