Fulton v. State ex rel. Meiners

• Decision Date: 16 May 1899
• Citation: 103 Wis. 238,79 N.W. 234
• Parties: FULTON v. STATE EX REL. MEINERS. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. FISHER. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. ALBRECHT. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. NABOR. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. RUEDEBUSCH. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. LAWRENCE. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. REIBLE. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. ZILLISCH. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. LUEDKE. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. SPIERING. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. ENGEL. FULTON v. STATE EX REL. KLOEDEN.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

103 Wis. 238

79 N.W. 234

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. MEINERS.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. FISHER.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. ALBRECHT.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. NABOR.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. RUEDEBUSCH.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. LAWRENCE.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. REIBLE.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. ZILLISCH.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. LUEDKE.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. SPIERING.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. ENGEL.

FULTON

v.STATE EX REL. KLOEDEN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 16, 1899.

Error to Dodge county court; J. A. Barney, Judge.

Separate actions by John L. Fulton, assignee, etc., against the state of Wisconsin on relation of D. Meiners and each of 11 others. There were judgments for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Twelve cases commenced by the plaintiff in error before a justice of the peace of Dodge county, all depending upon the same state of facts, except as hereinafter noted. By stipulation the cases were all heard upon the case and briefs filed in the action first above entitled. Summonses were issued in each of said actions October 9, 1897, returnable before the justice on October 22d. Each of the defendants appeared, and the cases were adjourned by consent until October 29th. At that date a demurrer to the complaint was argued and overruled, and the cases were adjourned to November 11th. The entry in the docket of the justice is as follows: “Case adjourned until November 11th at 10 a. m.” At that date the justice's return shows the following entry in his docket: “By mutual consent, cases adjourned until January 11th, 1898, at 10 a. m.” Thereafter successive adjournments of the cases were had from time to time until April 23d, at which date judgments were entered in each case for the plaintiff. At each of the adjournments last referred to, the justice's docket shows that the parties were present in court, and that the adjournments were had by “mutual consent.” On April 23d the docket shows that the defendants made a special appearance, but does not show for what purpose. After the entry of the judgment as stated, the defendants in each case sued out a writ of certiorari to the justice, and the cases were removed to the county court of Dodge county. Upon a hearing in that court, judgments were entered reversing the judgments of the justice. The plaintiff thereupon brought the cases to this court for review upon writ of error. In nine of the cases it was made to appear that the justice had not signed his name in the docket at the foot of the judgment at the time the writ of certiorari was served.Quarles, Spence & Quarles, for plaintiff in error.

Lawrence & Keeley, for defendants in error.

BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).

The justice is said to have lost jurisdiction because he adjourned the cases, and failed to note the place to which they were adjourned in his docket. This is undoubtedly true as to the adjournment had on November 11th, and, unless he regained jurisdiction, the judgments are void. Crandall v. Bacon, 20 Wis. 639. The return of the justice shows that at the adjourn day (January 11th) the parties appeared, and the cases were adjourned by consent to a later date. This is true of each successive adjournment up to the date of rendition of judgment. The entry in the docket, “parties appeared,” in absence of any qualification, is a general appearance, and waives any defect in jurisdiction prior to that time. Cron v. Krones, 17 Wis. 401. The return of the justice to the writs of certiorari upon this point is conclusive. The entries of the justice in his docket import verity, and they cannot be contradicted or impeached by extrinsic evidence or by statements of the justice. Cassidy v. Millerick, 52 Wis. 379, 9 N. W. 165;Smith v. Bahr, 62 Wis. 244, 22 N. W. 438;State v. Van Ells, 69 Wis. 19, 32 N. W. 32;State v. Roberts. 87 Wis. 292, 58 N. W. 409. The docket entries in each of the cases show that there was a general appearance by the defendants at the date subsequent to the time when the justice lost jurisdiction, and that each adjournment was had by “mutual consent.” Such being the fact, there was no lack of jurisdiction to render judgment on the day of final adjournment.

It is said, however, that there was a stipulation that one case was to be tried, and that the others were to abide the event of that suit; and it is argued that the adjournments and entry of judgment were contrary to that stipulation, and therefore illegal and void. If the justice adjourned the cases and entered judgment contrary to the stipulations, it was an error of law, and cannot be reached in this proceeding. Upon a common-law certiorari the court will only review the proceedings and judgment of the justice so far as they relate to jurisdictional questions shown by the pleadings and docket entries, and will not consider questions of law arising upon such entries, or any question which involves an inquiry into the evidence. Callon v. Sternberg, 38 Wis. 539, and cases cited.

There is, however, another and more serious question to be considered. In nine of the cases the return shows that at the time the writs of certiorari were served the justice had not signed his name to the judgments in his docket. The judgments had been fully entered and costs taxed. It is urged that the omission of the justice to sign the docket worked a loss of jurisdiction, and rendered the judgments void. Section 3574, Rev. St. 1878, specifies the entries which a justice is required to make in his docket. Subdivision 10 says he shall enter “the judgment rendered by the justice and the time of rendering the same, and the amount of the debt, damages, costs and fees due to each person separately.” All of these requirements were complied with by the justice. Neither in section 3574, nor in any other statute of which we are aware, is there any requirement that the justice shall sign any of the entries in his docket. It certainly is better practice for the justice to so authenticate his docket, but, unless there is some positive statute making such signature necessary, the failure to do so will not work a loss of jurisdiction. The general rule is that every reasonable presumption should be indulged to uphold the jurisdiction and proceedings of the justice. Bacon v....