Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Wis. 568

Pierce v. Kelly

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1876

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1876-01-15

Tbis case was submitted on tbe record, printed case and briefs, on tbe 3d of March, 1876; and on tbe 21st of tbe same month tbe court made an order dismissing tbe appeal, “ because tbe printed case is materially defective and fails to comply with tbe rule.” On tbe 13th of April following, tbe appellant’s attorneys served on those of tbe respondent notice of a motion to be made on tbe 18th of that month, or as soon thereafter as they could be beard (based on an affidavit…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1907

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pur CueiaM.

¶1Tbis motion comes too late. In Pringle v. Dunn, ante, p. 435, it was held that under see. 7, cb. 264 of 1860, this court loses jurisdiction of appeals in' thirty days after *570judgment on them here, unless the jurisdiction is retained by order of the court for the purpose of a motion for rehearing, made within that time. The statute makes no other exception, and the court has no power to add others to the statute. And in cases of dismissal for noncompliance with the rules, the judgment of dismissal is a judgment on the appeal within the meaning of the statute. Estey v. Sheckler, 36 Wis., 434. No stipulation of the parties, and no order except on a motion and for the purpose of rehearing, is of any avail, under the statute, to retain the appeal here or to prolong the jurisdiction of the court over it.

¶2Thirty days after the dismissal in this case had elapsed before this motion was made. And the court had lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion, or to deny it with costs.

¶3The motion is therefore denied, without costs.

/39/wis/568 · .json · Public domain