Richter v. Standard Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1937 |
| Parties | RICHTER v. STANDARD MFG. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from (1) an interlocutory judgment, (2) a final judgment, and (3) an order of the Circuit Court for Winnebago County; Fred Beglinger, Judge.
The appeal from the interlocutory judgment is dismissed. The final judgment and order are affirmed.
In this action, commenced September 27, 1932, the plaintiff, Leo N. Richter, as trustee of Graef Manufacturing Company, a bankrupt, hereafter called the bankrupt, seeks (1) to recover from the defendant, Standard Manufacturing Company, the amount of an asserted voidable preference, (2) to set aside a sales agreement entered into on February 3, 1931, by the bankrupt with the defendant, and also a bill of sale dated February 26, 1931, executed by the bankrupt to the defendant, and (3) to recover the possession of certain personal property and assets of the bankrupt so transferred and conveyed, or the reasonable value thereof. Trial was had to the court. At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of the asserted preference, found to be $258.02. The court further determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the personal property described in the bill of sale and found to be $5,121.66. The plaintiff also sought in the action to recover the value of other personal property which he asserted had been removed and converted by the defendant to its own use. At the time the court rendered its decision it was of the opinion that the evidence tended to show that some portion of the goods and stock in trade, removed by the defendant from the premises of the bankrupt, was apparently of some value, but it was unable to determine from the evidence and the briefs of counsel, with any degree of certainty, what the value of that property was, and therefore could not make a finding in respect thereto. The court in its decision stated: “It would seem that in this situation the proper proceeding would be to order an interlocutory judgment to be entered for the amount of the property received by the Standard Manufacturing Company and for which it had agreed to pay under the terms of the bill of sale and preliminary contract, and to order a reference for determining the amount and value of the goods which it had received in addition thereto but has never paid or accounted for, and upon the coming in of the referee's report and the completion of action thereon, order final judgment for the total amount then recoverable by the plaintiff as representative of the creditors of the Graef Manufacturing Company.”
The court further stated:
Formal findings of fact and conclusions of law were thereafter signed by the court in which, among other things, it was “ordered and directed that an interlocutory judgment, and decree be made and entered herein, disposing of all issues and matters covered by the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of the court herein, and upon the coming in of the report of the referee and the approval and confirmation thereof by the court, a final judgment shall be made, filed and entered herein, covering the matters and issues so referred, in accordance with the report of said referee so approved and confirmed, upon due motion made therefor, together with plaintiff's costs and disbursements of this action as and when taxed and allowed herein, as provided by law.”
The court thereupon entered an interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amounts found to be recoverable together with interest amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $6,066.33. The interlocutory judgment was entered October 6, 1934.
The undetermined issues were referred to John Harrington, Esq., to hear, try, and determine. The court further ordered “that upon the coming in of said report and the confirmation thereof by this court, a final judgment will be rendered by the court and filed and entered in this action, upon due motion made therefor, for the amount so found due and owing the plaintiff, as such trustee, from defendant, the Standard Manufacturing Company, in accordance with, and pursuant to, said report, so confirmed, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the 7th day of July, 1932, together with plaintiff's costs and disbursements in this action, as and when taxed and allowed herein, according to law, and that all other questions not herein adjudicated, if any, shall be reserved until the coming in of said report.” The referee found that the value of the goods hauled away from the plant of the bankrupt and appropriated and converted by the defendant to its own use were reasonably worth the sum of $200. The report of the referee was confirmed by the court, and final judgment was thereafter entered for the amount found, together with interest thereon and the costs and disbursements of the action, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $486.17. The final judgment was entered on December 18, 1935. Thereafter, on December 27, 1935, the defendant moved to correct the final judgment so entered by striking out the amount of $486.17 damages and costs and inserting therein the sum of $6,552.52, the total amount of the interlocutory judgment and the total amount of the so-called final judgment, in accordance with the decision of the court. On April 14, 1936, the court denied that motion because it was of the opinion that since more than a year had elapsed since the entry of the interlocutory judgment it had no authority to change or modify it.
From...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pollard
...has long disfavored extending time limits by vacating one judgment and entering a new one. For example, in Richter v. Standard Mfg. Co., 224 Wis. 121, 128, 271 N.W. 14 (1937), the court rejected a motion to modify an interlocutory judgment so that it would be embodied in a final judgment on......
-
Baker v. Onsrud
...No jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to pass upon the merits, if there is in fact no right of appeal. Richter v. Standard Mfg. Co., 224 Wis. 121, 271 N.W. 14, 914. Since no appealable order is before us, we can only dismiss the appeal. The appeal is ...
-
Roeder v. Maurer (In re Maurer's Estate)
...which the appeal is taken is not appealable. McKey v. Egeland, 222 Wis. 490, 269 N.W. 245;Richter v. Standard Mfg. Co., 224 Wis; 121, 271 N.W. 14, 914; Delpo Corporation v. Northern States Power Co., 215 Wis. 329, 254 N.W. 553;First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee v. Carpenter, 218 Wis......
-
Thomas/Van Dyken Joint Venture v. Van Dyken
...question of appealability has not been raised by the parties is immaterial; such failure cannot confer jurisdiction. Richter v. Standard Mfg. Co., 224 Wis. 121, 271 N.W. 14, 271 N.W. 914 Unless an appeal from a circuit court's determination is authorized by statute, that determination is no......