Conradt v. Sixbee

Decided January 15, 1867

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1867-01-15

Action to recover balance due for 122 days’ work alleged to bave been done for tbe defendant between May 1st and October 29tb, 1864. Answer, tbat plaintiff bad labored for defendant only 53 1-2 days, for wbicb be bad been fully paid. It was claimed tbat tbe remainder of tbe time named in tbe complaint, plaintiff was in tbe employ of one John Kimball, and not of defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1911

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cole, J.

¶1It is familiar doctrine that motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are received with caution. And when such newly discovered evidence consists, as in this case, of admissions or declarations of a party, there should be a reasonable probability that such evidence would produce a different verdict, before a new trial should be granted. In view of all the facts of this case, we do not think it proba*385ble that a different result would be obtained if another trial should be had. 5 S. & R., 41; 6 Greenl., 479; 6 Pick., 114.

¶2By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

Dixon, C. J., dissents.