Mills v. National Fire Insurance

65 N.W. 730, 92 Wis. 90, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 222
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided January 7, 1896·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

NewMAN, J.

Assuming that the notice of trial was premature and irregular, it is an irregularity merely, and does not go to the jurisdiction of the court. Pier v. Storm, 37 Wis. 247. Such irregularity is waived if, after the objection is overruled, the party goes to trial on the merits. If he wishes to stand upon his objection, he must keep out of court for every other purpose. By taking part in the trial, the defendant waived the error of overruling his objection. Barker v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. 24 Wis. 630; Gorton v. Bailey, 46 Wis. 633; Newman v. Board, 74 Wis. 303. The affidavit for continuance was not sufficient, under the rule, and it was not error to refuse the continuance.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Mills v. National Fire Insurance, 65 N.W. 730, 92 Wis. 90, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 222 (Wis. 1896).

65 N.W. 730 (Mills v. National Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chase v. Superior Court
99 P. 855 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Davey v. City of Janesville
87 N.W. 813 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Drake v. Scheunemann
79 N.W. 749 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Christianson v. Pioneer Furniture Co.
77 N.W. 174 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1898)