Lathrop v. Snyder

17 Wis. 110
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1863·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Cole, J.

These actions were brought upon promissory notes. In each case the defendant below admitted the execution of the notes, and that the amounts therein stated were due, after deducting the counter-claims mentioned in the answers. The plaintiffs then made application to. the clerk to enter judgments for the amounts so admitted to be due after deducting the counter-claims, in conformity to .the practice prescribed in subdivision 4, sec. 27, chap. 132, R. S. It is claimed that this provision of law is invalid, because it attempts to confer upon the clerk judicial power vested only in courts.

This point has been decided adversely to the defendant in several cases which have come before this court, and the practice here adopted has been sustained. Blaikie v. Griswold, 10 Wis., 294; Wells v. Morton, id., 468. No good reason was shown in the court below for setting aside the judgments, and the applications for that purpose were properly denied.

The orders of the circuit court are affirmed, with costs.

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

Lathrop v. Snyder, 17 Wis. 110 (Wis. 1863).

17 Wis. 110 (Lathrop v. Snyder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hocking Valley Railway Co. v. Cluster Coal & Feed Co.
97 Ohio St. (N.S.) 140 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1918)