Case ID: wis_8/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELVIRA F. SMITH, Respondent, vs. PATRICK LAVIN, Impleaded with JABEZ H. FOSTER, Appellant.
    APPEAL PROM circuit COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY.
    Where there is no hill of exceptions nor case settled in a cause, the court Trill presume that the finding of the court below was authorized by the evidence, especially as it is not excepted to; and that the judgment is correct.
    The court will not review the finding of the facts in the court below, unless the party preserve the evidence by bill of exceptions or casé.
    The case of Bead vs. Wells, 7 Wis., 149, affirmed.
    
      Cross & Bullock for appellant.
    
      Salomon & Streeter for respondent.
   By the Court,

Smith, J.

This was an ordinary suit of foreclosure. The printed case shows the complaint and answer, and testimony is also set out therein, together with the finding of the facts by the court below, and conclusions of law thereon. But there is no bill of exceptions, nor any case settled, nor anything to show that an exception was taken. Although some testimony is sent up with the papers, it does not purport to be all the evidence taken on the trial, nor indeed that such testimony was used. We must therefore presume that the finding of the court was authorized by the evidence; especially as it was not excepted to; and that the judgment thereon is correct. It would seem to be warranted by the facts found. We cannot review cases of this kind unless the parties preserve their evidence by bill of exceptions, •or case duly settled. (See Head vs. Wells, decided at this term.

Judgment affirmed with costs.