Stott v. Markle
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFowlee, J.
The plaintiff, after service of a summons in a circuit court action naming L. Brooks Leavitt and fifteen others as defendants, duly served a notice on Leavitt and each of two other defendants that they wpuld be examined before a court commissioner “otherwise than as witnesses on a trial” under sec. 326.12, Stats. A subpoena duces tecum was issued by the court commissioner requiring attendance of the three defendants and the production of papers as indicated in the foregoing statement of facts. The purpose of the examination of the defendants as stated in the affidavit attached to the notice…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kelly v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Northern Wisconsin Co-operative Tobacco Pool v. OlesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Northwestern Iron Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. LangWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Schmidt v. Menasha Wooden Ware Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. SullivanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
- McGeoch Building Co. v. Dick & Reuteman Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
- Hiller v. PerssionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Jason Co. v. MarkleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Slensby v. MarkleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934