Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Wis. 198

Pett v. Clark

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

<p>ERROR TO DANE CIRCUIT COURT.</p> <p>A default cannot be entered against two defendants after-one of them has pleaded. A default so entered is irregular against the defendant pleading.</p> <p>If a party plead before default entered, though out of time, or without leave, if the plea he good in substance and form, his default cannot be entered while the plea stands. The proper practice in such case is, to move to strike the plea from the files.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a default could not be entered against the defendant pleading it.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Estate of Otto v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., Estate of Otto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2008

8 state decisions

301856186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Smith, J.

¶2Tbis was an action of assumpsit commenced in tbe Circuit Court of Jefferson county, by tbe defendant in error against tbe plaintiffs in error. Tbe declaration was in tbe common counts, and was filed January 8tb, 1855. On tbe 19tb day of February, 1855, tbe defendant Reynolds filed bis plea of tbe general issue, together witb notice of set-off. On tbe 14th day of September, A. D. 1855, tbe default of both tbe defendants having been entered, a writ of inquiry was issued to tbe sheriff, which was returned witb an assessment of tbe plaintiff’s damages at $150.04 ; and on tbe 15th day of March, 1856, in term time, final judgment was rendered against both tbe defendants for tbe amount of damages returned as aforesaid.

¶3It appears from tbe record that tbe default of both tbe de*199fendants was entered after one of them had filed his plea. For aught that appears, the plea was regularly filed; at all events, it was good in substance and in form, and constituted a part of the record, and while there a default could not be entered against the defendant pleading it. If pleaded out of time, or if leave was not obtained, or if there was any reason why rhe defendant ought not to have been allowed to plead, the proper practice would have been to move to strike the plea from the files. Having done so, and the motion having been sustained, the default could be entered, but not while the plea remained on the files as a part of the record in the case.

¶4The existence of the plea was doubtless overlooked in the hurry of circuit practice. But the entry of the default and assessment of damages was irregular, and the judgment must therefore be reversed.

/5/wis/198 · .json · Public domain