Mansfield v. William Becker Leather Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Mansfield v. William Becker Leather Co.

68 N.W. 411, 93 Wis. 656, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 109

DecidedSeptember 22, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 68 N.W. 411 (Mansfield v. William Becker Leather Co.) 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

Mansfield v. William Becker Leather Co., 68 N.W. 411, 93 Wis. 656, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 109 (Wis. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Newman, J.

The case is ruled by Wyman v. Kimberly-Clark Co., ante, p. 554. That case covers the whole ground involved in this, except, possibly, one contention. It was attempted to distinguish this case .by the fact that the plaintiffs, under the laws and proceedings in Ohio, are called “trustees,” while the statute speaks of a “receiver.” It is clear that under the Ohio laws and practice “ trustees” exercise the same functions which are exercised under our laws by receivers. The office is the same; the designation of the office only is different. It cannot be doubted that the plaintiffs are such officers as were intended by the statute by the designation “receiver.” The statute is, no doubt, to be extended, if necessary, so as to include all cases which are clearly within the intention of its provisions, and not to be restricted to cases only which come strictly within its letter. It will not do to “ stick in the letter ” of the statute.

By the Court.— The judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to enter judgment for the defendant on the findings.

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

Newman, J.

The case is ruled by Wyman v. Kimberly-Clark Co., ante, p. 554. That case covers the whole ground involved in this, except, possibly, one contention. It was attempted to distinguish this case .by the fact that the plaintiffs, under the laws and proceedings in Ohio, are called “trustees,” while the statute speaks of a “receiver.” It is clear that under the Ohio laws and practice “ trustees” exercise the same functions which are exercised under our laws by receivers. The office is the same; the designation of the office only is different. It cannot be doubted that the plaintiffs are such officers as were intended by the statute by the designation “receiver.” The statute is, no doubt, to be extended, if necessary, so as to include all cases which are clearly within the intention of its provisions, and not to be restricted to cases only which come strictly within its letter. It will not do to “ stick in the letter ” of the statute.

By the Court.— The judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to enter judgment for the defendant on the findings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.W. 411, 93 Wis. 656, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansfield-v-william-becker-leather-co-wis-1896.