Evans v. Rugee

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Evans v. Rugee

23 N.W. 24, 63 Wis. 31, 1885 Wisc. LEXIS 218

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 23 N.W. 24 (Evans v. Rugee) 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

Evans v. Rugee, 23 N.W. 24, 63 Wis. 31, 1885 Wisc. LEXIS 218 (Wis. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

The real issue tried was whether the bill of sale from the husband to the wife was made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, or with the intent to defraud the creditors of the husband. The fraudulent intent in such case is usually one of fact for the the jury and not for the court. Sec. 2323, R. S.; Hyde v. Chapman, 33 Wis. 391; Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500; Mehlhop v. Pettibone, 54 Wis. 656; Greene & Button Co. v. Van Vechten, ante, p. 16.

There seems to have been sufficient evidence here to sustain the verdict. But error may have intervened, or some other satisfactory reason not apparent to us may have in[33]*33duced the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant a. new trial. We cannot assume that the court made the order it did without a reason, merely because no reason therefor is apparent to us from the record. It does appear, however, that the court made the order after “ being duly advised.” The exercise of such power is necessarily vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. When exercised by that court, it will not be interfered with by this, unless it is clearly manifest from the record that there has been an abuse of such discretion. McLimans v. Lancaster, 57 Wis. 297; Seaman v. Burnham, 57 Wis. 568. The learned counsel for the plaintiff makes no claim that any rule of law has been violated, and points out no particular wherein it is claimed that there was any abuse of such discretion. This being so, we do not feel called upon to sharply scrutinize the voluminous record before us, in order to discover whether there has in fact been any such abuse of discretion.

By the Court— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Cassoday, J.

The real issue tried was whether the bill of sale from the husband to the wife was made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, or with the intent to defraud the creditors of the husband. The fraudulent intent in such case is usually one of fact for the the jury and not for the court. Sec. 2323, R. S.; Hyde v. Chapman, 33 Wis. 391; Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500; Mehlhop v. Pettibone, 54 Wis. 656; Greene & Button Co. v. Van Vechten, ante, p. 16.

There seems to have been sufficient evidence here to sustain the verdict. But error may have intervened, or some other satisfactory reason not apparent to us may have in[33]*33duced the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant a. new trial. We cannot assume that the court made the order it did without a reason, merely because no reason therefor is apparent to us from the record. It does appear, however, that the court made the order after “ being duly advised.” The exercise of such power is necessarily vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. When exercised by that court, it will not be interfered with by this, unless it is clearly manifest from the record that there has been an abuse of such discretion. McLimans v. Lancaster, 57 Wis. 297; Seaman v. Burnham, 57 Wis. 568. The learned counsel for the plaintiff makes no claim that any rule of law has been violated, and points out no particular wherein it is claimed that there was any abuse of such discretion. This being so, we do not feel called upon to sharply scrutinize the voluminous record before us, in order to discover whether there has in fact been any such abuse of discretion.

By the Court— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.W. 24, 63 Wis. 31, 1885 Wisc. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-rugee-wis-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack