Christianson v. Pioneer Furniture Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1898
• Parties: CHRISTIANSON v. PIONEER FURNITURE CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

101 Wis. 343

77 N.W. 917

CHRISTIANSON

v.PIONEER FURNITURE CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 16, 1898.

On Rehearing. Denied.

For prior report, see 77 N. W. 174.

*917MARSHALL, J.

A motion for a rehearing made by respondent has been carefully considered, without effect, other than to confirm the views expressed in the opinion on file. 77 N. W. 174. Counsel, in presenting the matter, indulged in some intemperate language, bordering, at least, on discourtesy, and meriting some rebuke in disposing of the motion. The high regard entertained for them here, as gentlemen distinguished in the profession, and of care in observing the ethics of their calling, enable us on this occasion to excuse their intemperate words, considering them as used without deliberation or bad intent, but impulsively, under the sting of disappointment at an unlooked-for result in a matter of deep professional interest to them and pecuniary interest to their client. Counsel should be comforted in such situations, by the reflection that courts do not make the law, and that the safest judicial system for all, and the one which, in the long run, best protects the most valuable personal rights of property, particularly as to the weak and humble, is one where courts may be depended on to administer the law firmly, according to the intent of its creators, as written in the books, even though, in an individual case now and then, some hardship may result. Ideal justice stands high above all fear or favor, testing rights by the law as it is believed to be written, with eyes blinded to consequences which courts cannot consider, though human sympathies, possessed by judges in as high degree as other people, be touched thereby most deeply. It is not improbable that such sympathies are often most deeply touched in situations where there can be no possible relief by following the leanings they tend to influence.

We are asked to reconsider this case in the light of Mills v. Insurance Co., 92 Wis. 90, 65 N. W. 730, the theory being that the holding there was overlooked here, and was overruled without direct reference to it. It was neither overlooked, nor was it overruled, as the court then viewed and now views the matter. If it had been supposed there was any conflict between the two decisions, the subject would certainly have been referred to in an unmistakable way; but it was not so supposed, and no such conflict is perceived now. That a situation may appear different when viewed judicially, from when looked at on the bias from the standpoint of a partisan, is what we meet at every turn in official life. If that were not so, there would be much less use for courts.

A careful, dispassionate review of the very brief opinion of Mr. Justice Newman in the Mills Case, will disclose that the only point decided was that an irregular notice of trial is waived by going to trial on the merits. True, as appears from the statement of facts, one of the objections raised to the notice of trial was that the costs in the supreme court had not been paid, yet the situation, when there was a mere premature notice of trial, was what the court considered, and the point thus raised,...