Ehlert v. Hollander
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action upon a promissory note. The note was given to the plaintiff’ for a loan of money, and was signed in the firm name, “A. Suhr & Co.,” by the partner Suhr, since deceased. It is undisputed that the plaintiff loaned the money for which the note was given, either to the firm or to Suhr.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action upon a promissory note. The note was given to the plaintiff’ for a loan of money, and was signed in the firm name, “A. Suhr & Co.,” by the partner Suhr, since deceased. It is undisputed that the plaintiff loaned the money for which the note was given, either to the firm or to Suhr. The testimony of the plaintiff tends to show that the loan was to the firm; that of the defendant tends to show that the loan was to Suhr individually, and that the firm had no interest in it. The circuit judge instructed the jury that if the money was…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
A few exceptions were taken on the trial to rulings upon objections to the admission of testimony, hut they are quite unimportant. Besides these, the only exception preserved in the record is to the order denying the motion for a new trial. The bill of exceptions is not certified to contain all of the testimony; and because it is not so certified, the judgment cannot be disturbed for the alleged want of sufficient evidence to support the verdict. And because there are no material exceptions, it cannot be disturbed for any alleged error in the rulings of the court. So far as we can perceive…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Parroski v. GoldbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891