Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Manuf'g Co.
| Citation | 69 Wis. 499,34 N.W. 225 |
| Parties | SLOTEMAN v. THOMAS & WENTWORTH MANUF'G CO. |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1887 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Milwaukee county court.
The action was brought to recover for the use of a delivery wagon alleged to belong to the plaintiff, and for certain injuries thereto. The answer admits the use of the wagon, and a small part of the injury charged, but alleges that the wagon is the property of one O. T. Sloteman, and contains a counter-claim for an account against the latter. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, awarding her $21 for the use of the wagon, and $25 for damages thereto. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment entered for the plaintiff pursuant to the verdict. The defendant appeals from the judgment.John M. Connolly, for respondent.
Dey & Friend, for appellant.
1. The question of the ownership of the wagon was litigated on the trial, and the testimony bearing upon it was somewhat conflicting; yet it tended to show that the wagon belonged to the plaintiff. The jury have found that it belonged to her, and we cannot disturb that finding.
2. It is claimed that the damages allowed for injuries to the wagon were excessive. We are inclined to think that the allowance therefor is a little too large, but we have not examined this question carefully, because we are of the opinion that it cannot properly be raised on this appeal. Section 2878, Rev. St., authorizes a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the trial judge, “upon exceptions, or because the verdict is contrary to law, or contrary to evidence, or for excessive or inadequate damages.” The motion in this case (which was upon the minutes) specified, as grounds therefor, that the verdict was contrary to evidence and contrary to law, but did not claim that the damages were excessive. We think that ground for a new trial should have been specifically assigned in the motion, and that it is not sufficient merely to allege that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The latter allegation goes to the whole verdict, while the objection that the damages were excessive only goes to a portion thereof.
3. The wagon in question had formerly belonged to Otto Sloteman, the husband of the plaintiff, and the defendant had no notice, before using it, that he had sold it to his wife. It is now claimed that for this reason the defendant should be allowed to set off against the plaintiff's claim its demand against her husband....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co.
...decisions in this state on the question under discussion are uniform and decisive. Nisbet v. Gill, 38 Wis. 657;Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Mfg. Co., 69 Wis. 499, 34 N. W. 225; Collins v. City of Janesville, supra; Williams v. Williams, 102 Wis. 246, 78 N. W. 419. The matter was very full......
-
Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
...motion was based, at least as specifically as they are mentioned in the statute. Nisbet v. Gill, 38 Wis. 657;Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Mfg. Co., 69 Wis. 499, 34 N. W. 225;Collins v. City of Janesville, 99 Wis. 464, 466, 75 N. W. 88;Williams v. Williams, 102 Wis. 246, 248, 78 N. W. 419;......
-
Monaghan v. Nw. Fuel Co.
...challenged on appeal for excessiveness in the absence of a motion in the trial court on that precise ground. Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Mfg. Co., 69 Wis. 499, 34 N. W. 225;Collins v. Janesville, 99 Wis. 464, 75 N. W. 88;Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co., 134 Wis. 644, 114 N. W. 1114;Duff......
-
Grabowski v. State
...47 Wis. 500–503, 3 N. W. 16. See, also, Bailey v. Town of Spring Lake, 61 Wis. 227, 231, 232, 20 N. W. 920;Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Mfg. Co., 69 Wis. 499, 34 N. W. 225;Williams v. Williams, 102 Wis. 248, 78 N. W. 419. It follows from these authorities that, in order for this court to ......