Woodward v. Hanchett

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR
Citation52 Wis. 482,9 N.W. 468
Decision Date04 June 1881
PartiesWOODWARD v. HANCHETT AND OTHERS. STOWE v. HANCHETT AND OTHERS.

52 Wis. 482
9 N.W. 468

WOODWARD
v.
HANCHETT AND OTHERS.

STOWE
v.
HANCHETT AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed June 4, 1881.


Appeals from circuit court, Monroe county.

[9 N.W. 468]

F. J. Lamb, for appellants.

Marrow & Masters, for respondents.


TAYLOR, J.

These actions were commenced in the circuit court of Dane county by the personal service of a summons upon the defendants in said county. The defendants in fact resided in Monroe county. Within 20 days after the service of the complaint in each case, the defendants, by their attorney, demanded in writing that the place of trial in said actions be changed to Monroe county, that being the county in which the defendants resided; and thereupon, and within five days after such demand, the plaintiffs' attorney served a written consent in each of said cases upon the defendants' attorney, that the place of trial in said actions be changed to Monroe county. At the time such written consent was given and served, no papers in either of said actions had been filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Dane county. Thereafter, and on the eleventh day of February, 1880, the defendants in each of said actions served their answers to the complaint of the plaintiff therein, which answers were entitled in the circuit court of Monroe county, and the admission of service of such answers was duly acknowledged in writing upon the back of the originals by the attorney for the plaintiffs; and in the case in which Stowe is plaintiff, his attorney thereafter, and on the twenty-third day of February, 1880, served a reply to the answer of the defendants, also entitled in the circuit court of Monroe county.

The defendants, by their attorney, duly noticed said actions for trial at the April term, 1880, of the circuit court of Monroe county, filed the proper notes of issue with the clerk of said court, and caused the same to be placed upon the calendar for trial at said term. The plaintiffs, by their attorney, moved the court to strike the cases from the calendar. The motion was denied, and from the respective orders of the court denying said motions the plaintiffs appeal to this court. The learned counsel for the appellants insists that the Monroe county circuit court had no jurisdiction of said actions, because no order had ever been made by the circuit court of Dane county, in which said actions were commenced, changing the place of trial in said actions and directing the transmission of the papers therein to the clerk of the circuit court of Monroe county. The contention of the learned counsel is that no change in the place of trial in an action can be effected under the provisions of the Revised Statutes except by an order of the circuit court, or presiding judge thereof, of the county in which the actions were commenced, as prescribed in section 2622, Rev. St. 1878. And it appearing that no such order had ever been made in either of said actions, and that no papers had been transmitted from the circuit court of Dane county by the clerk thereof to the circuit court of Monroe county, as prescribed by section 2627 of said statutes, said actions

[9 N.W. 469]

still remained in the circuit court of Dane county, notwithstanding the written consent of the plaintiffs' attorney to such change of the place of trial. The learned counsel for the respondents...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...cases were cited upon the part of the respondent: Section 2620, St. 1898; West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N. W. 819;Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis......
  • Stahl v. Broeckert
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 9, 1918
    ...and it became the duty of the plaintiff to procure a transmittal of the papers to the clerk of that court. Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Tucker v. Grover, 53 Wis. 53, 9 N. W. 820;Anderson v. Arpin Hardwood Lumber Co., 131 Wis. 34, 110 N. W. 788. [3] Objection is made to the......
  • Anderson v. Arpin Hardwood Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 19, 1907
    ...and order is only contingently necessary. The demand and the consent, as it has been said, work a change ipso facto. Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468. A motion is only necessary in case consent is not given in the manner the statute provides and is only proper when the statuto......
  • Snyder v. Pike, 1604
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 20, 1905
    ...that the same be transferred to the proper county, or the court in which it is brought shall have jurisdiction." (Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 49 N.W. 468; Fletcher v. Stowell, 28 P. 326; Houch v. Lasher, 17 How. Pr. 520; West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N.W. 819; Blackford v. Lehigh R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...cases were cited upon the part of the respondent: Section 2620, St. 1898; West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N. W. 819;Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis......
  • Stahl v. Broeckert
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 9, 1918
    ...and it became the duty of the plaintiff to procure a transmittal of the papers to the clerk of that court. Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Tucker v. Grover, 53 Wis. 53, 9 N. W. 820;Anderson v. Arpin Hardwood Lumber Co., 131 Wis. 34, 110 N. W. 788. [3] Objection is made to the......
  • Anderson v. Arpin Hardwood Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 19, 1907
    ...and order is only contingently necessary. The demand and the consent, as it has been said, work a change ipso facto. Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468. A motion is only necessary in case consent is not given in the manner the statute provides and is only proper when the statuto......
  • Snyder v. Pike, 1604
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 20, 1905
    ...that the same be transferred to the proper county, or the court in which it is brought shall have jurisdiction." (Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 49 N.W. 468; Fletcher v. Stowell, 28 P. 326; Houch v. Lasher, 17 How. Pr. 520; West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N.W. 819; Blackford v. Lehigh R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT