State ex rel. Ferebee v. DiLlett

• Citation: 240 Wis. 465,3 N.W.2d 699
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FEREBEE v. DILLETT, County Judge.
• Decision Date: 05 May 1942
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

240 Wis. 465

3 N.W.2d 699

STATE ex rel. FEREBEE

v.DILLETT, County Judge.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 5, 1942.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Shawano County; J. R. McCarthy, Circuit Judge.

Mandamus proceedings on relation of James Ferebee, Jr., against C. B. Dillett, County Judge, County Court, Circuit Court Branch, Shawano County, to direct respondent to order a change of venue in a divorce suit pending between relator and Helen Ferebee. From an order dismissing the alternative writ, relator appeals.-[By Editorial Staff]

Affirmed.

Petition for writ of mandamus directing respondent to order a change of venue was filed in the circuit court for Shawano county by James Ferebee, Jr., and an alternative writ was issued returnable February 8, 1941.

January 9, 1941, Helen Ferebee had begun an action for divorce against petitioner in the county court of Shawano county. The defendant moved for change of venue. This motion was denied. It was ruled that plaintiff was a resident of the City of Shawano, Shawano county, and that the proceedings were properly brought in that county. Section 261.01(3), Stats. The defendant thereupon filed his petition for writ of mandamus and a petition to bring before the circuit court the record and transcript of the proceedings had before the county court in the divorce action. A writ of certiorari was issued returnable on February 8, 1941.

The county judge made timely return to the writ of mandamus and after hearing the writ was dismissed. Petitioner appeals from this order.

W. B. Ferebee, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Winter & Koehler, of Shawano, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

The various steps taken by appellant were to secure a change of venue to Milwaukee county where petitioner had his residence and where his wife had lived until she left him because, as alleged, of his cruelty and ill treatment.

The record brought up on appeal contains no return to the writ of certiorari although there is filed a purported transcript of the proceedings had before the county judge on the motion for change of venue. This transcript was apparently certified by the clerk of the circuit court as part of the papers on file in his office in the case. No bill of exceptions was settled.

Mandamus is a civil action and the proceedings therein are the same as those in other civil actions. Secs. 293.01and 293.02, Stats. State ex rel. Thompson v. Eggen, 1932, 206 Wis. 651, 659, 238 N.W. 404,240 N.W. 839. It therefore follows that in the absence of a bill of exceptions this court is limited to a determination of whether the order is sustained by the pleadings and the findings. Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, Inc., v. Sexauer, 1931, 204 Wis. 415, 417, 235 N.W. 785. No serious controversy of fact is raised, however, on this appeal; the issue being as to the conclusion to be drawn from the facts as found by the circuit court.

In the opinion the circuit court stated: “In this case however it would appear that the only home which the plaintiff in this divorce action now knows is the home of her parents; that she intends to make it her home at all times unless and until she goes to school or gets a job. I am of the opinion that the County of Shawano is a proper County for the commencement of the divorce action. * * *”

Appellant's contention is that because of having an intention to remain in the City of Shawano “until she goes to school or gets a job” she does not have “an intention to remain permanently or for an indefinite period in Shawano County” and consequently did not acquire there a residence within the meaning of the venue statute.

We are of opinion that the findings of the trial judge support the order and that such order must therefore be affirmed. It is well settled that for divorce purposes a wife may obtain a residence of her own separate from that of her...