Millar v. City of Madison
| Decision Date | 13 April 1943 |
| Citation | 9 N.W.2d 90,242 Wis. 617 |
| Parties | MILLAR v. CITY OF MADISON. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Alvin C. Reis, Judge.
Action by Bill Millar, doing business as the Varsity Men's Shop, against the City of Madison, a municipal corporation, to recover damages allegedly caused by a riot. From the judgment in justice court, an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where judgment was entered in favor of defendant from which plaintiff appeals, and from an order extending the time within which a bill of exceptions might be settled, defendant appeals. -[By Editorial Staff.]
Order reversed, bill of exceptions stricken, and judgment affirmed.
This action was commenced in justice court by Bill Millar, plaintiff, on December 19, 1941, against the City of Madison, defendant, to recover damages alleged to be caused by a riot. From the judgment in justice court, there was an appeal to circuit court, where judgment was entered on April 10, 1942, in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.
The facts will be stated in the opinion.
Sauthoff, Hansen, O'Brien & Kroncke, of Madison, for appellant.
Harold E. Hanson, City Atty., and Alton S. Heassler, Asst. City Atty., both of Madison, for respondent.
Before we proceed to a consideration of the questions raised on appeal from the judgment we must dispose of defendant's appeal from an order entered on September 23, 1942, enlarging the time within which a bill of exceptions might be settled. Judgment was entered on April 10, 1942, and notice of entry thereof served on April 11, 1942. There was a motion for review and on June 8, 1942, the court affirmed the judgment originally entered.
On September 16, 1942, more than five months after entry of judgment, plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why the time for serving and settling a bill of exceptions should not be extended. From the petition and affidavit it appears that at all times material, the firm of Hansen, O'Brien & Kroncke were plaintiff's attorneys. Mr. O'Brien handled the case in the trial court. During June O'Brien was in his office at one and two day periods to a total of ten days and on July 1, 1942, he went to work for the United States government. The bill of exceptions could have been prepared by other members of the firm but up to September 14, 1942, no bill of exceptions had been prepared nor had the appeal been taken. From the affidavits offered in opposition to the motion, it appears that the court reporter was available at all times to transcribe the testimony but had not been requested to do so up to September 1, 1942.
The court made the following order: “It is ordered That said plaintiff have leave to serve his proposed bill of exceptions and to have the same settled according to the rules and practice of this Court and for that purpose the time for serving such proposed bill of exceptions is hereby enlarged and extended to and inclusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amerman v. Dist. of Col. Rental Accom. Com'n
...nor was the Administrator ever informed of the possibility that petitioner Ginnetti might also be unavailable. See Millar v. City of Madison, 242 Wis. 617, 9 N.W.2d 90 (1943). We hold that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the requested continuance absent the consent of the The $50 ......
-
Collings v. Phillips
...88, citing Millis v. Raye (1962), 16 Wis.2d 79, 113 N.W.2d 820; Jolitz v. Graff (1960), 12 Wis.2d 52, 106 N.W.2d 340; Millar v. Madison (1943), 242 Wis. 617, 9 N.W.2d 90.9 Sec. 251.09, Stats.10 Nadolinski v. State (1970), 46 Wis.2d 259, 270, 174 N.W.2d 483, 488, quoting Commodore v. State (......
-
Cruis Along Boats, Inc. v. Standard Steel Products Mfg. Co.
...Stats. Millis v. Raye (1962), 16 Wis.2d 79, 113 N.W.2d 820; Jolitz v. Graff (1960), 12 Wis.2d 52, 106 N.W.2d 340; Millar v. Madison (1943), 242 Wis. 617, 9 N.W.2d 90. As the trial judge rightly pointed out in his first memorandum 'It is very significant that while counsel for the impleaded ......
-
O'Hare v. Fink
...court. Such a feeling may do credit to the sentiments of the judge but it does not constitute good cause.’ Millar v. City of Madison, 1943, 242 Wis. 617, 619, 9 N.W.2d 90. The facts stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney were insufficient to establish cause for an extension of ......