Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Wordenallen Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1932 |
| Parties | MUSCODA BRIDGE CO. v. WORDENALLEN CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Grant County; R. S. Cowie, Circuit Judge.
On motion for rehearing.
Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 239 N. W. 649.Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael and Suel O. Arnold, all of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Kopp & Brunckhorst, all of Platteville, for respondent.
The defendants move for a rehearing and point out that the opinion contains a misstatement of fact. It is said in the opinion: “With respect to the item relating to rental value of certain machinery allocated to the job then a Kaukauna, Wis., and Shippensville, Pa., this situation presented facts on which the finding of the referee, confirmed by the trial court, is conclusive.”
The statement is erroneous. The referee found that machinery of the value of $5,800 located at the time the temporary injunction was issued in Pennsylvania and at Kaukauna, Wis., was allocated to the job, would have been reasonably required for use by the defendants and would have been used by them upon the job but for the restraint imposed by the temporary injunction. The trial court held that the evidence did not sustain a finding that the machinery in question was ever specifically allocated to the Muscoda Bridge job or held in idleness at the place stated by reason of the temporary injunction. It was this determination of the trial court which was approved by this court.
[1] We have re-examined the references contained in the original briefs. There was no dispute as to the facts. The conclusion of the trial court that the machinery in question at the time the temporary injunction was issued bore no such relation to the operations as entitled the defendant to recover for its use for the period between November 2, 1927, and December 21, 1927, is correct. It is not a finding of fact but a conclusion upon the facts that the defendant is not entitled to recover the rental value of the machinery.
[2] On the motion it is further urged that we should, in addition to holding that the opposite party is entitled to recover the reasonable value of attorneys' services rendered in an unsuccessful effort to dissolve the injunction, also hold that the defendants in this case are entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services of attorneys rendered in the trial of the case. Counsel allege that they so understand the opinion. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Whitewater
...they are entitled to be compensated for such damages as they may have suffered by reason of its issuance. Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co., 1932, 207 Wis. 22, 239 N.W. 649,240 N.W. 802. The difficulty with the contention is that until such time as there has been a final determination ......
-
State ex rel. Shatzer v. Freeport Coal Co.
...Standard Supply Co. v. Carter & Harris, 81 S.C. 181, 62 S.E. 150, 151, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 155. In the case of Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden Allen Co., 207 Wis. 22, 239 N.W. 649, 653, 240 N.W. 802, a temporary injunction restrained the defendant from erecting any structure in the bed of the Wisc......
-
Burlington Area School Dist. v. Wausau Ins. Companies
...law in Wisconsin is that recovery of damages from a surety does not require a showing of maliciousness. See Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co., 207 Wis. 22, 29, 239 N.W. 649, 652, reh'g denied, 207 Wis. 36, 240 N.W. 802 (1932). Rather, damages are recoverable when it is determined that ......
-
Byrnes v. Metz
...On the state of the present record, no abuse of discretion has been shown. Judgment affirmed. 1 (1846), 1 Pin. 608, 617.2 (1932), 207 Wis. 22, 239 N.W. 649, 240 N.W. 802.3 Roberts v. White (1878), 73 N.Y. 375, 381; Nether Providence Township School District v. Mercur (1911), 46 Pa.Super. 47......