Legal Opinion

Wisconsin Foundry & Machine Co. v. Capital City Canning Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

The motion by plaintiff to review cannot be entertained because notice thereof was served too late. Sec. 274.12, Stats.; Isaac v. Gerretson Co. 179 Wis. 417, 426, 191 N. W. 55.

Appellant’s appeal challenges the validity of the judgment awarding the fund in dispute to the plaintiff rather than to him, and brings up the entire record for review, and thereby makes it our duty to consider the entire record and determine, whether the right result was reached below, not merely whether the right reasons were assigned for such result. Manifestly, whatever may be the underlying purpose of the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Crook v. First National Bank of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. William Frankfurth Hardware Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Slaughter v. BernardsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Garage Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. DanielsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Union State Bank v. Peoples State BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lee v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Union Bank v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.Nevada Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. RaederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Ruehlow v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Lee v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

1 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