Case ID: wis_45/html/0390-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ryan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Koos and wife and others vs. Kemp and others.
    PARTITION. Rights of parties made plaintiffs ivithout their consent.
    
    1. The fact that some of the persons named as plaintiffs in a partition suii had not authorized it, would not sustain a dismissal of the suit as to their coplaintiffs.
    
    2. Where such involuntary plaintiffs are necessary parties, and there is nothing to show that their rights are at all affected by them position as plaintiffs rather than defendants, their motion to dismiss was properly denied on that ground.
    3. The proceedings in partition appear to have been conducted fairly for the interest of all parties; but if the appellant plaintiffs were not properly represented, it was their own fault in not employing counsel to represent them specially.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ozauhee County;
    
      Koos amd wife appealed from a judgment in partition. The case is stated in the opinion.
    The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of Euqene S. Turner, and for the respondents on briefs of Foster c& Coe.
    
   Ryan, C. J.

The appellants were parties plaintiff in a partition suit. They moved to dismiss it, on the ground that they had not authorized it. They appear to have failed in establishing the fact satisfactorily. But the fact, if established, would not have sustained a dismissal of the suit as against their coplaintiffs. The motion was too broad. But a better and higher ground for overruling it is, that they were necessary parties, and that there is nothing to show that their rights were at all affected by their position in the suit, whether as plaintiffs or defendants.

The appellants complain that they were not properly represented, in the suit. If so, it was their own fault in not employing counsel to represent them specially, whom the court below would have undoubtedly heard in their behalf. The record, however, has been carefully examined, and the proceedings appear to have been regular and throughout conducted fairly for the interest of all parties; no injustice appears to hare been done the appellants, and no error is apparent in the record.

By the Court. — The judgment of the court belowis affirmed.