Klotz v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

129 N.W. 524, 144 Wis. 384, 1911 Wisc. LEXIS 283
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided January 10, 1911·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

NeewiN, J.

An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed in the absence of an exception to such order. Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co. 135 Wis. 68, 71, 115 N. W. 355; Beebe v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 108; Holum v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No exception was filed in the instant case until after trial, and such exception is not sufficient. Jenks v. State, 17 Wis. 665; Firmeis v. State, 61 Wis. 140, 20 N. W. 663; Adams v. McKay, 63 Wis. 404, 23 N. W. 575. It follows that we cannot review the order directing a verdict.

By the Gourt. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Klotz v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 129 N.W. 524, 144 Wis. 384, 1911 Wisc. LEXIS 283 (Wis. 1911).

129 N.W. 524 (Klotz v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bailey v. Security Ins.
196 P. 252 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1921)
Barnum v. Chamberlain Land & Loan Co.
147 N.W. 647 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)