Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Wis. 494

Johnston v. Reiley

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1869

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1869-06-15

Action by plaintiff, as executor of the last will of Alexander Johnston, upon three promissory notes made by defendant; two of them (for $1,500 and $1, Ó00, respectively) running to said Johnston, and the third (for $62) running to one Chapin.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1937

5 state decisions

2018691870188018901900191019201930decided

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.

¶1We are inclined to hold the order staying proceedings until the accounting could be had in the other action, not appealable. It related only to the time of the trial of the action, and was much like an order granting a continuance of the cause. It is very manifest that there are many orders staying proceedings *496which are matters of discretion on the part of the court, and from which no appeal lies. We think this is one of them. It appears to us that the only clause of the appeal statute under which it could with any reason be claimed that this order is appealable, is the 4th subdivision of section 10, chapter 264, Laws of 1860. Under that clause, an order is appealable when it involves the “merits of an action, or some part thereof.” How can this order staying proceedings be said to involve the “merits of the action?” The court really refuses to look into the law or facts of the case at the present time, and makes no disposition of the issues therein, but merely stays proceedings until an accounting can be had in another action. It is a matter of practice as to whether the cause should at once be tried, or postponed for a time, and seems to us quite analogous to an order granting a continuance. Such. questions of practice every court should have the right to regulate and control for itself, in that manner which will most effectually secure the rights of parties and promote the cause of justice.

¶2By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.

/24/wis/494 · .json · Public domain