Klotz v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.

Decision Date10 January 1911
Citation144 Wis. 384,129 N.W. 524
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court


Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orrin T. Williams, Judge.

Action by Josephine Klotz against the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company. A verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries. The negligence charged is that the motorman so unskillfully and negligently managed the car of the defendant as to strike the rear wheel of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was driving, throwing her forward upon the dashboard, and thereby causing the injury. The answer is substantially a general denial. The issues involved are the negligence of the defendant, contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the amount of damages. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant on its motion. No objection was made to this motion on the part of the plaintiff and no exception taken to the order granting it at the time it was granted or during the trial. The bill of exceptions does not show any exception, but it seems that after the trial an exception was filed which appears in the record, and which it is stipulated may be treated as an exception after trial.

Judgment was entered dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, with costs, from which this appeal was taken.Harry M. Silber, for appellant.

Van Dyke, Rosecrantz, Shaw & Van Dyke, for respondent.

KERWIN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed in the absence of an exception to such order. Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co., 135 Wis. 71, 115 N. W. 355;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808;Holum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No exception was filed in the instant case until after trial, and such exception is not sufficient. Jenks v. State, 17 Wis. 665;Firmeis v. State, 61 Wis. 140, 20 N. W. 663;Adams v. McKay, 63 Wis. 404, 23 N. W. 575.

It follows that we cannot review the order directing a verdict.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Thomas v. Columbia Phonograph Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1911
    ... ... 10, 1911 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orren T. Williams, Judge.Action by Alfred E. Thomas against the ... ...
  • Bailey v. Security Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1921
    ... ... See ... Montague-O'Reilly Co. v. Town of Milwaukee, 193 ... P. 824 ... The ... provisions of the ... Chicago, etc., R ... Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N.W. 99; Klotz v. Milwaukee ... Electric R. etc., Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N.W. 524; ... ...
  • Barnum v. Chamberlain Land & Loan Co.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1914
    ...Casualty Co., 17 N. D. 380, 116 N. W. 349;Holum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99;Klotz v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N. W. 524;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808. Section 463, Code Civ. Proc., is as follows:......

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