Kabe v. The Vessel "Eagle"

Decided June 15, 1869

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1869-06-15

<p>Practice — Successive motions embracing t7ie same remedy. '</p> <p>An order refusing to set aside a judgment is sustained on the ground that a prior motion had been made and denied to set aside the vwdiot and judgment — the denial not having been made “ without prejudice to a new motion,” etc., and leave to renew the motion not having been obtained.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1938

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The first order was not made without prejudice to a new motion nor was there any leave obtained to renew the motion.1’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State ex rel. C. W. Fischer Furniture Co. v. Detling

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Paihe, J.

¶1This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant a motion to set aside the judgmefit. It appears from the return that' a former motion had been made to set aside the verdict and judgment, which had also been denied. Both were founded upon the records and files in the case.

¶2 *109Without regard to the merits, the order appealed from seems to have been proper, upon the ground that the motion was barred by the former motion and the decision thereon. The first order was not made without prejudice to a new motion, nor was there any leave obtained to renew the motion. The authorities cited by the respondent fully show, that, in such a case, a second motion is properly denied, for the mere reason that it is barred by the decision on the first.

¶3By the Qourt. —The order is affirmed, with costs.