Allen v. Seyfried
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.' This action was brought against Martin Seyfried, for the price of lumber alleged to have been sold and delivered to him by the plaintiff. Martin Seyfried having died pending the suit, it was revived against Hosma Seyfried, the administratrix of his estate.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.' This action was brought against Martin Seyfried, for the price of lumber alleged to have been sold and delivered to him by the plaintiff. Martin Seyfried having died pending the suit, it was revived against Hosma Seyfried, the administratrix of his estate. The defense set up in the answer is, that the lumber in question was not the property of the plaintiff, but of Wilcox & Co.; that Wilcox & Co. delivered it to Martin Seyfried; and that the latter paid them for it. Before the case was called for trial, defendant moved to suppress two…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
I. The motion to suppress the depositions was-founded principally on the objection that it appeared that the-witnesses had been allowed to take and read the direct and cross interrogatories before- they were examined by the commissioners. The witness Becker says, in answer to cross interrogatories: “ I read the direct and cross interrogatories, here,. *418to-day, before the examination began.” The witness Glaser says: “ I read the direct and cross interrogatories, here, to-day, and several days ago.” Row, it is said that this shows such a fraudulent or improper execution of the commission as to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Star Transfer Line v. General Exporting Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944
- Smith v. ClewsNew York Supreme Court · 1884
- Hamdi & Ibrahim Mango Co. v. Fire Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957