Case ID: wis_100/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bardeen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lederer, Appellant, vs. Estate of Kohn, Respondent.
    
      September 24
    
      October 11, 1898.
    
    
      Appeal: Bill of exceptions.
    
    The supreme court cannot review the evidence in a case tried by the court unless exceptions are taken to the findings of fact and preserved in the bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Appellant presented a ciaim to the county court of Milwaukee county against tbe estate of Ignatz Kohn, which was disallowed. An appeal was taken to tbe circuit court. Tbe matter was beard before a referee, who found in favor of the appellant on a portion of her claim. Tbe respondent moved to set aside tbe referee’s report and finding, and, after argument, tbe circuit judge made new findings setting aside the findings of tbe referee and disallowing the appellant’s claim. A judgment was entered, affirming tbe judgment of tbe county court, except as to costs. This appeal is from that portion of tbe judgment by which appellant’s claim is disallowed and tbe judgment of tbe county court is affirmed.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Chas. G. Woolcock, attorney, and Devoid S. Rose, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Woolcoch.
    
    For the executor there was a brief by LaBoule & Hunt, and oral argument by F. S. Hunt.
    
    For Fannie Loeb there was a brief by Granger & Granger, and oral argument by S. W. Granger.
    
    For the widow, Katie Kohn, there was a brief by G. W. Sazelton, guardian ad litem.
    
   Bardeen, J.

To properly dispose of tbe questions raised in appellant’s brief and argued at tbe bar, it would be necessary to make an examination of tbe evidence in tbe case. Tbe bill of exceptions contains no exceptions to tbe findings of tbe circuit judge. Tbe situation presented is exactly similar to that of tbe case of Newton v. Williams, 94 Wis. 222. It would seem hardly necessary to reassert tbe rule that this court cannot review the evidence in a case tried by tbe court unless exceptions are taken to tbe findings of fact and are preserved in tbe bill of exceptions. R. S. 1818, sec. 2810; Cramer v. Hanaford, 53 Wis. 85; Evenson v. Bates, 58 Wis. 24; McLennan v. Prentice, 85 Wis. 427; Henrizi v. Kehr, 90 Wis. 344. An inspection, however, of tbe evidence returned convinces us tbe judgment was manifestly correct and ought not to be disturbed.

By the Court.— Tbe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.