McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Reed

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Reed

55 N.W. 147, 85 Wis. 201, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 236

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 N.W. 147 (McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Reed) 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

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Reed, 55 N.W. 147, 85 Wis. 201, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 236 (Wis. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The exact question presented is whether an appeal can be taken by the main defendant in a garnishee action after the garnishee defendant has sued out and served a common-law writ of certiorari in the same action. We think this question must be answered in the negative.

The issuance and service of the writ at once removed the entire record of the garnishee action from the justice’s court to the circuit court. Neuman v. State, 76 Wis. 112. There was nothing left for the appeal to act upon. How could the justice make a return upon the appeal of the “ testimony, proceedings, and judgment,” when the entire record of the cause had already, by the operation of the writ of certiorari, been removed from his tribunal? Again, the difficulties attending the splitting up of the action into two separate actions, one of which may be pending in one court and one in another, and in which contradictory judgments may be rendered, seem insurmountable. Legislation might, perhaps, remedy the difficulty, but until it does we think such an appeal must be held inoperative.

By the Court.— Order reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal.

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

Winslow, J.

The exact question presented is whether an appeal can be taken by the main defendant in a garnishee action after the garnishee defendant has sued out and served a common-law writ of certiorari in the same action. We think this question must be answered in the negative.

The issuance and service of the writ at once removed the entire record of the garnishee action from the justice’s court to the circuit court. Neuman v. State, 76 Wis. 112. There was nothing left for the appeal to act upon. How could the justice make a return upon the appeal of the “ testimony, proceedings, and judgment,” when the entire record of the cause had already, by the operation of the writ of certiorari, been removed from his tribunal? Again, the difficulties attending the splitting up of the action into two separate actions, one of which may be pending in one court and one in another, and in which contradictory judgments may be rendered, seem insurmountable. Legislation might, perhaps, remedy the difficulty, but until it does we think such an appeal must be held inoperative.

By the Court.— Order reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.W. 147, 85 Wis. 201, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-harvesting-machine-co-v-reed-wis-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack