Braunsdorf v. Fellner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from, the Circuit Court for Door County. The facts are sufficiently stated in.the-opinion. For the appellant it was argued that the verification was the main and essential element of the traverse, and in this case the verification is insufficient in not stating that it was true of defendant’s “own knowledge.” Secs. 2666, 2145, R. S.; 2 Till. & Shearm.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from, the Circuit Court for Door County. The facts are sufficiently stated in.the-opinion. For the appellant it was argued that the verification was the main and essential element of the traverse, and in this case the verification is insufficient in not stating that it was true of defendant’s “own knowledge.” Secs. 2666, 2145, R. S.; 2 Till. & Shearm. Pract. .35, 36; 1 Boone, Code Pldg. sec. 34. For the respondent it was argued, inter alia, that plaintiff had waived all objection to the verification by going to trial on the issue made by the answer without objection. Kirby v. Oornvng,…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
A writ of attachment was issued in this action, and a sufficient affidavit to authorize the execution thereof annexed to it. The defendant filed a traverse of such affidavit, which was tried, and the issue made thereby was found for the defendant. Upon such finding the court made the order required by sec. 2746, E. S. The plaintiff has appealed from such order, and assigns two reasons for its reversal. These are: (1) That the traverse is not properly verified; and (2) that it is not alleged therein that any property of the defendant had been seized under the attachment. It is maintained that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kirby v. CorningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- S. C. Herbst Importing Co. v. BurnhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Morawitz v. WolfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888