Evans v. Curtiss

• Decision Date: 10 December 1897
• Citation: 73 N.W. 432,98 Wis. 97
• Parties: EVANS v. CURTISS et al. SNOW v. SAME.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

98 Wis. 97

73 N.W. 432

EVANS

v.CURTISS et al.

SNOW

v.SAME.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 10, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Dane county; Robert G. Siebecker, Judge.

Actions by C. J. Evans against E. E. Curtiss and others, and by E. M. Snow against same defendants. From orders changing venue, plaintiffs appeal. Appeals dismissed.Bushnell & Rogers, for appellants. J. E. McMullen and Bashford, O'Connor & Aylward, for respondents.

WINSLOW, J.

These are two appeals from orders changing venue in the actions above named, on the ground of convenience of witnesses, and that such change will promote the ends of justice. The point is made in each case that the orders are not appealable, and we are convinced that the point is well taken. Prior to the passage of chapter 212 of the Laws of 1895, relating to appealable orders, such orders as those before us were uniformly held appealable, upon the ground that they involved the merits of the action, or some part thereof, and hence were included under subdivision 4, § 10, c. 264, Laws 1860, which is practically the same as subdivision 4, § 3069, Rev. St. 1878. Bank v. Tallman, 15 Wis. 92. When section 3069 was revised and amended by chapter 212 of the Laws of 1895, subdivision 4 was eliminated; and it follows that the orders which were theretofore appealable by virtue of that subdivision alone ceased to be appealable after the passage of that act. It is true that it is intimated in Bank v. Tallman, supra, that such an order might, perhaps, be held to determine the action within the meaning of subdivision 1, § 10, c. 264, Laws 1860. The decision, however, was not placed upon that ground, and we do not regard the obiter remark well founded. Appeals dismissed.