Weathered Misses Shop, Inc. v. Coffey

• Decision Date: 05 May 1942
• Citation: 3 N.W.2d 693,240 Wis. 474
• Parties: WEATHERED MISSES SHOP, Inc. v. COFFEY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

240 Wis. 474

3 N.W.2d 693

WEATHERED MISSES SHOP, Inc.

v.COFFEY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 5, 1942.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Marinette County; William F. Haase, Judge.

Affirmed.

Action brought by Weathered Misses Shop, Inc., against the defendant, Daniel F. Coffey, to recover on a judgment of the municipal court of Chicago against defendant. Upon a trial of issues under the pleadings the county court made findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which judgment was entered for plaintiff's recovery of the amount owing on the foreign judgment. Defendant appealed.

Francis A. Murphy, of Marinette (North, Bie, Duquaine, Welsh & Trowbridge, of Green Bay, of counsel), for appellant.

O'Melia & Kaye, of Rhinelander, for respondent.

FRITZ, Justice.

The municipal court of Chicago is a court of limited jurisdiction; and, in the action in which it entered the judgment upon which plaintiff recovered judgment in the county court of Marinette county, there was personal service on defendant Coffey and a general appearance and participation on his behalf in all of the proceedings which culminated in the entry of the municipal court judgment. The only issue on this appeal is whether that court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action in which the judgment was entered for plaintiff's recovery of $3,265.95 from Coffey. As the court's jurisdiction was limited, and is not to be presumed in an action brought in Wisconsin to recover on its judgment, it was incumbent upon plaintiff, in order to recover judgment thereon in this state, to establish that the municipal court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, as well as of the defendant. Sec. 263.33, Stats.; Linschitz v. C. A. Neuberger Co., 230 Wis. 304, 310, 283 N.W. 811, 814. As we quoted with approval in that case: “the recitals contained in the minutes of proceedings must be sufficient to show that the case was one which the law permitted the court to take cognizance of, and that the parties were subjected to its jurisdiction by proper process.” 2 Cooley, Const.Lim., 8th Ed., p. 858.

It is undisputed that the municipal court had jurisdiction of the defendant by service of process upon him and his general appearance in the action. In relation to the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter, there was proof on the trial in the county court to the following effect. The statutes of Illinois provide (in so far as here material), in sec. 2 of “An act in relation to a municipal court in the city of Chicago”:

“That said municipal court shall have jurisdiction in the following cases:

“First. Cases to be designated and hereinafter referred to as cases of the first class, which shall include (a) all actions on contracts, express or implied, whether implied in law or implied in fact, when the amount claimed by the plaintiff, exclusive of costs, exceeds one thousand dollars ($1000); * * *.” Ch. 37, sec. 357 (sec. 2), Smith-Hurd Ill.Rev.Stats.1935.

In a certified transcript of the proceedings of the municipal court in the case entitled, Weathered Misses Shop, Inc., v. Daniel F. Coffey, the following appears: A summons was served on the defendant Coffey in Chicago on February 5, 1936, and a general appearance was entered for him by his attorney, and a jury trial demanded. Issues were joined under pleadings consisting of plaintiff's amended verified “statement of claim”, a “defence” filed by defendant, and a “reply” by plaintiff. The allegations in the “statement of claim” (so far as here material) are to the effect that during May and June 1935 the defendant and Mrs. Daniel F. Coffey were married and living together at Marinette, Wisconsin; that during said months plaintiff, at the special instance and request of Mrs. Daniel F. Coffey made at Chicago, bargained, sold, altered and delivered clothing and wearing apparel amounting in value to the prices then and there agreed upon between them and as shown on an attached statement of account; that said clothing and wearing apparel were proper expenses of the family of the defendant and said Mrs. Coffey for its use and were used by the family, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided the defendant became and is liable to plaintiff for said clothing and wearing apparel; and, furthermore, that plaintiff's claim is also upon an account stated for the same as shown by an attached statement of account, which reads, in part, as follows: “Chicago, Ill., June 30, 1935, Sold to Mr. Daniel F. Coffey, Marinette, Wisconsin * * * Amount $3,395.45. Statement from Weathered Misses Shop, Inc. * * *” Then, under dates of May 15, 16, 17, 22, 28, 29, 31 and June 4, there are listed thirty-five items of wearing apparel and alteration charges, totaled at $3,395.45; and there is the notation “All Bills Due and Payable First of Month Following Purchase.”

Defendant, in his “defence”, denies that the items of merchandise listed in plaintiff's statement of claim were proper expenses of his family or purchased for its use or used in his family; and he alleges that prior to May 15, 1935, and the sale of the merchandise he gave notice to plaintiff that his wife was incompetent and merchandise of the kind listed should not be sold to her, and he would not authorize the sale of such merchandise and would not pay for the same if sold, and therefore, he denies being indebted to plaintiff for $3,395.45 or any other sum; and that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter in the cause, and the family expense statute of Illinois is not applicable to the facts and circumstances set forth in plaintiff's statement of claim, that the laws of Wisconsin, the matrimonial domicile of the parties, govern the liability of the defendant herein and not the law of Illinois, and that in Wisconsin there is no family expense statute such as exists in Illinois. In its “reply” plaintiff denies that defendant gave any notice to plaintiff that his said wife was incompetent, that merchandise of any kind should not be sold to her, that he would not authorize the sale of such merchandise, that plaintiff was not to sell such merchandise to her, or that he would not pay for same if sold; and plaintiff alleges that defendant's defense is bad in point of law and discloses no answer to the statement of claim in that the liability of defendant under the statutes of Illinois is not dependent upon any affirmative act, notice or authority expressly given by defendant, but is imposed by virtue of the marriage or family relationship existing between the parties; and that the alleged defense that the court is without jurisdiction is bad in point of law and discloses no answer in that contract of sale between plaintiff and defendant's wife was entered into in Illinois and the statutes became a part of said contract of sale. Upon the trial of the issues under those...