Burnham v. City of Milwaukee
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwauhee County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This is an appeal from an order refusing to strike out seven different portions of the complaint as irrelevant and redundant, and refusing to make nineteen other different portions more definite and certain.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwauhee County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This is an appeal from an order refusing to strike out seven different portions of the complaint as irrelevant and redundant, and refusing to make nineteen other different portions more definite and certain. The complaint covers seventeen printed pages, with three bills of particulars thereto annexed as a part thereof, marked, respectively, “A,” “ B,” and “ 0,” covering seven additional printed pages. It is to the effect that, October 29, 1880, one Michael Rice (with the…
1Opinion of the CourtCassodav, J.
The complaint is not objectionable for omitting to embody the plans and specifications referred to in the contract. They are presumably in the possession of the defendant; if not, they are easily obtainable in the method prescribed by law. There is no reason for making the complaint more definite and certain by stating the several names of the members of the board at the different dates mentioned, as they were necessarily known, or readily ascertainable by the city authorities. The alleged consent of the board to the assignment of the contract by Rice to Burnham is the allegation of a fact,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wright v. ForrestalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Brachman v. KuehnmuenchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rens v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Butterfield v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Swift & Co. v. BleiseNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- Monahan v. Northwestern Contracting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Butternut Manufacturing Co. v. Manufacturers' Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.