McFarlane v. Cushman

21 Wis. 401
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 21 Wis. 401 (McFarlane v. Cushman) 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
McFarlane v. Cushman, 21 Wis. 401 (Wis. 1867).

Opinion

Dixon, C. J.

There is no error in the proceedings or judgment. The former judgment is no bar, because the condition of the bond had not then been complied with. The plaintiff had not then produced before the referee the evidence upon which the referee was authorized to act, and there was no money due to the plaintiff by the terms of the bond itself. McFarlane v. Cushman, 19 Wis., 357. It was an action prematurely instituted, and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for that reason. Bull v. Hopkins, 7 Johns., 22.

There was no error in rejecting the judgment roll and record in the case of Lilburn v. Milne, and the other evidence offered by the defendant, because the defendant had, by the condition of his bond, fixed the kind of evidence upon which the referee was to act, and his decision was final. The only question open was as to whether the condition had been performed by the production before the referee of the evidence called for. Of this we think there can be no doubt. The abstract produced was clearly such as the parties intended, and fully justified the action of .the referee.

The submission to the referee, conceding it to have been in the nature of a submission to an arbitrator, and as such revocable, was not revoked. A submission by deed can be revoked only by deed. Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me., 251; Van Ant[405]*405werp v. Stewart, 8 Johns., 125. The attempted revocation was by the attorney, and by parol.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Marks v. Stevens
1918 OK 726 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Bowie v. Trowbridge
175 Iowa 118 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Pennington County Bank v. Bauman
122 N.W. 848 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Mand v. Patterson
49 N.E. 974 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Inhabitants of Embden v. Lisherness
36 A. 1101 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1897)
McClellan v. Harris
64 N.W. 522 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Rockwell Stock & Land Co. v. Castroni
6 Colo. App. 528 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Whitlock v. Appleby
49 Mo. App. 295 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Wisconsin v. Torinus
9 N.W. 725 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1881)
Baxter v. Aubrey
1 N.W. 897 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Oleson v. Merrihew
45 Wis. 397 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Noonan v. Orton
22 Wis. 84 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Wis. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarlane-v-cushman-wis-1867.