Schweickhart v. Stuewe
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylor as a part of the opinion: This was an action to recover an alleged balance due to the plaintiffs from the defendant upon a contract for the sale and delivery of stone. The defendant answered, denying the plaintiffs’ claim, and setting upa counterclaim. The case was tried by the court and a jury.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylor as a part of the opinion: This was an action to recover an alleged balance due to the plaintiffs from the defendant upon a contract for the sale and delivery of stone. The defendant answered, denying the plaintiffs’ claim, and setting upa counterclaim. The case was tried by the court and a jury. Upon the trial the jury, under the order of the court, found a special verdict. The effect of the special verdict was to negative the plaintiffs’ right to recover against the…
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
The learned counsel for the appellants claim that their first motion for judgment should have been granted, because, as it is claimed, that part of the special verdict which found against the plaintiffs’ cause of action was wholly unsupported by the evidence, and for that reason the trial court should have rendered judgment upon the special verdict, without regard to the finding of the jury upon that question.
*160"We think the trial court was right in denying the first motion, for the reason that the special verdict would not support a judgment for the plaintiffs, and because the plaintiffs did…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hutchinson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Gammon v. AbramsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Berg v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Weisel v. SpenceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- McNarra v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Menominee River Sash & Door Co. v. Milwaukee & Northern RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Lines v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Conroy v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Maxon v. GatesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Schraer v. StefanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.