Hegel v. George
Decision Date | 04 June 1935 |
Citation | 261 N.W. 14,218 Wis. 327 |
Parties | HEGEL v. GEORGE ET AL. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Sheboygan County; Edward Voigt, Circuit Judge.
On motion for rehearing.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Rehearing denied, and mandate amended.
For prior opinion, see 259 N. W. 862.
Hannan, Johnson & Goldschmidt, of Milwaukee (Martin R. Paulsen, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Gold & McCann, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
In their motion for rehearing, defendants contend that the claim for funeral expenses is a part of the cause of action for death by wrongful act, and falls with it. We consider that the following cases determine this issue adversely to defendants: Neuser v. Thelen, 209 Wis. 262, 244 N. W. 801;City of Milwaukee v. Boynton Cab Co., 201 Wis. 581, 229 N. W. 28, 231 N. W. 597;Keasler v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 195 Wis. 108, 217 N. W. 687;Cochrane v. C. Hennecke Co., 186 Wis. 149, 202 N. W. 199. The principles involved are fully discussed in these cases, and we see no occasion for an extended re-examination of the subject.
Plaintiff and defendants join in calling attention to the fact that in ordering judgment for Howe's car and for his funeral expenses, this court overlooked the fact that Howe was found guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 15 per cent. of the total involved, and failed to correspondingly reduce the amount of plaintiff's recovery. This oversight should be corrected. There being no occasion for a rehearing, defendants' motion should be denied, but the mandate should be amended to correct the error heretofore noted.
The mandate is amended to read as follows: “Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $843 upon the first cause of action, and to dismiss the remaining paragraphs of plaintiff's complaint.”
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. Olney's Estate (In re Olney's Estate)
...in cognate cases. Beavers' Administratrix v. Putnam's Curator, 110 Va. 713, 67 S.E. 353;Hegel v. George, 218 Wis. 327, 259 N.W. 862,261 N.W. 14;Willard v. Mohn, 24 N.D. 390, 139 N.W. 979;Clark v. Goodwin, 170 Cal. 527, 150 P. 357, L.R.A.1916A, 1142;Hamilton v. Jones, 125 Ind. 176, 25 N.E. 1......
-
Van Gilder v. Gugel
... ... 485, 490, 198 N.W. 280.Nothing to the contrary was held in Neuser v. Thelen, 209 Wis. 262, 244 N.W. 801, or in Hegel v. George (Wis.) 259 N.W. 862,Id. (Wis.) 261 N.W. 14. Although the judgment in the Neuser case was reversed because the action should have been ... ...
-
Martinelli v. Burke
...the reasoning in cognate cases. Beavers' Adm'x v. Putnam's Curator, 110 Va. 713, 67 S.E. 353;Hegel v. George, 218 Wis. 327, 259 N.W. 862,261 N.W. 14;Willard v. Mohn, 24 N.D. 390, 139 N.W. 979;Clark v. Goodwin, 170 Cal. 527, 150 P. 357, L.R.A.1916A, 1142;Hamilton v. Jones, 125 Ind. 176, 25 N......
- Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. Lahiff