Legal Opinion

Rupp v. Swineford

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1876PublishedCited by 11 opinions

APPEAL fromtbe Circuit Court for Foncl dn Lao County. Action against Swineford as author, and "Watrous and Kutchin as publishers, of an alleged libel. Stomeford having demurred, and his codefendants having answered, the former moved for a change of the place of trial, upon his affidavit that the judge of the above named court was prejudiced against him.

Read the full summary

APPEAL fromtbe Circuit Court for Foncl dn Lao County. Action against Swineford as author, and "Watrous and Kutchin as publishers, of an alleged libel. Stomeford having demurred, and his codefendants having answered, the former moved for a change of the place of trial, upon his affidavit that the judge of the above named court was prejudiced against him. The motion was denied, and Swineford appealed. who contended that the language of sec. 8, ch. 123, R. S. (“ whenever any party in any civil action” shall apply, etc., etc., “ and shall verify snch application by Ms oath or affidavit,” etc.),…

1Opinion of the CourtRyan, C. J.

The defendants had a right to sever in their pleadings; and the court below has discretion to allow them *30separate trials. Ob. 132, sec. 9, R. S. Rut tbe action cannot be severed. It is indivisible, because there can be but one judgment in it. Hundhausen v. Bond, 36 Wis., 29. Two courts cannot entertain concurrent jurisdiction of one cause, or concur in rendering one judgment. A change of venue cannot cut an action in two, carrying part with it and leaving part behind. And the question before us is, whether one of several defendants is entitled to change the venue of the whole action, without…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hundhausen v. BondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Wolcott v. WolcottWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Sailly v. HuttonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  4. Hundhausen v. AtkinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Welling v. SweetNew York Supreme Court · 1845

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cowie v. StrohmeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Levy v. MartinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  3. In Re Marriage of LangWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Hewitt v. FollettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  5. State ex rel. Cuppel v. Milwaukee Chamber of CommerceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API