Schmuhl v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Schmuhl v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 585, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 147

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 146 N.W. 787 (Schmuhl v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light 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

Schmuhl v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 585, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 147 (Wis. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Bashes, J.

We do not see how the presence of the conductor as a party defendant could prejudice the plaintiff or seriously complicate the issues to be tried, and we think it [586]*586would have been a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court to have ordered that he be brought in as a party and that a cross-complaint be served upon him as provided by sec. 2656a, Stats. This statute in form confers a discretionary power on circuit courts, and we have very recently decided that it does not go farther in fact. Kresge v. Maryland C. Co. 154 Wis. 627, 143 N. W. 668. Mention of this statute is not made in the opinion, but it was called to the attention of the court and was considered when the case was decided.

This court has often determined that an order denying a motion to bring in a person who may be a proper but is not a necessary party is not appealable. Reinhart v. Fire Asso. 93 Wis. 452, 67 N. W. 701; Cook v. Menasha, 95 Wis. 215, 70 N. W. 289; Wechselberg v. Michleson, 105 Wis. 452, 81 N. W. 657; State v. Wis. T. Co. 134 Wis. 335, 341, 113 N. W. 944. These cases rule the present one, and it must be held that the order is not appealable.

By the Court. — Appeal dismissed.

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

Bashes, J.

We do not see how the presence of the conductor as a party defendant could prejudice the plaintiff or seriously complicate the issues to be tried, and we think it [586]*586would have been a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court to have ordered that he be brought in as a party and that a cross-complaint be served upon him as provided by sec. 2656a, Stats. This statute in form confers a discretionary power on circuit courts, and we have very recently decided that it does not go farther in fact. Kresge v. Maryland C. Co. 154 Wis. 627, 143 N. W. 668. Mention of this statute is not made in the opinion, but it was called to the attention of the court and was considered when the case was decided.

This court has often determined that an order denying a motion to bring in a person who may be a proper but is not a necessary party is not appealable. Reinhart v. Fire Asso. 93 Wis. 452, 67 N. W. 701; Cook v. Menasha, 95 Wis. 215, 70 N. W. 289; Wechselberg v. Michleson, 105 Wis. 452, 81 N. W. 657; State v. Wis. T. Co. 134 Wis. 335, 341, 113 N. W. 944. These cases rule the present one, and it must be held that the order is not appealable.

By the Court. — Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 585, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmuhl-v-milwaukee-electric-railway-light-co-wis-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack