Sells v. Elmergreen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Sells v. Elmergreen

198 N.W. 267, 183 Wis. 532, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 175

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 N.W. 267 (Sells v. Elmergreen) 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

Sells v. Elmergreen, 198 N.W. 267, 183 Wis. 532, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 175 (Wis. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Eschweiler, J.

The civil court acquired jurisdiction of the parties and over the separate causes of action embodied in the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s counterclaims as first interposed. The amendment properly allowed to the second counterclaim, increasing the amount involved to an excess of the statutory limit of the civil court’s jurisdiction, could have no effect upon its jurisdiction to proceed with the matters still properly before it.

The defendant might have asserted the counterclaim embodied in his amended pleading by an independent action in a court having such jurisdiction. His election to assert it in a court having no jurisdiction cannot be permitted to foreclose the civil court of its power to proceed with the separate and independent issues concerning which it had unquestioned jurisdiction. The defendant’s rights have in no wise been prejudiced by the proceedings in the court below. Any relief to which he is entitled he may still have. The civil court having no jurisdiction over the amended counterclaim must either dismiss it or certify it to the circuit court. The defendant cannot complain because of its doing the latter.

We deem this question squarely met, and with the same result as here reached, in Martin v. Eastman, 109 Wis. 286, 85 N. W. 359. The same view is taken in other jurisdictions. Duresen v. Blackmarr, 117 Minn. 206, 135 N. W. 530; Nelson v. Meyer, 66 Colo. 164, 180 Pac. 86; Kienzle v. Gardner, 73 N. J. Law, 258, 63 Atl. 10; 15 Corp. Jur. 775; 7 Ruling Case Law, 1057.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Eschweiler, J.

The civil court acquired jurisdiction of the parties and over the separate causes of action embodied in the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s counterclaims as first interposed. The amendment properly allowed to the second counterclaim, increasing the amount involved to an excess of the statutory limit of the civil court’s jurisdiction, could have no effect upon its jurisdiction to proceed with the matters still properly before it.

The defendant might have asserted the counterclaim embodied in his amended pleading by an independent action in a court having such jurisdiction. His election to assert it in a court having no jurisdiction cannot be permitted to foreclose the civil court of its power to proceed with the separate and independent issues concerning which it had unquestioned jurisdiction. The defendant’s rights have in no wise been prejudiced by the proceedings in the court below. Any relief to which he is entitled he may still have. The civil court having no jurisdiction over the amended counterclaim must either dismiss it or certify it to the circuit court. The defendant cannot complain because of its doing the latter.

We deem this question squarely met, and with the same result as here reached, in Martin v. Eastman, 109 Wis. 286, 85 N. W. 359. The same view is taken in other jurisdictions. Duresen v. Blackmarr, 117 Minn. 206, 135 N. W. 530; Nelson v. Meyer, 66 Colo. 164, 180 Pac. 86; Kienzle v. Gardner, 73 N. J. Law, 258, 63 Atl. 10; 15 Corp. Jur. 775; 7 Ruling Case Law, 1057.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W. 267, 183 Wis. 532, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sells-v-elmergreen-wis-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack