Statz v. Pohl

(on motion for rehearing). Counsel for appellant, Pohl, and his insurance carrier, in a brief submitted on motion for rehearing, suggest that the rule which we have stated as No. (3) is counter" to that declared in Mahoney v. Thill, 241 Wis. 359, 6 N. W. (2d) 239, and that if it is our purpose to overrule the decision in that case we say so in express terms. We had the case in mind when we said in our original opinion, page 27, that “it is not possible to reconcile the conflicting views of this court expressed in opinions *32adealing with the precise question” — an attack upon a verdict in a…