In re Application of Sherper's, Inc.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | WICKHEM |
| Citation | 33 N.W.2d 178,253 Wis. 224 |
| Parties | Application of SHERPER'S, Inc., et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1948 |
253 Wis. 224
33 N.W.2d 178
Application of SHERPER'S, Inc., et al.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
July 1, 1948.
Original action. Prohibition. Petition denied.
On May 24 1948 Sherper's Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Martha Scherper, individually and as an officer of Sherper's, Inc., Lionel Scherper, individually and as an officer of Sherper's, Inc., and Donald Scherper applied to this court for permission to commence an original action for a writ of prohibition directed to the Hon. Otto H. Breidenbach, judge of the circuit court for Milwaukee county and commanding him to suppress certain discovery proceedings under sec. 326.12(4).
Martin J. Price and Samuel Saffro, both of Milwaukee, for petitioners.
Herman M. Knoeller and George Graebner, both of Milwaukee, for defendant.
WICKHEM, Justice.
The petition in this case alleges that Sherper's Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Milwaukee; that the individual petitioners are stockholders or officers of this corporation; that Paul L. Moskowitz was appointed receiver of Sam Scherper on November 21, 1947 and on April 8, 1948 commenced an action against petitioners, and served notice of a discovery examination of petitioner, Martha Scherper, individually and as secretary of Sherper's Inc.; of Lionel Scherper and Sam Scherper, individually and as officers of the corporation; of Donald Scherper; that these were accompanied by affidavits to the effect that the examination is under sec. 326.12(4), Stats.; that at the same time a subpoena duces tecum was served upon Martha Scherper specifying the papers and records to be produced under the subpoena; that petitioners moved the circuit court for Milwaukee county to suppress the subpoena and that this relief was denied. It is alleged that petitioners are aggrieved and injured and without remedy by appeal and that these therefore invoke the superintending control of this court.
The question is whether this court shall permit the commencement of this action. In Hyslop v. Hyslop, 234 Wis. 430, 291 N.W. 337, this court after a review of the cases, some of which were not wholly consistent, held that an order refusing to suppress an adverse examination is not appealable
[33 N.W.2d 179]
and that subject is fully and finally closed. That, however, is the very ground upon which this application for the exercise of original jurisdiction is based, namely, the absence of any remedy by appeal. Petitioners assert that they have a right under State ex rel. Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Sullivan, 245 Wis. 544, 15 N.W.2d 847, to the exercise of this court's superintending control to prevent an inquisition into petitioners' affairs.
It was pointed out in State ex rel. Hustisford Light, Power & Mfg. Co. v. Grimm, 208 Wis. 366, 243 N.W. 763, that the question presented has to do with the judicial policy not with the power of the court. In the Sullivan case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee, 2019AP221-CR
...WI 82, ¶42, 382 Wis. 2d 666, 913 N.W.2d 878 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring/dissenting) (citing Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 226, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948) ; State ex rel. Wis. State Dep't of Agric. v. Aarons, 248 Wis. 419, 423, 22 N.W.2d 160 (1946) ). There was no error......
-
Koschkee v. Evers, No. 2017AP2278-OA
...exercised when a party asserts error by the circuit court causing "great and irreparable" "hardship." Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 226, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948) ; State ex rel. Wis. State Dep't of Agric. v. Aarons, 248 Wis. 419, 423, 22 N.W.2d 160 (1946). Superintending authori......
-
Hudson v. Graff
...that Hudson and Graff were jointly engaged in the transactions in question under agreements which entitled Hudson to share in some of the [33 N.W.2d 178]net profits thereof, and that he is therefore entitled in this action for an accounting in relation thereto and to have the court order, a......
-
Green for Wisconsin v. State Elections Bd., No. 2006AP2452-OA.
...fact that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, petitioners will suffer great and irreparable hardship. See Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948). In my view, these elements are present in this ¶ 20 Because the majority does not share this view, I respectfully di......
-
State v. Lee, 2019AP221-CR
...WI 82, ¶42, 382 Wis. 2d 666, 913 N.W.2d 878 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring/dissenting) (citing Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 226, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948) ; State ex rel. Wis. State Dep't of Agric. v. Aarons, 248 Wis. 419, 423, 22 N.W.2d 160 (1946) ). There was no error......
-
Koschkee v. Evers, No. 2017AP2278-OA
...exercised when a party asserts error by the circuit court causing "great and irreparable" "hardship." Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 226, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948) ; State ex rel. Wis. State Dep't of Agric. v. Aarons, 248 Wis. 419, 423, 22 N.W.2d 160 (1946). Superintending authori......
-
Hudson v. Graff
...that Hudson and Graff were jointly engaged in the transactions in question under agreements which entitled Hudson to share in some of the [33 N.W.2d 178]net profits thereof, and that he is therefore entitled in this action for an accounting in relation thereto and to have the court order, a......
-
Green for Wisconsin v. State Elections Bd., No. 2006AP2452-OA.
...fact that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, petitioners will suffer great and irreparable hardship. See Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 Wis. 224, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948). In my view, these elements are present in this ¶ 20 Because the majority does not share this view, I respectfully di......