Kopf v. Encking

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Kopf v. Encking

64 N.W. 318, 91 Wis. 15, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 12

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 N.W. 318 (Kopf v. Encking) 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

Kopf v. Encking, 64 N.W. 318, 91 Wis. 15, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 12 (Wis. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The action was brought in Wood eeunty, and removed to Fond du Lac county upon demand of the defendant, who resides in the latter county. After such removal the plaintiff moved for a change of ven-ue to Wood county, upon an affidavit showing that thirteen material [16]*16witnesses resided in Wood county, and that their convenience required such change. No counter affidavits were filed. The order of removal was made, and defendant appeals. It is argued by the appellant that the order changing the venue was erroneous because the statute [R. S. sec. 2622] does not authorize such an order for the convenience of witnesses alone, but only when the “ convenience of witnessesand the “ ends of justice ” concur in demanding a change, and that there is no proof here that the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. The contention cannot prevail. The fact that a large number of witnesses will be inconvenienced by the trial of the case far from their residences may, of itself, be sufficient ground for the conclusion that a removal of the case would promote the ends of justice. The matter is in the discretion of the circuit judge, and in the exercise of that discretion he may take into account matters within his own knowledge and observation, as well as the proofs presented. Challoner v. Boyington, 86 Wis. 217. There is nothing to show an abuse of discretion in the making of the order in question.

By the Court.— Order affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

The action was brought in Wood eeunty, and removed to Fond du Lac county upon demand of the defendant, who resides in the latter county. After such removal the plaintiff moved for a change of ven-ue to Wood county, upon an affidavit showing that thirteen material [16]*16witnesses resided in Wood county, and that their convenience required such change. No counter affidavits were filed. The order of removal was made, and defendant appeals. It is argued by the appellant that the order changing the venue was erroneous because the statute [R. S. sec. 2622] does not authorize such an order for the convenience of witnesses alone, but only when the “ convenience of witnessesand the “ ends of justice ” concur in demanding a change, and that there is no proof here that the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. The contention cannot prevail. The fact that a large number of witnesses will be inconvenienced by the trial of the case far from their residences may, of itself, be sufficient ground for the conclusion that a removal of the case would promote the ends of justice. The matter is in the discretion of the circuit judge, and in the exercise of that discretion he may take into account matters within his own knowledge and observation, as well as the proofs presented. Challoner v. Boyington, 86 Wis. 217. There is nothing to show an abuse of discretion in the making of the order in question.

By the Court.— Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.W. 318, 91 Wis. 15, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopf-v-encking-wis-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack