Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Wis. 358

Elmer v. Mitchell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1890

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1890-01-07

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Langlade County. . The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr.-Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that February 18, 1882, the defendants, under the. firm name of M. Mitchell & Sons, purchased of the plaintiff a turbine water-wheel for't'heir mill, for the sum of $276, and thereupon put the same in their mill, and have used it ever since; that July 13, 1887, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1891

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cassoday, J.

¶1The defendants having served notice on the plaintiff’s attorneys, December 27, 1888, that they thereby withdrew and dismissed their appeal from the judgment, subject to the payment of costs, if any, that appeal is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶2A careful examination of the record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to set aside the judgment and allow the defendants severally to answer. The proposed answers were to the effect that the purchase of the water-wheel was by Henry Mitchell, Sr., alone; that neither Henry, Jr., nor James was at the time of the purchase a partner of his father; that the water-wheel did not work well, without stating specifically wherein the alleged defect consisted. The only excuse given by any of the defendants for not answering was the sickness of the old gentleman from the time of the commencement of the action to December 1, 1887. The affidavits, however, left the matter of his inability to answer by reason of sickness very unsatisfactory, and gave no excuse for the other defendants. But it is of no benefit to any one to discuss the facts. The rule is well settled that this court will not disturb such an order unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion in the trial court in making it. We find no evidence of such abuse in the record. The order of February 8, 1888, is affirmed.

¶3Since that order was made without leave to renew the *361same, or without prejudice to such renewal, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the defendants that there was no ground for the renewal of such motion in April, 1888, and accordingly that such motion was properly denied May 7, 1888, and that the appeal from that order should be, and is hereby, dismissed.

¶4By the Court. — ■ Ordered accordingly.

/75/wis/358 · .json · Public domain