Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Wis. 29

State v. Baetz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1893

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1893-09-26

Plaintiff sues to recover interest moneys on state funds deposited in banks, alleged to have been received by defendant Baetz while state treasurer, and not accounted for. The remaining defendants are sureties upon Baetz's official bond. The summons was served without complaint, and an affidavit was also served, upon which notice of the examination of defendants Baetz, Pabst, and Pritzlaffi under sec. 4096, S. & E. Ann. Stats.,1 was given.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1907

2 state decisions

Relies on Kelly v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Nichols v. MoGeoch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-09-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Winslow, J.

¶1Doubtless the plaintiff could frame some sort of a complaint without the examination applied for. *31It is manifest, however, that such complaint would be entirely indefinite as to amounts claimed, and would have to be framed in the most general way. Ve see no good reason why the proposed examination should not be had, in order that the complaint may, if possible, be made definite and certain in the particulars concerning which discovery is sought.

¶2This court has uniformly given this statute a broad and liberal construction in favor of the right conferred by it as to all matters relevant to the controversy. Kelly v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 60 Wis. 480; Nichols v. McGeoch, 78 Wis. 360. The sureties, being parties to the action, cannot be relieved from an examination. ■ The statute gives the right to examine a party.” If they are ignorant of the facts involved in the inquiry, their examination will necessarily be brief. .

¶3By the Court.- — ■ Order affirmed.

Pinney, J., took no part.
/86/wis/29 · .json · Public domain