McIntosh v. Hoben

11 Wis. 400
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided January 13, 1860·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The motion for a stay of proceedings must be granted. No excuse whatever is shown for the failure to prosecute the former appeals, and until the costs are paid, the present appeal must be deemed vexatious. The . power of staying proceedings until the costs of former suits or appeals are paid, is equitable in its nature, and intended to prevent the vaxatious multiplication-of suits. 1 John. Cases, 427; 3 Cow., 381; 4 Wend., 216. The facts here disclosed show a case in which the exercise of the power seems emin-' ently proper.

Ordered accordingly.

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

McIntosh v. Hoben, 11 Wis. 400 (Wis. 1860).

11 Wis. 400 (McIntosh v. Hoben) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weile v. Sturtevant
169 P. 685 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Clark v. Bay Circuit Judge
117 N.W. 1051 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Ex parte Matthews
40 So. 78 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Davenport, Rock Island & Northwestern Railway Co. v. DeYaeger
112 Ill. App. 537 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Buckles v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
47 F. 424 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1891)
Felt v. Amidon
3 N.W. 825 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1879)
State ex rel. Curtis v. Howe
64 Ind. 18 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)