State ex rel. Finnegan v. Lincoln Dairy Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1936 |
| Citation | 221 Wis. 15,265 N.W. 202 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. FINNEGAN, ATTY. GEN., ET AL., v. LINCOLN DAIRY CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County; A. G. Zimmerman, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of James E. Finnegan, Attorney General, and others against the Lincoln Dairy Company, a Wisconsin corporation. From an adverse order, plaintiffs appeal.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Appeal dismissed.
The facts are sufficiently stated in (Wis.) 265 N.W. 197, decided herewith February 4, 1936. The plaintiff noticed an adverse examination of the defendant under the provisions of section 326.12. Upon affidavits, the defendant brought on an order to show cause why the plaintiffs' examination of the defendant and its officers should not be limited to a time subsequent to the enactment of chapter 58 of the Session Laws of 1935, which created the section under which these proceedings are had. The trial court entered an order limiting the examination of the defendant and its officers accordingly, from which the plaintiffs appeal.
FRITZ, J., dissenting.Charles C. Hiken, Max H. Karl, and Hersh & Morse, all of Milwaukee, for appellants.
James E. Finnegan, Atty. Gen., R. M. Orchard, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Fred M. Wylie, Sp. Counsel, and William A. Zabel, Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for respondent.
When this case was called in this court, counsel for the defendant moved that the appeal be dismissed for the reason that the order appealed from was not an appealable order. The contention of the plaintiffs is that, the action being one to revoke a corporate charter and to enforce a milk dealer license and milk control law, an order limiting the examination of the defendant to the period since the enactment of chapter 58 of the Laws of 1935 is erroneous. The fact that the order is erroneous does not make it appealable. While it is true that the action is one in part to revoke a corporate charter, the action of the court is wholly dependent upon whether the court finds there has been a violation of the provisions of chapter 58. Section 274.33 provides:
“The following orders when made by the court may be carried by appeal to the supreme court:
(1) * * * (2) * * * (3) When an order grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy etc.”
It is considered that this case is ruled by Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Flagge, 170 Wis. 492, 175 N.W. 777. A decision on a motion to limit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maine Milk Commission v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc.
... ... the provisions of the due process clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions, and of the interstate commerce ... 'We may as well say at once that the dairy industry is not, in the accepted sense of the phrase, a ... 257, 186 A. 336 (1936); State ex rel. Finnegan et al. v. Lincoln Dairy Co., 221 Wis. 15, 265 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Opelt v. Crisp
...examination constitutes." Hyslop, supra, at 434, 291 N.W. at 339. This distinction was also set forth in State ex rel. Finnegan v. Lincoln Dairy Co., 221 Wis. 15, 265 N.W. 202 (1936), where this court stated that an order limiting the scope of a provisional remedy "does not suppress anythin......
-
State ex rel. Finnegan v. Lincoln Dairy Co.
...in accordance with section 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended (28 U.S.C.A. § 380). To this complaint the defendant demurred. See, also, 265 N.W. 202.Charles C. Hiken, Max H. Karl, and Hersh & Morse, all of Milwaukee, for appellant.James E. Finnegan, Atty. Gen., R. M. Orchard, Asst. Atty. ......
-
Whanger v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 7
...is only a procedural direction and therefore not appealable. In support of their position they cite State ex rel. Finnegan v. Lincoln Dairy Co. (1936), 221 Wis. 15, 17, 265 N.W. 202, 203, which held: '. . . While the whole proceeding for the examination of an adverse party is properly held ......