TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. President of Menasha

Davis and others v. The President and Trustees of the Village of Menasha and others

Davis v. President of Menasha, 20 Wis. 194 (1865)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1865
Judges
Cole
Citations
20 Wis. 194
Headnotes
Mil of Exceptions, by whom, to be settled. 1 This court has no power to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause tried at the circuit court, where the judge hefore whom the trial was had died before the bill was settled; nor under any other circumstances. 2, It is'the practice in this state for the judge before whom the cause was tried, if living, to settle the bill of exceptions, even after the expiration of his term o f office; and there seems to be no objection to this practice. Per Com, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cole

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

Cole, J.

This is an application to this court to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause appealed to tbis court, or for suck other relief in tbe premises as the court may tbink proper to grant

The cause was tried before the late Judge Wheeler at the September term of the circuit court for Winnebago county, 1863. The time for serving and settling the bill of exceptions was extended by yarious orders until after the decease of the circuit judge. We know of no provision of the statutes which authorizes this court to settle a bill of exceptions, and we not think we have the power to do it under the common law practice. According to that practice it is of course essential that the bill of exceptions be settled and signed by the judge who tried the cause. See also sec. 12, chap. 264, Laws of 1860. He knows what took place on the trial, what questions of law were raised and decided, and seems to be the most suitable person to settle the exceptions for the review of the appellate court. In this state it has been the common practice for the judge who tried the cause to settle the bill of exceptions even after his term of office, and we causee no objection to his doing so. But, as already observed, no power is given this court by statute to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause tried at the circuit, in any contingency.

At the same time it seems desirable, in order to prevent a failure of justice, that the legislature make some provision for the settlement of a bill of exceptions in the case of the decease of the circuit judge who tried the cause, or his removal from the state before the same is settled. In such a case, the bill of exceptions might perhaps be settled before this court, or the circuit court, or a judge thereof, upon affidavits and the minutes of the judge who tried the cause, if such minutes could be obtained. It seems to us desirable that some such provision should be made; and this suggestion is made for the purpose of calling the attention of the legislature to the subject. See Morse v. Evans, 6 How. Pr. R., 445; Milvehal v. Milward, 2 *196 Duer, 607; Law v. Jackson, 8 Cow., 746 . As tbe law now stands, we do not tbink we bave any power to settle tbe bill of exceptions.

By the Court. — -Tbe application is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1874–1875: 21888–1889: 11890–1891: 11898–1899: 11910–1911: 118742026peak 1874 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. M. K. & T. Railway Co. v. City of Fort Scott15 Kan. 435 (1875)
  2. Hallam v. Tillinghast52 P. 329 (Wash. 1898) · Dissent
  3. Fechheimer v. Trounstiene12 Colo. 282 (1888)
  4. Burnett v. Davis1910 OK 263, 111 P. 191
  5. Thurber v. Ryan12 Kan. 453 (1874)
  6. Faulconer v. Warner27 P. 274 (Wash. 1891) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Burnett v. Davis1910 OK 263, 111 P. 191
  2. Hallam v. Tillinghast52 P. 329 (Wash. 1898) · Dissent
  3. Faulconer v. Warner27 P. 274 (Wash. 1891) · Dissent
  4. Fechheimer v. Trounstiene12 Colo. 282 (1888)
  5. M. K. & T. Railway Co. v. City of Fort Scott15 Kan. 435 (1875)
  6. Thurber v. Ryan12 Kan. 453 (1874)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Law v. Jackson ex dem. Lansing, 8 Cow. 746 (1826) 7
Milvehal v. Milward, 2 Duer 607 (1853) 2

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