Auerbach v. Masks
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee -county: D. H. Jon ns on, Circuit Judge. August 6, 1894, the intervener, Marks, had judgments amounting to $1,281.40, and other claims which were in suit, against one Louis Hecht, and held the stock of merchandise of Hecht under levy of execution on the judgments and attachments in the suits. Hecht procured the assistance of the plaintiff, Auerbach, who was his brother-in-law, to aid in obtaining a release of the levy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee -county: D. H. Jon ns on, Circuit Judge. August 6, 1894, the intervener, Marks, had judgments amounting to $1,281.40, and other claims which were in suit, against one Louis Hecht, and held the stock of merchandise of Hecht under levy of execution on the judgments and attachments in the suits. Hecht procured the assistance of the plaintiff, Auerbach, who was his brother-in-law, to aid in obtaining a release of the levy. To that end it was represented to Maries, in the presence of Auer-bach, and without dissent from him, that Hecht was…
1Opinion of the CourtNewman, J.
It cannot be seriously questioned that the petitions on which the respondent’s motions were based state facts sufficient to warrant the relief sought by the motions. Nor is it doubtful that the evidence amply supports the findings of the referee. So the findings cannot be disturbed on such grounds. Briggs v. Hiles, 87 Wis. 438.
Rut the appellant urges that the court erred “ in consolidating the proceedings and referring the issue to a referee.” This is based principally on the contention that the petitions did not state facts sufficient to warrant an intervention, or to furnish grounds for the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cooley v. GregoryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Williams v. TroopWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Briggs v. HilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
- McDonald v. FalveyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Gaynor v. BlewettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- King v. LittlepageLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1934