Hagenah v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1908 |
| Citation | 136 Wis. 300,116 N.W. 843 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAGENAH v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; J. K. Parish, Judge.
Personal injury action by Peter A. Hagenah against the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company. There was a judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This action was brought to recover for personal injuries. At the time of injury the plaintiff, a street laborer, was working for the Wisconsin Telephone Company, placing gravel between cedar blocks in the street, and while thus employed was run into by one of defendant's cars. The issues involved were negligence of defendant and contributory negligence of plaintiff. The court below nonsuited plaintiff, and judgment was entered in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint, from which judgment this appeal was taken.Glicksman & Gold, for appellant.
Clarke M. Rosecrantz, for respondent.
Justice TIMLIN having been of counsel in this case and not sitting, the court, after a careful consideration of the questions involved, is equally divided; three justices favoring affirmance and three reversal. This situation, under the established rule, necessitates affirmance of the judgment below. Jacobs v. Queen Ins. Co., 123 Wis. 608, 101 N. W. 1090;Swenson v. Flint, 123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135;Francisco v. Hatch, 124 Wis. 220, 101 N. W. 1135;Cook v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 125 Wis. 528, 103 N. W. 1097.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Kleynerman
...(1907) (on writ of mandamus).10. Pfister v. McGovern , 132 Wis. 533, 111 N.W. 1135 (1907) (on appeal).11. Hagenah v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. , 136 Wis. 300, 116 N.W. 843 (1908) (on appeal).12. Hahn v. Eells , 177 Wis. 378, 187 N.W. 686 (1922) (on appeal).13. Kieckhefer Box Co. v. Jo......
-
Gruhl Sash & Door Co. v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...establishedrule it follows that the order appealed from is affirmed. Swenson v. Flint, 123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135;Hagenah v. M. E. R. & L. Co., 136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843;Estate of Carter, 167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657. The order appealed from is ...
-
Racine Auto Tire Co. v. Indus. Comm'n of Wis.
...rule, it follows that the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Swenson v. Flint, 123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135;Hagenah v. M. E. R. & L. Co., 136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843;Estate of Carter, 167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657. The judgment appealed from is ...
-
Village of Brown Deer v. City of Milwaukee
...in affirmance of the court below, we reach the result that the Laun territory ordinance is invalid. Hagenah v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. (1908), 136 Wis. 300, 116 N.W. 843; Jacobs v. Queens Ins. Co. (1905), 123 Wis. 608, 612, 101 N.W. 4. The Tripoli Annexation The total assessed val......