Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 Wis. 445

Weyerhaeuser v. Earley

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1898

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1898-05-03

<p> Appeal, what will he reviewed: Briefs. </p> <p>1. The supreme court will not review the finding of a trial court, unless the evidence upon which it is based has been incorporated in the bill of exceptions.</p> <p>3. Failure of the brief of the appellant to contain, among other things, a concise statement of “ the errors relied upon for reversal,” as required by Supreme Court Rule IX, criticised, and the importance of such requirement emphasized.</p>

Relies on Wisconsin River Improvement Co. v. Lyons · Thomas v. Mitchell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-05-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1966

5 state decisions

2018981900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Bardeen, J.

¶1The bill of exceptions in this case consists ■of a mere statement that, “within ten days after the making .and filing of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the defendant duly excepted to the seventeenth finding of fact, by serving a copy of such exception upon the attorneys for the plaintiff, and filing the same, in writing, with the clerk *446of this court.” No evidence is preserved in the bill, and we are thus left powerless to review any question of fact arising in the case. The rule has frequently been emphasized that this court will not review the finding of a trial court unless the evidence upon which it is based has been incorporated in the bill of exceptions. With no evidence before us, the only question to he determined is whether the judgment is sustained by the pleadings and findings. Wis. River Imp. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis. 61; Thomas v. Mitchell, 27 Wis. 414. We find no difficulty in answering that question in the affirmative.

¶2Counsel have neglected to comply with Rule IX of this court, which requires the brief of appellant to contain, among other things, a concise statement of “ the errors relied upon for reversal.” We desire to emphasize this requirement. It. is of material assistance to the court. It directs immediate attention to the main points involved in the case, and enables the court to grasp the real issues involved at the outset. Appellant’s brief is an apt illustration of the desirability of close adherence to this rule. At the beginning of their argument, counsel state several propositions of law, and discuss a number of authorities, without any suggestion as to .their applicability to the case, until we get well towards the end of the brief. Possibly this arrangement of propositions may be an inducement for the court to read the briefs to the end, but in this case we acquit counsel of any such sinister design. We only desire to criticise their failure to comply with the rule, and regret our inability, from the state of the record, to consider the legal questions they have so ably, discussed.

¶3As before stated, we cannot review the findings, because no evidence has been preserved. The findings being accepted as a verity, the conclusion follows that plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon the record presented.

¶4By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/99/wis/445 · .json · Public domain