M. Schulz Co. v. Gether

Wisconsin Supreme Court

M. Schulz Co. v. Gether

198 N.W. 437, 183 Wis. 501, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 196

DecidedApril 8, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.W. 437 (M. Schulz Co. v. Gether) 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

M. Schulz Co. v. Gether, 198 N.W. 437, 183 Wis. 501, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 196 (Wis. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Crownhart, J.

Issues are raised here not raised below. It is claimed that the judgment appealed from is not a judgment in fact but only an order for judgment. That question was not raised before the trial court. The position is inconsistent with the motion to stay execution and the appeal from the judgment. The judgment is somewhat irregular in form, but we deem it sufficient. There was no motion to vacate the judgment and there is no bill of exceptions. The judgment is fair on the record and is sustained on this appeal. Therefore the stay of execution was within the discretion of the trial court and cannot be disturbed.

If properly before us, an important question for construction of the statutes would be involved, which should be cured by legislation. Sec. 2766, Stats., provides that the garnishee action shall be dismissed where the defendant has judgment in the main action. Query. Does this mean final judgment, and, if so, what practice should prevail pending appeal ?

By the Court. — The judgment and order of the circuit court are affirmed. .

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

Crownhart, J.

Issues are raised here not raised below. It is claimed that the judgment appealed from is not a judgment in fact but only an order for judgment. That question was not raised before the trial court. The position is inconsistent with the motion to stay execution and the appeal from the judgment. The judgment is somewhat irregular in form, but we deem it sufficient. There was no motion to vacate the judgment and there is no bill of exceptions. The judgment is fair on the record and is sustained on this appeal. Therefore the stay of execution was within the discretion of the trial court and cannot be disturbed.

If properly before us, an important question for construction of the statutes would be involved, which should be cured by legislation. Sec. 2766, Stats., provides that the garnishee action shall be dismissed where the defendant has judgment in the main action. Query. Does this mean final judgment, and, if so, what practice should prevail pending appeal ?

By the Court. — The judgment and order of the circuit court are affirmed. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W. 437, 183 Wis. 501, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-schulz-co-v-gether-wis-1924.