Tarbox v. French
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Waushara County. This was an action upon an undertaking executed by the defendant, in 1860, as surety in a replevin suit, wherein one Waterman was plaintiff, and Tarbox, the plaintiff in this action, was defendant.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Waushara County. This was an action upon an undertaking executed by the defendant, in 1860, as surety in a replevin suit, wherein one Waterman was plaintiff, and Tarbox, the plaintiff in this action, was defendant. The complaint, after setting forth the commencement of said action of replevin, and the execution of the said undertaking, went on to state that before said action came on for trial, Waterman, the plaintiff therein died; that thereupon one Walker was appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of said Waterman, and continued the prosecution…
1Opinion of the CourtDixon, C. J.
It was held in Stephens v. Magor, 25 Wis. 533, that the remedy given by chap. 363, Laws of *6541860, to revive actions, was merely cumulative to that given by sec. 1, ch. 135, R. S., which might still be resorted to, and by which the court, in case of the death, marriage or other disability of a party, is authorized on motion to allow the action to be continued by or against his representative or successor in interest. It would be no great stretch of presumption, perhaps, to hold that the replevin suit in question was continued on motion in favor of the administrator of Waterman, unless the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Knox v. BigelowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Stephens v. MagorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- Supervisors of La Pointe v. O'MalleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Boyes v. MastersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- (1974), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1974