Stonach v. Glessner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR TO MILWAUKEE COUNTY COURT. Action of assumpsit commenced by attachment in the Milwaukee County Court, returnable to the June term, 1855. The sheriff returned that he had attached certain.property of the defendants, but was unable to find either of them. On the 4th day of June, the first day of the term, the plaintiff below filed his declaration, together with security for costs.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO MILWAUKEE COUNTY COURT. Action of assumpsit commenced by attachment in the Milwaukee County Court, returnable to the June term, 1855. The sheriff returned that he had attached certain.property of the defendants, but was unable to find either of them. On the 4th day of June, the first day of the term, the plaintiff below filed his declaration, together with security for costs. On the 6th day of June, the defendants “came by Peter Yates, their attorney, for the purposes of the motion, and for no other purpose,” and moved the court for a nonsuit, for the reason that security for costs…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
That there was a good appearance in this cause by the plaintiffs in error, by their attorney, in the court below, we have no kind of doubt. They could not come into court and move for a judgment of nonsuit, because security for costs was not filed with the declaration, as required by the rules of the County Court, and upon discovering their mistake, withdraw from court, and claim they had made no appearance in the cause. This, certainly, would be trifling with the rights of parties and the dignity of courts. The appearance must be regarded as a general appearance in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rose v. BarrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Grantier v. RosecranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871