McDonald v. United States

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McDonald v. United States

42 Wis. 340

DecidedAugust 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Wis. 340 (McDonald v. United States) 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

McDonald v. United States, 42 Wis. 340 (Wis. 1877).

Pincite

Opinions

Cole, J.

In this case a stay of proceedings was granted on [341]*341the application of the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company. We are at a loss to determine why the stay was granted. The case against the canal company was stayed until this proceeding was determined, which we have held was no abuse of discretion under the circumstances. Now, upon the application of that company, this proceeding is stayed. No reason is shown for granting the stay, and certainly none occurs to our minds which justifies the order. The practice is anomalous, to get one action stayed until some other is determined, and then stay that other suit. This would seem to be equivalent to denying a party all remedy for an injury., No remarks are deemed necessary to point out the irregularity of this order. It was a plain abuse of discretion to grant it upon the application made.

The order must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

By the Gowrt. — So ordered.

EyaN, O. J., took no part.

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

Cole, J.

In this case a stay of proceedings was granted on [341]*341the application of the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company. We are at a loss to determine why the stay was granted. The case against the canal company was stayed until this proceeding was determined, which we have held was no abuse of discretion under the circumstances. Now, upon the application of that company, this proceeding is stayed. No reason is shown for granting the stay, and certainly none occurs to our minds which justifies the order. The practice is anomalous, to get one action stayed until some other is determined, and then stay that other suit. This would seem to be equivalent to denying a party all remedy for an injury., No remarks are deemed necessary to point out the irregularity of this order. It was a plain abuse of discretion to grant it upon the application made.

The order must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

By the Gowrt. — So ordered.

EyaN, O. J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Wis. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-united-states-wis-1877.