Potter v. Eaton
This text of 26 Wis. 382 (Potter v. Eaton) 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.
Opinion
The words “ have judgment,” in the entry here, are equivalent to “ hereby have judgment,” or “ recover,” as found in the same connection in ordinary entries or forms of judgment. After reciting the trial and verdict, the record proceeds: “ Therefore, it is considered and adjudged by the court, that the plaintiff in this action have judgment,” etc. This is a judgment, and not an order for a judgment as the appellant contends; and this being the only question, it follows that the order of the court below, refusing to set aside the docketing and all subsequent proceedings, must be affirmed.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 Wis. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-eaton-wis-1870.