Elberfeldt v. Waite
| Decision Date | 17 March 1891 |
| Citation | 48 N.W. 525,79 Wis. 284 |
| Parties | ELBERFELDT v. WAITE ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county.
At the times mentioned the plaintiff was the agent of the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company, and as such insured the property of the defendants against loss by fire, on or about January 1, 1888, and for that purpose, and as an accommodation for the defendants, the plaintiff advanced and paid to said company the sum of $37.50, being the amount of the premium on said insurance. Subsequently there was a loss on the property so insured by fire, and the company adjusted the same with the defendants. In September, 1889, the plaintiff commenced this action in a justice's court to recover the $37.50 so advanced for the defendants. The defense was a general denial and settlement. The plaintiff recovered the amount named, with costs, in the justice's court, and from the judgment therein the defendants appealed to the circuit court. Upon a retrial in the circuit court the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for $39.86, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants bring this appeal.Ryan & Merton, for appellants.
D. J. Hemlock, for respondent.
CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
Daniel Schultz, the general agent and adjuster of the insurance company, was the principal witness for the plaintiff in the justice's court. Prior to the trial on the appeal in the circuit court Schultz died. Error is assigned because the court admitted in evidence that portion of the minutes of the justice on the trial before him which contained the testimony of Schultz. The only foundation laid for such admission was the testimony of the justice to the effect that perhaps he did not take down the entire testimony of Schultz; that he intended to get the main facts, that possibly he did not use the exact words of the witness; that he intended to get the facts, but may not have used the same words, that he probably missed some words,--possibly a good many; that whether he got it all down depended upon circumstances; that when the witness went too rapidly to take it all down he always checked him; that he did not think he had left out any of the facts in the case; that, judging from the minutes, he should think that the testimony of Schultz was as contained in the minutes; that he should judge so, although he could not then remember, after having his mind refreshed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy E. Hays & Co. v. Pierson
...of testimony taken in a former action was not admissible, nor was judge's notes, McGeoch v. Carlson, (Wis.) 71 N.W. 116; Elberfeldt v. Waite, (Wis.) 48 N.W. 525, 5 Enc. Ev. 950; extrinsic evidence of the correctness of the testimony is necessary; People v. Carty, (Cal.) 19 P. 491. The testi......
-
Blackwell v. State
...contend that this was not sufficient to authorize such admission, within the rule of Zitske v. Goldberg, 38 Wis. 216, and Elberfeldt v. Waite, 79 Wis. 284. In neither those cases had such testimony been taken down by the official court reporter. In each it was taken down by a justice of the......
-
Jackson v. State
...contend that this was not sufficient to authorize such admission, within the rule of Zitske v. Goldberg, 38 Wis. 216, and Elberfeldt v. Waite, 79 Wis. 284, 48 N. W. Rep. 525. In neither of those cases had such testimony been taken down by the official court reporter. In each it was taken do......
- Eaton v. Dewey