Wallace v. Wallace
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The orders were duly served under secs. 37 and 38, chap. 140, R S. The service was good, whether the copies reached the respondent’s attorney or not. Howard’s Code, 632; 4 How., 246, 322; 1 id., 152 ; 3 id., 67 ; 5 id., 238; 1 Barb., 711. 2. Under sec. 32 of chap. 140, R. S., the county judge could enlarge the time to answer for more than twenty days.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The orders were duly served under secs. 37 and 38, chap. 140, R S. The service was good, whether the copies reached the respondent’s attorney or not. Howard’s Code, 632; 4 How., 246, 322; 1 id., 152 ; 3 id., 67 ; 5 id., 238; 1 Barb., 711. 2. Under sec. 32 of chap. 140, R. S., the county judge could enlarge the time to answer for more than twenty days. Wilcox vs. Clarke, 1 Code R, 96. See also 3 How., 400; note E to sec. 405, Yoorhies’ Code. The restriction to twenty days in sec. 29 applies…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
DIXON, C. J.
The question involved in this case is almost identical with that involved in Howard vs. *226Boorman, already decided. Tbe action is upon a promissory note. Before tbe time for answering expired, tbe appel-ian^ Up0n affidavit stating that be bad a good and substantial defense as be was advised by counsel, after a full and fair statement of tbe case to tbem, and tbat in order to perfect bis answer it was necessary for bim to obtain information from some persons residing in tbe state of Yermont, wbicb be could not do before tbe time then limited would expire, asked and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Widdoss v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Mallette v. Merchants National Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1970
- Watson v. Terminix International Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2001
- Ellison v. LindsleyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1880