Sutton v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 91 N.W. 121,114 Wis. 647 |
| Parties | SUTTON v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1902 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county; O. B. Wyman, Judge.
Action by J. J. Sutton against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a motion to enlarge the time for bringing the action to trial, and from an order dismissing the cause, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A former judgment in this case was reversed upon appeal to this court, and a new trial ordered, on January 11, 1898. 73 N. W. 993. The costs were paid and the record remitted within 60 days thereafter. Shortly prior to the October, 1898, term of the circuit court for Monroe county, an interview took place between the plaintiff, acting as his own attorney, and the assistant solicitor for the defendant, the plaintiff's version of which might have justified an understanding that there was an agreement that the case should not be noticed or tried at that term. This version is contradicted and another given by Mr. Luse, the defendant's attorney, supported by memoranda, made at the time, entirely in conflict with this view. The case was not noticed at that term. About January 21, 1899, another interview took place, as to the substance of which the parties are also in direct conflict; the plaintiff claiming to have notified defendant's attorney of his purpose to notice and try the case at the then ensuing March term, and that the defendant's attorney substantially assented thereto. Defendant's attorney denies any such conversation, and asserts that all that took place was an attempt or offer to serve upon him a notice of trial, which he refused to accept, stating as a ground thereof certain conduct of the plaintiff which led him to refuse any admission or waivers. On March 21, 1899,--more than a year after the judgment of reversal in the supreme court,--the defendant moved, upon proper notice, to dismiss the case for the reason that it had not been brought to trial within the year required by section 3072, Rev. St. 1898. Plaintiff at the same time moved for an order extending and enlarging the time within which the action was required by law to be brought to trial. After hearing both motions the court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion, and ordering that the action and complaint be dismissed, and that judgment of dismissal be entered. Such judgment was entered, with costs, in favor of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moshannon Nat. Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co.
... ... 465; ... Sayles v. Wilson, 31 Wyo. 55, 63-68; King v ... Giblin, 36 Wyo. 448, 458; Grieve v. Huber, 38 ... Wyo. 223, 232; Sutton v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry ... Co., 114 Wis. 647, 650. The only question before the ... court is the propriety of the order of dismissal. Roy v ... ...
-
Knoller v. Dobrath (In re Dancy Drainage Dist.)
...order. Nevil v. Clifford, 51 Wis. 483, 8 N. W. 296;Maynard v. Town of Greenfield, 103 Wis. 670, 79 N. W. 407;Sutton v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 114 Wis. 647, 91 N. W. 121;Land & Securities Co. v. City of South Milwaukee (Wis.) 106 N. W. 850. Other cases which seem to me to refute the ap......
-
State ex rel. Forrestal v. Eschweiler
...v. Pioneer Furniture Co., 101 Wis. 343, 77 N. W. 174, 917;State &c. v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 90, 80 N. W. 1104;Sutton v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 114 Wis. 647, 91 N. W. 121;Eisentraut v. Cornelius, 147 Wis. 282, 133 N. W. 34. The terms of the law are plain. The first clause, in the event of......
-
Eisentraut v. Cornelius
...obey and enforce them. State v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 90, 80 N. W. 1104;Miami Bank v. Goldberg, 126 Wis. 432, 105 N. W. 816;Sutton v. Railway Co., 114 Wis. 647, 91 N. W. 121. [2] The appellant suggests that the cause could not be noticed for trial before the additional parties were brought in, ......