TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ackerman v. Horicon Iron Man. Co.

Ackerman v. Horicon Iron Man. Co., 16 Wis. 155 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1862
Judges
Paine
Citations
16 Wis. 155
Headnotes
Where an order has been made overruling a demurrer to a complaint and granting the defendant leave to answer it within a specified time, and he fails to answer within such time, but after its expiration, obtains and serves an order staying all further proceedings in the action pending an appeal from the order overruling the demurrer; it is irregular for the plaintiff to enter judgment for want of an answer while such order staying proceedings is in force, though he might properly have done so before it was granted and served.
Summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dodge County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Paine

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Paine, J.

The defendant demurred to the complaint, and the demurrer was overruled, with leave to answer within twenty days. The defendant appealed from the order overruling the demurrer, but did not obtain any order staying proceedings until after the expiration of the time given to answer. After the expiration of that time, however, such an order was duly obtained and served, before any judgment was- entered by the plaintiff. Still, the plaintiff moved for judgment and obtained it while the order staying proceedings was in full force. This was irregular. The fact that the plaintiff was in a position to enter a judgment before proceedings were stayed, does not authorize him to enter it afterwards. If a party neglects to move as soon as be might, be does it at the risk of having bis proceedings stopped exactly in the condition in which be leaves them. He cannot go on after proceedings are stayed, because be might have done so before. Suppose a plaintiff was in a position to issue execution, but bad not done so. If bis proceedings are then stayed by a proper order, could be still go on and issue bis execution because be might have done it before? Clearly not. And it is just as clear that he could not proceed to enter a judgment. He must get rid of the order staying proceedings before be can go any farther.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

How later courts describe this case

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

1894: 11895: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Uhe v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.57 N.W. 484 (S.D. 1894)
  2. Willsie v. Rapid Valley Horse-Ranch Co.63 N.W. 546 (S.D. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Willsie v. Rapid Valley Horse-Ranch Co.63 N.W. 546 (S.D. 1895)
  2. Uhe v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.57 N.W. 484 (S.D. 1894)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list