Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Pin. 91

Dean v. Williams

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1849

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1849-01-15

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, and for taking aud driving from thence the sheep of the plaintiff, etc. The defendants below pleaded separately. The plaintiff below obtained leave to discontinue, and did discontinue as to two of the defendants. The cause was tried at the June term of the court for Rock county, 1847 ; and the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict, and the cause was continued.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1903

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stow, C. J.

¶1This case has been submitted without argument or brief. Had we been aware, at the time the papers were handed up, that they were not accompanied with a brief, we should have declined receiving them ; as we cannot, as a general tMng, consent to take upon ourselves to examine and decide cases in this court, on a mere inspection of the record.

¶2By the record, it appears that at the September term of the district court, 1847, and after one trial had been had, the defendants below (the plaintiffs here) applied for and obtained leave to amend their pleadings, which they did j and that at the following May term, a rule for judgment was obtained by the plaintiff below, for the costs incurred between the, filing of the defective pleas, at the October term, 1846, and the amendment, a year afterwards. The errors assigned are :

¶31st. The court awarding costs, in May, 1848, of the amendment allowed in September, 1847, when the rule for that amendment expressed no terms on wMch it was to be made: and,

¶42d. The giving judgment for these costs.

¶5In regard to the first alleged errror, it is to be observed, that though, in general, costs do not follow interlocutory orders, unless expressly awarded, but abide the event; by the *93standing rule of tbe late district courts, tbe amendment could be made only on the terms of paying the intervening costs. This rule, while in force, was as operative and obligatory as a statutory provision; and the party availing himself of it could exonerate himself of its burthens, only by an express exception in his favor. We are, therefore, of opinion that the district court was right in awarding the costs it did. As to the second error assigned, it does not appear from the record that a judgment for the costs was, in point of fact, "■ ever actually entered ; and a mere rule for judgment is not a judgment, and error will not lie upon it; besides, it is very questionable whether error lies to reverse a judgment for costs-alone. And for this reason (and without expressing any opinion on the subject whether a judgment was the proper method of securing the payment of the costs awarded) the writ of error is dismissed.

/2/pin/91 · .json · Public domain