Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. DeWolf

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1914Published

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. Tüeneb, Circuit Judge. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries due to an elevator accident.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. Tüeneb, Circuit Judge. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries due to an elevator accident. The case was presented to this court on a former hearing on the appeal of a codefendant, Lederer, and is reported as Smith v. Lederer, 157 Wis. 479, 146 1ST. W. 888. FTo additional facts to those reported on that appeal need be stated, except that the present appellant, DeWolf, after the case had been remitted to the trial court, moved the trial.court to reverse its order denying the motions of De-Wolf, which he made…

1DissentKebwiw, J.

When this case was here originally I did not agree with the majority of the court and entered my dissent. Smith v. Lederer, 157 Wis. 479, 146 N. W. 888. Afterwards on motion for rehearing and *666to change the mandate I was of opinion that the rehearing should be granted, or at least the mandate changed. The court refused the rehearing, also refused to change the mandate. While I think the case was decided wrong originally and also that the motion to amend the mandate should have been granted so as 'to afford the appellant an opportunity to move the court below for a new trial, I do not see how…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. LedererWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API