St. Patrick's Congregation v. Home Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1898 |
| Parties | ST. PATRICK'S CONGREGATION v. HOME INS. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Juneau county; O. B. Wyman, Judge.
Action by St. Patrick's Congregation against the Home Insurance Company. From certain orders of the circuit court refusing certain motions made by defendant, defendant appeals. Dismissed.
This action was commenced in justice court, and resulted in a judgment for the respondent for $70 and costs. The appellant appealed to the circuit court. It then made a motion, on notice, to “vacate, annul, and set aside” the judgment of the justice, on the ground that the justice had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. This motion was denied. The appellant then made a motion for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that there was a nonjoinder of parties defendant. This motion was also denied. The appellant then filed and served an undertaking and a notice of appeal, in which the orders appealed from are identified as follows: “One of said orders being an order denying defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on account of nonjoinder of parties defendant, and the other order being an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal made to the circuit court, on the ground that the justice of the peace who tried the case had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.”Rolla E. Noyes, for appellant.
Smith & Smith (J. M. Morrow, of counsel), for respondent.
BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).
Section 3069, Rev. St. 1898, names the orders which may be carried to this court by appeal. Subdivision 1 says: “An order affecting a substantial right made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” Neither of the orders appealed from had the effect to “determine the action” or “prevent a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” Reinhart v. Association, 93 Wis. 452, 67 N. W. 701. One of the orders described in the notice of appeal is mentioned as “being an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal made to the circuit court.” No such order appears in the record. Both appeals are dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Monroe Waterworks Co. v. City of Monroe
-
Buckley v. Park Bldg. Corp.
...of this motion. Direct Service Oil Co. v. Wisconsin Ice & Coal Co. (1935), 218 Wis. 426, 261 N.W. 215; St. Patrick's Congregation v. Home Ins. Co. (1898), 101 Wis. 155, 76 N.W. 1125. Perhaps the main thrust of the appellant's contention in regard to the propriety of this type of motion is h......
-
Seattle & Northern Ry. Co. v. Bowman
... ... upon the present order. St. Pat. Cong. v. Home Ins ... Co., 101 Wis. 155, 76 N.W. 1125; In re Ry. Co., ... ...
-
Szuszka v. City of Milwaukee
...589, 171 N.W. 76. Likewise, an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not appealable. St. Patrick's Congregation v. Home Ins. Co. (1898), 101 Wis. 155, 76 N.W. 1125. Comment, 1947 Wisconsin Law Review We have given consideration to the possibility of treating the motion as ......