Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Wis. 226

Pormann v. Frede

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1888

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1888-09-18

■ The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was brought to recover a balance due upon contracts of $131.73, and the costs of the action. The sum-' mons was not personally served. December 8, 1887, the defendant answered, and therein admitted the amount due as claimed; and thereby expressly authorized and confessed judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount so claimed.

Relies on Eureka Steam Heating Co. v. Sloteman · Egan v. Sengpiel · Frankfurth v. Anderson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1941

5 state decisions

201888189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Cassoday, J.

¶1The counter-affidavits on the part of the plaintiff were such as to justify the court in refusing to set aside the judgment upon the merits for the grounds stated in the motion papers. This seems to be conceded. In fact, the moving papers failed to show any meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The only grounds for the motion are alleged irregularities in the entry of judgment and the taxation of costs. The judgment, having been entered in pursuance of an order of the court made on the same day, must be regarded as a judgment of,the court while in session. The plaintiff was clearly entitled to the judgment entered upon the pleadings. Sec. 2892, R. S.; Eureka Steam Heating Co. v. Sloteman, 67 Wis. 126. The irregularities complained of consist in the failure to give notice of the application for such judgment, and the failure of the clerk to enter in his minutes a statement of the application. The motion to set aside the judgment upon that ground was not made until the next term, and hence came too late. Frankfurth v. Anderson, 61 Wis. 107; Egan v. Sengpiel, 46 Wis. 703. Besides, it is not the policy of the law to set aside judgments for mere irregularities which do not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party. Sec. 2829, R. S.; Rollins v. Kahn, 66 Wis. 658. If the costs were taxed too high, the defendant’s remedy was to retax the same. Rollins v. Kahn, 66 Wis. 662.

¶2By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

/72/wis/226 · .json · Public domain