Daugherty v. Herte
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The trial court extended the time within which to serve the proposed bill of exceptions. Sec. 269.45, Stats. The extension was not formally asked for until shortly after the time for service of the bill had expired. This was because the attorney mistakenly thought an ex parte application would suffice. The delay caused was too slight to cause any resulting disadvantage to the opposite party. The appeal was taken promptly, the transcript as promptly secured. It seems quite clear that sufficient testimony showing good cause for an extension existed. A review of the affidavits and testimony on…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- E. L. Husting Co. v. Coca Cola Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Thompson v. DuncanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Drake v. GoreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- McAllister-Coman Co. v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bornemann v. City of New BerlinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Menard v. Jiffy Self-Service Dry Cleaning, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Ernst v. ErnstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- Nygaard v. PatrowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952