Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Wis. 426

Remlinger v. Young

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1868

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1868-02-15

Young, as treasurer of the town of Port Washington in said county, brought the action below, under ch. 295, Laws of 1863, to recover the amount subscribed by JRemlinger to pay bounties to volunteers who should be credited to the town. The printed case does not contain the pleadings. An objection to the admission of any evidence under the complaint, on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, was overruled.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2006

3 state decisions

10186818701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Paine, J.

¶1One of tlie objections taken in this case is, that tlie complaint does not state a cause of action; yet it is not printed in the case. We have with some reluctance looked into the record, and are satisfied that the objection is groundless. The action is broght in pursuance of the authority given by chapter 295, Laws of 1863, which gives town treasurer the right to bring suit on any subsciption made to pay bounties to volunteers for that town. The subscription here sued on was made after that act was in force; and the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action on the subscription.

¶2If, at the time the motion for nonsuit was made, the' plaintiff had failed to prove that he was town treasurer, it was within the discretion of the court to re-open the proof and to allow him to supply that oversight, as was done. This was no error. We do not see that the muster-in papers which were offered and received in evidence were material, and counsel does not suggest what bearing they had upon the issue. If it was merely to show that there had been volunteers credited to that town, the fact was shown by the testimony of Audier, which there was nothing to contradict. If, therefore, it was necessary to prove that fact, it being shown by other competent and uncontradicted evidence, the judgment would not be reversed, even if the certificates were inadmissible, which we do not determine, as there has been no argument presented on either side of the question.

¶3We discover no error in the case, and the judgment must be affirmed.

¶4By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/22/wis/426 · .json · Public domain