Mills v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1896 |
| Citation | 65 N.W. 730,92 Wis. 90 |
| Parties | MILLS v. NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Eau Claire county; W. F. Bailey, Judge.
Action by Lucinda R. Mills against the National Fire Insurance Company.
This action was commenced in Eau Claire county. The circuit judge made an order, of his own motion, changing the place of trial to Chippewa county. The defendant moved the court of Chippewa county to change the place of trial back to Eau Claire county, on the ground that the place of trial had been improperly changed from that county. The motion was denied. The defendant appealed. This court reversed the order, and remanded the case, with directions “to change the venue back to Eau Claire county.” 88 Wis. 351, 60 N. W. 426. The record was remitted by this court to the circuit court of Chippewa county, November 26, 1894, without the payment of the taxable costs in this court, other than the clerk's fees. On November 28, 1894, the circuit court of Chippewa county made an order changing the place of trial to Eau Claire county, and the record was transmitted to and filed in Eau Claire county on December 6, 1894. Meantime, on November 30, 1894, before the record had been transmitted from Chippewa county, plaintiff noticed the case for trial in Eau Claire county. The term for Eau Claire county began on December 10, 1894. On the first day of the term the plaintiff moved to put the case on the calendar for that term. Defendant resisted the motion, on the ground that the notice of trial was premature; the action, at the time when it was noticed for trial in Eau Claire county, being still pending in Chippewa county, and the costs of the supreme court not having been paid. The objection was overruled, and the motion granted, and the cause put upon the calendar. The defendant then asked that the cause be not moved until the 12th day of December, which was granted. On the 12th day of December the case was moved for trial, when the defendant moved to strike the case from the calendar, on the same grounds upon which he had resisted the motion to place it there. This motion was denied. Then the defendant moved for a continuance, on the ground, in substance, that its attorney believed that the case could not be moved at that time, and had not prepared for trial. This motion was denied. Then a jury was impaneled. Defendant objected to the admission of evidence under the complaint, on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. This objection was overruled. The plaintiff introduced her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. Scheunemann
...77 Wis. 343, 46 N. W. 664;McKinnon v. Wolfenden, 78 Wis. 237, 47 N. W. 436;Laird v. Giffin, 84 Wis. 286, 54 N. W. 584;Mills v. Insurance Co., 92 Wis. 90, 65 N. W. 730;Cook v. McComb, 98 Wis. 526, 74 N. W. 353. That requires an affirmance of the judgment. The judgment of the superior court is ...
-
Davey v. City of Janesville
...trial is waived if after the objection is overruled the party goes to trial on the merits, under the rule laid down in Mills v. Insurance Co., 92 Wis. 90, 65 N. W. 730. This is what the defendant did in this case, and it cannot now be heard to urge the ruling of the trial court as error. Th......
-
Christianson v. Pioneer Furniture Co.
...possible relief by following the leanings they tend to influence. We are asked to reconsider this case in the light of Mills v. Insurance Co., 92 Wis. 90, 65 N. W. 730, the theory being that the holding there was overlooked here, and was overruled without direct reference to it. It was neit......
- Hurd v. Hurd