Hale v. Hale

Citation82 N.W.2d 305,275 Wis. 369
PartiesRuth HALE, Respondent, v. John HALE et al., Appellants.
Decision Date09 April 1957
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Giffin & Simarski, Milwaukee, for appellants.

Lowry & Hunter, Waukesha, Willis J. Zick, Waukesha, of counsel, for respondent.

CURRIE, Justice.

The issue on this appeal is how the two-year period is to be computed which is prescribed by sec. 330.19(5), Stats., for either giving written notice of injury or serving the complaint, where the cause of action is one to recover for personal injuries. If the day on which the accident occurred is to be excluded, but the day on which the complaint was served is to be counted, then the service of the complaint in the instant case was timely.

The provisions of secs. 990.001(4)(a) and (d), Stats.1955, control and are decisive of this appeal. These two subsections provide as follows:

'(a) The time within which an act is to be done or proceeding had or taken shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last; and when any such time is expressed in hours the whole of Sunday and of any legal holiday, from midnight to midnight, shall be excluded.

* * *

* * *

'(d) Regardless of whether the time limited in any statute for the taking of any proceeding or the doing of an act is measured from an event or from the date or day on which such event occurs, the day on which such event took place shall be excluded in the computation of such time.'

The defendants contend that our decision in Siebert v. Jacob Dudenhoefer Co., 1922, 178 Wis. 191, 188 N.W. 610, requires that we reverse the trial court. However, that case was decided prior to the adoption by the legislature of any statute for computing time expressed in years. Therefore, in that case the common-law rule was applied under which the day of the event is counted and not excluded. On this point, see Pick Industries v. Gebhard-Berghammer, 1953, 264 Wis. 353, 356, 59 N.W.2d 798, 60 N.W.2d 254, 256. Because of the enactment of the statutes quoted above, Siebert v. Jacob Dudenhoefer Co., supra, is no longer of any value as a precedent on the issue of how to compute the two-year period prescribed by sec. 330.19(5), Stats.

Order affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Prince v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 13 Julio 1960
    ...place, the rule of this case has been changed in Wisconsin by statute so that now Wisconsin excludes the first day. See Hale v. Hale, 275 Wis. 369, 82 N.W. 2d 305. In the second place, the Siebert case expressed the minority view on the subject which was based on an ancient English law dist......
  • Pufahl v. Couper, 91-2393
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • 4 Marzo 1993
    ...dictionary definitions of "within," Wisconsin case law supports inclusion of the anniversary date in the computation. In Hale v. Hale, 275 Wis. 369, 82 N.W.2d 305 (1957), the court decided that the two-year statute of limitations rendered a December 9, 1955 complaint timely from a December ......
  • Peyer v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1957
  • Gutweiler v. Wisconsin Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 90-2722-FT
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 1991
    ...calculations in at least two personal injury cases, Cuisiner v. Sattler, 88 Wis.2d 654, 277 N.W.2d 776 (1979), and Hale v. Hale, 275 Wis. 369, 82 N.W.2d 305 (1957). Hale involved an automobile accident occurring on December 9, 1953. The summons and complaint were served on December 9, 1955.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT