Lampe v. Manning

38 Wis. 673
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 38 Wis. 673 (Lampe v. Manning) 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
Lampe v. Manning, 38 Wis. 673 (Wis. 1875).

Opinion

LyoN, J.

The day on which the cause was tried and judgment rendered, was a legal holiday (Laws of 1861, ch. 58 and ch. 243), and hence was, as the term holiday imports, dies non juridicus. Such being the case, the court had no authority to hear the cause and render judgment on that day, and would not have had authority to do so, even though the express prohibition contained in sec. 2 of ch. 58, supra, had been omitted from the statute.

But were this otherwise, the reasonable interpretation of that section is, that when the 22d of February falls on Sunday the prohibition therein extends to the day following, which, in such case is the holiday, instead of the 22d. The plain intention of the legislature was to prohibit courts from transacting ordinary civil business on the 22d of February or on the day which, in a certain contingency, is to be observed as the 22d.

[675]*675The justice having no authority in the premises, the judgment which he rendered is void, and is not aided by the filing of appeal papers.' That proceeding may have constituted such an appearance by the defendant as would have supplied a previous want of jurisdiction of his person ; but the fault in the justice’s judgment lies deeper than that. There was an absolute want of authority to hear the cause and render the judgment, and it is not a case to which the doctrine of waiver can properly be. applied. For that day the justice had no jurisdiction either of the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action for the purposes of trial and judgment, and all that he did in the cause on that day was coram non judice.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to that court to reverse the judgment of the justice.

By the Court. — It is so ordered.

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

Related

State v. Wimberly
198 N.W.2d 360 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1972)
Miller v. Emerson
186 P.2d 220 (Montana Supreme Court, 1947)
In Re Murphy
248 P. 1044 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Schwaner v. Kerr
170 F. 92 (D. Oregon, 1909)
State ex rel. Walter v. Superior Court
94 P. 665 (Washington Supreme Court, 1908)
Davidson v. Munsey
74 P. 431 (Utah Supreme Court, 1903)
State v. Thomas
61 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1900)
Joseph Spiedel Grocery Co. v. Armstrong
4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 498 (Belmont Circuit Court, 1894)
Joseph Spiedel Grocery Co. v. Armstrong
8 Ohio C.C. 489 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1894)
Bradley v. Claudon
45 Ill. App. 326 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1892)
A. G. Spalding & Bros. v. Bernhard
44 N.W. 643 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1890)
Houston, E. & W. Tex. R'y Co. v. Harding
63 Tex. 162 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Weil v. Geier
21 N.W. 246 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1884)
Kinney v. Emery
37 N.J. Eq. 339 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1883)
In re Worthington
30 F. Cas. 641 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin, 1877)
Salter v. Hilgen
40 Wis. 363 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1876)
In re Worthington
30 F. Cas. 643 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Wis. 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampe-v-manning-wis-1875.