Noall v. Halonen

• Decision Date: 21 March 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 729,84 Wis. 402
• Parties: NOALL v. HALONEN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

84 Wis. 402

54 N.W. 729

NOALL

v.HALONEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 21, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Florence county; John Goodland, Judge.

Action by William C. Noall against Leo Halonen and others. There was judgment for plaintiff in a justice's court, from which defendant Halonen appeals to the circuit court, and, the circuit court dismissing his appeal, he appeals therefrom. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CASSODAY, J.:

It appears from the record that this action was commenced in justice's court, November 24, 1891, by the personal service of the summons upon the defendants, Carlson, Halonen, and Anderson. That on the return day,--December 3, 1891,--no one appearing for any of the defendants, the plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging, in effect, that between September 16, 1891, and November 24, 1891, inclusive, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants, on account, at their request, goods, wares, and merchandise at the agreed price of $150.57, and which were reasonably worth that sum. That thereupon judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for said sum, together with $11.45 costs, making a total of $162.02. That December 19, 1891, the appellant delivered and filed with the justice a notice of appeal, which, omitting the title, was as follows, to wit: “To Robert Mitchell, Esq., Justice of the Peace: Take notice that the belownamed defendant hereby appeals to the circuit court for said county of Florence from the judgment rendered in this action before Robert Mitchell, Esq., the said justice of the peace, on the 3d day of December, A. D. 1891, in favor of the above-named William Noel and against the above-named Leo Halonen et al. for one hundred and sixty-two 02-100 dollars damages and five 50-100 costs. Dated December 19th, A. D. 1891. Leo Halonen, Defendant. By Julius J. Patek, His Agent.” That at the same time the appellant filed with said justice the usual affidavit for such appeal. That the justice thereupon returned said cause to the circuit court, and May 18, 1892, said cause, being on the calendar, was by order of the court stricken therefrom, for the reason that no issue had been joined therein, and it was ordered that the defendant have leave to file and serve an answer to the complaint in said cause. That such answer was filed and served June 1, 1892. That said cause was thereupon noticed for trial at the September term of said court for 1892. That August 31, 1892, the plaintiff obtained an order from the county judge, requiring the appellant to give security for costs on said appeal, and served a copy thereof on the appellant's attorney. That September 20, 1892, the circuit court ordered that said appeal be, and the same was, thereby dismissed, with costs, and it was further ordered that all the papers in the case be transmitted to said justice, from which order or judgment of dismissal the said Halonen brings this appeal.Julius Patek and Eastman & Mountain, for appellant.

...