Bumbalek v. Peehl
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ErRob to review a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: R. N. AustiN, Judge. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
• Cassoday, O. J.
This action is to recover for an alleged instalment of rent, commenced in justice’s court, and from the judgment rendered therein the case was taken by appeal to the superior court of Milwaukee county, where the caS% was retried. At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony the court directed a verdict in favor of Peehl and wife for $43.15, and to reverse the judgment entered thereon the Rúmbateles sued out this writ of error.
The defendants in error have moved to dismiss the writ, as being prohibited by ch. 215, Laws of 1895. Since that *128•chapter only relates to appeals, and not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wiscart v. DauchySupreme Court of the United States · 1796
- Crocker v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Smith v. PackardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Jackson v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Larkin v. RyanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Rodd v. VerageWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Peehl v. BumbalekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Baier v. SchermerhornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- O'Donnell v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Ætna Accident & Liability Co. v. LymanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.