Witte v. Meyer
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL EROM COUNTY COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. The judgment in this action had been entered upon the lien of the plaintiff accuring for painting the house of the defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM COUNTY COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. The judgment in this action had been entered upon the lien of the plaintiff accuring for painting the house of the defendant. The complaint was in the usual form, and the defendant appeared and made a defense, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $119 77 and costs, on the 7 th of December, 1859. On the same day the defendant moved the court to set aside the judgment because of the irregularity in the petition for the lien, which is noticed by the court, in its opinion. This motion was heard on the 12th of December. The county…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Paine, J.
This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The petition was filed in the name of “Carl Witter.” The plaintiff’s real name was Carl Witte, and by that name he began his suit and recovered a judgment. This was subsequently set aside on motion, principally for this reason. But we are of the opinion that the petition was amendable in this respect.
This power is certainly conferred by the language of the statute. It says, the court may “before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as maybe proper, amend any pleading or proceeding, by adding or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shirley v. PhillipsIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- State v. PeacockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mark Paine Lumber Co. v. Douglas County Improvement Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Brown v. La Crosse City Gas Light & Coke Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Stacy v. BryantWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- In re CookDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1871
- Meehan v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901