Sutton v. Wegner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County. The ease is stated in the opinion. contended that there was no long account such as is contemplated by sec. 2864, R. S. Druse v. Sorter, 57 Wis. 644; Snips v. Stefan, 50 id. 286. “ When the action from its nature is not referable the answer cannot make it so.” Townsend v. Hendricks, 40 How.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County. The ease is stated in the opinion. contended that there was no long account such as is contemplated by sec. 2864, R. S. Druse v. Sorter, 57 Wis. 644; Snips v. Stefan, 50 id. 286. “ When the action from its nature is not referable the answer cannot make it so.” Townsend v. Hendricks, 40 How. Pr. 143; Turner v. Taylor, 2 Daly, 278; Gameron As to what constitutes a “ long account,” they cited Turner v. JVachtsheim, 71 Wis. 16; Welsh v. Darragh, 52 ET. Y. 590.
1Opinion of the CourtOrton, J.
This action is brought to recover of the defendant §100, due upon a promissory note given by him to the plaintiff September 18, 1885, with interest from that date, and §64 for the use of the plaintiff’s horse. The defendant, by answer, admitted the execution of said note and denied all other allegations of the complaint, and by separate answer sets up counterclaims for $63, money paid for the plaintiff’s use, and for $183.13, for labor and services performed for the plaintiff and at his request, as an at*348torney at law, and at divers times, and for money paid for his use and at his request…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Turner v. NachtsheimWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. KunertNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Lyle v. EsserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Fowler v. Metzger Seed & Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907