May v. Keep
2 Pin. 301, 1 Chand. 285
Opinion
The court determined that it had the power to authorize the issuing of the writ; but in ordinary cases would not feel itself bound to allow it indiscriminately, where there was an opportamity of making application to a circuit court at a term of such a court, and in accordance with this view of the case ordered that the writ issue in case a bond should be executed and filed with the clerk by the parties making this motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
May v. Keep, 2 Pin. 301, 1 Chand. 285 (Wis. 1849).
2 Pin. 301 (May v. Keep) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
The Homesteaders v. McCombs, Ins. Com'r.
1909 OK 202 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
People ex rel. Kocourek v. City of Chicago & Schlesinger & Meyer
193 Ill. 507 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
State ex rel. Dollard v. Board County Commissioners
46 N.W. 1127 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1890)
In re Pierce
44 Wis. 411 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire
37 Wis. 400 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1875)
Hurlbut v. Wilcox
19 Wis. 419 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1865)