Yaeger v. Fenske

Yaeger and Wife, Respondents, v. Fenske, Appellant

Yaeger v. Fenske, 113 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. 1962)

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 6, 1962
Judges: Hallows, Gordon
Citations: 113 N.W.2d 41115 Wis. 2d 572

Opinion — Hallows

Hallows, J.

The defendant is precluded from appealing this order by sec. 274.33 (3), Stats., which provides, in part, as follows:

*573 “. . . no order of the circuit court shall be considered appealable which simply reverses or affirms an order of the civil court of Milwaukee county, unless the order of the civil court grants, refuses, continues, modifies, or dissolves a provisional remedy or injunction.”

In Meyers v. Sohrweide (1949), 254 Wis. 389 , 36 N. W. (2d) 584 , we held that an order affirming an order of the civil court overruling a demurrer to a complaint was not appealable under the provision of this statute. A contrary result was reached in Danielson v. Garage Equipment Mfg. Co.

(1913), 151 Wis. 492 , 139 N. W. 443 . However, at that time sec. 3069 (now sec. 274.33), Stats., did not contain such a provision. In 1915, two years after Danielson was decided, sec. 3069 was amended to include the above provision. See ch. 219, Laws of 1915, sec. 3069 (3), Stats. The order of the civil court did not involve a provisional remedy or an injunction.

It is the duty of this court, notwithstanding no issue has been raised by counsel, to take notice of a point which goes to the jurisdiction of this court on appeal and to dismiss the appeal on its own motion, if the order of the trial court is not an appealable order.

Estate of Baumgarten (1961), 12 Wis. (2d) 212, 107 N. W. (2d) 169 ;

Kimmel v. Kimmel (1960), 9 Wis. (2d) 484, 101 N. W. (2d) 666 ;

Mitler v. Associated Contractors (1958), 3 Wis. (2d) 331, 88 N. W. (2d) 672 . We are not concerned here with an irregularity which may be waived. Under the statute we lack the necessary jurisdiction to decide this appeal.

By the Court.

— The appeal is dismissed.

GORDON, J., took no part.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dobbs v. Joint School District No. 3285 N.W.2d 604 (Wis. 1979)
Teamsters Union Local 695 v. County of Waukesha203 N.W.2d 707 (Wis. 1973)
Harris v. Reivitz417 N.W.2d 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. F. R. W.212 N.W.2d 130 (Wis. 1973)
State v. Omernik194 N.W.2d 617 (Wis. 1972)
McCarville v. Hinkins176 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. 1970)

Most recent

Orlando Residence Ltd. v. Nelson2013 WI App 81, 834 N.W.2d 416
Harris v. Reivitz417 N.W.2d 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987)
Dobbs v. Joint School District No. 3285 N.W.2d 604 (Wis. 1979)
Achtor v. Pewaukee Lake Sanitary District277 N.W.2d 778 (Wis. 1979)
In re Interest of Frw (A Minor)212 N.W.2d 130 (Wis. 1973)
State v. F. R. W.212 N.W.2d 130 (Wis. 1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Danielson v. Garage Equip. Mfg. Co., 139 N.W. 443 (Wis. 1913)	7
	Meyers v. Sohrweide, 36 N.W.2d 584 (Wis. 1949)	1
	Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Reedsburg Bank, 107 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. 1961)	29
	Mitler v. Associated Contractors, Inc., 88 N.W.2d 672 (Wis. 1958)	19
	Kimmel v. Kimmel, 101 N.W.2d 666 (Wis. 1960)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list