State ex rel. Le Clair v. Wright

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State ex rel. Le Clair v. Wright

50 N.W. 894, 80 Wis. 648, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 264

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 N.W. 894 (State ex rel. Le Clair v. Wright) 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

State ex rel. Le Clair v. Wright, 50 N.W. 894, 80 Wis. 648, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 264 (Wis. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The sole question is whether the municipal court of Ashland county lost jurisdiction because its record does not state the place to which the adjournment was taken. It is settled law in this state that, if a justice’s docket does not state the place to which a cause is adjourned, he loses jurisdiction. Does this apply to the municipal court of.Ashland county? We think not. That court is a court of record, with a seal and a clerk. The general provisions of law and rules of practice applicable to circuit courts apply to it. It has jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court in many matters, civil and criminal, and the law provides that it shall be held at the city of Ashland, in a place to be provided by said city. Oh. 94, Laws of 1889. It is reasonable that a justice of the peace should be held strictly to the rule that he must state the place of the adjournment in his docket, because it is within his power to move his office where he pleases within the town; but no such reason applies here. The municipal court must be held at the place provided by the city, and nowhere else. To name that place in the record would be unnecessary; to name any other place would be void..

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

The sole question is whether the municipal court of Ashland county lost jurisdiction because its record does not state the place to which the adjournment was taken. It is settled law in this state that, if a justice’s docket does not state the place to which a cause is adjourned, he loses jurisdiction. Does this apply to the municipal court of.Ashland county? We think not. That court is a court of record, with a seal and a clerk. The general provisions of law and rules of practice applicable to circuit courts apply to it. It has jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court in many matters, civil and criminal, and the law provides that it shall be held at the city of Ashland, in a place to be provided by said city. Oh. 94, Laws of 1889. It is reasonable that a justice of the peace should be held strictly to the rule that he must state the place of the adjournment in his docket, because it is within his power to move his office where he pleases within the town; but no such reason applies here. The municipal court must be held at the place provided by the city, and nowhere else. To name that place in the record would be unnecessary; to name any other place would be void..

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.W. 894, 80 Wis. 648, 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-le-clair-v-wright-wis-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack