Parks v. West Side Railway Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Parks v. West Side Railway Co.

52 N.W. 92, 82 Wis. 219, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 130

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 3, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 N.W. 92 (Parks v. West Side Railway Co.) 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

Parks v. West Side Railway Co., 52 N.W. 92, 82 Wis. 219, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 130 (Wis. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNslow, J.

The defendant claims that the action of the court below is not a legitimate amendment of the name of a party, but the discharge of one party as defendant and the substitution of another. The claim does not appeal strongly to a mind which is looking at the substance of things, rather than the mere form. The merest inspection of the complaint shows that it was the company which was maintaining an electrical railroad which was intended to be sued, and it appears that the president of the company was in fact served with the summons. No doubt can he entertained that if there had been no corporation bearing the name of the "West Side Rail “way” Company the [222]*222amendment would have been unobjectionable. Should the fact that such a corporation still maintained a nominal existence, without property or franchises, make any difference with the result? "We think not. As we view it, the corporation which was operating the electrical power house and railroad was sued in this action, with a slight mistake in name, which the court properly corrected.

By the Court.— Order affirmed.

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

WiNslow, J.

The defendant claims that the action of the court below is not a legitimate amendment of the name of a party, but the discharge of one party as defendant and the substitution of another. The claim does not appeal strongly to a mind which is looking at the substance of things, rather than the mere form. The merest inspection of the complaint shows that it was the company which was maintaining an electrical railroad which was intended to be sued, and it appears that the president of the company was in fact served with the summons. No doubt can he entertained that if there had been no corporation bearing the name of the "West Side Rail “way” Company the [222]*222amendment would have been unobjectionable. Should the fact that such a corporation still maintained a nominal existence, without property or franchises, make any difference with the result? "We think not. As we view it, the corporation which was operating the electrical power house and railroad was sued in this action, with a slight mistake in name, which the court properly corrected.

By the Court.— Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.W. 92, 82 Wis. 219, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-west-side-railway-co-wis-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack