Newton v. Williams

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Newton v. Williams

68 N.W. 990, 94 Wis. 222, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 162

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 68 N.W. 990 (Newton v. Williams) 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

Newton v. Williams, 68 N.W. 990, 94 Wis. 222, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 162 (Wis. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

Two errors were assigned by counsel for appellant, in their brief and upon the oral argument, viz.: (1) That the court erred in allowing only the sum of $1,686.66 as due the claimant, upon the electric-light contract; and {2) that the court erred in disallowing the claim for contribution upon the Withee note. We are unable, however, to review the evidence upon either of these questions, because no exceptions have been preserved in the bill of exceptions to the findings of the court. It is true that, among the papers returned by the clerk, there is a paper purporting to contain exceptions to a number of the findings; but, as these alleged exceptions were not incorporated in the bill, they can serve no purpose. This rule has been stated so many times that citation of authorities seems a work of supererogation. Cramer v. Hanaford, 53 Wis. 85. In this ¡situation the evidence cannot be reviewed, and consequently the only question which can be considered upon the above-mentioned assignments of error is whether the pleadings .and findings sustain the judgment. Wille v. Bartz, 88 Wis. [225]*225424. That they do sustain the judgment is manifest from mere inspection of them. The bill of exceptions preserves certain exceptions to rulings upon evidence, but none of these rulings was assigned as error in the brief or upon the argument. It is sufficient to say that we have examined the rulings excepted to, and find no error.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

Two errors were assigned by counsel for appellant, in their brief and upon the oral argument, viz.: (1) That the court erred in allowing only the sum of $1,686.66 as due the claimant, upon the electric-light contract; and {2) that the court erred in disallowing the claim for contribution upon the Withee note. We are unable, however, to review the evidence upon either of these questions, because no exceptions have been preserved in the bill of exceptions to the findings of the court. It is true that, among the papers returned by the clerk, there is a paper purporting to contain exceptions to a number of the findings; but, as these alleged exceptions were not incorporated in the bill, they can serve no purpose. This rule has been stated so many times that citation of authorities seems a work of supererogation. Cramer v. Hanaford, 53 Wis. 85. In this ¡situation the evidence cannot be reviewed, and consequently the only question which can be considered upon the above-mentioned assignments of error is whether the pleadings .and findings sustain the judgment. Wille v. Bartz, 88 Wis. [225]*225424. That they do sustain the judgment is manifest from mere inspection of them. The bill of exceptions preserves certain exceptions to rulings upon evidence, but none of these rulings was assigned as error in the brief or upon the argument. It is sufficient to say that we have examined the rulings excepted to, and find no error.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.W. 990, 94 Wis. 222, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-williams-wis-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack