McFarland v. Zahl

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McFarland v. Zahl

124 N.W. 500, 141 Wis. 511, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 45

DecidedFebruary 1, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 124 N.W. 500 (McFarland v. Zahl) 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

McFarland v. Zahl, 124 N.W. 500, 141 Wis. 511, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 45 (Wis. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Siebecker, J.

Erom the foregoing statement it is manifest that the facts presented in the affidavits of the respective parties raised a sharp issue of fact respecting the grounds alleged and the good faith of the defendant in mating the application for a continuance of the ease on the first day of the term of the court at which the case was noticed for trial, and on the renewal thereof, when the case was reached on the trial calendar, as well as on the application for a new trial. An attentive perusal of the affidavits in connection with the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record in the case leads us to the conclusion that the trial court was justified in refusing the application for a continuance and in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Siebecker, J.

Erom the foregoing statement it is manifest that the facts presented in the affidavits of the respective parties raised a sharp issue of fact respecting the grounds alleged and the good faith of the defendant in mating the application for a continuance of the ease on the first day of the term of the court at which the case was noticed for trial, and on the renewal thereof, when the case was reached on the trial calendar, as well as on the application for a new trial. An attentive perusal of the affidavits in connection with the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record in the case leads us to the conclusion that the trial court was justified in refusing the application for a continuance and in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 N.W. 500, 141 Wis. 511, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-zahl-wis-1910.