Hessey v. Gund

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtWINSLOW
Citation98 Wis. 531,74 N.W. 342
Decision Date01 March 1898
PartiesHESSEY v. GUND ET AL.

98 Wis. 531
74 N.W. 342

HESSEY
v.
GUND ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 1, 1898.


Appeal from circuit court, Bayfield county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Mark Hessey against John Gund, Jr., and others. Defendant Gund, Jr., was adjudged guilty of contempt, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt, under section 3477 et seq., Rev. St., and requiring him to pay to the respondent a certain sum of money. The contempt charged and found consisted in the violation of a temporary injunctional order. The action in which the order which was disobeyed was made was an action brought to foreclose a contract for the sale of pine lands. The lands were originally owned by one Snow, who made a contract to sell the same to the Iron River Lumber Company, and afterwards sold the lands and assigned his interest in the contract to the plaintiff, Hessey. The Iron River Lumber Company became insolvent, and the appellant, Gund, Jr., purchased its rights under the contract in November, 1894. All the timber on the lands was cut either by the lumber company or by Gund prior to December 6, 1894; and on the 24th of January, 1895, there remained on the land upon skidways 1,500,000 feet of logs, worth $6,000, all of which Gund claimed to own. At this time there was due and unpaid on the contract $1,645.75, with interest, and for this sum the action of foreclosure was commenced, on said 24th day of January. Simultaneously with the service of the summons, the plaintiff obtained and served on Gund and the other defendants an injunctional order restraining him and his agents and servants from removing any of the logs during the pendency of the action. Gund answered February 7th, claiming to own the logs, and on the same day moved, upon his answer and the affidavit of his agent, to dissolve the injunctional order, on the ground that he (Gund) would suffer great loss if the injunctional order were allowed to remain, and he were not permitted to remove and sell the logs. The court denied the motion February 12th, but the order provided that it was “without prejudice to Gund's right to remove the timber described in the complaint upon execution of the proper bond to secure the unpaid balance price of said land.” On the 23d of January, 1895, a corporation called the John Gund Lumber Company was formed, of which Gund was president. Immediately after the order of February 12th was made, the timber was removed from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...7 Abb. Pr., 411; State v. Davis (N. D.), 51 N.W. 942; Wyatt v. Magee, 3 Ala. 94; Newport v. Light Co., 92 Ky. 445; Hessey v. Gund (Wis.), 74 N.W. 342; State v. Hansford (W. Va.), 28 S.E. 791; Dandridge's Case, 2 Va. Cases, 408; 28 S.E. 154; Hamlin v. R. Co. (Mass.), 49 N.E. 922; Gould v. Se......
1 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...7 Abb. Pr., 411; State v. Davis (N. D.), 51 N.W. 942; Wyatt v. Magee, 3 Ala. 94; Newport v. Light Co., 92 Ky. 445; Hessey v. Gund (Wis.), 74 N.W. 342; State v. Hansford (W. Va.), 28 S.E. 791; Dandridge's Case, 2 Va. Cases, 408; 28 S.E. 154; Hamlin v. R. Co. (Mass.), 49 N.E. 922; Gould v. Se......

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