TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bradley v. Cramer

Bradley v. Cramer and others

Bradley v. Cramer, 30 N.W. 622 (Wis. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 14, 1886
Judges
Couet
Citations
30 N.W. 62267 Wis. 4151886 Wisc. LEXIS 147
Headnotes
Appealable order: Refusal to strike cause from calendar: Notice of filing remittitur. A motion to have a cause stricken from the calendar of the trial court because the moving party had not had notice of the filing of the. remittitur after an appeal and reversal of the judgment, is held equivalent to an application for a continuance, and the order thereon not appealable.
Summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Boole County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Couet

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

By the Couet.

This is a motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal herein. The cause was here at the last *416 term on an appeal from-a judgment for the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed May 15, 1886, and the cause remanded for a new trial. See 66 Wis. 297 . The remittitur was filed in the circuit court July 20th,andón October 19th last the plaintiff served notice of trial for the next term, to commence LTovember 3d. On the first day of the term defendants moved to strike the cause from the calendar for the reasons that no notice had been given them of the filing of the remittitur, and they were ignorant that it had been filed in the circuit court. The court denied the motion, and this appeal is from the order denying the same. The motion was equivalent to an application for a continuance of the cause over the term for the alleged reason that the necessary steps had not been taken to entitle the plaintiff to a trial thereof at that term. It is of the same nature, and governed by the same rules, as a motion to continue a cause to the next term because of the absence of a witness or for any other cause not going to the existence of the action. Such motions do not go to the merits of the action, but are mere matters of practice or procedure, and the orders thereon are not appealable. McLeod v. Bertschy, 30 Wis. 324 .

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1895: 11899: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mooney v. Donovan81 N.W. 50 (N.D. 1899)
  2. Whitefoot v. Leffingwell63 N.W. 82 (Wis. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Mooney v. Donovan81 N.W. 50 (N.D. 1899)
  2. Whitefoot v. Leffingwell63 N.W. 82 (Wis. 1895)

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
McLeod v. Bertschy, 30 Wis. 324 (1872) 13
Bradley v. Cramer, 28 N.W. 372 (Wis. 1886) 10

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