TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harter v. Brigum

Estate of Harter : Harter, Administrator v. Brigum and another, by guardian

Harter v. Brigum, 203 N.W. 720 (Wis. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 12, 1925
Judges
Rosenberry
Citations
203 N.W. 720187 Wis. 901925 Wisc. LEXIS 13

Opinion of the Court — Rosenberry

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

Rosenberry, J.

The county court assumed to pass upon the validity of the adoption proceedings by a separate order without determining in what manner the estate should be distributed. By this procedure the issue was split, and instead of making an order responsive to the petition of the administrator for the allowance of his account and the distribution of the estate the county court determined one single issuable proposition. Within the rule laid down in Estate of Beyer, 185 Wis. 23 , 200 N. W. 772 , no appeal lies from the order so entered, nor do we see any justification for the procedure followed in this case. While the procedure in county courts is and should be less formal than that in the circuit court, nevertheless, in view of the fact that by recent amendment to the statute appeals now lie direct from the county court to the supreme court, a situation is presented which should be clearly in the mind of county judges, and orders made should be responsive to the issue presented by petition or otherwise. We have no recourse in this case but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The issues, however, are ruled so clearly and definitely in favor of the appellant by Lacher v. Venus, 177 Wis. 558 , 188 N. W. 613 , and Adoption of Bearby, 185 Wis. 33 , 200 N. W. 686 , that we deem it our duty to indicate that fact although we have no jurisdiction to reverse the order.

By the Court. — Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 11942: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Will of Pattison207 N.W. 292 (Wis. 1926)
  2. Krause v. Krause2 N.W.2d 732 (Wis. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Krause v. Krause2 N.W.2d 732 (Wis. 1942)
  2. Will of Pattison207 N.W. 292 (Wis. 1926)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Lacher v. Venus, 188 N.W. 613 (Wis. 1922) 44
Estate of Beyer, 200 N.W. 772 (Wis. 1924) 13
Pugh v. Cox, 200 N.W. 686 (Wis. 1924) 13

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