Case ID: wis_104/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Maeshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barton, Receiver, Respondent, vs. Twohy Mercantile Company, Appellant.
    
      October 20
    
    
      November 7, 1899.
    
    
      Appeal: Return: Judgment roll.
    
    The supreme court cannot entertain an appeal from a judgment unless a judgment roll made up in substantial compliance with sec. 2898, Stats. 1898, has been transmitted thereto as required by sec. 8050. .
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas ■county: A. J. Yulte, Circuit Judge.
    
      Appeal dismissed,.
    
    For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of, Ross, Dwyer c& Sa/niteh.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Heed <& Reed, and ■oral argument by Myron Reed.
    
   Maeshall, J.

The appeal purports to be from a judgment. The only error assigned is that the findings are contrary to the evidence. The return on the appeal contains what purports, to be a proposed bill of exceptions, a bunch •of papers prepared for a completed bill of exceptions ready for the trial judge’s certificate, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the notice of appeal, bond on appeal, and a certificate of the clerk of the trial court that such papers are •all the papers on filé in the action, and that they are transmitted pursuant to the notice of appeal.

Sec. 3050, Stats. 1898, provides that on appeal from a judgment the clerk of the trial court shall transmit to the supreme court the judgment roll. The pleadings and a copy ■of the judgment are necessary parts of the judgment roll. Sec. 2898. Nothing approaching the requirements of a judgment roll has been transmitted to this court on this appeal, and it clearly appears by the clerk’s certificate that there has never been one made up and filed in the trial court. Without a proper return in compliance with sec. 3050, this court cannot entertain an appeal. Sayles v. Gudath, 9 Wis. 159; Wheeler v. Scott, 3 Wis. 362; Blodget v. Hatfield, 5 Wis. 77; Kellogg v. Smith, 10 Wis. 135; Shewey v. Manning, 14 Wis. 448; Hoffman & B. Mfg. Co. v. Burdick, 95 Wis. 342. It follows that this appeal must be dismissed.

By the Court.— So ordered.