Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Wis. 421

Bigelow v. Goss

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

The bill in this case set forth, that some time in the summer and autumn of 1850, the complainant and defendant agreed to form a partnership in the lumbering business on the bank of Wolf Eiver in this state; that the defendant was to furnish a certain amount of supplies, and the complainant was to furnish his own labor and an ox team, and were to share gain and loss in proportion to the value of labor and supplies each put into the business; and alleges that the amount of…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1904

3 state decisions

10185618601870188018901900decided

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,

WhitoN, C. J.

¶2There can be no donbt that the agreement of the parties to subject to arbitration the matters in controversy between them, including the judgment which the defendant Goss recovered before the justice, and which had been taken to the County Court by appeal, worked a discontinuance of the suit. Muckey vs. Pierce, 3 Wis. Rep. 307, and the cases there cited.

¶3The reason is, that the parties had chosen a tribunal other than the court, in which to settle and adjust their controversies. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the act of Goss, in filing a transcript of the judgment which he had obtained in the justice’s court, in the Circuit Court, and taking out execution thereon, was in fraud of his agreement to submit "the matter involved in the judgment to arbitration.

¶4The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill is therefore on this account erroneous. The judgment and execution should have been vacated by the decree of the court below, whether the existence of the partnership was established by the testimony or not.

¶5Decree of the court below reversed, with costs and cause remanded, &c.

/5/wis/421 · .json · Public domain