Legal Opinion

Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, Inc. v. Sexauer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1931PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions this court is limited in its review to ascertaining whether the judgment is sustained by the pleadings and the findings. Mt. Morris v. Hill, 152 Wis. 116, 139 N. W. 734; Wolfe v. Furman, 142 Wis. 94, 124 N. W. 1039; Ellis v. Frawley, 165 Wis. 381, 161 N. W. 364; Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132.

It is suggested by the respondent that since there is no bill of exceptions, and since there are no exhibits attached to the pleadings, the term “Exhibit 1” is unintelligible and that this court cannot know what Exhibit 1 was. Appellant contends that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lemke v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Ellis v. FrawleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Claridge v. EvansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Kearney v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Burns v. North Chicago Rolling Mill Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Stelloh v. LibanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Davis v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Gray v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Christian v. City of New LondonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  5. State Ex Rel. Ferebee v. DillettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API