Williams v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 February 1899
• Citation: 102 Wis. 246,78 N.W. 419
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

102 Wis. 246

78 N.W. 419

WILLIAMS

v.WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 21, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; E. W. Helms, Judge.

Action by J. C. Williams against Ella V. Williams to recover back money advanced. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The issues in this action, as shown by the pleadings, may be stated as follows: That on October 18, 1894, acting for the defendant, plaintiff purchased from one John Thompson certain notes and a chattel mortgage of the Ashland News Company and others, and that he paid therefor, for the defendant, the sum of $1,517.50; that said mortgage was duly assigned to defendant, and that defendant had not paid the plaintiff therefor. The answer admits that defendant became the owner of said mortgage, but alleges that the consideration therefor was paid by one D. A. Williams, defendant's husband, and that, in an action instituted by her to recover possession of the mortgaged property, the plaintiff paid to her the sum of $1,088.34, the balance due thereon. The chief question litigated on the trial was whether the money paid by the plaintiff for the assignment of this mortgage was the money of plaintiff, or money of his brother, D. A. Williams, defendant's husband. The plaintiff admitted that he received the money paid by him for the mortgage, from his brother, but claimed that it was paid to him on a debt his brother owed him, of some 17 years' standing. Considerable testimony was given as to plaintiff's relations with his brother, and as to his financial standing, since the incurring of such alleged indebtedness. The jury found a verdict for defendant, and from the judgment for costs against him the plaintiff appeals.Cate, Sanborn, Lamoreux & Park, for appellant.

Lamoreux, Shea & Wright, for respondent.

BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).

The chief ground for complaint against the judgment in this action is that the verdict was against the evidence, and that the real issue in the case was obscured by the introduction of immaterial and irrelevant testimony. Unless it can be said that plaintiff was prejudiced by the introduction of improper testimony, he has no reasonable ground for complaint. There is ample evidence in the case to support the jury's conclusion. The point is made that this question is not before us, as not being raised by the record. The bill of exceptions shows that “plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial,” which motion was denied and excepted to. No ground for the motion is stated. Section 2878, Rev. St. 1898, would seem to contemplate that the grounds of the motion must be stated, and that the record should show that it was made at the same term at which the trial is had. Without determining whether an omission to state the grounds upon which a motion for new trial is based leaves the party without remedy, or whether a failure of the record to show that the motion was made at the same term at which the trial is had would be fatal, as against the motion, we suggest that proper practice demands that both those facts should appear. In view of what was said by this court in Nisbet v. Gill, ...