Maerchen v. Stall
| Decision Date | 03 February 1880 |
| Citation | 4 N.W. 352,48 Wis. 307 |
| Parties | MOERCHEN v. STOLL, Adm'r |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Argued January 7, 1880
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County.
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the circuit court disallowing his claim against the estate of defendant's intestate, for labor performed for the deceased. The case is stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.
For the appellant, there was a brief by H. G. & W. J. Turner, and oral argument by W. J. Turner.
For the respondent, there was a brief by Nash & Schmitz, and oral argument by Mr. Nash.
The plaintiff, as creditor of the estate of Ambrose Oschwald presented a claim to the commissioners appointed under the statute to examine and adjust all demands against the deceased, for money which he had let the deceased have, and also for work and labor which he had rendered the deceased. The commissioners allowed the plaintiff $ 1,028 for money which he had loaned the deceased, and wholly disallowed the claim for work and labor. The administrator appealed from the decision of the commissioners allowing the money claim. The plaintiff took no appeal from their decision disallowing his other claim, for services. The cause proceeded to a hearing in the circuit court upon the issues therein made and upon testimony taken before a referee, by consent, the same as though both parties had appealed from the decision of the commissioners; or rather, no objection was taken that the claimant had not appealed; and that court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive compensation for his services rendered the deceased, but was entitled to recover the money which he had loaned him, and affirmed the decision of the commissioners upon both claims. This appeal is from so much of the judgment of the circuit court as disallows the plaintiff's claim for labor and services rendered the deceased.
It seems to us the circuit court was wrong in assuming, as it seems to have done, that the disallowed claim of the plaintiff was removed to that court by the appeal of the administrator, and in considering that claim at all. The claims of the plaintiff presented to the commissioners were wholly distinct and independent in their nature, in no sense forming one contract. One might properly be considered allowed or disallowed in part or in whole, without reference to the other claim. If, for instance, the commissioners had allowed less on the money demand than the plaintiff claimed was due him, perhaps an appeal by the administrator from what was allowed would bring to the consideration of the circuit court the merits of that entire demand, so that the allowance of the commissioners could be increased if the testimony showed that it ought to be. But we do not see upon what principle it could be claimed that the appeal which was taken had the effect to bring up a totally separate and distinct claim, which had been disallowed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial