Town of Saukville v. Town of Grafton

• Decision Date: 01 February 1887
• Citation: 68 Wis. 192,31 N.W. 719
• Parties: TOWN OF SAUKVILLE v. TOWN OF GRAFTON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

68 Wis. 192

31 N.W. 719

TOWN OF SAUKVILLE

v.TOWN OF GRAFTON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

February 1, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Ozaukee county.

Hedding & Jackson, for respondent.

E. S. Turner, for appellant.

TAYLOR, J.

This was an action to compel the town of Grafton to pay the town of Saukville the sum of $45, which said town of Saukville had expended in the support and maintenance of one Christian Ebert, a pauper, who, the town of Saukville charges, had a legal settlement in said town of Grafton, and that such town was consequently liable to the town of Saukville for his support. There is no question made as to the regularity of the proceedings on the part of the town of Saukville to charge the town of Grafton with the support furnished to the said Christian Ebert if he had a legal settlement in said town. And both parties admit that said Ebert is now and was a pauper at the time such support was furnished, and that he required the support given to him by the town of Saukville. The defense of the town of Grafton is that said Ebert had no legal settlement in said town of Grafton when such support was furnished to him, and that his legal settlement was in the town of Saukville.

The case was tried in the circuit court without a jury. After hearing the evidence, the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon such findings judgment was entered in favor of the respondent, and against the defendant, the town of Grafton. The record does not show that any exceptions were taken by the appellant either to the findings of fact or conclusions of law. In that state of the record the only question for this court to consider is whether the judgment is supported by the findings. The conclusions of law are that the said Ebert had, prior to 1872, a legal settlement, and has continued to have such settlement up to the commencement of this action, in the said town of Grafton, and from the first of January, 1872, up to the commencement of this action, said Ebert has continuously been a pauper; these two facts being the only ones contested on the trial. All others being conceded, the town of Saukville was entitled to the judgment, as ordered by the court.

It is a well-settled rule of this court that, when the findings of fact are not excepted to, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain such findings cannot be inquired into on appeal from the judgment. See the following cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent: Cramer v. Hanaford, 53 Wis. 85, 10 N. W. Rep. 15;Wisconsin R. I. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis. 61;Thomas v. Mitchell, 27 Wis. 414;Mead v. Supervisors of Chippewa Co., 41 Wis. 205. The learned counsel for the appellant states in his brief that the court announced his findings orally, and that he had no knowledge that any written findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed until the bill of exceptions was made up, and that no written notice of the judgment entered was served on him as required by section 2870. This is, however, no excuse for not taking written exceptions to the findings when they were produced and inserted in the bill of exceptions. As no notice of judgment had been served, the appellant would have been in time to file his written exceptions when the findings were produced and required to be inserted in the bill of exceptions. The exceptions to the findings must not only be in writing, but they must be inserted in the bill of exceptions. Cramer v. Hanaford, supra. See section 2875, Rev. St.

The findings of fact clearly sustain the judgment...