Sutton v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

91 N.W. 121, 114 Wis. 647, 1902 Wisc. LEXIS 178
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 19, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 91 N.W. 121 (Sutton v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha 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
Sutton v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., 91 N.W. 121, 114 Wis. 647, 1902 Wisc. LEXIS 178 (Wis. 1902).

Opinion

Dodge, J.

We need not discuss what acts by defendant might constitute waiver of its right to dismissal after expiration of the one year without trial, limited by see. 3072, Stats. 1898, nor whether the circuit court has authority to extend that period. See Christianson v. Pioneer F. Co. 101 Wis. 343, 77 N. W. 174, 917; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 90, 80 N. W. 1104. It suffices to dispose of the present appeal that, upon the facts as set forth by defendant’s affidavits, there could be predicated neither waiver on its part nor any error on the part of the circuit court in refusing to •enlarge the statutory period. That state of facts was, at most, placed in conflict by plaintiff’s affidavits, so that decision of the trial court thereon must control. In adopting such statement of facts, no error was committed. Neither the order directing judgment of dismissal, nor that .refusing to extend time for trial, is appealable, for neither prevents a judgment. Stats. 1898, sec. 3069, subd. 1.

By the Court.— The appeals from orders are dismissed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Related

Hassler v. Sheets
172 N.W. 713 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1919)
State ex rel. Forrestal v. Eschweiler
147 N.W. 1008 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Eisentraut v. Cornelius
133 N.W. 34 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1911)
In re Dancy Drainage District
108 N.W. 202 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
Putney v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.
105 N.W. 1066 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 N.W. 121, 114 Wis. 647, 1902 Wisc. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-chicago-st-paul-minneapolis-omaha-railway-co-wis-1902.