Delaney v. Hartwig
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe county court of Wauke-sha county: M. S. Geiswold, Judge. Garnishment. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe county court of Wauke-sha county: M. S. Geiswold, Judge. Garnishment. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the garnishee, from which the latter appeals. contended, inter alia, that in this action the plaintiff seeks to recover of the garnishee wages claimed to have been earned by the principal defendant, and the issue ivas an issue of fact for the recovery of money only, and although commenced by garnishment is, in its nature, an action at law. The issue should be tried as in ordinary actions at…
1Opinion of the CourtMaeshall, J.
The issue in this case was whether Gottlieb Hartwig, garnishee defendant, was indebted to William Bick-ler, defendant in the principal action, at the time of the service of the garnishee process. The appellant demanded a jury trial, and, while the court held that the issue was not for trial by a jury as a matter of right, he submitted the same to a jury as in an equitable action, stating that their verdict would be deemed advisory only. To this appellant excepted.
The following questions were submitted: “(1) Was Gott-lieb Hcurtwig, the garnishee in this case, on March 31, 1894, the time of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- La Crosse National Bank v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bassi v. BassiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Worchester v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1970
- Doe v. RoeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1901
- Werner v. Interurban Street Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Worchester v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.