Case ID: wis_37/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LyoN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Geekie vs. Wells and another.
    Appeal : Finding not reviewed in, when no bill of exceptions in recoi'd.
    
    On appeal from the judgment in an action tried by the court without a jury, where the court found that the facts stated in the answer were true, this court, in the absence of any bill of exceptions, cannot review the findings, but, if it appears that the facts stated in the answer support the conclusions of law and the judgment, must affirm the judgment.
    APPEAL from the Circuit. Court for Oconto County.
    This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the possession or value of certain shingles, alleged to have been seized by him on an attachment issued in certain proceedings instituted by one McCann against Levi W. Hart and Cyrus S. Hart, to enforce a laborer’s lien tbereon, which shingles were afterwards (it is alleged) converted by the defendants to their own use.
    The answer, among other things, avers that the defendants were the owners of the shingles, and denies that. McCann performed labor upon them, or that the sheriff seized them on the attachment. In the view taken of the case, it is unnecessary to state the pleadings more fully.
    The cause was tried by the court without a jury; and the judge found that the allegations of both the complaint and answer were true, and held, as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. From a judgment against him, entered pursuant to this conclusion, the plaintiff appealed.
    
      W. H. Webster, for appellant.
    
      A. Reinhart, with Hastings & Oreen, of counsel, for respondent.
   LyoN, J.

It is too well settled to admit of controversy, that, on appeal from a judgment in an action tried by the court without a jury, we cannot review the findings of fact unless the testimony is preserved in a bill of exceptions, nor the conclusions of law unless due exceptions _ thereto were taken in the court below. The record in this cause contains no bill of exceptions, and fails to show that any exception was taken to the conclusion of law filed by the judge. Hence we can only determine, on this appeal, whether the pleadings support the conclusion of law and judgment. It is very clear that the answer states facts which constitute a perfect defense to the action. The pleadings do, therefore, support the conclusion and judgment. On this record we cannot determine whether the findings of fact are or are not inconsistent with each other.

By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.